I am responding to the some of the questions posted by the CFPB on this thread, although not all of these responses relate to false and misleading conduct. In general, I think some of these practices could be discouraged by increasing the amount of the statutory penalty, and providing attorney fees and punitive damages under the statute
Q58: Within the past six months, a debt collector revealed my full social security number, full amount of alleged debt, and other personal information to a family member who only gave them my month and day of birth. I did not provide this family member's contact information to the debt collector. The debt collector never identified to whom I owed the debt.
Today (Jan 2014), I was contacted at home by a man with an entity that called itself "Enterprise Litigation." The telephone number was "private caller." The man, who identified himself as "Shawn LeFay," said he was trying to reach a friend of mine. I asked if he was a law firm, and he said no, he was with "a courier service." I then asked if he was a process server, and he hung up on me. He would not give me his address, and I had no number for him. I called my friend about this strange telephone call, and she said she had received a strange voice message to call someone who had something for her. I think this was a debt collector.
I do not know, in either of the above scenarios, how the debt collector obtained the phone number of my family member or why a debt collector called me at home searching for my friend. In neither case was the contact information provided as a credit reference. I suspect the debt collectors are using some type of tracing technology, either by phone or e-mail. I think this because in the case of my friend, for example, who I haven't e-mailed for about two years, I had recently sent and received several e-mails from her.
Q61: Debt collectors must be required to provide the full name of the company they work for, their full name, the full address, and a phone number with a non-800 area code.
Q82: Recorded messages are of no benefit to the collector or the consumer. The recorded message generally leaves an 888 number that is of no use to the consumer in even reaching the collector who initially called. The recorded messages function as a form of harassment, and even though the law requires they not leave information regarding the alleged debt, they do.
Q83: Collection calls are harassing in nature, especially as most people do not know they must put a request to cease communication in writing and collectors are reluctant to give the identifying information required. I would ask that such recorded messages be barred, especially since they are already the subject of extensive abuse by collectors.
Q85: I have caller id and the only information that appears is an 888 number. There is no other identifying information. If I pick up the phone, I am told to wait for an important message. These robocalls make it impossible to know who is calling me, and I have yet been able to stay on the telephone for the lengthy wait until an agent answers the phone. It is an unproductive and harassing process.
Q86: Debt collectors should absolutely be barred from disguising their identities by altering their phone numbers. This practice is deceptive by nature and confusing to the consumer.
Q89: Consumers should be able to determine the type of communication they receive, if any. This should not be a burden on collectors, as communicating in other forms will likely not reach the consumer at all. Further, by not allowing the consumer to limit contact, the collectors can and do engage in a harassing process of eating up a person's cell phone minutes with useless text messages and robocalls.
Q91: The most productive scenario would be, if the collector is truly attempting to reach a consumer (vs. harass them to death) to obligate them to provide full contact information including a means of contacting the collector that will be answered by a natural person within a certain time period.
Q95: Robocalls should be specified in this section as well as contacting family members or friends. Please note that family members and friends have no way of making these calls stop.
Q97: Yes, a bright-line of one contact a month. Given that most debts are uncollected due to financial issues, it would take a consumer at least a month to be in a better financial position. I would not distinguish between place (home v. work). I would encourage you to keep the new rules as clear as possible with as many exception as possible limited.
Q98: Predictive calling needs to be banned outright. I can only tell you from my experience no one is ever on the line. I have tried to call the numbers back from my caller id, and it is a non-working number for incoming calls. The ban will be violated, but it will function to deter some abuse.
Q99: Yes, it needs to be more stringent. Debt collectors are a type of telemarketer, but I know no telemarketer that would not answer the telephone. If someone is on the "do not call" telemarketing list, they should also be in the "do not call" debt collection list.
Q112: I think it should be an unfair practice for a law firm or lawyer to engage in debt collection. Many consumers receive letters containing statements about their credit sent under the name of a law firm/lawyer. They presume the information is correct, even though the law firm/lawyer will have a caveat that they have not determined the validity of the statement they have just said.
A friend of mine receive a letter from a lawyer claiming his house would be immediately sold at auction if he did not pay his past due debt (the rent for living in his house after he was foreclosed upon) immediately. We went down to court to see if his house was up for auction. I told him it could not be true, but he was so scared he relied on the lawyer's statement anyway.
It is an unfair practice because of the disparity in power and knowledge between the average consumer and the lawyer/law firm. I have also seen the greatest abuses of the law coming from lawyers/law firms, apparently because they believe they can get away with it, which they do.
For example, a collection law firm in Ohio sued in the name of a dummy corporation (which was not registered in the state in which the law firm said it was registered). It filed scores of complaints in municipal court and probably received many default judgments against consumers based upon nothing more than computer printouts and the lawyer's signature on the complaint. It is a numbers games for the law firm collectors, and again, the substantiation for the debts were nothing more than computer printouts. Despite the 6th Circuit taking a hard stance on this firm, this law firm is still not vetting the debt complaints it files (in my opinion).
Q117: Yes, presume individual is charged.
Q118: Ban such communications outright. No helpful information is conveyed via text or cell phone. Keep in mind that any ban will be violated, but a ban will help minimize the abuse.
D. Substantiation
Q123-27: Ohio has a good law that the instrument must be attached to complaint. This law is usually enforced by the judges, but only after the complaint has been filed and the defendant-consumer makes the request. For most consumer debts, the law is unhelpful, as the complaint proceeds directly, almost always, to default judgment.
For example, one of my neighbors recently discovered she had a lien on her house for a retail credit card. She is a senior citizen, and she has no way of removing the lien herself -- and was surprised to discover there was such a lien. It disqualified her from several housing programs.
If lawyers/law firms will continue to be able to function as debt collectors (a practice I think should be banned as inherently unfair), I believe the law firm/lawyer should be held to the same standard in debt collection as in any other type of practice of law: they must have the instrument, the original file, and the prior correspondence and phone calls, if any, of the alleged debtor. They must be prepared to engage in meaningful discovery, and they should not be able to hide a multitude of omissions, errors, and sins behind their signature on a complaint.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Dear Mslade,
I have not encountered a situation in which the bill collector is hired by a business for many decades now.
Usually the debt collector has bought the debt, usually for pennies on the dollar, from the original creditor.
I also disagree that the law provides a way for consumers to steal from businesses. If anything, I would say we have become in danger of reverting to the tyranny of Dickens' time, where a person and that person's family, including children, would be imprisoned for debt.
Surely we can agree on reasonableness when it comes to how we treat each other, whether debtor or creditor?
It might help to take a look at how debt collectors are compensated. I think, based upon people I know who have held such work, that collectors who receive their pay based on a commission are incentivized to abuse the consumer.
I do not think the CFPB's mission is to provide job security for the debt collection industry.
Marian
1
I am responding to the some of the questions posted by the CFPB on this thread, although not all of these responses relate to false and misleading conduct. In general, I think some of these practices could be discouraged by increasing the amount of the statutory penalty, and providing attorney fees and punitive damages under the statute Q58: Within the past six months, a debt collector revealed my full social security number, full amount of alleged debt, and other personal information to a family member who only gave them my month and day of birth. I did not provide this family member's contact information to the debt collector. The debt collector never identified to whom I owed the debt. Today (Jan 2014), I was contacted at home by a man with an entity that called itself "Enterprise Litigation." The telephone number was "private caller." The man, who identified himself as "Shawn LeFay," said he was trying to reach a friend of mine. I asked if he was a law firm, and he said no, he was with "a courier service." I then asked if he was a process server, and he hung up on me. He would not give me his address, and I had no number for him. I called my friend about this strange telephone call, and she said she had received a strange voice message to call someone who had something for her. I think this was a debt collector. I do not know, in either of the above scenarios, how the debt collector obtained the phone number of my family member or why a debt collector called me at home searching for my friend. In neither case was the contact information provided as a credit reference. I suspect the debt collectors are using some type of tracing technology, either by phone or e-mail. I think this because in the case of my friend, for example, who I haven't e-mailed for about two years, I had recently sent and received several e-mails from her. Q61: Debt collectors must be required to provide the full name of the company they work for, their full name, the full address, and a phone number with a non-800 area code. Q82: Recorded messages are of no benefit to the collector or the consumer. The recorded message generally leaves an 888 number that is of no use to the consumer in even reaching the collector who initially called. The recorded messages function as a form of harassment, and even though the law requires they not leave information regarding the alleged debt, they do. Q83: Collection calls are harassing in nature, especially as most people do not know they must put a request to cease communication in writing and collectors are reluctant to give the identifying information required. I would ask that such recorded messages be barred, especially since they are already the subject of extensive abuse by collectors. Q85: I have caller id and the only information that appears is an 888 number. There is no other identifying information. If I pick up the phone, I am told to wait for an important message. These robocalls make it impossible to know who is calling me, and I have yet been able to stay on the telephone for the lengthy wait until an agent answers the phone. It is an unproductive and harassing process. Q86: Debt collectors should absolutely be barred from disguising their identities by altering their phone numbers. This practice is deceptive by nature and confusing to the consumer. Q89: Consumers should be able to determine the type of communication they receive, if any. This should not be a burden on collectors, as communicating in other forms will likely not reach the consumer at all. Further, by not allowing the consumer to limit contact, the collectors can and do engage in a harassing process of eating up a person's cell phone minutes with useless text messages and robocalls. Q91: The most productive scenario would be, if the collector is truly attempting to reach a consumer (vs. harass them to death) to obligate them to provide full contact information including a means of contacting the collector that will be answered by a natural person within a certain time period. Q95: Robocalls should be specified in this section as well as contacting family members or friends. Please note that family members and friends have no way of making these calls stop. Q97: Yes, a bright-line of one contact a month. Given that most debts are uncollected due to financial issues, it would take a consumer at least a month to be in a better financial position. I would not distinguish between place (home v. work). I would encourage you to keep the new rules as clear as possible with as many exception as possible limited. Q98: Predictive calling needs to be banned outright. I can only tell you from my experience no one is ever on the line. I have tried to call the numbers back from my caller id, and it is a non-working number for incoming calls. The ban will be violated, but it will function to deter some abuse. Q99: Yes, it needs to be more stringent. Debt collectors are a type of telemarketer, but I know no telemarketer that would not answer the telephone. If someone is on the "do not call" telemarketing list, they should also be in the "do not call" debt collection list. Q112: I think it should be an unfair practice for a law firm or lawyer to engage in debt collection. Many consumers receive letters containing statements about their credit sent under the name of a law firm/lawyer. They presume the information is correct, even though the law firm/lawyer will have a caveat that they have not determined the validity of the statement they have just said. A friend of mine receive a letter from a lawyer claiming his house would be immediately sold at auction if he did not pay his past due debt (the rent for living in his house after he was foreclosed upon) immediately. We went down to court to see if his house was up for auction. I told him it could not be true, but he was so scared he relied on the lawyer's statement anyway. It is an unfair practice because of the disparity in power and knowledge between the average consumer and the lawyer/law firm. I have also seen the greatest abuses of the law coming from lawyers/law firms, apparently because they believe they can get away with it, which they do. For example, a collection law firm in Ohio sued in the name of a dummy corporation (which was not registered in the state in which the law firm said it was registered). It filed scores of complaints in municipal court and probably received many default judgments against consumers based upon nothing more than computer printouts and the lawyer's signature on the complaint. It is a numbers games for the law firm collectors, and again, the substantiation for the debts were nothing more than computer printouts. Despite the 6th Circuit taking a hard stance on this firm, this law firm is still not vetting the debt complaints it files (in my opinion). Q117: Yes, presume individual is charged. Q118: Ban such communications outright. No helpful information is conveyed via text or cell phone. Keep in mind that any ban will be violated, but a ban will help minimize the abuse. D. Substantiation Q123-27: Ohio has a good law that the instrument must be attached to complaint. This law is usually enforced by the judges, but only after the complaint has been filed and the defendant-consumer makes the request. For most consumer debts, the law is unhelpful, as the complaint proceeds directly, almost always, to default judgment. For example, one of my neighbors recently discovered she had a lien on her house for a retail credit card. She is a senior citizen, and she has no way of removing the lien herself -- and was surprised to discover there was such a lien. It disqualified her from several housing programs. If lawyers/law firms will continue to be able to function as debt collectors (a practice I think should be banned as inherently unfair), I believe the law firm/lawyer should be held to the same standard in debt collection as in any other type of practice of law: they must have the instrument, the original file, and the prior correspondence and phone calls, if any, of the alleged debtor. They must be prepared to engage in meaningful discovery, and they should not be able to hide a multitude of omissions, errors, and sins behind their signature on a complaint. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Marian
2
Yes, that just happened to me today, someone called trying to locate a friend saying they were a "courier service."
View this comment in the discussion thread
Marian
3
Dear Mslade, I have not encountered a situation in which the bill collector is hired by a business for many decades now. Usually the debt collector has bought the debt, usually for pennies on the dollar, from the original creditor. I also disagree that the law provides a way for consumers to steal from businesses. If anything, I would say we have become in danger of reverting to the tyranny of Dickens' time, where a person and that person's family, including children, would be imprisoned for debt. Surely we can agree on reasonableness when it comes to how we treat each other, whether debtor or creditor?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Marian
4
It might help to take a look at how debt collectors are compensated. I think, based upon people I know who have held such work, that collectors who receive their pay based on a commission are incentivized to abuse the consumer. I do not think the CFPB's mission is to provide job security for the debt collection industry.
View this comment in the discussion thread