Input: The FDCPA needs to be brought into current times. It is more efficient and effective for collectors for sure. It is the preferred method of communication for consumers without a doubt. Most would certainly rather get an email or text, rather than a phone call. Regular mail is inefficient and becoming more expensive every year and often ignored. It benefits everyone to update to allow using modern technology to communicate with each other. Social networking is can should be used for locating only. I don' t believe that communications through social networking is in the best interest for any of the parties involved.

The FDCPA needs to be brought into current times.

Social networking is can should be used for locating only.

It is more efficient and effective for collectors for sure.

It is the preferred method of communication for consumers without a doubt.

Most would certainly rather get an email or text, rather than a phone call.

Regular mail is inefficient and becoming more expensive every year and often ignored.

It benefits everyone to update to allow using modern technology to communicate with each other.

I don' t believe that communications through social networking is in the best interest for any of the parties involved.

The FDCPA needs to be brought into current times.

It is more efficient and effective for collectors for sure.

The FDCPA needs to be brought into current times.

It is the preferred method of communication for consumers without a doubt.

The FDCPA needs to be brought into current times.

Most would certainly rather get an email or text, rather than a phone call.

The FDCPA needs to be brought into current times.

Regular mail is inefficient and becoming more expensive every year and often ignored.

The FDCPA needs to be brought into current times.

It benefits everyone to update to allow using modern technology to communicate with each other.

It is the preferred method of communication for consumers without a doubt.

Most would certainly rather get an email or text, rather than a phone call.

Most would certainly rather get an email or text, rather than a phone call.

Regular mail is inefficient and becoming more expensive every year and often ignored.

Social networking is can should be used for locating only.

I don' t believe that communications through social networking is in the best interest for any of the parties involved.


Input: When the first collection agency can' t collect they sell the debt to 2nd tier collectors. They sometimes sell it to 3rd tier collectors. My experience in helping resolve collection disputes is sometimes the first collector and always the third collectors do not provide debt validation letters.

When the first collection agency can' t collect they sell the debt to 2nd tier collectors.

They sometimes sell it to 3rd tier collectors.

My experience in helping resolve collection disputes is sometimes the first collector and always the third collectors do not provide debt validation letters.


Input: Consumers who ask for validation should receive just that: a validation that the agency has verified the balance due has some basis as alleged. Too often consumers categorize this process as requiring " proof " as taxguy does. This is not the function of the validation process. " Proof " is something that will occur in court (or not). No document will be enough " proof " for many consumers. That is why the court system exists.

Consumers who ask for validation should receive just that: a validation that the agency has verified the balance due has some basis as alleged.

Too often consumers categorize this process as requiring " proof " as taxguy does.

This is not the function of the validation process.

" Proof " is something that will occur in court (or not).

No document will be enough " proof " for many consumers.

That is why the court system exists.

Consumers who ask for validation should receive just that: a validation that the agency has verified the balance due has some basis as alleged.

Too often consumers categorize this process as requiring " proof " as taxguy does.

This is not the function of the validation process.

" Proof " is something that will occur in court (or not).

That is why the court system exists.

No document will be enough " proof " for many consumers.


Input: FDCPA 805 (a) (1) is routinely violated by at least two large banks--Citicards and Wells Fargo. Both have called before 9 AM and after 8 PM. I live in the Central Time Zone and no matter where these banks are based, they ignore that and call early and late. The mailing address should take priority and it should not matter whether the collector is based in Portland, Oregon or Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, if it' s 8 AM in Chicago, they should not be calling.

FDCPA 805 (a) (1) is routinely violated by at least two large banks--Citicards and Wells Fargo.

Both have called before 9 AM and after 8 PM.

I live in the Central Time Zone

and no matter where these banks are based, they ignore that and call early and late.

The mailing address should take priority

and it should not matter whether the collector is based in Portland, Oregon or Ft. Lauderdale, Florida,

if it' s 8 AM in Chicago, they should not be calling.

FDCPA 805 (a) (1) is routinely violated by at least two large banks--Citicards and Wells Fargo.

Both have called before 9 AM and after 8 PM.

FDCPA 805 (a) (1) is routinely violated by at least two large banks--Citicards and Wells Fargo.

I live in the Central Time Zone

FDCPA 805 (a) (1) is routinely violated by at least two large banks--Citicards and Wells Fargo.

and no matter where these banks are based, they ignore that and call early and late.

and it should not matter whether the collector is based in Portland, Oregon or Ft. Lauderdale, Florida,

if it' s 8 AM in Chicago, they should not be calling.


Input: Patience is the number one option. Agree to contact the credit card company and have the debt reduced to what it was at the time of default. Agree to even a 5 dollar monthly autopay with the promise that eventually it will be increased. Then report the account in good standing to the credit bureaus as long as those five dollar payments come in.

Patience is the number one option.

Agree to contact the credit card company and have the debt reduced to what it was at the time of default.

Agree to even a 5 dollar monthly autopay with the promise that eventually it will be increased.

Then report the account in good standing to the credit bureaus as long as those five dollar payments come in.


Input: Bonzarel. while I think your idea is a good one, it could open the floodgates to interest rate padding the debt until it reaches one of the " floors " that you are suggesting. 30% interest rate charges, penalties and fees (which in turn also get hit with a 30% interest rate charge), can accelerate even a 500 dollar debt into the thousands in less than 24 months time.

Bonzarel. while I think your idea is a good one,

it could open the floodgates to interest rate padding the debt until it reaches one of the " floors " that you are suggesting.

30% interest rate charges, penalties and fees (which in turn also get hit with a 30% interest rate charge), can accelerate even a 500 dollar debt into the thousands in less than 24 months time.

it could open the floodgates to interest rate padding the debt until it reaches one of the " floors " that you are suggesting.

30% interest rate charges, penalties and fees (which in turn also get hit with a 30% interest rate charge), can accelerate even a 500 dollar debt into the thousands in less than 24 months time.


Input: There is now a class of " consumer representatives " which obtains from debtors a signed " Power of Attorney " and who then claim to be authorized to act as the consumer' s attorney for purposes of debt resolution. They routinely seek to avoid the debt, most commonly by not answering their phones. My current practice is to advise the relevant state bar of the unauthorized practice of law by these jokers; perhaps a clarification statement that such persons must be licensed to practice law in the state in which the debt is being collected would cut down on the confusion.

There is now a class of " consumer representatives " which obtains from debtors a signed " Power of Attorney " and who then claim to be authorized to act as the consumer' s attorney for purposes of debt resolution.

They routinely seek to avoid the debt, most commonly by not answering their phones.

perhaps a clarification statement that such persons must be licensed to practice law in the state in which the debt is being collected would cut down on the confusion.

My current practice is to advise the relevant state bar of the unauthorized practice of law by these jokers;


Input: In fact, it is a gross distortion of the law for the CFPB to claim that suit on a debt outside of the statute of limitations period is per se unfair, deceptive or misleading. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and most state civil rules), the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded by the defendant; if it is not, the defense is considered to have been waived. The purpose of the defense is to enable a party to avoid being disadvantaged by the long delay, loss of evidentiary documents, memory fading, etc.; if the debtor doesn' t claim that they are disadvantaged by the delay, then the delay clearly isn' t so long as to preclude a vigorous defense.

In fact, it is a gross distortion of the law for the CFPB to claim that suit on a debt outside of the statute of limitations period is per se unfair, deceptive or misleading.

The purpose of the defense is to enable a party to avoid being disadvantaged by the long delay, loss of evidentiary documents, memory fading, etc.;

if the debtor doesn' t claim that they are disadvantaged by the delay, then the delay clearly isn' t so long as to preclude a vigorous defense.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and most state civil rules), the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded by the defendant;

if it is not, the defense is considered to have been waived.

In fact, it is a gross distortion of the law for the CFPB to claim that suit on a debt outside of the statute of limitations period is per se unfair, deceptive or misleading.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and most state civil rules), the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded by the defendant;

In fact, it is a gross distortion of the law for the CFPB to claim that suit on a debt outside of the statute of limitations period is per se unfair, deceptive or misleading.

if it is not, the defense is considered to have been waived.


Input: I am sure many judges would disagree with you. Courtrooms are not a playground. And judges do not like it when plaintiffs waste their time by filling frivolous lawsuits that do not have proof.

I am sure many judges would disagree with you.

Courtrooms are not a playground.

And judges do not like it when plaintiffs waste their time by filling frivolous lawsuits that do not have proof.

I am sure many judges would disagree with you.

Courtrooms are not a playground.

And judges do not like it when plaintiffs waste their time by filling frivolous lawsuits that do not have proof.

Courtrooms are not a playground.


Input: what kind of consumer contacts do debt collectors... disputing the debt. That presumes they actually follow the law and do a validation investigation. That is wrong, they do not. I sent a letter to a company claiming I owed a debt and I was clear I was disputing the debt. A clear, declaratory sentence. I mailed it to the address listed. There was NO PERSON who signed this letter to me. I had to send it to To Whom It Concerned. But it was clear I was disputing the debt. I did so within two weeks, well within the 30 days. Yet they did nothing but wait 30 days and send me a letter saying " here is the info you requested. " It contained nothing I recognized. You are presuming they are actually validating. This is the biggest mistake. They do none of that. Any rule that defines what qualifies as a dispute would help. The clearer, the better. The vagueness now has led to abuses. Such as " frivolous and irrelevant " disputes. That is a license to abuse consumers.

what kind of consumer contacts do debt collectors... disputing the debt.

That presumes they actually follow the law and do a validation investigation.

That is wrong,

they do not.

and I was clear I was disputing the debt. A clear, declaratory sentence.

But it was clear I was disputing the debt.

You are presuming they are actually validating.

This is the biggest mistake.

They do none of that.

Any rule that defines what qualifies as a dispute would help. The clearer, the better.

The vagueness now has led to abuses. Such as " frivolous and irrelevant " disputes.

That is a license to abuse consumers.

I sent a letter to a company claiming I owed a debt

I mailed it to the address listed.

There was NO PERSON who signed this letter to me.

I had to send it to To Whom It Concerned.

I did so within two weeks, well within the 30 days.

Yet they did nothing but wait 30 days and send me a letter saying " here is the info you requested. "

It contained nothing I recognized.

That is wrong,

they do not.

they do not.

I sent a letter to a company claiming I owed a debt

they do not.

and I was clear I was disputing the debt. A clear, declaratory sentence.

they do not.

I mailed it to the address listed.

they do not.

There was NO PERSON who signed this letter to me.

they do not.

I had to send it to To Whom It Concerned.

they do not.

But it was clear I was disputing the debt.

they do not.

I did so within two weeks, well within the 30 days.

they do not.

Yet they did nothing but wait 30 days and send me a letter saying " here is the info you requested. "

they do not.

It contained nothing I recognized.

This is the biggest mistake.

They do none of that.

Any rule that defines what qualifies as a dispute would help. The clearer, the better.

The vagueness now has led to abuses. Such as " frivolous and irrelevant " disputes.

The vagueness now has led to abuses. Such as " frivolous and irrelevant " disputes.

That is a license to abuse consumers.


Input: Clear communication helps everyone, not just consumers. I think debt collectors when trying to collect just send bills, and everyone knows what a bill is. But when they devolve into harassment, they blur the lines between trying to collect debt within the law and behaving in misleading and abusive ways toward consumers. TRuly, the robot calling, the letters, they have money enough for this. If they communicated clearly up front, they would save more money. The post office is still a good deal, not an expensive way to communicate. You are missing the boat on the problem, though. It is not the costs or whether they should communicate. Most of these companies hire people who are barely literate, poorly trained and certainly uninformed--wait, UNINFORMED--about the laws that already exist regarding debt collection. That is a huge problem when trying to get information from an employee who doesn' t know the law requires him/her to provide certain information. This has come about from decades of lack of oversight, in my opinion. Lack of oversight, lack of clear rules and lack of enforcement. So, if they don' t have to worry about following the law, they hire whoever they can cheap and don' t bother to train them. This is why there are so many of these companies and after some of them do get in trouble, they just change their name and keep on doing the same law-breaking habits.

Clear communication helps everyone, not just consumers.

I think debt collectors when trying to collect just send bills,

and everyone knows what a bill is.

But when they devolve into harassment, they blur the lines between trying to collect debt within the law and behaving in misleading and abusive ways toward consumers.

TRuly, the robot calling, the letters, they have money enough for this.

If they communicated clearly up front, they would save more money.

The post office is still a good deal,

not an expensive way to communicate.

You are missing the boat on the problem, though.

It is not the costs or whether they should communicate.

Most of these companies hire people who are barely literate, poorly trained and certainly uninformed--wait, UNINFORMED--about the laws that already exist regarding debt collection.

That is a huge problem when trying to get information from an employee who doesn' t know the law requires him/her to provide certain information.

This has come about from decades of lack of oversight, in my opinion.

Lack of oversight, lack of clear rules and lack of enforcement.

So, if they don' t have to worry about following the law, they hire whoever they can cheap and don' t bother to train them.

This is why there are so many of these companies

and after some of them do get in trouble, they just change their name and keep on doing the same law-breaking habits.

The post office is still a good deal,

not an expensive way to communicate.

You are missing the boat on the problem, though.

It is not the costs or whether they should communicate.

It is not the costs or whether they should communicate.

Most of these companies hire people who are barely literate, poorly trained and certainly uninformed--wait, UNINFORMED--about the laws that already exist regarding debt collection.

This is why there are so many of these companies

So, if they don' t have to worry about following the law, they hire whoever they can cheap and don' t bother to train them.


Input: No matter how you slice this conversation, phone calls are the biggest abuse. You can have rules and do about the time, but they are ignored. Until you or the FTC creates rules that fine these people--and not put the burden on the consumer to sue--this abuse will go on. I have to laugh at these querstions. You have to be putting me on. The most abusive things debt collectors do are with their phones. They block their numbers still. They use various numbers they mislead their identities. THE PROBLEM is the onus is on the hapless consumer to get legal redress. Not good enough. You need to create fines and actually impose them. That will stop this phone abuse. They call at work, always wkill have some excuse. and call after hours. Be honest, this is an outrage what these companies have done, and nobody has minded the store on them. Never should the onus be on the consumer to get this to stop. You have to find a lawyer who thinks a whopping $1, 000 is worth suing over. You have rigged this system in favor of the sharks., and that is why these sleazy companies have proliferated and have grown more and more egregious in their actions. no more recorded calls. call from one number as soon as someone says stop calling, STOP. if there is any call beyond that, they get fined. Agreed, people will have to write a letter because none of these companies will admit they were told to stop calling. But they do receive the letters, which should go to a physical address and to a person, not just a vague company name. Last, stop allowing these bad companies to change their names. They get in trouble, they change their names, and go on doing terrible things under another name. Just look online at some of these companies and how many names they' ve gone through. The reason this got so bad is nobody has been looking out for the consumer.

No matter how you slice this conversation, phone calls are the biggest abuse.

You can have rules and do about the time,

but they are ignored.

Until you or the FTC creates rules that fine these people--and not put the burden on the consumer to sue--this abuse will go on.

I have to laugh at these querstions.

You have to be putting me on.

The most abusive things debt collectors do are with their phones.

they mislead their identities.

THE PROBLEM is the onus is on the hapless consumer to get legal redress.

Not good enough.

That will stop this phone abuse.

Be honest, this is an outrage what these companies have done,

and nobody has minded the store on them.

You have rigged this system in favor of the sharks.,

and that is why these sleazy companies have proliferated and have grown more and more egregious in their actions.

Agreed, people will have to write a letter

because none of these companies will admit they were told to stop calling.

But they do receive the letters,

They get in trouble, they change their names, and go on doing terrible things under another name.

The reason this got so bad is nobody has been looking out for the consumer.

They block their numbers still.

They use various numbers

They call at work, always wkill have some excuse.

and call after hours.

You need to create fines and actually impose them.

Never should the onus be on the consumer to get this to stop.

You have to find a lawyer who thinks a whopping $1, 000 is worth suing over.

no more recorded calls.

call from one number

as soon as someone says stop calling, STOP.

if there is any call beyond that, they get fined.

which should go to a physical address and to a person, not just a vague company name.

Last, stop allowing these bad companies to change their names.

Just look online at some of these companies and how many names they' ve gone through.

No matter how you slice this conversation, phone calls are the biggest abuse.

You can have rules and do about the time,

No matter how you slice this conversation, phone calls are the biggest abuse.

but they are ignored.

You need to create fines and actually impose them.

That will stop this phone abuse.

You have to find a lawyer who thinks a whopping $1, 000 is worth suing over.

Never should the onus be on the consumer to get this to stop.

and that is why these sleazy companies have proliferated and have grown more and more egregious in their actions.

You have rigged this system in favor of the sharks.,

Agreed, people will have to write a letter

because none of these companies will admit they were told to stop calling.

Last, stop allowing these bad companies to change their names.

They get in trouble, they change their names, and go on doing terrible things under another name.


Input: Why should the consumer pay a filing fee at all if the collector is at fault? That could be a hardship on many people. The collection agencies need to follow the rules of doing their validation correctly, and this would not be an issue.

Why should the consumer pay a filing fee at all if the collector is at fault?

The collection agencies need to follow the rules of doing their validation correctly,

That could be a hardship on many people.

and this would not be an issue.

Why should the consumer pay a filing fee at all if the collector is at fault?

That could be a hardship on many people.

The collection agencies need to follow the rules of doing their validation correctly,

and this would not be an issue.


Input: This is a violation of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) and can be corrected quickly by the credit reporting agency. If the credit reporting agency refuses, there are many Consumer Protection Attorneys that would happily take this case on contingency. This type of violation normally never sees the inside of a court room. A letter from a well known CP Attorney will likely get awards and the prompt correction of the credit report.

This is a violation of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) and can be corrected quickly by the credit reporting agency.

This type of violation normally never sees the inside of a court room.

If the credit reporting agency refuses, there are many Consumer Protection Attorneys that would happily take this case on contingency.

A letter from a well known CP Attorney will likely get awards and the prompt correction of the credit report.

This type of violation normally never sees the inside of a court room.

A letter from a well known CP Attorney will likely get awards and the prompt correction of the credit report.


Input: Email communication is a huge advantage for all involved parties. Emails provide consumers with much better tools to control how they are being contacted. First, if treating emails as " in writing " (as they should), disputing a debt or demanding that collectors cease communication is much easier. Second, setting rules to hide collection notices is a powerful tool not available in any other communication medium. 3rd party disclosure is therefore a lesser concern. Third, email delivery is fast, and facilitates an efficient process, where less communications can be made to reach a settlement. Everything is in writing. Fourth, email is significantly less confrontational than phone calls and causes much less stress to recipients. Fifth, email is better than recording in keeping record of communication, making it even harder for collectors to hide acts of non compliance. Email should be allowed, while keeping the sensitive parts of the message (disclosures, personal details etc) hidden-as an attachment or as a link that is part of an email. Yes, email is more cost efficient to collectors which is why using email should be conditional on collectors not charging the debtors any fees for their payments. The added profitability should be shares with the consumer.

Email communication is a huge advantage for all involved parties.

Emails provide consumers with much better tools to control how they are being contacted.

First, if treating emails as " in writing " (as they should), disputing a debt or demanding that collectors cease communication is much easier.

3rd party disclosure is therefore a lesser concern.

Third, email delivery is fast, and facilitates an efficient process, where less communications can be made to reach a settlement.

Fourth, email is significantly less confrontational than phone calls

and causes much less stress to recipients.

Fifth, email is better than recording in keeping record of communication,

making it even harder for collectors to hide acts of non compliance.

Yes, email is more cost efficient to collectors

Second, setting rules to hide collection notices is a powerful tool not available in any other communication medium.

Everything is in writing.

Email should be allowed, while keeping the sensitive parts of the message (disclosures, personal details etc) hidden-as an attachment or as a link that is part of an email.

which is why using email should be conditional on collectors not charging the debtors any fees for their payments.

The added profitability should be shares with the consumer.

Email communication is a huge advantage for all involved parties.

Emails provide consumers with much better tools to control how they are being contacted.

Emails provide consumers with much better tools to control how they are being contacted.

Yes, email is more cost efficient to collectors

Emails provide consumers with much better tools to control how they are being contacted.

First, if treating emails as " in writing " (as they should), disputing a debt or demanding that collectors cease communication is much easier.

Emails provide consumers with much better tools to control how they are being contacted.

Second, setting rules to hide collection notices is a powerful tool not available in any other communication medium.

Emails provide consumers with much better tools to control how they are being contacted.

Third, email delivery is fast, and facilitates an efficient process, where less communications can be made to reach a settlement.

Emails provide consumers with much better tools to control how they are being contacted.

and causes much less stress to recipients.

Emails provide consumers with much better tools to control how they are being contacted.

Fifth, email is better than recording in keeping record of communication,

3rd party disclosure is therefore a lesser concern.

Second, setting rules to hide collection notices is a powerful tool not available in any other communication medium.

and causes much less stress to recipients.

Fourth, email is significantly less confrontational than phone calls

making it even harder for collectors to hide acts of non compliance.

Fifth, email is better than recording in keeping record of communication,

which is why using email should be conditional on collectors not charging the debtors any fees for their payments.

Yes, email is more cost efficient to collectors


Input: Email rules allows hiding emails and routing them in ways that surpass any other communication method. In addition, since email " sender ID " is easier to demand and maintain, debtors will have an easier time managing what communication they receive, and when. As a result, there is no necessity for forcing specific times of email delivery.

Email rules allows hiding emails and routing them in ways that surpass any other communication method.

In addition, since email " sender ID " is easier to demand and maintain,

debtors will have an easier time managing what communication they receive, and when.

As a result, there is no necessity for forcing specific times of email delivery.

debtors will have an easier time managing what communication they receive, and when.

In addition, since email " sender ID " is easier to demand and maintain,

As a result, there is no necessity for forcing specific times of email delivery.

debtors will have an easier time managing what communication they receive, and when.


Input: I have a creditor who begins calling withing a few days of becoming past due. They are relentless calling up to 10 + times a day. I don' t call them back because once on the phone with them, they hound you until you agree to make a payment or post-date a payment. If I don' t call them within about 15 days of becoming past due, they start calling my relatives and neighbors and say " we' re trying to locate xxx-do you know them? ". When they answer yes, they ask them to deliver a message to me (phone number and name). I' ve been told this is not illegal since they are using public information and not revealing who they are or what the call is in relation to, but this tactic is shameful. We are making an honest effort to get current and stay current, but when my neighbor hands me a piece of paper with a note on it, I feel pretty powerless. This is both harassment and abuse in my opinion and it should be addressed.

I have a creditor who begins calling withing a few days of becoming past due.

They are relentless calling up to 10 + times a day.

I don' t call them back

because once on the phone with them, they hound you until you agree to make a payment or post-date a payment.

If I don' t call them within about 15 days of becoming past due, they start calling my relatives and neighbors and say " we' re trying to locate xxx-do you know them? ".

When they answer yes, they ask them to deliver a message to me (phone number and name).

I' ve been told this is not illegal since they are using public information and not revealing who they are or what the call is in relation to,

but this tactic is shameful.

We are making an honest effort to get current and stay current,

but when my neighbor hands me a piece of paper with a note on it, I feel pretty powerless.

This is both harassment and abuse in my opinion

and it should be addressed.

I don' t call them back

because once on the phone with them, they hound you until you agree to make a payment or post-date a payment.

and it should be addressed.

This is both harassment and abuse in my opinion


Input: A dialer does none of the things to which you refer. A human takes a lists of calls that are deemed restricted to any of the criteria that you listed, and loads that list into the computer software that also holds a lists of all calls to be made. Then the list of restricted calls are " scrubbed " out of the automated dialer. This scrubbing process is akin to a human scratching out a phone number with a pen on a paper list. There are no measurable gains in consumer protection to which you refer. Calls are not recorded through the dialer. Dialers work in unison with the recording software. This recording software records manual phone calls just the same.

A dialer does none of the things to which you refer.

A human takes a lists of calls that are deemed restricted to any of the criteria that you listed,

and loads that list into the computer software that also holds a lists of all calls to be made.

Then the list of restricted calls are " scrubbed " out of the automated dialer.

Calls are not recorded through the dialer.

Dialers work in unison with the recording software.

This recording software records manual phone calls just the same.

This scrubbing process is akin to a human scratching out a phone number with a pen on a paper list.

There are no measurable gains in consumer protection to which you refer.


Input: Work email can be handled in a foti-compliant manner, where the email body doesn' t disclose the debt but includes content in a link, that is part of the email but isn' t available for viewing by the administrator. Social media and text messages can be handled the same way.

Work email can be handled in a foti-compliant manner, where the email body doesn' t disclose the debt but includes content in a link, that is part of the email but isn' t available for viewing by the administrator.

Social media and text messages can be handled the same way.


Input: I think they should have to have a license to be debt collectors and at the time they did not. Additionally there should be harassment laws regarding just this matter about landlords as if someone sues you 3Xs for the same thing, they should lose their collections license. I even responded from the very beginning with a certified letter stating that I did not owe any part of the debt! Additionally what did help after almost 20 years was reporting the landlords real estate license for violating business practices in NYS for overcharging rent statements. This certainly got their attention however I still had to retain an attorney for a lawsuit against them and prevailed but then you have to pay the 20% of what you recoup to the attorney. I wish they would just lose their license for harassing you for 20 years. It is disgusting that no one in NYC has done anything about it but then I don' t need to tell you how corrupt everyone there is and that includes the legal system. NYC government and housing system is like dealing with the mob and I say that after having to deal with them aggressively for the past 3 years after being attacked for almost 20

I think they should have to have a license to be debt collectors

I wish they would just lose their license for harassing you for 20 years.

It is disgusting that no one in NYC has done anything about it

but then I don' t need to tell you how corrupt everyone there is and that includes the legal system.

NYC government and housing system is like dealing with the mob

and at the time they did not.

I even responded from the very beginning with a certified letter stating that I did not owe any part of the debt!

Additionally what did help after almost 20 years was reporting the landlords real estate license for violating business practices in NYS for overcharging rent statements.

This certainly got their attention

however I still had to retain an attorney for a lawsuit against them and prevailed

and I say that after having to deal with them aggressively for the past 3 years after being attacked for almost 20

Additionally there should be harassment laws regarding just this matter about landlords

as if someone sues you 3Xs for the same thing, they should lose their collections license.

but then you have to pay the 20% of what you recoup to the attorney.

Additionally there should be harassment laws regarding just this matter about landlords

as if someone sues you 3Xs for the same thing, they should lose their collections license.

NYC government and housing system is like dealing with the mob

and I say that after having to deal with them aggressively for the past 3 years after being attacked for almost 20


Input: With increased and onerous liability for making calls and sending letters to debtors, creditors and debt buyers have had little option but to file suit rather than repeatedly attempt to contact an uncooperative or uncommunicative debtor. Most complaints provide adequate and identifying information about the debt. In my experience, most debtors don' t feel taken advantage of by lawsuits, they simply understand they owe the debt so there is little point in filing an answer or taking time to appear in court. In fact, the vast majority never respond to a Federal Law letter inviting them to dispute the debt. Filing suits and appearing in court is expensive and time consuming for creditors and debt buyer, but there is little alternative, nor should there be as these matters have always been governed appropriately by State law and State judges. and the US is a credit ecomony over 70% of our economy is based on consumer spending which comes mainly from credit extensions and not consumers pay increases), there are simply more defaults, particularly in a Great Recession. Any heavy handed Federal regulation will hamper and restrict credit granting and debt buying, both of which are needed by the economy and the credit industry. While credit grantors should should make their documentation retention systems more accessible and share more documents upon a sale of accounts, a lack of documentation should not hamper State court lawsuits when a debtor offers no dispute so long as the account is adequately identified in a complaint. In Michigan, efforts to " make it more likely that consumers would defend themselves " have fell very flat for the reasons mentioned above. As it has always been, the protections are in place and are used by those debtors that wish to avail themselves of them. Judges are there to listen. However, most debtors (bless them) understand they simply owe the debt.

With increased and onerous liability for making calls and sending letters to debtors, creditors and debt buyers have had little option but to file suit rather than repeatedly attempt to contact an uncooperative or uncommunicative debtor.

Most complaints provide adequate and identifying information about the debt.

In my experience, most debtors don' t feel taken advantage of by lawsuits,

they simply understand they owe the debt

so there is little point in filing an answer or taking time to appear in court.

but there is little alternative,

as these matters have always been governed appropriately by State law and State judges.

and the US is a credit ecomony

there are simply more defaults,

particularly in a Great Recession.

Any heavy handed Federal regulation will hamper and restrict credit granting and debt buying,

both of which are needed by the economy and the credit industry.

In Michigan, efforts to " make it more likely that consumers would defend themselves " have fell very flat for the reasons mentioned above.

As it has always been, the protections are in place and are used by those debtors that wish to avail themselves of them.

Judges are there to listen.

However, most debtors (bless them) understand they simply owe the debt.

In fact, the vast majority never respond to a Federal Law letter inviting them to dispute the debt.

Filing suits and appearing in court is expensive and time consuming for creditors and debt buyer,

over 70% of our economy is based on consumer spending

which comes mainly from credit extensions and not consumers pay increases),

nor should there be

While credit grantors should should make their documentation retention systems more accessible and share more documents upon a sale of accounts,

a lack of documentation should not hamper State court lawsuits when a debtor offers no dispute so long as the account is adequately identified in a complaint.

In my experience, most debtors don' t feel taken advantage of by lawsuits,

they simply understand they owe the debt

so there is little point in filing an answer or taking time to appear in court.

In my experience, most debtors don' t feel taken advantage of by lawsuits,

so there is little point in filing an answer or taking time to appear in court.

they simply understand they owe the debt

In fact, the vast majority never respond to a Federal Law letter inviting them to dispute the debt.

Filing suits and appearing in court is expensive and time consuming for creditors and debt buyer,

nor should there be

as these matters have always been governed appropriately by State law and State judges.

and the US is a credit ecomony

over 70% of our economy is based on consumer spending

and the US is a credit ecomony

which comes mainly from credit extensions and not consumers pay increases),


Input: When we did it, it was agreed that any 3rd party communication outside SOL at any point was a potential violation of the FDCPA. Since 3rd party debt collectors are required to be truthful at all times, they cannot say' we are attempting to collect a debt' if they are time-barred from collecting the debt. We were the meanest, nastiest, most aggressive in the multi-state area at that time, and this was the stance. Suggestion is clarify that time-barred debts are time-barred for the 3rd party as well, and cannot be collected, attempted to be collected, or bought/sold.

When we did it, it was agreed that any 3rd party communication outside SOL at any point was a potential violation of the FDCPA.

and this was the stance.

Since 3rd party debt collectors are required to be truthful at all times,

they cannot say' we are attempting to collect a debt' if they are time-barred from collecting the debt.

We were the meanest, nastiest, most aggressive in the multi-state area at that time,

Suggestion is clarify that time-barred debts are time-barred for the 3rd party as well, and cannot be collected, attempted to be collected, or bought/sold.

they cannot say' we are attempting to collect a debt' if they are time-barred from collecting the debt.

Since 3rd party debt collectors are required to be truthful at all times,


Input: A contractor who did work unlicensed was able to file bogus claims against both me and my wife amounting to double the original bid price. there was no court action. I managed to get rid of the debt collector but there seems nothing I could do to stop another contractor doing the same thing. There should be a penalty for the people filing the false debt. The amount in question was almost $10, 000

A contractor who did work unlicensed was able to file bogus claims against both me and my wife amounting to double the original bid price.

there was no court action.

I managed to get rid of the debt collector

The amount in question was almost $10, 000

but there seems nothing I could do to stop another contractor doing the same thing.

There should be a penalty for the people filing the false debt.

There should be a penalty for the people filing the false debt.

I managed to get rid of the debt collector


Input: I do not think that answering 97% of the calls from an automated dialer within two seconds is a solution to my problem. I would like for Mr. Dan to explain exactly what the safeguards of using a robo dialer are. From my perspective as a frequent recipient of robo calls from debt collectors, the problem is a lack of ownership and impersonality of the collection agency when the debt is not assigned to one collector to handle. Years ago when a collector would call me, it would always be the same person. Now it is not. Assign the debt to one collector who would then take full responsibility for making all contacts with the alleged debtor. This could even include acquisition of location information.

I do not think that answering 97% of the calls from an automated dialer within two seconds is a solution to my problem.

I would like for Mr. Dan to explain exactly what the safeguards of using a robo dialer are.

From my perspective as a frequent recipient of robo calls from debt collectors, the problem is a lack of ownership and impersonality of the collection agency when the debt is not assigned to one collector to handle.

This could even include acquisition of location information.

Years ago when a collector would call me, it would always be the same person.

Now it is not.

Assign the debt to one collector who would then take full responsibility for making all contacts with the alleged debtor.

I do not think that answering 97% of the calls from an automated dialer within two seconds is a solution to my problem.

From my perspective as a frequent recipient of robo calls from debt collectors, the problem is a lack of ownership and impersonality of the collection agency when the debt is not assigned to one collector to handle.

Assign the debt to one collector who would then take full responsibility for making all contacts with the alleged debtor.

Years ago when a collector would call me, it would always be the same person.

Assign the debt to one collector who would then take full responsibility for making all contacts with the alleged debtor.

Now it is not.


Input: Verifying the debt by the collector is a must. I had an instance where the bill was sent to wrong address. After 6 months I got a call reg the debt. They mentioned only the amount and the service provider. when service provider was contacted they said already it is on collection and we' re not helpful. i asked them to send the Bill to pay it off. Only more calls from collector started. After almost 6/7 requests to the collector the bill detail was sent. On verification with my bank statement I found out that the amount had been paid. When confronted both the collector and service provider did not bother to apologize for the mistake. It is a case of non verification.

Verifying the debt by the collector is a must.

I had an instance where the bill was sent to wrong address.

After 6 months I got a call reg the debt.

They mentioned only the amount and the service provider.

when service provider was contacted they said already it is on collection and we' re not helpful.

i asked them to send the Bill to pay it off.

Only more calls from collector started.

After almost 6/7 requests to the collector the bill detail was sent.

On verification with my bank statement I found out that the amount had been paid.

When confronted both the collector and service provider did not bother to apologize for the mistake.

It is a case of non verification.

Verifying the debt by the collector is a must.

I had an instance where the bill was sent to wrong address.

Verifying the debt by the collector is a must.

After 6 months I got a call reg the debt.

Verifying the debt by the collector is a must.

They mentioned only the amount and the service provider.

Verifying the debt by the collector is a must.

when service provider was contacted they said already it is on collection and we' re not helpful.

Verifying the debt by the collector is a must.

i asked them to send the Bill to pay it off.

Verifying the debt by the collector is a must.

Only more calls from collector started.

Verifying the debt by the collector is a must.

After almost 6/7 requests to the collector the bill detail was sent.

Verifying the debt by the collector is a must.

On verification with my bank statement I found out that the amount had been paid.

Verifying the debt by the collector is a must.

When confronted both the collector and service provider did not bother to apologize for the mistake.

Verifying the debt by the collector is a must.

It is a case of non verification.


Input: Keep in mind that there are businesses or entities that allow people to receive credit for things they do not have money for at the moment. The business or entity, in good faith, extends credit to the consumer with the intent to receive payment at a later date. The business or entity was provided contact information by the consumer that it will use to collect or pass along to a collection agency to use to collect. The consumer can list whatever numbers or information they want and the business or entity must consider it to be truthful. Often the only way to determine if the information is accurate is to make a phone call. I' ve received these calls myself. Depending on how much debt and how many business or entities have extended credit may be a factor on how often third parties are contacted. I do believe that collection agencies that violate the law are not good for anyone. However, I pay my bills and would expect that everyone should be responsible for paying their bills. Much of the discussion has nothing to do with weather the bill is owed but how the contact was made. Have you been harmed by a phone call? No Has the business or entity been harmed by the debt not being paid? Yes Have those of us that due pay our bills been harmed by the outstanding debt? Yes

Keep in mind that there are businesses or entities that allow people to receive credit for things they do not have money for at the moment.

The business or entity, in good faith, extends credit to the consumer with the intent to receive payment at a later date.

The business or entity was provided contact information by the consumer that it will use to collect or pass along to a collection agency to use to collect.

The consumer can list whatever numbers or information they want

and the business or entity must consider it to be truthful.

Often the only way to determine if the information is accurate is to make a phone call.

Depending on how much debt and how many business or entities have extended credit may be a factor on how often third parties are contacted.

I do believe that collection agencies that violate the law are not good for anyone.

and would expect that everyone should be responsible for paying their bills.

Much of the discussion has nothing to do with weather the bill is owed but how the contact was made.

I' ve received these calls myself.

However, I pay my bills

Keep in mind that there are businesses or entities that allow people to receive credit for things they do not have money for at the moment.

The business or entity, in good faith, extends credit to the consumer with the intent to receive payment at a later date.


Input: I have had my cell phone number for 4 1/2 years; the previous owner of my number had a student loan debt.... I cannot get collection agencies to stop calling me! Every time I emphatically tell them I' m not the person in question and the person dutifully " takes me off the list ". But in another few months I hear from them (or probably a collector who bought the list) all over again. I' m familiar with the FDCPA, but I don' t think it currently provides a practical solution for me.

I have had my cell phone number for 4 1/2 years;

the previous owner of my number had a student loan debt....

I cannot get collection agencies to stop calling me!

Every time I emphatically tell them I' m not the person in question

and the person dutifully " takes me off the list ".

But in another few months I hear from them (or probably a collector who bought the list) all over again.

I' m familiar with the FDCPA,

but I don' t think it currently provides a practical solution for me.

and the person dutifully " takes me off the list ".

Every time I emphatically tell them I' m not the person in question


Input: The current penalty for violating the FDCPA is " not less than $100 and up to $1000. " Further, the violations cannot be " stacked " so those violating the law 10 times on one debt, will generally only face the maximum of a $1000 penalty. Punitive damages are hard to prove. A $1000 penalty is not a deterrent to the debt collection industry, and too low to get most attorney' s interest is taking these cases. If we want to see the law upheld, raise the penalty to $10, 000 per violation and you' ll see most of these characters clean up their act and stop using abusive collection tactics.

The current penalty for violating the FDCPA is " not less than $100 and up to $1000. "

Further, the violations cannot be " stacked "

so those violating the law 10 times on one debt, will generally only face the maximum of a $1000 penalty.

Punitive damages are hard to prove.

A $1000 penalty is not a deterrent to the debt collection industry, and too low to get most attorney' s interest is taking these cases.

and you' ll see most of these characters clean up their act and stop using abusive collection tactics.

If we want to see the law upheld, raise the penalty to $10, 000 per violation

so those violating the law 10 times on one debt, will generally only face the maximum of a $1000 penalty.

Further, the violations cannot be " stacked "

If we want to see the law upheld, raise the penalty to $10, 000 per violation

A $1000 penalty is not a deterrent to the debt collection industry, and too low to get most attorney' s interest is taking these cases.

If we want to see the law upheld, raise the penalty to $10, 000 per violation

and you' ll see most of these characters clean up their act and stop using abusive collection tactics.


Input: The contractor was just able to make up an invoice and send it to the collection agency. At the time legal action was being pursued against the contractor and we then had to deal with collection agencies aswell as a unlicensed contractor. So in answer to your question, I dont think it would have made much difference as it appears that an invoice is sufficient grounds to file a claim

The contractor was just able to make up an invoice and send it to the collection agency.

At the time legal action was being pursued against the contractor

and we then had to deal with collection agencies aswell as a unlicensed contractor.

So in answer to your question, I dont think it would have made much difference

as it appears that an invoice is sufficient grounds to file a claim

So in answer to your question, I dont think it would have made much difference

as it appears that an invoice is sufficient grounds to file a claim

as it appears that an invoice is sufficient grounds to file a claim

The contractor was just able to make up an invoice and send it to the collection agency.

as it appears that an invoice is sufficient grounds to file a claim

At the time legal action was being pursued against the contractor


Input: If you have a standing complaint with a company' s mishandling of your account and/or complaints with any federally recognized oversight bureau, like CFPB, a company should be required to resolve the dispute before prosecuting what they define as a breach of debt. Banks and companies should not be allowed to try to prosecute over " missed " payments that were erroneously processed by them. Especially when evidence has been provided to the contrary and disputes are on file. Continuing to place the burden of proof on the consumer is onerous and prohibitive for many consumers. I personally had a problem with a mortgage company and the amount of my time it took to get the problem resolved was worth 20% of the original principal amount. If a consumer complaint is on file, the company should be burdened with disproving the consumer complaint before prosecuting. They have both the financial and personnel resources to do so, whereas a consumer usually does not. Otherwise, why wouldn' t they continue to bully and defraud consumers to boost bottom line profits?

If you have a standing complaint with a company' s mishandling of your account and/or complaints with any federally recognized oversight bureau, like CFPB, a company should be required to resolve the dispute before prosecuting what they define as a breach of debt.

Banks and companies should not be allowed to try to prosecute over " missed " payments that were erroneously processed by them.

If a consumer complaint is on file, the company should be burdened with disproving the consumer complaint before prosecuting.

Especially when evidence has been provided to the contrary and disputes are on file.

Continuing to place the burden of proof on the consumer is onerous and prohibitive for many consumers.

I personally had a problem with a mortgage company

and the amount of my time it took to get the problem resolved was worth 20% of the original principal amount.

They have both the financial and personnel resources to do so, whereas a consumer usually does not.

Otherwise, why wouldn' t they continue to bully and defraud consumers to boost bottom line profits?

Continuing to place the burden of proof on the consumer is onerous and prohibitive for many consumers.

I personally had a problem with a mortgage company

Continuing to place the burden of proof on the consumer is onerous and prohibitive for many consumers.

and the amount of my time it took to get the problem resolved was worth 20% of the original principal amount.

If a consumer complaint is on file, the company should be burdened with disproving the consumer complaint before prosecuting.

They have both the financial and personnel resources to do so, whereas a consumer usually does not.

They have both the financial and personnel resources to do so, whereas a consumer usually does not.

Otherwise, why wouldn' t they continue to bully and defraud consumers to boost bottom line profits?


Input: As I have had many accounts in collection due to an identity theft, I have several different experiences with the " validation " process. My belief is that there is no rule defining exactly what documentation constitutes validation. As we know, if we dispute with the CRA and ask for a reinvestigation, all that will be done is the social security number will be matched and verified with the amount owed. It is a useless tool and a waste of the consumer' s time. Asking for validation with a collection agency is almost as useless. This is because current laws suggest that the collection agency provide the consumer with information " such as " the name and address of the original creditor, and the amount owed. This does not prove a debt is still owed, and to whom it is owed. If we are going to allow companies to buy debts for amounts as low as pennies on the dollar, then the burden of proof MUST lie with the collection agency. As they are in the business of collecting debts, they are given all information regarding payment history, original contracts, methods of prior payment, and all personal information relating to the consumer. For far too long the consumer has been at the mercy of the collection agency. We are forced to send proof of our identity, current mailing address, phone number, etc. as well as all documentation we have regarding the account that would show an error has been made. The collection agency has this information readily available. And if they do not, the account should be permanently deleted. If the collection agency cannot produce documentation from the original creditor including (1) a contract (2) payment history from original creditor if any (3) proper identification of the consumer (4) proof of purchase of the debt (5) proof they are legally able to collect on the debt in the consumer' s state-then there should be laws in place that prevent the debt from being reported. In most cases, it is being reported from the original creditor already. And if it isn' t, this should be a red flag to CRA' s that the debt is not valid. Collection agencies must be able to show proof that a collection notice was sent, and they should be required to provide the same proof a consumer must provide to prove a dispute was sent (CMRR). If it is required of the consumer, it should be required of all. A debt should be considered validated only when all of these conditions have been met. Without these safeguards, a consumer could end up paying a debt they do not owe. It happens all the time. How many stories have you heard of collection agencies voluntarily providing any information to a consumer before demanding money? They don' t. Enough is enough. Take the burden of proof off the consumer and place it with the party that legally owns the debt.

As I have had many accounts in collection due to an identity theft,

I have several different experiences with the " validation " process.

My belief is that there is no rule defining exactly what documentation constitutes validation.

As we know, if we dispute with the CRA and ask for a reinvestigation, all that will be done is the social security number will be matched and verified with the amount owed.

It is a useless tool and a waste of the consumer' s time.

Asking for validation with a collection agency is almost as useless.

This does not prove a debt is still owed, and to whom it is owed.

For far too long the consumer has been at the mercy of the collection agency.

Without these safeguards, a consumer could end up paying a debt they do not owe.

It happens all the time.

How many stories have you heard of collection agencies voluntarily providing any information to a consumer before demanding money?

Enough is enough.

This is because current laws suggest that the collection agency provide the consumer with information " such as " the name and address of the original creditor, and the amount owed.

As they are in the business of collecting debts,

they are given all information regarding payment history, original contracts, methods of prior payment, and all personal information relating to the consumer.

We are forced to send proof of our identity, current mailing address, phone number, etc. as well as all documentation we have regarding the account that would show an error has been made.

The collection agency has this information readily available.

In most cases, it is being reported from the original creditor already.

They don' t.

If we are going to allow companies to buy debts for amounts as low as pennies on the dollar, then the burden of proof MUST lie with the collection agency.

And if they do not, the account should be permanently deleted.

If the collection agency cannot produce documentation from the original creditor including (1) a contract (2) payment history from original creditor if any (3) proper identification of the consumer (4) proof of purchase of the debt (5) proof they are legally able to collect on the debt in the consumer' s state-then there should be laws in place that prevent the debt from being reported.

And if it isn' t, this should be a red flag to CRA' s that the debt is not valid.

Collection agencies must be able to show proof that a collection notice was sent,

and they should be required to provide the same proof a consumer must provide to prove a dispute was sent (CMRR).

If it is required of the consumer, it should be required of all.

A debt should be considered validated only when all of these conditions have been met.

Take the burden of proof off the consumer and place it with the party that legally owns the debt.

I have several different experiences with the " validation " process.

As I have had many accounts in collection due to an identity theft,

It is a useless tool and a waste of the consumer' s time.

As we know, if we dispute with the CRA and ask for a reinvestigation, all that will be done is the social security number will be matched and verified with the amount owed.

Asking for validation with a collection agency is almost as useless.

This is because current laws suggest that the collection agency provide the consumer with information " such as " the name and address of the original creditor, and the amount owed.

Asking for validation with a collection agency is almost as useless.

This does not prove a debt is still owed, and to whom it is owed.

they are given all information regarding payment history, original contracts, methods of prior payment, and all personal information relating to the consumer.

As they are in the business of collecting debts,

For far too long the consumer has been at the mercy of the collection agency.

We are forced to send proof of our identity, current mailing address, phone number, etc. as well as all documentation we have regarding the account that would show an error has been made.

and they should be required to provide the same proof a consumer must provide to prove a dispute was sent (CMRR).

If it is required of the consumer, it should be required of all.

A debt should be considered validated only when all of these conditions have been met.

Without these safeguards, a consumer could end up paying a debt they do not owe.


Input: They didn' t say a thing about it. They contacted him via phone since he was homeless at the time and told him they were taking him to court. They didn' t even tell him which debt it was for initially.

They didn' t say a thing about it.

They contacted him via phone

since he was homeless at the time and told him they were taking him to court.

They didn' t even tell him which debt it was for initially.

They contacted him via phone

since he was homeless at the time and told him they were taking him to court.


Input: My concern about a " reasonable " investigation is that it is so subjective. It opens the collector up to an entirely new avenue of prosecution. It is unlikely that a consumer and collector are ever going to agree on what is " reasonable ". As it stands now courts have steadfastly maintained that collectors are allowed to rely on information given to them by their clients: ie: a debt for an amount stated against consumer so and so. Beyond that the consumer and the collector have the ability to ask a third party, a judge, to make a determination. By all appearances the FTC and the CFPB would place this burden directly on the collector, with predictable results: more needless litigation over the process and less resolution regarding the debt itself. One alternative might be for the rule to state a set formula for verification along with the proviso that if the collector follows it they are provided a safe harbor from litigation. However the myriad possibilities for reasonable investigation probably preclude anything so simple. In the end I think it is still a judges purvey to make the final determination.

My concern about a " reasonable " investigation is that it is so subjective.

It opens the collector up to an entirely new avenue of prosecution.

It is unlikely that a consumer and collector are ever going to agree on what is " reasonable ".

By all appearances the FTC and the CFPB would place this burden directly on the collector, with predictable results: more needless litigation over the process and less resolution regarding the debt itself.

However the myriad possibilities for reasonable investigation probably preclude anything so simple.

In the end I think it is still a judges purvey to make the final determination.

As it stands now courts have steadfastly maintained that collectors are allowed to rely on information given to them by their clients: ie: a debt for an amount stated against consumer so and so.

Beyond that the consumer and the collector have the ability to ask a third party, a judge, to make a determination.

One alternative might be for the rule to state a set formula for verification along with the proviso that if the collector follows it they are provided a safe harbor from litigation.

My concern about a " reasonable " investigation is that it is so subjective.

It opens the collector up to an entirely new avenue of prosecution.

It opens the collector up to an entirely new avenue of prosecution.

It is unlikely that a consumer and collector are ever going to agree on what is " reasonable ".


Input: As a former bill collector for over 17 years there are alot of ways the industry needs to be cleaned up. I do believe that a debtor should be informed of when a debt is transfered from original creditor to a collector and whether or not that collection agency purchased the debt or if the agency is contracted by the original creditor to collect the debt. There is a big misconception that I see being made in most of these comments that everything is " purchased " which is far from the truth! I personally have not and would not work for an agency that purchased debt, because I know and have heard the horror stories of not only how they treat the debtor but also how the business as a whole treats the collector.

As a former bill collector for over 17 years there are alot of ways the industry needs to be cleaned up.

There is a big misconception that I see being made in most of these comments that everything is " purchased " which is far from the truth!

because I know and have heard the horror stories of not only how they treat the debtor but also how the business as a whole treats the collector.

I do believe that a debtor should be informed of when a debt is transfered from original creditor to a collector and whether or not that collection agency purchased the debt or if the agency is contracted by the original creditor to collect the debt.

I personally have not and would not work for an agency that purchased debt,

I personally have not and would not work for an agency that purchased debt,

because I know and have heard the horror stories of not only how they treat the debtor but also how the business as a whole treats the collector.


Input: Owing to the inherently non-private nature of the internet, NOTHING should be sent electronically. There is absolutely nothing wrong with continuing the use of the US Mail. However, the consumer should be free to allow the use of specific electronic communications, if they deem it proper. However, that should be specific; so that a collector cannot use Facebook, twitter, etc; only the specified means.

Owing to the inherently non-private nature of the internet,

There is absolutely nothing wrong with continuing the use of the US Mail.

so that a collector cannot use Facebook, twitter, etc; only the specified means.

NOTHING should be sent electronically.

However, the consumer should be free to allow the use of specific electronic communications, if they deem it proper.

However, that should be specific;

NOTHING should be sent electronically.

Owing to the inherently non-private nature of the internet,

However, that should be specific;

so that a collector cannot use Facebook, twitter, etc; only the specified means.


Input: I think the Massachusetts rule is a positive step in the right direction, and would be better than the current situation. However, for those debtors who truly cannot pay at all, due to a serious adverse life event, such as the loss of a job due to a medical disability, their situation is not likely to change from week to week. For example, most disability insurance companies only require a patient' s doctor to submit a re-certification of the patient' s medical disability every 3, 6, or 12 months. In essence, the debt collector would be acting as a sort of medical re-certification investigator twice a week, which is unnecessary, burdensome on both debtor and collector, and potentially harassing.

I think the Massachusetts rule is a positive step in the right direction, and would be better than the current situation.

However, for those debtors who truly cannot pay at all, due to a serious adverse life event, such as the loss of a job due to a medical disability, their situation is not likely to change from week to week.

In essence, the debt collector would be acting as a sort of medical re-certification investigator twice a week, which is unnecessary, burdensome on both debtor and collector, and potentially harassing.

For example, most disability insurance companies only require a patient' s doctor to submit a re-certification of the patient' s medical disability every 3, 6, or 12 months.


Input: 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

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

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


Input: 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.

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.

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.


Input: If consumers can receive phone calls on Sundays, there' s no reason for them to not accept emails. Controlling which messages you get and how they are routed and presented to you, including what alerts or sounds they make when received, is only possible with email. Email is far superior to any other communication medium.

If consumers can receive phone calls on Sundays, there' s no reason for them to not accept emails.

Email is far superior to any other communication medium.

Controlling which messages you get and how they are routed and presented to you, including what alerts or sounds they make when received, is only possible with email.

Email is far superior to any other communication medium.

Controlling which messages you get and how they are routed and presented to you, including what alerts or sounds they make when received, is only possible with email.


Input: These so called free-to-end-user alternatives (if allowed to be used) also need to be regulated. There are huge privacy concerns at stake here. My friend started texting me on a free texting app, and then all of a sudden I was begging to be bombarded by SPAM text and SPAM phone calls. I can' t be certain that the Free Text App that my friend was using was selling my phone number to other people, but it was a massive coincidence. Why else are these text apps free? How do they make their money (besides a few embedded ads)? Of course these people are selling phone numbers. My privacy is not for sell. Nor is my phone number. The CFPB needs to really think about these so called free-to-end user alternatives and what sort of privacy practices these companies are engaging in, if any.

These so called free-to-end-user alternatives (if allowed to be used) also need to be regulated.

The CFPB needs to really think about these so called free-to-end user alternatives and what sort of privacy practices these companies are engaging in, if any.

There are huge privacy concerns at stake here.

I can' t be certain that the Free Text App that my friend was using was selling my phone number to other people,

but it was a massive coincidence.

Why else are these text apps free?

How do they make their money (besides a few embedded ads)?

My privacy is not for sell.

Nor is my phone number.

My friend started texting me on a free texting app,

and then all of a sudden I was begging to be bombarded by SPAM text and SPAM phone calls.

Of course these people are selling phone numbers.


Input: Providing too much information in the first notice creates a risk of divulging sensitive personal information to the person who now lives where the actual debtor used to. I do think that providing the chain of ownership information (especially original creditor) should be provided for sold debts. When it comes to medical debts, HIPPA becomes another concern. Therefore, specific info on medical debts should only be provided AFTER the collector has verified that they are communicating with the proper party.

Providing too much information in the first notice creates a risk of divulging sensitive personal information to the person who now lives where the actual debtor used to.

When it comes to medical debts, HIPPA becomes another concern.

I do think that providing the chain of ownership information (especially original creditor) should be provided for sold debts.

Therefore, specific info on medical debts should only be provided AFTER the collector has verified that they are communicating with the proper party.

I do think that providing the chain of ownership information (especially original creditor) should be provided for sold debts.

Providing too much information in the first notice creates a risk of divulging sensitive personal information to the person who now lives where the actual debtor used to.

Therefore, specific info on medical debts should only be provided AFTER the collector has verified that they are communicating with the proper party.

When it comes to medical debts, HIPPA becomes another concern.


Input: I had a debt collector tell me they told me that if I' d make a payment right then they' d make a payment plan. This was an Amercian Express collector. Once I made the payment they said they' re supervisor would have to approve it and they weren' t there. But that she would call back at 7pm MST to make the arrangement. Needless to say no one called back and American Express would not make arrangements with me because they said I was able to pay that amount so I shouldn' t need arrangements. I was so dumbfounded by the collection practices of American Express. It was from their internal collections department.

I had a debt collector tell me they told me that if I' d make a payment right then they' d make a payment plan.

This was an Amercian Express collector.

Once I made the payment they said they' re supervisor would have to approve it and they weren' t there. But that she would call back at 7pm MST to make the arrangement.

Needless to say no one called back

and American Express would not make arrangements with me

because they said I was able to pay that amount so I shouldn' t need arrangements.

It was from their internal collections department.

I was so dumbfounded by the collection practices of American Express.

and American Express would not make arrangements with me

because they said I was able to pay that amount so I shouldn' t need arrangements.

I was so dumbfounded by the collection practices of American Express.

I had a debt collector tell me they told me that if I' d make a payment right then they' d make a payment plan.

I was so dumbfounded by the collection practices of American Express.

This was an Amercian Express collector.

I was so dumbfounded by the collection practices of American Express.

Once I made the payment they said they' re supervisor would have to approve it and they weren' t there. But that she would call back at 7pm MST to make the arrangement.

I was so dumbfounded by the collection practices of American Express.

Needless to say no one called back

I was so dumbfounded by the collection practices of American Express.

and American Express would not make arrangements with me


Input: The CFPB should clarify whether " verify " means verify that you are a legitimate collection agency (not a scam) OR does it mean to prove the legitimacy of the account relative to the debtor' s objections. If is the former, some basic information relative to the account--contract, itemized statements, or any other identifying information that only the creditor would have access to would suffice. If CFPB wants " verify " to answer every single objection a debtor can cook up, a collector could never move forward without spending hundreds of hours normally reserved for litigation. As to a time frame on answering, I think the current system of stopping collection action until verification is provided is appropriate. Normally, sending the information to the debtor is not the hard part. Getting the info from the creditor and then circling back around to this particular account is what takes the time. I don' t think disputes should be limited to the first 30 days, but should be prohibited once suit has been filed. The Court rules and discovery process provide the debtor all the access to this information they could ever need or want and the provide this access under pretty strict penalties from the Court if the creditor/plaintiff does not provide the info requested.

The CFPB should clarify whether " verify " means verify that you are a legitimate collection agency (not a scam) OR does it mean to prove the legitimacy of the account relative to the debtor' s objections.

I don' t think disputes should be limited to the first 30 days, but should be prohibited once suit has been filed.

If is the former, some basic information relative to the account--contract, itemized statements, or any other identifying information that only the creditor would have access to would suffice.

If CFPB wants " verify " to answer every single objection a debtor can cook up, a collector could never move forward without spending hundreds of hours normally reserved for litigation.

As to a time frame on answering, I think the current system of stopping collection action until verification is provided is appropriate.

Normally, sending the information to the debtor is not the hard part.

Getting the info from the creditor and then circling back around to this particular account is what takes the time.

The Court rules and discovery process provide the debtor all the access to this information they could ever need or want

and the provide this access under pretty strict penalties from the Court if the creditor/plaintiff does not provide the info requested.


Input: I have a hard time believing that a debt collection company " treat [s] EVERY dispute the same " when debt collectors seem to blatantly disregard a dispute that has the appearance of being " copied directly from the internet. " Consumer advocates are trying to educate consumers, debtors, and alleged debtors with information on how to handle debt collectors or how to handle their particular situation. We are try to give them relevant links to FDCPA, FCRA, HIPPA, and various form letters that can help them communicate with debt collectors. There is nothing wrong with form letters. But there is everything wrong with debt collectors disregaring certain letters just because they don' t like that it came from a consumer advocate source. Debt collectors operating legally and with nothing to hide should never treat form letters as something to throw in the trash. You seem to be saying that debt collectors will only want to communicate with consumers who are misinformed and don' t know what their rights are, rather than communicate with a consumer who knows the laws and the appropriate ways to address a letter of dispute.

I have a hard time believing that a debt collection company " treat [s] EVERY dispute the same "

when debt collectors seem to blatantly disregard a dispute that has the appearance of being " copied directly from the internet. "

Consumer advocates are trying to educate consumers, debtors, and alleged debtors with information on how to handle debt collectors or how to handle their particular situation.

We are try to give them relevant links to FDCPA, FCRA, HIPPA, and various form letters that can help them communicate with debt collectors.

There is nothing wrong with form letters.

But there is everything wrong with debt collectors disregaring certain letters just because they don' t like that it came from a consumer advocate source.

You seem to be saying that debt collectors will only want to communicate with consumers who are misinformed and don' t know what their rights are, rather than communicate with a consumer who knows the laws and the appropriate ways to address a letter of dispute.

Debt collectors operating legally and with nothing to hide should never treat form letters as something to throw in the trash.

Debt collectors operating legally and with nothing to hide should never treat form letters as something to throw in the trash.

But there is everything wrong with debt collectors disregaring certain letters just because they don' t like that it came from a consumer advocate source.


Input: A collector contacting a consumer via email, voice mail, or text message should identify themselves and say what they are calling about (e. g. overdue ABC account) without details of amount, account #, etc. So what if a third party might possibly conclude this person has debt? Without details they still don' t know anything. I personally never return any calls about " an important business matter ": if you don' t tell me who you are or what you are calling about, I consider it spam. If you call in good faith to clear up an outstanding balance for ABC company, then you should say so. It' s the ones that are trying to scam consumers that give as little detail as possible in hope that someone panics and fills in the blanks for them.

A collector contacting a consumer via email, voice mail, or text message should identify themselves and say what they are calling about (e. g. overdue ABC account) without details of amount, account #, etc.

If you call in good faith to clear up an outstanding balance for ABC company, then you should say so.

So what if a third party might possibly conclude this person has debt?

Without details they still don' t know anything.

if you don' t tell me who you are or what you are calling about, I consider it spam.

It' s the ones that are trying to scam consumers that give as little detail as possible in hope that someone panics and fills in the blanks for them.

I personally never return any calls about " an important business matter ":

A collector contacting a consumer via email, voice mail, or text message should identify themselves and say what they are calling about (e. g. overdue ABC account) without details of amount, account #, etc.

So what if a third party might possibly conclude this person has debt?

A collector contacting a consumer via email, voice mail, or text message should identify themselves and say what they are calling about (e. g. overdue ABC account) without details of amount, account #, etc.

Without details they still don' t know anything.

I personally never return any calls about " an important business matter ":

if you don' t tell me who you are or what you are calling about, I consider it spam.


Input: it should be a fdcpa violation to spoof a debt collector' s phone number on the caller ID. Either no number on the caller ID or a number linked back to the collection agency.

it should be a fdcpa violation to spoof a debt collector' s phone number on the caller ID.

Either no number on the caller ID or a number linked back to the collection agency.


Input: paythefiddler, It' s not just innocent family members that debt collectors go after, it' s also perfect strangers. I have a common last name, no debts, and have been the target of many debt collectors. All of the deadbeats have had my common last name and first initial. Once a debt collector has me on their hit list, they don' t stop calling until I sent them a cease-communication letter. They want me to pay the debt to get them to stop.

paythefiddler, It' s not just innocent family members that debt collectors go after, it' s also perfect strangers.

I have a common last name, no debts, and have been the target of many debt collectors.

All of the deadbeats have had my common last name and first initial.

Once a debt collector has me on their hit list, they don' t stop calling until I sent them a cease-communication letter.

They want me to pay the debt to get them to stop.

paythefiddler, It' s not just innocent family members that debt collectors go after, it' s also perfect strangers.

I have a common last name, no debts, and have been the target of many debt collectors.

paythefiddler, It' s not just innocent family members that debt collectors go after, it' s also perfect strangers.

All of the deadbeats have had my common last name and first initial.

paythefiddler, It' s not just innocent family members that debt collectors go after, it' s also perfect strangers.

Once a debt collector has me on their hit list, they don' t stop calling until I sent them a cease-communication letter.

paythefiddler, It' s not just innocent family members that debt collectors go after, it' s also perfect strangers.

They want me to pay the debt to get them to stop.

Once a debt collector has me on their hit list, they don' t stop calling until I sent them a cease-communication letter.

They want me to pay the debt to get them to stop.


Input: This is not an appropriate requirement because not all states have licensing or registration for debt collectors.

This is not an appropriate requirement

because not all states have licensing or registration for debt collectors.

This is not an appropriate requirement

because not all states have licensing or registration for debt collectors.


Input: 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.

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.

So few people actually put a pen to paper these days to sign a formal written agreement.

But they also can' t send you a signed paper for something you agreed to online, or over the phone.

So that' s an unfair requirement when it doesn' t always exist.

So few people actually put a pen to paper these days to sign a formal written agreement.


Input: New rules should allow consumers to resolve, discuss, or negotiate the matter strictly with the creditor. In other words, consumers should be told that they can refuse to speak to debt collectors about their account (s).

New rules should allow consumers to resolve, discuss, or negotiate the matter strictly with the creditor.

In other words, consumers should be told that they can refuse to speak to debt collectors about their account (s).


Input: When creditor or servicing company doesn' t " credit " a payment after receiving it and then getter further proof but still puts the victim in arrears or foreclosure, there should be fines regardless of whether it is a " mistake " or " criminal act. " A grace period can be allowed but after that slap on the fines. and keep them coming every week they don' t correct their problem. Basically by not crediting payment they are stealing that payment. This should apply to any " mistakes " or unethical practices such as deliberately or " mistakenly " changing around escrow, interest, principal, late fees, insurance and so forth to the profit of the collector. Heavy fines will take away the profit motive and such " mistakes " and unethical practices will greatly decrease.

When creditor or servicing company doesn' t " credit " a payment after receiving it and then getter further proof but still puts the victim in arrears or foreclosure, there should be fines regardless of whether it is a " mistake " or " criminal act. "

but after that slap on the fines. and keep them coming every week they don' t correct their problem.

This should apply to any " mistakes " or unethical practices such as deliberately or " mistakenly " changing around escrow, interest, principal, late fees, insurance and so forth to the profit of the collector.

A grace period can be allowed

Basically by not crediting payment they are stealing that payment.

Heavy fines will take away the profit motive and such " mistakes " and unethical practices will greatly decrease.

When creditor or servicing company doesn' t " credit " a payment after receiving it and then getter further proof but still puts the victim in arrears or foreclosure, there should be fines regardless of whether it is a " mistake " or " criminal act. "

Basically by not crediting payment they are stealing that payment.

When creditor or servicing company doesn' t " credit " a payment after receiving it and then getter further proof but still puts the victim in arrears or foreclosure, there should be fines regardless of whether it is a " mistake " or " criminal act. "

Heavy fines will take away the profit motive and such " mistakes " and unethical practices will greatly decrease.

but after that slap on the fines. and keep them coming every week they don' t correct their problem.

Basically by not crediting payment they are stealing that payment.

This should apply to any " mistakes " or unethical practices such as deliberately or " mistakenly " changing around escrow, interest, principal, late fees, insurance and so forth to the profit of the collector.

Heavy fines will take away the profit motive and such " mistakes " and unethical practices will greatly decrease.


Input: I also wanted to add that because debt collectors know they can hire robo service companies to false service, they aren' t going to negotiate in good faith. Just as appalling for me was the judge agreeing that the one service I challenged was a false service, but allowing the case to go forward anyways. Sure, people can lie and say they were not served when they were served, but the very day I was in court contesting the service, a person who spoke before me made the comment that they found their service document on their door step when they got home. This means the servicers are lying in court documents, and nobody seems to care. I still want redress on these two cases, and I want to be able to file an errors and omissions claim with both debt collectors insurance company for lying on court documents. And if it is not a law, then isn' t it time that debt collection companies carry errors and omissions insurance?

I also wanted to add that because debt collectors know they can hire robo service companies to false service,

This means the servicers are lying in court documents,

they aren' t going to negotiate in good faith.

Just as appalling for me was the judge agreeing that the one service I challenged was a false service, but allowing the case to go forward anyways.

Sure, people can lie and say they were not served when they were served,

and nobody seems to care.

I still want redress on these two cases,

and I want to be able to file an errors and omissions claim with both debt collectors insurance company for lying on court documents.

And if it is not a law, then isn' t it time that debt collection companies carry errors and omissions insurance?

but the very day I was in court contesting the service, a person who spoke before me made the comment that they found their service document on their door step when they got home.

This means the servicers are lying in court documents,

but the very day I was in court contesting the service, a person who spoke before me made the comment that they found their service document on their door step when they got home.

they aren' t going to negotiate in good faith.

I also wanted to add that because debt collectors know they can hire robo service companies to false service,


Input: This is an awesome suggestion! Your suggestion " I don' t think they should be allowed to call ANY number for more than 3 months without successful contact with the debtor " is spot on! And I can' t believe that no one else has ever suggested this before. 3 months (or whatever an appropriate time limit is) would reduce the constant harassment that I and many other innocent parties receive. This morning I received an illegal phone call from a collector at 6: 17 AM with a spoofed phone number for a person that I have never known and I have told these collectors this several times already. They have the wrong number. And I am tired of this. The CFPB should absolutely implement a rule that forces unsuccessful contact to 3 months.

This is an awesome suggestion!

Your suggestion " I don' t think they should be allowed to call ANY number for more than 3 months without successful contact with the debtor " is spot on!

And I can' t believe that no one else has ever suggested this before.

3 months (or whatever an appropriate time limit is) would reduce the constant harassment that I and many other innocent parties receive.

And I am tired of this.

This morning I received an illegal phone call from a collector at 6: 17 AM with a spoofed phone number for a person that I have never known

and I have told these collectors this several times already.

They have the wrong number.

The CFPB should absolutely implement a rule that forces unsuccessful contact to 3 months.

Your suggestion " I don' t think they should be allowed to call ANY number for more than 3 months without successful contact with the debtor " is spot on!

3 months (or whatever an appropriate time limit is) would reduce the constant harassment that I and many other innocent parties receive.

And I can' t believe that no one else has ever suggested this before.

Your suggestion " I don' t think they should be allowed to call ANY number for more than 3 months without successful contact with the debtor " is spot on!

3 months (or whatever an appropriate time limit is) would reduce the constant harassment that I and many other innocent parties receive.

This morning I received an illegal phone call from a collector at 6: 17 AM with a spoofed phone number for a person that I have never known

3 months (or whatever an appropriate time limit is) would reduce the constant harassment that I and many other innocent parties receive.

and I have told these collectors this several times already.

3 months (or whatever an appropriate time limit is) would reduce the constant harassment that I and many other innocent parties receive.

They have the wrong number.

3 months (or whatever an appropriate time limit is) would reduce the constant harassment that I and many other innocent parties receive.

And I am tired of this.

The CFPB should absolutely implement a rule that forces unsuccessful contact to 3 months.

3 months (or whatever an appropriate time limit is) would reduce the constant harassment that I and many other innocent parties receive.


Input: 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' 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.