Filing suit in the state that the consumer lives in is the most practical. If a state has a large district there is nothing that can be done unless judges want to allow tele-conferencing,, or phone conferencing. However, if that is allowed it should be allowed for both sides provided the evidence of the debt is supplied to the court in advance.
Let's remember that most debtors have had the original creditor from 2 to 4 collection agencies and the creditors attorneys office before a suit is ever filed. That process usually takes as much a 2 years or more. So it is difficult to think that the courts should make special accommodations for these individuals. Every person called into court has had many opportunities to have the debt validated or payment arrangements made prior to a default judgment. I do believe basic evidence should be supplied. This would be a statement or bill copy with a matching name of the consumer and proof of address at the time the debt was incurred. This proof of address could be provided by other confirming data available through skip tracing companies. There were significant problems with how debt buyers were allowed to file suit and receive default judgments with virtually no evidence. So improvements and consistency is needed in evidence but it should also not be expected to show every single bill copy.
It is my companies practice to send a validation of debt notice to nearly all accounts placed. This is not required but a best practice. I also believe in most cases the original creditor provides notices to the consumer on their bill if they are going to be referred to collections. Also it is time to be realistic. Is it possible that a consumer is not notified of a transfer to collections? Yes. But that being said most if not all consumers know they have not paid their bill beyond 30 days and they could be sent to collections. It is time personal responsibility plaid a part in rule making and that the rules apply to the vast majority of circumstances instead of trying to account for the rare occurrences where the process does not work fully.
A simple solution to all of the hype about calling cells which is by far the most common means of contacting a consumer these days. Direct that all telecommunication companies offer a site that allows the agencies to register their phone numbers. If a call is placed to a consumer that does not have unlimited calling or testing then the charges are reversed to the registered phone agency.
I think the current limits are fine. The MA rules are too restrictive and frankly could be a disservice to the consumer who wants to try to resolve the debt. I do not believe in robo calling but do believe that preview dialing on an automated dialer system should not be prohibited as the agent still has to review the information on the account and push a button to allow the dial.
I do think a "free to end user" would work and I don't see any problems with using such a practice or service. It creates some fairness for the collection companies and will not charge the cell owner if they do not have unlimited calling.
Tom Tiernan
1Filing suit in the state that the consumer lives in is the most practical. If a state has a large district there is nothing that can be done unless judges want to allow tele-conferencing,, or phone conferencing. However, if that is allowed it should be allowed for both sides provided the evidence of the debt is supplied to the court in advance.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Tom Tiernan
2
Let's remember that most debtors have had the original creditor from 2 to 4 collection agencies and the creditors attorneys office before a suit is ever filed. That process usually takes as much a 2 years or more. So it is difficult to think that the courts should make special accommodations for these individuals. Every person called into court has had many opportunities to have the debt validated or payment arrangements made prior to a default judgment. I do believe basic evidence should be supplied. This would be a statement or bill copy with a matching name of the consumer and proof of address at the time the debt was incurred. This proof of address could be provided by other confirming data available through skip tracing companies. There were significant problems with how debt buyers were allowed to file suit and receive default judgments with virtually no evidence. So improvements and consistency is needed in evidence but it should also not be expected to show every single bill copy.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Tom Tiernan
3
It is my companies practice to send a validation of debt notice to nearly all accounts placed. This is not required but a best practice. I also believe in most cases the original creditor provides notices to the consumer on their bill if they are going to be referred to collections. Also it is time to be realistic. Is it possible that a consumer is not notified of a transfer to collections? Yes. But that being said most if not all consumers know they have not paid their bill beyond 30 days and they could be sent to collections. It is time personal responsibility plaid a part in rule making and that the rules apply to the vast majority of circumstances instead of trying to account for the rare occurrences where the process does not work fully.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Tom Tiernan
4
A simple solution to all of the hype about calling cells which is by far the most common means of contacting a consumer these days. Direct that all telecommunication companies offer a site that allows the agencies to register their phone numbers. If a call is placed to a consumer that does not have unlimited calling or testing then the charges are reversed to the registered phone agency.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Tom Tiernan
5
I think the current limits are fine. The MA rules are too restrictive and frankly could be a disservice to the consumer who wants to try to resolve the debt. I do not believe in robo calling but do believe that preview dialing on an automated dialer system should not be prohibited as the agent still has to review the information on the account and push a button to allow the dial.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Tom Tiernan
6
I do think a "free to end user" would work and I don't see any problems with using such a practice or service. It creates some fairness for the collection companies and will not charge the cell owner if they do not have unlimited calling.
View this comment in the discussion thread