My apologies, I should not have said criminals, I should have said we let those charged with crimes plead Involuntary, but we don't let consumers do the same.
Hi Debt Neutrality Petition, if you have experienced trouble with a local agency, we suggest you consider filing a formal complaint with that particular agency. Thank you for joining the discussion on Regulation Room, and we hope you will continue reading and responding to CFPB's questions and proposals.
Many recommendations are dispute credit report in writing since online is more rushed by the people hired to handle this. No requirement to do it online.
I guess I don't exactly understand the response. I suppose getting the credit report on paper is useful, but online one can actually fix multiple errors and then be notified once the changes have been made.
The first entity I will probably take to small claims court and possibly file a complaint with Kamala Harris. The second incident I started sending faxes messages in big bold letters to the same fax where my prior faxes had been lost, asking other workers to look to see if they had taken the papers by accident. I also faxed overnight warning those who might have access to that room that taking fax documents could lead to their arrest. I did this for several days in a row. It was the only way I could think of to apply a much needed enema to those who have established a routine and can't shake free from it. Of course this assumes that they care.
Sorry for the grammatical errors. I went over my comment above before posting it, not sure how the "I" got left out or how the plural was taken out of another word.
Welcome back, Debt Neutrality Petition. At this stage, CFPB wants information about the kinds of problems consumers face in debt collection. As it moves on to the next stage (coming up with actual proposals for new federal rules), CFPB will consider your concerns about default rules, along with all the other discussion on RegulationRoom. The law about debt defenses and default judgments is a complicated mix of federal and state law, and CFPB doesn’t have authority to regulate absolutely every aspect of debt collection. But, you and other commenters can be sure that CFPB will carefully consider all the ideas and concerns raised in this discussion.
This just in, another article warning about global debt. I believe that this increase is being caused by debt defaults that continue to accrue interest rate charges, penalties and fees. Global Debt Elephant in the room.
Most debt collection litigation actions that collectors file to recover on debts are filed in State and local courts. CFPB is interested in receiving information about the nature and extent of State debt collection litigation reforms relating to rules of procedure and evidence and the process of entering a default judgment. Do you know of any State litigation reform efforts related to your involuntary default suggestion?
My Subservice stories. I found an unsealed envelope in my mail box that had court documents in them. I contacted the debt collection company and asked what was going on since I had not been served.
They claimed a subservice had already been done to someone at my residence. I explained that was probably not likely because I am a Caregiver and I would have been the only one to answer the door and I did not get any service. I had to pay to file a response and was late by one day, andthen had to challenge the default because of the non service. The judge agreed that there had been no valid subservice based on the fact that the service company used the most generic "guess" they could come up with, a women in her mid 30's to late 40's, around 5 foot 4 inches, weight around 130 pounds to 150 pounds. That is about as generic of a description as one could give, and it was completely wrong. because that person did not exist. They even made up a name of someone I had never heard of and when I googled the name, could not find it anywhere on the internet. The second time a false subservice happened, a very similar description was given as the first time, and the alleged subservice recipient was identified as "Jane Doe".
I would like to point how dangerous these lies are on another level. I exclusively have been providing CareGiving services for my parents, no one else has. By lying and introducing these lies into a court document, anytime in the future I could be accused of exposing my parents to a person at our residence who never even existed.
I was also somewhat frozen by this level of dishonesty because on the rare occasion when I had to sue someone, I followed the law and had the service performed legally and properly. I just expected the same in return and by not getting it weakens one's ability to respond.
The very last sentence, I left out the word "IF" at the beginning of the sentence. Should read..."If the amount of the debt reverted back to what it was at the time of the default, you can bet citibank would be working hard to work with me".
@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.
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.
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.
In response to the moderator.
Just what does "the promise to pay" actually mean? Where in the adhesion contract does it state that the credit card agreement, an allegedly "unsecured" form of debt, takes priority over every single other occurrence that might happen in a person's life? Are the Philippine hurricane victims or even more recent Tornado victims in the midwest who lost their homes and their streets soon to become "defaulters" who are then subject to ongoing penalties, fees and interest rate charges while also having their credit scores damaged? The point of involuntary default is that an event occurred beyond one's control that has prevented them from making monthly payments of the amount they are required to make. Involuntary Default simply means the defaulter promises to pay back what they owed at the time of the default, and nothing more.
I would suggest that the "promise to pay" tenet is constitutional violation of cruel and inhuman punishment because credit card companies literally lord over their customers without clearly mentioning their Godlike status at the time of the agreement.
The correlation between cigarettes and credit cards are astounding. Isn't it time for a clear warning on credit card products that state the truth?
Warning: Your promise to pay your credit card bill on a monthly basis is more important than any natural disaster or personal tragedy that may occur in your life.
By allowing credit card companies to not place the warning from above in a viewable context to all sign-ups, they gain monetarily while not revealing a basic contract tenet that should be revealed.
Therefore the "promise to pay" has been arranged under a false pretense.
I just want to add that I am not advocating getting out of the debt because of a life changing event. I am advocating that the debt be frozen at the amount it was at the time of the involuntary default and then paid back even if it takes ten years.
The points you make here, along with your other recent comments about a timeframe the consumer establishes in which they can be reached, the one call per week limitation, and a consumer's choice to have the call recorded, all sound like great ideas from the consumer's perspective. Collectors would likely push back on your primary suggestion here as it would require them to keep new databases of information and have trained representatives on hand to override the robo-calls. These are definitely implementable ideas, nonetheless. Do you think there is a way to get collectors on board?
Good idea debt neutrality. But the sad thing is, being in debt is NOT considered a crime -- however, the way the laws are now, and the abuses these collection agencies engage in, you might as well be considered a criminal. I agree. Set up a system where the consumer is on equal footing with the debt collectors.
GMT512. I agree with you that being in debt is not a crime, however, if a debtor defaults on a debt they basically have no rights if they cannot afford an attorney as one will not be provided for them by the state. (Pro Se can easily become a mess as no one will actually help with the paperwork, even state funded pro se agencies are simply paid to show where to get the right papers, not to fill them out.
RHN91362
Because credit card contracts are adhesion contracts, it is up to educated third party observers to make sure the adhesion contract is fair. If a person experiences a dramatic event beyond their control that reduces their income, it seems questionable to not allow the debtor the right to suspend the interest rate charges, penalties and fees until they have regained their income. They are still promising to pay, but since their life has been turned upside down by an event beyond their control, that should have standing in some cases. It just doesn't seem ethical to punish a consumer because their home washes down the river one day, or is burned to the ground by a wild fire, destroyed in an earthquake, and so on. It especially does not seem ethical that the credit card companies are allowed to hide how they will punish a consumer if the consumer's intent was always to make their payments and it took an act of God to prevent that from happening. Insurance policies do not cover acts of war, yet our own government allowed the owner of the twin towers to collect on their insurance policy even though 911 was clearly an act of war. I believe there have been polls that show a majority of americans are upset because the 2008 bailouts did not give them any respite of any kind. The "Promise to Pay" says nothing about making that payment every month above and beyond all other situations and scenarios. I believe judges have misinterpreted Promise to Pay and that lawyers like the way it is set up now so they don't want to challenge the obvious holes in credit card adhesion contracts because it could quash their own future income stream.
Debt Neutrality Petition
1
My apologies, I should not have said criminals, I should have said we let those charged with crimes plead Involuntary, but we don't let consumers do the same.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
2
Hi Debt Neutrality Petition, if you have experienced trouble with a local agency, we suggest you consider filing a formal complaint with that particular agency. Thank you for joining the discussion on Regulation Room, and we hope you will continue reading and responding to CFPB's questions and proposals.
View this comment in the discussion thread
CG
3
Many recommendations are dispute credit report in writing since online is more rushed by the people hired to handle this. No requirement to do it online.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
4
I guess I don't exactly understand the response. I suppose getting the credit report on paper is useful, but online one can actually fix multiple errors and then be notified once the changes have been made.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
5
The first entity I will probably take to small claims court and possibly file a complaint with Kamala Harris. The second incident I started sending faxes messages in big bold letters to the same fax where my prior faxes had been lost, asking other workers to look to see if they had taken the papers by accident. I also faxed overnight warning those who might have access to that room that taking fax documents could lead to their arrest. I did this for several days in a row. It was the only way I could think of to apply a much needed enema to those who have established a routine and can't shake free from it. Of course this assumes that they care.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
6
Sorry for the grammatical errors. I went over my comment above before posting it, not sure how the "I" got left out or how the plural was taken out of another word.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
7
Welcome back, Debt Neutrality Petition. At this stage, CFPB wants information about the kinds of problems consumers face in debt collection. As it moves on to the next stage (coming up with actual proposals for new federal rules), CFPB will consider your concerns about default rules, along with all the other discussion on RegulationRoom. The law about debt defenses and default judgments is a complicated mix of federal and state law, and CFPB doesn’t have authority to regulate absolutely every aspect of debt collection. But, you and other commenters can be sure that CFPB will carefully consider all the ideas and concerns raised in this discussion.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
8
and if you remain skeptical, please check out this article by a completely independent source about global debt. Global Debt Elephant in the Room.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
9
This just in, another article warning about global debt. I believe that this increase is being caused by debt defaults that continue to accrue interest rate charges, penalties and fees. Global Debt Elephant in the room.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
10
Most debt collection litigation actions that collectors file to recover on debts are filed in State and local courts. CFPB is interested in receiving information about the nature and extent of State debt collection litigation reforms relating to rules of procedure and evidence and the process of entering a default judgment. Do you know of any State litigation reform efforts related to your involuntary default suggestion?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
11
Thank you for sharing your story. Could you elaborate on your two experiences in which you were subserved by a collection agency?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
12
My Subservice stories. I found an unsealed envelope in my mail box that had court documents in them. I contacted the debt collection company and asked what was going on since I had not been served. They claimed a subservice had already been done to someone at my residence. I explained that was probably not likely because I am a Caregiver and I would have been the only one to answer the door and I did not get any service. I had to pay to file a response and was late by one day, andthen had to challenge the default because of the non service. The judge agreed that there had been no valid subservice based on the fact that the service company used the most generic "guess" they could come up with, a women in her mid 30's to late 40's, around 5 foot 4 inches, weight around 130 pounds to 150 pounds. That is about as generic of a description as one could give, and it was completely wrong. because that person did not exist. They even made up a name of someone I had never heard of and when I googled the name, could not find it anywhere on the internet. The second time a false subservice happened, a very similar description was given as the first time, and the alleged subservice recipient was identified as "Jane Doe". I would like to point how dangerous these lies are on another level. I exclusively have been providing CareGiving services for my parents, no one else has. By lying and introducing these lies into a court document, anytime in the future I could be accused of exposing my parents to a person at our residence who never even existed. I was also somewhat frozen by this level of dishonesty because on the rare occasion when I had to sue someone, I followed the law and had the service performed legally and properly. I just expected the same in return and by not getting it weakens one's ability to respond.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
13
The very last sentence, I left out the word "IF" at the beginning of the sentence. Should read..."If the amount of the debt reverted back to what it was at the time of the default, you can bet citibank would be working hard to work with me".
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
14
@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
15
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
16
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
Debt Neutrality Petition
17
In response to the moderator. Just what does "the promise to pay" actually mean? Where in the adhesion contract does it state that the credit card agreement, an allegedly "unsecured" form of debt, takes priority over every single other occurrence that might happen in a person's life? Are the Philippine hurricane victims or even more recent Tornado victims in the midwest who lost their homes and their streets soon to become "defaulters" who are then subject to ongoing penalties, fees and interest rate charges while also having their credit scores damaged? The point of involuntary default is that an event occurred beyond one's control that has prevented them from making monthly payments of the amount they are required to make. Involuntary Default simply means the defaulter promises to pay back what they owed at the time of the default, and nothing more. I would suggest that the "promise to pay" tenet is constitutional violation of cruel and inhuman punishment because credit card companies literally lord over their customers without clearly mentioning their Godlike status at the time of the agreement. The correlation between cigarettes and credit cards are astounding. Isn't it time for a clear warning on credit card products that state the truth? Warning: Your promise to pay your credit card bill on a monthly basis is more important than any natural disaster or personal tragedy that may occur in your life. By allowing credit card companies to not place the warning from above in a viewable context to all sign-ups, they gain monetarily while not revealing a basic contract tenet that should be revealed. Therefore the "promise to pay" has been arranged under a false pretense.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
18
I just want to add that I am not advocating getting out of the debt because of a life changing event. I am advocating that the debt be frozen at the amount it was at the time of the involuntary default and then paid back even if it takes ten years.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
19
The points you make here, along with your other recent comments about a timeframe the consumer establishes in which they can be reached, the one call per week limitation, and a consumer's choice to have the call recorded, all sound like great ideas from the consumer's perspective. Collectors would likely push back on your primary suggestion here as it would require them to keep new databases of information and have trained representatives on hand to override the robo-calls. These are definitely implementable ideas, nonetheless. Do you think there is a way to get collectors on board?
View this comment in the discussion thread
gmt512
20
Good idea debt neutrality. But the sad thing is, being in debt is NOT considered a crime -- however, the way the laws are now, and the abuses these collection agencies engage in, you might as well be considered a criminal. I agree. Set up a system where the consumer is on equal footing with the debt collectors.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
21
GMT512. I agree with you that being in debt is not a crime, however, if a debtor defaults on a debt they basically have no rights if they cannot afford an attorney as one will not be provided for them by the state. (Pro Se can easily become a mess as no one will actually help with the paperwork, even state funded pro se agencies are simply paid to show where to get the right papers, not to fill them out.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
22
RHN91362 Because credit card contracts are adhesion contracts, it is up to educated third party observers to make sure the adhesion contract is fair. If a person experiences a dramatic event beyond their control that reduces their income, it seems questionable to not allow the debtor the right to suspend the interest rate charges, penalties and fees until they have regained their income. They are still promising to pay, but since their life has been turned upside down by an event beyond their control, that should have standing in some cases. It just doesn't seem ethical to punish a consumer because their home washes down the river one day, or is burned to the ground by a wild fire, destroyed in an earthquake, and so on. It especially does not seem ethical that the credit card companies are allowed to hide how they will punish a consumer if the consumer's intent was always to make their payments and it took an act of God to prevent that from happening. Insurance policies do not cover acts of war, yet our own government allowed the owner of the twin towers to collect on their insurance policy even though 911 was clearly an act of war. I believe there have been polls that show a majority of americans are upset because the 2008 bailouts did not give them any respite of any kind. The "Promise to Pay" says nothing about making that payment every month above and beyond all other situations and scenarios. I believe judges have misinterpreted Promise to Pay and that lawyers like the way it is set up now so they don't want to challenge the obvious holes in credit card adhesion contracts because it could quash their own future income stream.
View this comment in the discussion thread