State and local court rules sometimes make default judgments much more likely. For example, when a person who allegedly owes a debt is told to come to court on a work day, they may be forced to choose between a default judgment and their job. I urge the CFPB to find practices that involve scheduling hearings at inconvenient times unfair, deceptive, and abusive, or inconsistent with 1692i.
When alleged debtors are served with state court summonses, they are not always comprehensible to laypersons. I suggest that the CFPB encourage or mandate the use of a standard-form, plain English letter advising defendants in collection lawsuits of the following:
- Any requirements to file papers to avoid default judgment
- The date of any scheduled hearing and procedures for changing the date
- Local and online sources of information for pro se defendants, and possibly local non-profit advice organizations.
- That the debtor may wish to consider bankruptcy if they cannot pay their debts.
In many districts where bad check diversion programs exist, there is anecdotal evidence that the companies administering the programs threaten with prosecution individuals who do not come within the state's bad check law - for example, checks that bounce due to printing errors, checks for which there were funds available when written but not when presented, and individuals who pay the amount due by other means within grace periods permitted by state law. The CFPB should ensure that bad check diversion programs have a realistic means of ensuring that only individuals realistically subject to prosecution are targeted, and should also require that, in order to qualify for the 1692p safe harbor, diversion programs prohibit misleading communications and misstatements of state bad check law.
When an attorney is a 'Debt Collector' (as per their own documents) and not legally considered a 'Collection Agency' the attorney is not held accountable for consumer protection law violations (both local and federal) within civil court.
This loop hole needs to be addressed.
The attorneys/debt collectors are not monitored by the state bar because it is a collection practice (the attorneys buy old debt and then collect upon that debt in civil court) and the state and federal civil courts are not monitoring the attorneys because it is an attorneys office and not considered a collection agency - even though the attorneys buy old debt then take alleged debtors to civil court.
I personally know of a very large attorney agency in Washington State that even gives classes thru the Washington state bar to other attorneys because it is a easy caseload to win.
Assignments without notice could lead to consumers paying the wrong person. The CFPB should encourage proper notice by ruling that a payment made to either of the assignee or the assignor reduces the debt.
I do NOT owe any debt but have a COMMON FIRST and LAST NAME. My Constitutional rights are violated every time a lawyer fails to perform due diligence, per rule 137, BEFORE SIGNING and FILING COURT PAPER against me. The clerks are helpless, the judges & attorney disciplinary do nothing favoring “lawyer zealousness.” I then have to spend time & money, going to court to prove I am NOT the person who owes the debt. I urge the CFPB to create mechanisms for clerks & citizens that make it 1) easier to fix these messes &, 2) to bring sanctions against lawyers & judges for MISUSE OF LEGAL PROCEDURE, ABUSE OF PROCESS, WRONGFUL CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, & MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
Assuming debtors have a valid address, which is some cases they do not, additional notice that the debt is being assigned to a third party collection entity is no benefit. My experience is intervention to collect by a third party normally occurs when the consumer is over 180 contractual delinquent. Furthermore, if the consumer receives the warning the account would be placed with a third party so how many different contacts would occur??? Many and more confusing to the consumer and agency.
find the most egregious and cavalier user of collection agencies is the "medical professional". To wit: I received a collection agency call for a small amount due on a pathology test taken at Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. We had moved and all notices were sent back to Cedars. No one else and there were dozens, had this problem. The amount due was the amount Medicare did not pay. I have a supplement with a large deductible. To my knowledge it was never billed. Anyway, I was forced to deal with this obnoxious credit agency which threatened to ruin my credit which is almost an 800 FICO score. Calls to the collection agency and Cedars solved the problem but not without creating anxiety and aggravation for me. A person from the collection agency working at Cedars apologized. It took 3 or 4 letters to get the Administrator, Mr. Prisilac, to respond. His response implies that Cedars had no responsibility in this matter. For him it was all the collection agencies problem. That is not true. Cedars hires these people and like all professionals in my experience has no further responsibility. The entire responsibility, in my view, lies with Cedars etc. There is little downside for them. Their lack of interest in their patients and complete interest in collecting dollars whether due them or not is mind boggling. Unless we deal with the base of the problem, the doctors and hospitals, who are too dignified to deal with money, but will take 50% from a distance even if it is not due, this problem will persist and the public will continue to be subjected to the riffraff that is most collection agencies. These people are worse than indifferent. They attack and steal from the most vulnerable of people; the sick and poor.
I can't comment on any of this, but it would seem appropriate for Federal law to establish a framework of requirements for states to meet. This would level the playing field for debtors and creditors in all states. and would provide an equal basis for states to proceed with adding or amending their own laws affecting debt collection lawsuits.
I don't believe in abusive behavior (i.e. the behavior spelled out in the FDCPA), but what this individual is saying that she owes a debt that she is not paying. Instead, she wants to be the offensive party and paint the collector into a corner using a recording device. Instead of purchasing a recording device, wouldn't she just be better served by using that money to pay the debt collector for the debt she owes?
There needs to be some federal protections for the consumer and a clear appeals process. The state run by private company programs seem to see the alleged debtor as already guilty. For example, some consumer groups have suggested that entities may not be including a “clear and conspicuous statement” that the consumer may dispute the validity of the alleged bad check violation.
What kind of financial incentives are there for these companies to meet certain benchmarks that may not be in the consumer's best interest?
It kind of sounds like those arbitration programs for credit card debt where everything was stacked in the favor of the creditor.
I contacted the debt collection company and tried to make arrangements for payment of debt, the reason I could not pay my bills is my husband was laid off work and he had started a new job. I wanted to make payments of $100. a month, debt collectors said NO, so I said the most I could afford was $200 a month the said NO they wanted $1,000. a month. Now we have 4 children, a mortgage and utility payment, debt collection said $500 a month my husband brought home after taxes $1,100 twice a month. My mortgage is $1,300 per month not including utilizes so I told debt company that I couldn't pay. I always thought something was better than nothing and that a debt company would try to work with you. I learned that they won't work with you.
I would suggest that debtors who INVOLUNTARILY defaulted on a debt don't have the money to hire an attorney, so they don't see the point to going to court without an attorney. Why doesn't the court give access to free legal counsel to debt defaulters the way they do to those who are accused of committing a crime?
From my experience debt collection today has become a crutch for organizations that are too lazy to do the decent thing and have a discussion with the debtor BEFORE engaging a debt collection agency. Case in point is the debt collection notice I received from a collection agency attempting to collect medical debt that was over a year old and the medical facility has never contacted me by phone or via mail about the debt. Boom - debt collection agency is involved. The debt is not valid and this is the 3rd debt collection agency that has attempted to pursue the same debt. I challenge the validity of the debt and ask that statements or invoices related to the debt be sent so I can verify if the debt actually exists - no response. Yet like clock work every five months this debt is referred to a new debt collector without closure on the challenge I made to the previous debt collector about the validity of the debt. It just keeps churning without resolution. My fear is that ultimately the medical facility will just stop trying to collect the debt and play their ultimate ace-in-the-hole and just make a notation in my credit record about the debt and I will then have to negotiate having the debt removed from my credit record whenever I apply for consumer loan. That is a major shift in power in that all the "protections" I may enjoy in dealing with a debt collector, I have no power with a credit bureau. It a case of either clearing (i.e., pay) the debt or not get a loan. After all is said and done I believe that creditors should have to prove that they have contacted the consumer before they are allowed to refer and debt to collection. The debt collection system is rife with lack of due process in this aspect. Secondly, I believe that if a debt has been referred to collection and the consumer has challenged the validity of the debt, then there is an obligation by the debt collection agency to act on and resolve the challenge. There appears to be no such requirement currently since the same debts are getting rolled over to new collection agencies instead of being resolved. The goal of debt collection should be to resolve contentious debt situations not merely to brow beat the consumer into submission. Third, debt collection agencies need to stop the practice of disguising their collection notifications as junk mail with the intent of hoping the consumer will throw the correspondence away on first glance. Debt collectors in my state routinely use return addresses from Mississippi and no accompanying postmark (using bulk mail designations from the post office just like junk mailings) knowing that if a consumer does not respond within 30 days of notification of a debt then all debt collection protections are essentially waived. We need much more honesty and a level playing field in the debt collection industry. We need a way to ensure that ALL parties involved in debt collection are sensible and forthright and above board. Currently it is a cut throat us vs them scenario which brings out the worst in people.
Debt was sold to another company. So now debt is listed on my credit twice. So debt will last more than 10 years on report. Plus I've been a victim of identity theft twice. Both times I reported it to the police and to the credit agencies. Unfortunately nothing police can do but write a report for proof. Credit agency was ordered to put a fraud alert on my social but fail to do so.
Notification that a debt is being sold would be ideal as it would afford the debtor the opportunity to negotiate the amount and possibly assist in thwarting any potential negative reporting on one's credit report. If a debtor is afforded the opportunity to negotiate his or her debt for a reasonable amount, perhaps the selling and reselling of debt may be marginalized. More and more consumers have emails and other modes of communication and therefore, it would be in the best interest of all parties to amicably resolve issues. However, should the dispute not be quelled, reasonable arrangements should be afforded to the debtor. Debts as assets is an outrageous concept and it behooves both the debtor and the creditor to "work-it-out". That is in the best interest of all. It begins with information, communication and resolution.
josephusmyer
1
State and local court rules sometimes make default judgments much more likely. For example, when a person who allegedly owes a debt is told to come to court on a work day, they may be forced to choose between a default judgment and their job. I urge the CFPB to find practices that involve scheduling hearings at inconvenient times unfair, deceptive, and abusive, or inconsistent with 1692i.
View this comment in the discussion thread
josephusmyer
2When alleged debtors are served with state court summonses, they are not always comprehensible to laypersons. I suggest that the CFPB encourage or mandate the use of a standard-form, plain English letter advising defendants in collection lawsuits of the following: - Any requirements to file papers to avoid default judgment - The date of any scheduled hearing and procedures for changing the date - Local and online sources of information for pro se defendants, and possibly local non-profit advice organizations. - That the debtor may wish to consider bankruptcy if they cannot pay their debts.
View this comment in the discussion thread
josephusmyer
3
In many districts where bad check diversion programs exist, there is anecdotal evidence that the companies administering the programs threaten with prosecution individuals who do not come within the state's bad check law - for example, checks that bounce due to printing errors, checks for which there were funds available when written but not when presented, and individuals who pay the amount due by other means within grace periods permitted by state law. The CFPB should ensure that bad check diversion programs have a realistic means of ensuring that only individuals realistically subject to prosecution are targeted, and should also require that, in order to qualify for the 1692p safe harbor, diversion programs prohibit misleading communications and misstatements of state bad check law.
View this comment in the discussion thread
JOULES
4When an attorney is a 'Debt Collector' (as per their own documents) and not legally considered a 'Collection Agency' the attorney is not held accountable for consumer protection law violations (both local and federal) within civil court. This loop hole needs to be addressed. The attorneys/debt collectors are not monitored by the state bar because it is a collection practice (the attorneys buy old debt and then collect upon that debt in civil court) and the state and federal civil courts are not monitoring the attorneys because it is an attorneys office and not considered a collection agency - even though the attorneys buy old debt then take alleged debtors to civil court. I personally know of a very large attorney agency in Washington State that even gives classes thru the Washington state bar to other attorneys because it is a easy caseload to win.
View this comment in the discussion thread
josephusmyer
5
Assignments without notice could lead to consumers paying the wrong person. The CFPB should encourage proper notice by ruling that a payment made to either of the assignee or the assignor reduces the debt.
View this comment in the discussion thread
From_ill_annoy
6
I do NOT owe any debt but have a COMMON FIRST and LAST NAME. My Constitutional rights are violated every time a lawyer fails to perform due diligence, per rule 137, BEFORE SIGNING and FILING COURT PAPER against me. The clerks are helpless, the judges & attorney disciplinary do nothing favoring “lawyer zealousness.” I then have to spend time & money, going to court to prove I am NOT the person who owes the debt. I urge the CFPB to create mechanisms for clerks & citizens that make it 1) easier to fix these messes &, 2) to bring sanctions against lawyers & judges for MISUSE OF LEGAL PROCEDURE, ABUSE OF PROCESS, WRONGFUL CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, & MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RBell
7Assuming debtors have a valid address, which is some cases they do not, additional notice that the debt is being assigned to a third party collection entity is no benefit. My experience is intervention to collect by a third party normally occurs when the consumer is over 180 contractual delinquent. Furthermore, if the consumer receives the warning the account would be placed with a third party so how many different contacts would occur??? Many and more confusing to the consumer and agency.
View this comment in the discussion thread
alf1052
8
find the most egregious and cavalier user of collection agencies is the "medical professional". To wit: I received a collection agency call for a small amount due on a pathology test taken at Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. We had moved and all notices were sent back to Cedars. No one else and there were dozens, had this problem. The amount due was the amount Medicare did not pay. I have a supplement with a large deductible. To my knowledge it was never billed. Anyway, I was forced to deal with this obnoxious credit agency which threatened to ruin my credit which is almost an 800 FICO score. Calls to the collection agency and Cedars solved the problem but not without creating anxiety and aggravation for me. A person from the collection agency working at Cedars apologized. It took 3 or 4 letters to get the Administrator, Mr. Prisilac, to respond. His response implies that Cedars had no responsibility in this matter. For him it was all the collection agencies problem. That is not true. Cedars hires these people and like all professionals in my experience has no further responsibility. The entire responsibility, in my view, lies with Cedars etc. There is little downside for them. Their lack of interest in their patients and complete interest in collecting dollars whether due them or not is mind boggling. Unless we deal with the base of the problem, the doctors and hospitals, who are too dignified to deal with money, but will take 50% from a distance even if it is not due, this problem will persist and the public will continue to be subjected to the riffraff that is most collection agencies. These people are worse than indifferent. They attack and steal from the most vulnerable of people; the sick and poor.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
9
I can't comment on any of this, but it would seem appropriate for Federal law to establish a framework of requirements for states to meet. This would level the playing field for debtors and creditors in all states. and would provide an equal basis for states to proceed with adding or amending their own laws affecting debt collection lawsuits.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Aaron Racicot
10
I don't believe in abusive behavior (i.e. the behavior spelled out in the FDCPA), but what this individual is saying that she owes a debt that she is not paying. Instead, she wants to be the offensive party and paint the collector into a corner using a recording device. Instead of purchasing a recording device, wouldn't she just be better served by using that money to pay the debt collector for the debt she owes?
View this comment in the discussion thread
CG
11
There needs to be some federal protections for the consumer and a clear appeals process. The state run by private company programs seem to see the alleged debtor as already guilty. For example, some consumer groups have suggested that entities may not be including a “clear and conspicuous statement” that the consumer may dispute the validity of the alleged bad check violation. What kind of financial incentives are there for these companies to meet certain benchmarks that may not be in the consumer's best interest? It kind of sounds like those arbitration programs for credit card debt where everything was stacked in the favor of the creditor.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bootsy
12
I contacted the debt collection company and tried to make arrangements for payment of debt, the reason I could not pay my bills is my husband was laid off work and he had started a new job. I wanted to make payments of $100. a month, debt collectors said NO, so I said the most I could afford was $200 a month the said NO they wanted $1,000. a month. Now we have 4 children, a mortgage and utility payment, debt collection said $500 a month my husband brought home after taxes $1,100 twice a month. My mortgage is $1,300 per month not including utilizes so I told debt company that I couldn't pay. I always thought something was better than nothing and that a debt company would try to work with you. I learned that they won't work with you.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
13
I would suggest that debtors who INVOLUNTARILY defaulted on a debt don't have the money to hire an attorney, so they don't see the point to going to court without an attorney. Why doesn't the court give access to free legal counsel to debt defaulters the way they do to those who are accused of committing a crime?
View this comment in the discussion thread
cmfritts
14
From my experience debt collection today has become a crutch for organizations that are too lazy to do the decent thing and have a discussion with the debtor BEFORE engaging a debt collection agency. Case in point is the debt collection notice I received from a collection agency attempting to collect medical debt that was over a year old and the medical facility has never contacted me by phone or via mail about the debt. Boom - debt collection agency is involved. The debt is not valid and this is the 3rd debt collection agency that has attempted to pursue the same debt. I challenge the validity of the debt and ask that statements or invoices related to the debt be sent so I can verify if the debt actually exists - no response. Yet like clock work every five months this debt is referred to a new debt collector without closure on the challenge I made to the previous debt collector about the validity of the debt. It just keeps churning without resolution. My fear is that ultimately the medical facility will just stop trying to collect the debt and play their ultimate ace-in-the-hole and just make a notation in my credit record about the debt and I will then have to negotiate having the debt removed from my credit record whenever I apply for consumer loan. That is a major shift in power in that all the "protections" I may enjoy in dealing with a debt collector, I have no power with a credit bureau. It a case of either clearing (i.e., pay) the debt or not get a loan. After all is said and done I believe that creditors should have to prove that they have contacted the consumer before they are allowed to refer and debt to collection. The debt collection system is rife with lack of due process in this aspect. Secondly, I believe that if a debt has been referred to collection and the consumer has challenged the validity of the debt, then there is an obligation by the debt collection agency to act on and resolve the challenge. There appears to be no such requirement currently since the same debts are getting rolled over to new collection agencies instead of being resolved. The goal of debt collection should be to resolve contentious debt situations not merely to brow beat the consumer into submission. Third, debt collection agencies need to stop the practice of disguising their collection notifications as junk mail with the intent of hoping the consumer will throw the correspondence away on first glance. Debt collectors in my state routinely use return addresses from Mississippi and no accompanying postmark (using bulk mail designations from the post office just like junk mailings) knowing that if a consumer does not respond within 30 days of notification of a debt then all debt collection protections are essentially waived. We need much more honesty and a level playing field in the debt collection industry. We need a way to ensure that ALL parties involved in debt collection are sensible and forthright and above board. Currently it is a cut throat us vs them scenario which brings out the worst in people.
View this comment in the discussion thread
tommc4
15
The FDCPA should be above ALL state and local law. Period.
View this comment in the discussion thread
NancyH
16
Not every debt collection agency is like that. The one I work for certainly isn't.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Angel butler
17
Debt was sold to another company. So now debt is listed on my credit twice. So debt will last more than 10 years on report. Plus I've been a victim of identity theft twice. Both times I reported it to the police and to the credit agencies. Unfortunately nothing police can do but write a report for proof. Credit agency was ordered to put a fraud alert on my social but fail to do so.
View this comment in the discussion thread
LAWZME
18
Notification that a debt is being sold would be ideal as it would afford the debtor the opportunity to negotiate the amount and possibly assist in thwarting any potential negative reporting on one's credit report. If a debtor is afforded the opportunity to negotiate his or her debt for a reasonable amount, perhaps the selling and reselling of debt may be marginalized. More and more consumers have emails and other modes of communication and therefore, it would be in the best interest of all parties to amicably resolve issues. However, should the dispute not be quelled, reasonable arrangements should be afforded to the debtor. Debts as assets is an outrageous concept and it behooves both the debtor and the creditor to "work-it-out". That is in the best interest of all. It begins with information, communication and resolution.
View this comment in the discussion thread