I recommend that the option to bring a suit in the jurisdiction where the consumer signed the contract should be removed. In many situations, consumers may not actually sign a contract (e.g. credit cards), they may sign an agreement in a distant location (for medical payment at a hospital on vacation), or they may have moved in the years since opening the account. I believe the most consumer-friendly option is to file suit where the consumer resides at time of commencement (unless it concerns real property and then it should be where the property is located). With respect to geographic size concerns, it is important to note that many states are facing budget crises that affect the civil divisions of state courts. In one of our largest districts, our options for filing suit was reduced from 32 courts down to 2. If there is a concern for protecting consumers in this particular area, I recommend a section of the rule that prohibits collections from choosing a court venue with the intention of interfering with the consumer's ability to participate in the action. To prove a violation, the consumer (or regulatory agency) would need to demonstrate that the collector had no reason to file suit in that court other than burdening the consumer (thus demonstrating intent).
Attorneys are not exempted from the FDCPA, and most State Bars take reports of unethical conduct by attorneys very seriously. There is no need for additional regulation of attorneys.
It sounds like you believe the creditor/debt collector's attorney should be responsible for giving legal advice to the consumer (i.e. the opposing party). This is a serious conflict of interest and a violation of his duties to his client. Even worse, it sounds like you also want debt collectors who are NOT attorneys or employed by attorneys to also give legal advice to consumers. This is a violation of the prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law. I understand that the ignorance and lack of sophistication exhibited by defendant debtors is a concern. I recommend that the CFPB develop a model notice of rights under the FDCPA. If it so chooses, it can also maintain on its website an area for state-specific resources related to State laws, and reference this website on the form notice.
I don't understand, Mr. Bartmann - you believe creditors should just wait until consumers feel like they can afford to pay? What if that takes years? Litigation preserves the creditor's right to recover the money owed and allows it to be collected later, when the consumer is able to do so. If litigation cannot be used to enforce creditors' rights, the debt could become uncollectable in as little as three years. As noted by another commentator, this will most certainly have a negative impact on the economy and the cost of credit because it will drive up prices to cover that risk. It will also make obtaining credit next to impossible for high-risk individuals.
Unfortunately, a few of the suggestions you made would actually violate the FDCPA. Debt collectors are not permitted to "overshadow" the validation notice by giving consumers deadlines, making demands for payments, or giving settlement offers. Further, I don't believe consumers need a "sample" dispute notice. If the consumer truly has a disagreement or dispute with the debt being collected, he or she should be able to articulate that dispute.
@Debt Neutrality Petition, you have made a lot of arguments in this thread about "involuntary" defaulters. However, the law doesn't make that distinction. Financial hardship is not a defense to someone's failure to repay a debt that he or she promised to pay. Therefore, the court cannot consider that factor in determining liability. Since this thread is specific to litigation in state courts, I think that should be the focus here.
But private arrangement between these entities doesn't change the fact that the money is still owed. Just because the original creditor took a loss on it, doesn't change what is really due. Is it ethical for someone to rack up tens of thousands of dollars of debt and never pay it back?
I think the issue you have identified here in this post is key - lack of financial literacy. So many people borrow money without reading contracts, without understanding the law, without considering the risks. We live in a society centered on immediate gratification, where people who can't afford things just charge them, thinking they'll pay it back later. But then something happens - a job loss, medical issues, unexpected expenses. So few people even maintain sufficient savings accounts these days, or put money away for retirement. If we really want to get to the heart of this issue, it has to start with education, and financial literacy. Now, I'm not saying the banks and lenders are innocent participants -- they have certainly taken advantage of the "instant gratification" mindset by extending credit with high interest rates and fees, knowing that someone somewhere will sign up for it. But they can't bear the brunt of the blame for societal ignorance.
Quote: "just because a bank or credit card company has been exempted from Usury laws does not mean they do not commit the violation!" Actually, that's exactly what it means. You can't violate a law that doesn't apply to you. If you don't like the interest rates that credit card companies charge, don't use them.
The reason they can sell it for a fraction of what is owed is because the debt buyer is purchasing entire portfolios of bad debt. It spreads out the risk. If you can get a million other delinquent consumers to go in with you on a 10% offer, you could probably get them to take it. But it doesn't make financial sense for them to offer the same transaction to you as the debt buyer.
This option doesn't make economic sense. Debt buyers do serve a practical purpose because they allow the creditor to unload a massive amount of debt at one time. The cost of negotiating individual deals with each of those 1 million delinquent consumers would negate the benefit they get from the consolidated offload. Debt buyers allow the creditors to clear their books, which enables the cycle of lending to continue. The transaction between those two entities doesn't change what is actually owed on the account.
I agree that it benefits everyone when notice of sale or assignment is given to the consumer. I am not aware of any part of the industry other than mortgage servicers who presently give notice. The benefit is clear - it reduces confusion, reduces the risk of misapplied/lost payments, and produces a clear chain of ownership. It would be costly to the creditors selling the debt, but not so much as to be prohibitive. Creditors have to send notices under a variety of other laws. I don't think this addition would make that much of a difference. I think the notice should state the account number, the entity to who it is being sold (including contact information) and the amount currently owed. It should be sent by the seller, who has the most current information for the consumer, and a copy should be provided to the debt buyer as part of the sale package.
From a collection standpoint, I can tell you that many creditors would LOVE to check with the DMV to get current address information. Unfortunately, many privacy laws make that impossible. It's also extremely common for people to fail to update their addresses either with their creditors or with the post office. Any legitimate collector wants to find the right person.
The FICO impact on sold debts appearing twice needs to be addressed with the credit reporting agencies and the companies that create credit scores. Creditors have a right to report the status of a debt, and shouldn't be precluded just because it already appears by the previous creditor. However, the double penalty against the consumer is certainly unfair. But it's not the collectors' fault. It should be addressed in enforcement of the FCRA.
When debt collectors send that Validation Notice, they are required to state the creditor to whom the debt is owed. I think that is sufficient notice that the debt is being assigned for collection. I commented on the other thread that I DO believe notice should be given when the debt is sold. But if the current creditor is retaining ownership but just assigning it to a collection agency or law firm, they will be notified when that agency contacts them and sends a Validation Notice. Besides, the collection agency or law firm may end up refusing to accept the account due to a conflict or a variety of other reasons. Giving notice that ends up being false would certainly cause confusion.
Preserving the industry DOES protect consumers. If there isn't a lawful and enforceable way of collecting money that is owed, then future consumers will pay the price in increased cost for credit, or denial of credit entirely due to risk.
This is entirely too much information to require. It's not the job of creditors or collectors to send notices about "best practices" or personnel information. This thread is about notice that a debt is assigned to collection. NOT sold, but simply outsourced to someone who specializes in collecting past due debts. Notices is given when the validation notice is sent. The company who sends it is the collector; the letter itself will state the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. That's enough.
Breaking a promise to pay isn't the same as breaking the law. We can't keep comparing criminal law to civil law because it's just not the same. But the item that's missing here is the legitimacy of interest. Forget about big banks for a minute, and think about borrowing money from a friend or neighbor. When you keep money that is rightfully owed to someone else, you damage him, because he doesn't have that money, which he could be investing (to increase it) or spending (to improve his quality of life). That's one of the reasons that interest exists - to compensate someone for the loss of their money for a portion of time until it gets repaid. I'm not saying interest rates aren't excessive -- they certainly are -- unfortunately, that's a separate issue. But suspending interest all together and allowing a debtor to freeze the amount of his debt indefinitely, because he borrowed more than he could pay back and didn't plan for unexpected expenses.... I don't know anyone who would loan money under those terms, except for maybe Mom and Dad.
It's important to understand that a Validation Notice (sent within 5 days pursuant to 1692g) is NOT a validation of debt. It's a NOTICE of your right to validation, if you choose to invoke it. I do agree that there should be additional regulation around this issue. But part of the problem is the way the statute is written. Most collectors cite 1692g verbatim to avoid liability for misleading consumers. But it's kind of a big convoluted sentence that the average person can't understand. I'd like to see a plain language amendment to that section of the FDCPA, which I will discuss further in the appropriate thread.
If this is an area that the CFPB is interested in regulating, I believe it will be necessary to initiate cooperative actions with local State judiciaries. Because the CFPB is a federal agency, it doesn't have authority to tell State governments (including the judicial branch) how to operate or how to interpret its own law. Since some states are already taking steps in this direction ( like New York), it is likely that the CFPB would find positive reception toward this effort. But trying to accomplish change through federal rulemaking is not an option in this particular area.
But they also can't send you a signed paper for something you agreed to online, or over the phone. So few people actually put a pen to paper these days to sign a formal written agreement. So that's an unfair requirement when it doesn't always exist.
Speaking from a collection standpoint, I can tell you that most collectors would LOVE to give more information on the initial Validation Notice. The problem is, the murky case law related to "overshadowing" makes it risky to include anything other than what is in the statute - no more, no less. Here's what I would like to include on the notice:
1. Name and address of the current creditor.
2. Our relationship to the current creditor.
3. Name of the original creditor, and the name of the subsequent owner of that original creditor's records, if that original creditor no longer exists (e.g. WaMu, Wachovia).
4. Any brand name or company name associated with the account.
5. The type of debt.
6. The original creditor's account number, and any other account numbers that this account may have been known under.
7. The amount of the debt (more on this in the appropriate thread).
8. The date the account was opened (for revolving credit) or the date the debt was incurred.
9. The date and amount of the last payment made by the consumer.
10. The date and amount of the last charge or debit on the account (for credit cards).
11. The name and address of any co-debtor that is also receiving this notice (helpful for co-signers).
I don't believe that any portion of the SSN should be included on this letter, because it's just too risky. However, I think the full account number can be included because in almost all circumstances, the account would already be closed and unable to be used by identity thieves.
I do think it would be a bit of an expense on the part of creditors and debt buyers to provide this information to the agencies and law firms that they outsource collections to, but I believe that it would benefit those collectors as well as consumers to have this additional information. It would be necessary to mandate that this information be included whenever creditors sell portfolios of bad debt. But it would be worth it.
While Alternative 1 seems simplest, there are hidden complications. Who defines what "principal" means? With revolving credit accounts, interest accrues (as finance charges) and is rolled into the balance. So does "principal" mean only the part of the balance that was charged by the cardholder (very difficult, if not impossible, for a collector to calculate) or the total charged off amount? I understand that it can be difficult when dealing with different kinds of debts. But I don't think this option will work for a large portion of consumer debt. Alternative 2 doesn't work because who defines when a consumer "defaults" on an account? Many of us have missed a payment here or there, but we get back on track. So it's too ambiguous. That leaves Alternative 3 as the most feasible, but what about accounts that never had a periodic statement or billing statement? I propose breaking down the total amount by stating the amount owed on the last statement issued by the original creditor, or, if no statement was ever issued, the original amount of the debt when incurred, and then an itemization of all debits and credits applied since that balance.
The case law related to this portion of the FDCPA has made it risky for collectors to include anything other than exactly what the FDCPA says. However, I don't think the law, as written, is easy to understand. For example - the first sentence says unless you dispute the debt, it will be considered valid ("dispute" and "valid" aren't defined), but then goes on to say what the creditor will do if you notify them in writing. So if the consumer only disputes verbally, what rights do they have, if any? I think the law should be clarified, and then I think the CFPB should create a uniform "Summary of Consumer Rights" that can be required to be included with all initial letters from collectors. That way, debt collectors don't have to worry about overshadowing and trying to fit everything onto one page, or with the tricky area of providing legal advice by interpreting the FDCPA for the consumer. Also, consumers can get a consistent message from all collectors. If there is a concern about it being separate from the initial letter from the collector, there can be a mandatory one-line disclosure providing a link to a CFPB website with that Summary of Consumer Rights.
This proposed rulemaking is not about credit reporting. I understand that people have significant concerns about their credit reports. But that belongs in a reform of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, not the FDCPA. Inserting credit reporting rules into the FDCPA would make things difficult for debt collectors who don't report to credit reporting agencies at all.
RHN91362
1
I recommend that the option to bring a suit in the jurisdiction where the consumer signed the contract should be removed. In many situations, consumers may not actually sign a contract (e.g. credit cards), they may sign an agreement in a distant location (for medical payment at a hospital on vacation), or they may have moved in the years since opening the account. I believe the most consumer-friendly option is to file suit where the consumer resides at time of commencement (unless it concerns real property and then it should be where the property is located). With respect to geographic size concerns, it is important to note that many states are facing budget crises that affect the civil divisions of state courts. In one of our largest districts, our options for filing suit was reduced from 32 courts down to 2. If there is a concern for protecting consumers in this particular area, I recommend a section of the rule that prohibits collections from choosing a court venue with the intention of interfering with the consumer's ability to participate in the action. To prove a violation, the consumer (or regulatory agency) would need to demonstrate that the collector had no reason to file suit in that court other than burdening the consumer (thus demonstrating intent).
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
2
Attorneys are not exempted from the FDCPA, and most State Bars take reports of unethical conduct by attorneys very seriously. There is no need for additional regulation of attorneys.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
3
It sounds like you believe the creditor/debt collector's attorney should be responsible for giving legal advice to the consumer (i.e. the opposing party). This is a serious conflict of interest and a violation of his duties to his client. Even worse, it sounds like you also want debt collectors who are NOT attorneys or employed by attorneys to also give legal advice to consumers. This is a violation of the prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law. I understand that the ignorance and lack of sophistication exhibited by defendant debtors is a concern. I recommend that the CFPB develop a model notice of rights under the FDCPA. If it so chooses, it can also maintain on its website an area for state-specific resources related to State laws, and reference this website on the form notice.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
4
I don't understand, Mr. Bartmann - you believe creditors should just wait until consumers feel like they can afford to pay? What if that takes years? Litigation preserves the creditor's right to recover the money owed and allows it to be collected later, when the consumer is able to do so. If litigation cannot be used to enforce creditors' rights, the debt could become uncollectable in as little as three years. As noted by another commentator, this will most certainly have a negative impact on the economy and the cost of credit because it will drive up prices to cover that risk. It will also make obtaining credit next to impossible for high-risk individuals.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
5
Unfortunately, a few of the suggestions you made would actually violate the FDCPA. Debt collectors are not permitted to "overshadow" the validation notice by giving consumers deadlines, making demands for payments, or giving settlement offers. Further, I don't believe consumers need a "sample" dispute notice. If the consumer truly has a disagreement or dispute with the debt being collected, he or she should be able to articulate that dispute.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
6
@Debt Neutrality Petition, you have made a lot of arguments in this thread about "involuntary" defaulters. However, the law doesn't make that distinction. Financial hardship is not a defense to someone's failure to repay a debt that he or she promised to pay. Therefore, the court cannot consider that factor in determining liability. Since this thread is specific to litigation in state courts, I think that should be the focus here.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
7
But private arrangement between these entities doesn't change the fact that the money is still owed. Just because the original creditor took a loss on it, doesn't change what is really due. Is it ethical for someone to rack up tens of thousands of dollars of debt and never pay it back?
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
8
I think the issue you have identified here in this post is key - lack of financial literacy. So many people borrow money without reading contracts, without understanding the law, without considering the risks. We live in a society centered on immediate gratification, where people who can't afford things just charge them, thinking they'll pay it back later. But then something happens - a job loss, medical issues, unexpected expenses. So few people even maintain sufficient savings accounts these days, or put money away for retirement. If we really want to get to the heart of this issue, it has to start with education, and financial literacy. Now, I'm not saying the banks and lenders are innocent participants -- they have certainly taken advantage of the "instant gratification" mindset by extending credit with high interest rates and fees, knowing that someone somewhere will sign up for it. But they can't bear the brunt of the blame for societal ignorance.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
9
Quote: "just because a bank or credit card company has been exempted from Usury laws does not mean they do not commit the violation!" Actually, that's exactly what it means. You can't violate a law that doesn't apply to you. If you don't like the interest rates that credit card companies charge, don't use them.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
10
The reason they can sell it for a fraction of what is owed is because the debt buyer is purchasing entire portfolios of bad debt. It spreads out the risk. If you can get a million other delinquent consumers to go in with you on a 10% offer, you could probably get them to take it. But it doesn't make financial sense for them to offer the same transaction to you as the debt buyer.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
11
This option doesn't make economic sense. Debt buyers do serve a practical purpose because they allow the creditor to unload a massive amount of debt at one time. The cost of negotiating individual deals with each of those 1 million delinquent consumers would negate the benefit they get from the consolidated offload. Debt buyers allow the creditors to clear their books, which enables the cycle of lending to continue. The transaction between those two entities doesn't change what is actually owed on the account.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
12
I agree that it benefits everyone when notice of sale or assignment is given to the consumer. I am not aware of any part of the industry other than mortgage servicers who presently give notice. The benefit is clear - it reduces confusion, reduces the risk of misapplied/lost payments, and produces a clear chain of ownership. It would be costly to the creditors selling the debt, but not so much as to be prohibitive. Creditors have to send notices under a variety of other laws. I don't think this addition would make that much of a difference. I think the notice should state the account number, the entity to who it is being sold (including contact information) and the amount currently owed. It should be sent by the seller, who has the most current information for the consumer, and a copy should be provided to the debt buyer as part of the sale package.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
13
From a collection standpoint, I can tell you that many creditors would LOVE to check with the DMV to get current address information. Unfortunately, many privacy laws make that impossible. It's also extremely common for people to fail to update their addresses either with their creditors or with the post office. Any legitimate collector wants to find the right person.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
14
The FICO impact on sold debts appearing twice needs to be addressed with the credit reporting agencies and the companies that create credit scores. Creditors have a right to report the status of a debt, and shouldn't be precluded just because it already appears by the previous creditor. However, the double penalty against the consumer is certainly unfair. But it's not the collectors' fault. It should be addressed in enforcement of the FCRA.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
15When debt collectors send that Validation Notice, they are required to state the creditor to whom the debt is owed. I think that is sufficient notice that the debt is being assigned for collection. I commented on the other thread that I DO believe notice should be given when the debt is sold. But if the current creditor is retaining ownership but just assigning it to a collection agency or law firm, they will be notified when that agency contacts them and sends a Validation Notice. Besides, the collection agency or law firm may end up refusing to accept the account due to a conflict or a variety of other reasons. Giving notice that ends up being false would certainly cause confusion.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
16
Preserving the industry DOES protect consumers. If there isn't a lawful and enforceable way of collecting money that is owed, then future consumers will pay the price in increased cost for credit, or denial of credit entirely due to risk.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
17
This is entirely too much information to require. It's not the job of creditors or collectors to send notices about "best practices" or personnel information. This thread is about notice that a debt is assigned to collection. NOT sold, but simply outsourced to someone who specializes in collecting past due debts. Notices is given when the validation notice is sent. The company who sends it is the collector; the letter itself will state the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. That's enough.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
18
Breaking a promise to pay isn't the same as breaking the law. We can't keep comparing criminal law to civil law because it's just not the same. But the item that's missing here is the legitimacy of interest. Forget about big banks for a minute, and think about borrowing money from a friend or neighbor. When you keep money that is rightfully owed to someone else, you damage him, because he doesn't have that money, which he could be investing (to increase it) or spending (to improve his quality of life). That's one of the reasons that interest exists - to compensate someone for the loss of their money for a portion of time until it gets repaid. I'm not saying interest rates aren't excessive -- they certainly are -- unfortunately, that's a separate issue. But suspending interest all together and allowing a debtor to freeze the amount of his debt indefinitely, because he borrowed more than he could pay back and didn't plan for unexpected expenses.... I don't know anyone who would loan money under those terms, except for maybe Mom and Dad.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
19It's important to understand that a Validation Notice (sent within 5 days pursuant to 1692g) is NOT a validation of debt. It's a NOTICE of your right to validation, if you choose to invoke it. I do agree that there should be additional regulation around this issue. But part of the problem is the way the statute is written. Most collectors cite 1692g verbatim to avoid liability for misleading consumers. But it's kind of a big convoluted sentence that the average person can't understand. I'd like to see a plain language amendment to that section of the FDCPA, which I will discuss further in the appropriate thread.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
20
If this is an area that the CFPB is interested in regulating, I believe it will be necessary to initiate cooperative actions with local State judiciaries. Because the CFPB is a federal agency, it doesn't have authority to tell State governments (including the judicial branch) how to operate or how to interpret its own law. Since some states are already taking steps in this direction ( like New York), it is likely that the CFPB would find positive reception toward this effort. But trying to accomplish change through federal rulemaking is not an option in this particular area.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
21
This is not an appropriate requirement because not all states have licensing or registration for debt collectors.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
22
But they also can't send you a signed paper for something you agreed to online, or over the phone. So few people actually put a pen to paper these days to sign a formal written agreement. So that's an unfair requirement when it doesn't always exist.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
23
Speaking from a collection standpoint, I can tell you that most collectors would LOVE to give more information on the initial Validation Notice. The problem is, the murky case law related to "overshadowing" makes it risky to include anything other than what is in the statute - no more, no less. Here's what I would like to include on the notice: 1. Name and address of the current creditor. 2. Our relationship to the current creditor. 3. Name of the original creditor, and the name of the subsequent owner of that original creditor's records, if that original creditor no longer exists (e.g. WaMu, Wachovia). 4. Any brand name or company name associated with the account. 5. The type of debt. 6. The original creditor's account number, and any other account numbers that this account may have been known under. 7. The amount of the debt (more on this in the appropriate thread). 8. The date the account was opened (for revolving credit) or the date the debt was incurred. 9. The date and amount of the last payment made by the consumer. 10. The date and amount of the last charge or debit on the account (for credit cards). 11. The name and address of any co-debtor that is also receiving this notice (helpful for co-signers). I don't believe that any portion of the SSN should be included on this letter, because it's just too risky. However, I think the full account number can be included because in almost all circumstances, the account would already be closed and unable to be used by identity thieves. I do think it would be a bit of an expense on the part of creditors and debt buyers to provide this information to the agencies and law firms that they outsource collections to, but I believe that it would benefit those collectors as well as consumers to have this additional information. It would be necessary to mandate that this information be included whenever creditors sell portfolios of bad debt. But it would be worth it.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
24
While Alternative 1 seems simplest, there are hidden complications. Who defines what "principal" means? With revolving credit accounts, interest accrues (as finance charges) and is rolled into the balance. So does "principal" mean only the part of the balance that was charged by the cardholder (very difficult, if not impossible, for a collector to calculate) or the total charged off amount? I understand that it can be difficult when dealing with different kinds of debts. But I don't think this option will work for a large portion of consumer debt. Alternative 2 doesn't work because who defines when a consumer "defaults" on an account? Many of us have missed a payment here or there, but we get back on track. So it's too ambiguous. That leaves Alternative 3 as the most feasible, but what about accounts that never had a periodic statement or billing statement? I propose breaking down the total amount by stating the amount owed on the last statement issued by the original creditor, or, if no statement was ever issued, the original amount of the debt when incurred, and then an itemization of all debits and credits applied since that balance.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
25
The case law related to this portion of the FDCPA has made it risky for collectors to include anything other than exactly what the FDCPA says. However, I don't think the law, as written, is easy to understand. For example - the first sentence says unless you dispute the debt, it will be considered valid ("dispute" and "valid" aren't defined), but then goes on to say what the creditor will do if you notify them in writing. So if the consumer only disputes verbally, what rights do they have, if any? I think the law should be clarified, and then I think the CFPB should create a uniform "Summary of Consumer Rights" that can be required to be included with all initial letters from collectors. That way, debt collectors don't have to worry about overshadowing and trying to fit everything onto one page, or with the tricky area of providing legal advice by interpreting the FDCPA for the consumer. Also, consumers can get a consistent message from all collectors. If there is a concern about it being separate from the initial letter from the collector, there can be a mandatory one-line disclosure providing a link to a CFPB website with that Summary of Consumer Rights.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
26
This proposed rulemaking is not about credit reporting. I understand that people have significant concerns about their credit reports. But that belongs in a reform of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, not the FDCPA. Inserting credit reporting rules into the FDCPA would make things difficult for debt collectors who don't report to credit reporting agencies at all.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
27
I think it would. I work for an attorney at a debt collection law firm and I think this would make things a lot easier and simpler.
View this comment in the discussion thread