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.
Why is it that debt collection agencies feel like litigation is needed? I have helped over 4.5 million people settle their accounts without ever using litigation. What the debt buying and collection industry needs to realize, is that most people want to pay their debts – and will if given an opportunity. When a customer is threatened with litigation they begin to panic, often times leading to bankruptcy. Once a bankruptcy occurs the customer ends up in FICO hell and all of the customer’s other creditors suffer the consequence caused by one litigation happy debt buyer.
The empirical data now conclusively proves the non-litigation collection model is more profitable than the litigation collection model. It is also safer and more profitable for the banks who sell loans. It is safer because it creates no bank exposure or risk for improper litigation by the purchaser of their debt and it is more profitable because non-litigation debt buyers can afford to pay the bank a higher price for the same distressed loans.
What is the true way to help someone who is deep in debt? It isn’t to sue them into oblivion but rather to offer them a way out of their predicament. This way out can be accomplished by helping them resolve their other obligations; helping them find new/better employment or providing them needed social services. Sometimes it is simple as just listening to their plight and offering them patient understanding.
The entire robo-suing; inadequate documentation, sewer service, mistaken identity problem involving 10 million lawsuits a year could be avoided simply and easily. If debt selling banks were persuaded not to sell loans to debt buyers who utilized a litigation collection model, these ills would be stopped overnight. This simple solution would end the living nightmare now suffered by more than 30 million American families.
Moderator, I do not believe that it would have mattered. It seemed that the Attorney/debt collector was not looking for the actual debtor - I believe that all that they were trying to do was to make a quick buck. They did a couple of shady things with this case.
For a solution; the laws should be written so the common lay person can understand. If I had known that a validation request would not be considered I would not have wasted my time and paid even though it was NOT my debt.
Please note - I am NOT an attorney.
I disagree with the above assessment. As an alleged defaulter I have asked over and over and over again to have the debt set where it was at the time of alleged default and that no more penalties fees or interest rate charges be tacked on, and that I will commit to a monthly autopay. People who INVOLUNTARILY defaulted because of a life changing event in their lives (such as becoming caregivers for their parents) may want to consider all of their defaults together, so if five defaults occurred, the alleged defaulter has to divide whatever money they may be able to apportion every month, by five. Debt collectors refuse to see this as a reasonable solution and only acknowledge their own debt with the alleged defaulter, making it impossible for the alleged defaulter to do the right thing and begin paying back everybody.
I have already spoken with an attorney. This is how I found out about the separation of state and federal law. Because I was sued in state civil court is why my validation requests were ignored by the plaintiffs as well as the seating judge. What I should have done (in state court) was sent a 'discovery' request AFTER the case had been filed rather then a validation request. Please note - the 'collection agency' was a large legal firm. They knew the laws well and whereas I was a lay person and not versed in law , I was like a sitting duck just waiting for the slaughter. If I did take them to court I would receive hundreds but it would cost me thousands....and I just do not have that type of money.
What really touched my heart was sitting in that court room and seeing others that also thought that the law would be fair if they represented themselves. Needless to say, we all lost and lost big time. I asked the judge why would he allow this when the plaintiff was a unlicensed collection agency and he stated ' they look like attorneys to me'.
I knew that at that point I had lost my case.
I would like to comment On Mr. Bartman's following quote..."their way out can be accomplished by helping them resolve their other obligations; helping them find new/better employment or providing them needed social services. " end quote.
I can state from personal experience that when our savings ran out I became eligible for in home support services in which I as an unpaid caregiver could be paid a very modest amount (at minimum wage payment) because I was a caregiver. By being an in home CareGiver, I was saving the state a lot more money than it would cost to pay me a small amount every month via in home support services.
I told this to all of my creditors, none of them cared. Then reality hit, my state agency that was supposed to help me obtain in home support services instead cast fear into both me and my parent by stating to me on the phone that whatever they paid me, they would file a lien on the home to get back if I outlived my parent. It turns out this application of the law did not apply to me. However the damage was done. I lost 1.75 years of eligibility and probably enough money to pay all of my vendors, and, I would have never had to prolong the default for more than a couple of months if any of my vendors had cared enough to just help me get through the process of applying for in home support services. But because judges have become so vindictive in their approach to credit card defaulters, judges have allowed the credit card companies to become LAZY at solving their own problems internally.
Nobody helps, everybody simply self protects their own interests first and foremost.
This is solid foundational advice, however, as I have heard a judge state in court (not to me), "a debt is a debt", and "a default is a default", and, "you probably owe the money". Until INVOLUNTARY defaulters have a way to freeze their debt at the time of the default, with no more interest rate charges, penalties or fees accruing, in my opinion nothing substantive will really change and the global economy creeps closer to the brink. see link. Global Debt Elephant in the Room.
How are other frivolous lawsuits regulated? There's nothing in place for any of them, unless (often several years down the road) a judge decides to throw them out. This is yet another consequence of the litigious society in which we currently live. I don't have the answers, but it seems that someone in government or law should be able to do something about unscrupulous attorneys who create a claim out of thin air just to make a buck.
There should be clear guidelines on what constitutes "irrelevant and frivolous". In my own experience, the CRA's consistently refused to delete trade lines not belonging to me even when I had provided documentation from the original creditor validating the debt was not mine. They falsely claimed they received additional information from the original creditor that superseded the documentation I had. When I circled back to the original creditor, I had learned the debt was sold to a junk debt buyer which leads to a separate issue. If the junk debt buyer is reporting to a credit reporting agency, why are they misrepresenting themselves as the original creditor. Junk Debt buying should be prohibited all together. The original creditors should know their vendors just as the law mandates they know their customers. If the vendor is violating the law on the original creditor's behalf the original creditor should hold responsibility to some extent.
Here's what the federal government laws should mandate how the collection companies and CRAs should investigate disputes(1) All collection actions and reporting actions should stop immediately.(2) The time line should be equal on the consumer,collection company,CRAs reporting period.(3) The original debt owner or collection company that purchase the account, should produce the original copy of the signed contract, court documents, and any verifiable records relating to the dispute.Forward those documents to the disputing party within the set aside timeline.(4) Any and all verification letters would have to state and indicate such findings.(5) Once the dispute could not be verified by,name,social,signed document copy of original agreement, it should be immediately deleted. The collections companies and original debt owners are responsible for the validity of information they get,buy,receive,send or share.So, if they buy good or bad debt they should be held responsible. The number,types,unclear,clear,collections disputes should all be investigated the same
JOULES
1When 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
BillBartmann
2Why is it that debt collection agencies feel like litigation is needed? I have helped over 4.5 million people settle their accounts without ever using litigation. What the debt buying and collection industry needs to realize, is that most people want to pay their debts – and will if given an opportunity. When a customer is threatened with litigation they begin to panic, often times leading to bankruptcy. Once a bankruptcy occurs the customer ends up in FICO hell and all of the customer’s other creditors suffer the consequence caused by one litigation happy debt buyer. The empirical data now conclusively proves the non-litigation collection model is more profitable than the litigation collection model. It is also safer and more profitable for the banks who sell loans. It is safer because it creates no bank exposure or risk for improper litigation by the purchaser of their debt and it is more profitable because non-litigation debt buyers can afford to pay the bank a higher price for the same distressed loans. What is the true way to help someone who is deep in debt? It isn’t to sue them into oblivion but rather to offer them a way out of their predicament. This way out can be accomplished by helping them resolve their other obligations; helping them find new/better employment or providing them needed social services. Sometimes it is simple as just listening to their plight and offering them patient understanding. The entire robo-suing; inadequate documentation, sewer service, mistaken identity problem involving 10 million lawsuits a year could be avoided simply and easily. If debt selling banks were persuaded not to sell loans to debt buyers who utilized a litigation collection model, these ills would be stopped overnight. This simple solution would end the living nightmare now suffered by more than 30 million American families.
View this comment in the discussion thread
JOULES
3
Moderator, I do not believe that it would have mattered. It seemed that the Attorney/debt collector was not looking for the actual debtor - I believe that all that they were trying to do was to make a quick buck. They did a couple of shady things with this case. For a solution; the laws should be written so the common lay person can understand. If I had known that a validation request would not be considered I would not have wasted my time and paid even though it was NOT my debt. Please note - I am NOT an attorney.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
4
I disagree with the above assessment. As an alleged defaulter I have asked over and over and over again to have the debt set where it was at the time of alleged default and that no more penalties fees or interest rate charges be tacked on, and that I will commit to a monthly autopay. People who INVOLUNTARILY defaulted because of a life changing event in their lives (such as becoming caregivers for their parents) may want to consider all of their defaults together, so if five defaults occurred, the alleged defaulter has to divide whatever money they may be able to apportion every month, by five. Debt collectors refuse to see this as a reasonable solution and only acknowledge their own debt with the alleged defaulter, making it impossible for the alleged defaulter to do the right thing and begin paying back everybody.
View this comment in the discussion thread
JOULES
5
I have already spoken with an attorney. This is how I found out about the separation of state and federal law. Because I was sued in state civil court is why my validation requests were ignored by the plaintiffs as well as the seating judge. What I should have done (in state court) was sent a 'discovery' request AFTER the case had been filed rather then a validation request. Please note - the 'collection agency' was a large legal firm. They knew the laws well and whereas I was a lay person and not versed in law , I was like a sitting duck just waiting for the slaughter. If I did take them to court I would receive hundreds but it would cost me thousands....and I just do not have that type of money. What really touched my heart was sitting in that court room and seeing others that also thought that the law would be fair if they represented themselves. Needless to say, we all lost and lost big time. I asked the judge why would he allow this when the plaintiff was a unlicensed collection agency and he stated ' they look like attorneys to me'. I knew that at that point I had lost my case.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
6
I would like to comment On Mr. Bartman's following quote..."their way out can be accomplished by helping them resolve their other obligations; helping them find new/better employment or providing them needed social services. " end quote. I can state from personal experience that when our savings ran out I became eligible for in home support services in which I as an unpaid caregiver could be paid a very modest amount (at minimum wage payment) because I was a caregiver. By being an in home CareGiver, I was saving the state a lot more money than it would cost to pay me a small amount every month via in home support services. I told this to all of my creditors, none of them cared. Then reality hit, my state agency that was supposed to help me obtain in home support services instead cast fear into both me and my parent by stating to me on the phone that whatever they paid me, they would file a lien on the home to get back if I outlived my parent. It turns out this application of the law did not apply to me. However the damage was done. I lost 1.75 years of eligibility and probably enough money to pay all of my vendors, and, I would have never had to prolong the default for more than a couple of months if any of my vendors had cared enough to just help me get through the process of applying for in home support services. But because judges have become so vindictive in their approach to credit card defaulters, judges have allowed the credit card companies to become LAZY at solving their own problems internally. Nobody helps, everybody simply self protects their own interests first and foremost.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
7
This is solid foundational advice, however, as I have heard a judge state in court (not to me), "a debt is a debt", and "a default is a default", and, "you probably owe the money". Until INVOLUNTARY defaulters have a way to freeze their debt at the time of the default, with no more interest rate charges, penalties or fees accruing, in my opinion nothing substantive will really change and the global economy creeps closer to the brink. see link. Global Debt Elephant in the Room.
View this comment in the discussion thread
NancyH
8
How are other frivolous lawsuits regulated? There's nothing in place for any of them, unless (often several years down the road) a judge decides to throw them out. This is yet another consequence of the litigious society in which we currently live. I don't have the answers, but it seems that someone in government or law should be able to do something about unscrupulous attorneys who create a claim out of thin air just to make a buck.
View this comment in the discussion thread
grinwithin
9
There should be clear guidelines on what constitutes "irrelevant and frivolous". In my own experience, the CRA's consistently refused to delete trade lines not belonging to me even when I had provided documentation from the original creditor validating the debt was not mine. They falsely claimed they received additional information from the original creditor that superseded the documentation I had. When I circled back to the original creditor, I had learned the debt was sold to a junk debt buyer which leads to a separate issue. If the junk debt buyer is reporting to a credit reporting agency, why are they misrepresenting themselves as the original creditor. Junk Debt buying should be prohibited all together. The original creditors should know their vendors just as the law mandates they know their customers. If the vendor is violating the law on the original creditor's behalf the original creditor should hold responsibility to some extent.
View this comment in the discussion thread
lonjsjr
10
Here's what the federal government laws should mandate how the collection companies and CRAs should investigate disputes(1) All collection actions and reporting actions should stop immediately.(2) The time line should be equal on the consumer,collection company,CRAs reporting period.(3) The original debt owner or collection company that purchase the account, should produce the original copy of the signed contract, court documents, and any verifiable records relating to the dispute.Forward those documents to the disputing party within the set aside timeline.(4) Any and all verification letters would have to state and indicate such findings.(5) Once the dispute could not be verified by,name,social,signed document copy of original agreement, it should be immediately deleted. The collections companies and original debt owners are responsible for the validity of information they get,buy,receive,send or share.So, if they buy good or bad debt they should be held responsible. The number,types,unclear,clear,collections disputes should all be investigated the same
View this comment in the discussion thread