Input: Not every debt collection agency is like that. The one I work for certainly isn' t.

Not every debt collection agency is like that.

The one I work for certainly isn' t.


Input: When anyone makes a demand for payment from another party, it is incumbent on that person to produce the evidence to support such demand and not up to the second party to produce evidence that he is not liable for such alleged debt. Otherwise, anyone can create trouble and misery for any person out of mischief, ill-intent or out to make some fast money for himself or even to defame the second party, as proper businesses are adverse to bad publicity. If the first party claims to represent a third party to collect debt for that third party, then the first party (collector) must produce evidence that he is authorized by the third party to collect a debt for the third party alone because anyone can claim to represent any party in an attempt to defraud the innocent second party.

When anyone makes a demand for payment from another party, it is incumbent on that person to produce the evidence to support such demand and not up to the second party to produce evidence that he is not liable for such alleged debt.

Otherwise, anyone can create trouble and misery for any person out of mischief, ill-intent or out to make some fast money for himself or even to defame the second party,

as proper businesses are adverse to bad publicity.

because anyone can claim to represent any party in an attempt to defraud the innocent second party.

If the first party claims to represent a third party to collect debt for that third party, then the first party (collector) must produce evidence that he is authorized by the third party to collect a debt for the third party alone

When anyone makes a demand for payment from another party, it is incumbent on that person to produce the evidence to support such demand and not up to the second party to produce evidence that he is not liable for such alleged debt.

Otherwise, anyone can create trouble and misery for any person out of mischief, ill-intent or out to make some fast money for himself or even to defame the second party,

If the first party claims to represent a third party to collect debt for that third party, then the first party (collector) must produce evidence that he is authorized by the third party to collect a debt for the third party alone

because anyone can claim to represent any party in an attempt to defraud the innocent second party.


Input: It is the responsibility of the creditor and debt collectors to report accurate information. Reporting accurate information has nothing to do with " debt collectors who don' t report to credit reporting agencies at all. " If a debt collector reported accurately that the debt in question has not been paid, but now is, it is the responsibility of that debt collector to report the newly accurate information. As I too have noticed, some debt collectors will not accurately report updated information to the credit bureaus once they are paid.

It is the responsibility of the creditor and debt collectors to report accurate information.

Reporting accurate information has nothing to do with " debt collectors who don' t report to credit reporting agencies at all. "

If a debt collector reported accurately that the debt in question has not been paid, but now is, it is the responsibility of that debt collector to report the newly accurate information.

As I too have noticed, some debt collectors will not accurately report updated information to the credit bureaus once they are paid.


Input: As medical records become more digitized, I see no significant cost increase to debt collectors in passing on substantive info to debtors, although debt collectors are bound to say otherwise. My concern is that the cost to consumers of inadequate information is routinely underestimated or dismissed as trivial. When I worked with a non-profit in Alabama, I took part in an informational meeting on a program of federal assistance (Farmers Home Admin, IIRC) in securing access to home loans on affordable terms for low-income workers. One woman who was at the meeting spoke of having been denied access to the program because of a single blot on her credit record, namely an unpaid medical bill. She said she had not paid it because she could not determine what the charges were for, was unaware of any medical treatment she had not paid for, and could not get a straight answer from the debt collector. She decided the debt might be illegitimate and refused to pay. As a result she was excluded from access to a home loan. This is an example of a consumer on a limited income who was consistently disciplined about her finances and who should have had access to credit. I find it significant that it was a medical bill that tripped her up, placing her in a category in which even the FHA would not work with her. From this point, credit was only available to her at high cost if at all. I am confident that the rule I am suggesting would have led her to either pay the debt or dispute it formally on the basis of valid information. What it would not have done is to leave her to conclude that she was being scammed and refuse to pay at all. This anecdote (and I admit I only have anecdotal evidence) does suggest that legitimate credit agencies also stand to benefit by disclosing information that will persuade skeptical consumers that they do actually owe the debt.

As medical records become more digitized,

My concern is that the cost to consumers of inadequate information is routinely underestimated or dismissed as trivial.

I see no significant cost increase to debt collectors in passing on substantive info to debtors,

although debt collectors are bound to say otherwise.

This is an example of a consumer on a limited income who was consistently disciplined about her finances and who should have had access to credit.

I find it significant that it was a medical bill that tripped her up, placing her in a category in which even the FHA would not work with her.

From this point, credit was only available to her at high cost if at all.

I am confident that the rule I am suggesting would have led her to either pay the debt or dispute it formally on the basis of valid information.

What it would not have done is to leave her to conclude that she was being scammed and refuse to pay at all.

This anecdote (and I admit I only have anecdotal evidence) does suggest that legitimate credit agencies also stand to benefit by disclosing information that will persuade skeptical consumers that they do actually owe the debt.

When I worked with a non-profit in Alabama, I took part in an informational meeting on a program of federal assistance (Farmers Home Admin, IIRC) in securing access to home loans on affordable terms for low-income workers.

One woman who was at the meeting spoke of having been denied access to the program because of a single blot on her credit record, namely an unpaid medical bill.

She said she had not paid it because she could not determine what the charges were for, was unaware of any medical treatment she had not paid for, and could not get a straight answer from the debt collector.

She decided the debt might be illegitimate and refused to pay.

As a result she was excluded from access to a home loan.

My concern is that the cost to consumers of inadequate information is routinely underestimated or dismissed as trivial.

When I worked with a non-profit in Alabama, I took part in an informational meeting on a program of federal assistance (Farmers Home Admin, IIRC) in securing access to home loans on affordable terms for low-income workers.

My concern is that the cost to consumers of inadequate information is routinely underestimated or dismissed as trivial.

One woman who was at the meeting spoke of having been denied access to the program because of a single blot on her credit record, namely an unpaid medical bill.

My concern is that the cost to consumers of inadequate information is routinely underestimated or dismissed as trivial.

She said she had not paid it because she could not determine what the charges were for, was unaware of any medical treatment she had not paid for, and could not get a straight answer from the debt collector.

My concern is that the cost to consumers of inadequate information is routinely underestimated or dismissed as trivial.

She decided the debt might be illegitimate and refused to pay.

My concern is that the cost to consumers of inadequate information is routinely underestimated or dismissed as trivial.

As a result she was excluded from access to a home loan.

I see no significant cost increase to debt collectors in passing on substantive info to debtors,

As medical records become more digitized,

As a result she was excluded from access to a home loan.

She decided the debt might be illegitimate and refused to pay.


Input: My only concern about this excellent comment is that consumers not be subjected to a flood of confusing or potentially intimidating information. The most useful information is the what, when, who, and why of the original transaction that incurred the unpaid debt. The original creditor should be identified by a name known to the consumer, e. g. DR. JOHN SMITH, RHEUMATOLOGIST not DYNAMIC HEALTHCARE OF GREATER ANYTOWN d/b/a ASSOCIATED SPECIALISTS P. C. You get the idea.

My only concern about this excellent comment is that consumers not be subjected to a flood of confusing or potentially intimidating information.

The most useful information is the what, when, who, and why of the original transaction that incurred the unpaid debt.

You get the idea.

The original creditor should be identified by a name known to the consumer, e. g. DR. JOHN SMITH, RHEUMATOLOGIST not DYNAMIC HEALTHCARE OF GREATER ANYTOWN d/b/a ASSOCIATED SPECIALISTS P. C.


Input: I have not encountered a situation in which the bill collector is hired by a business for many decades now. Usually the debt collector has bought the debt, usually for pennies on the dollar, from the original creditor. I also disagree that the law provides a way for consumers to steal from businesses. If anything, I would say we have become in danger of reverting to the tyranny of Dickens' time, where a person and that person' s family, including children, would be imprisoned for debt. Surely we can agree on reasonableness when it comes to how we treat each other, whether debtor or creditor?

I have not encountered a situation in which the bill collector is hired by a business for many decades now.

Usually the debt collector has bought the debt, usually for pennies on the dollar, from the original creditor.

I also disagree that the law provides a way for consumers to steal from businesses.

If anything, I would say we have become in danger of reverting to the tyranny of Dickens' time, where a person and that person' s family, including children, would be imprisoned for debt.

Surely we can agree on reasonableness when it comes to how we treat each other, whether debtor or creditor?


Input: You are absolutely right. But, you' d be surprised at how many times this does happen and how many times the Credit Bureaus Do change correct information to false information supplied by the' furnisher/debt collector'. Because I had to send in numerous Certified Letter to the Credit Bureaus, (all of them), in order to stay on top of all the false information and tricks that they did supply. And I have written proof, that this does and is still happening to other consumers, right now.

You are absolutely right.

But, you' d be surprised at how many times this does happen and how many times the Credit Bureaus Do change correct information to false information supplied by the' furnisher/debt collector'.

Because I had to send in numerous Certified Letter to the Credit Bureaus, (all of them), in order to stay on top of all the false information and tricks that they did supply.

And I have written proof, that this does and is still happening to other consumers, right now.

But, you' d be surprised at how many times this does happen and how many times the Credit Bureaus Do change correct information to false information supplied by the' furnisher/debt collector'.

Because I had to send in numerous Certified Letter to the Credit Bureaus, (all of them), in order to stay on top of all the false information and tricks that they did supply.


Input: From 1999-2004 I worked on a number of online identity authentication initiatives. At that time the only available solution was to ask " out of wallet " questions based on the consumer' s credit file. For example, the credit report might show that the consumer lived on Elm Street 20 years ago. Since an old address would not be easy to find (e. g. in a lost wallet) the idea is that if the consumer knows that they lived on Elm Street 20 years ago, there is greater confidence that this is indeed the person that they claim to be. The problem with this approach is that the information in credit reports has a reliability problem. Reports indicating low error rates are misleading: they only look to " material errors " and they are often funded by credit industry groups. If it is commonly accepted that credit reports are filled with errors-then it is incumbent upon collectors to validate and verify the debt prior to pulling a credit report or contacting the consumer.

From 1999-2004 I worked on a number of online identity authentication initiatives.

At that time the only available solution was to ask " out of wallet " questions based on the consumer' s credit file.

Since an old address would not be easy to find (e. g. in a lost wallet)

the idea is that if the consumer knows that they lived on Elm Street 20 years ago, there is greater confidence that this is indeed the person that they claim to be.

The problem with this approach is that the information in credit reports has a reliability problem.

Reports indicating low error rates are misleading:

they only look to " material errors "

For example, the credit report might show that the consumer lived on Elm Street 20 years ago.

and they are often funded by credit industry groups.

If it is commonly accepted that credit reports are filled with errors-then it is incumbent upon collectors to validate and verify the debt prior to pulling a credit report or contacting the consumer.

the idea is that if the consumer knows that they lived on Elm Street 20 years ago, there is greater confidence that this is indeed the person that they claim to be.

Since an old address would not be easy to find (e. g. in a lost wallet)

Reports indicating low error rates are misleading:

they only look to " material errors "


Input: I have not heard of anyone in the US being imprisoned for their debt. I have been in the business for 20 years and rest assured, while there are' debt buyers', the majority of agencies are contingency based collections.

I have not heard of anyone in the US being imprisoned for their debt.

I have been in the business for 20 years

and rest assured, while there are' debt buyers', the majority of agencies are contingency based collections.


Input: In NYC courts, a lawyer representing a particular party (doesn' t have to be collection related) will have a full day of cases lined up which leads me to believe at least some scheduling preference is given.

In NYC courts, a lawyer representing a particular party (doesn' t have to be collection related) will have a full day of cases lined up

which leads me to believe at least some scheduling preference is given.

which leads me to believe at least some scheduling preference is given.

In NYC courts, a lawyer representing a particular party (doesn' t have to be collection related) will have a full day of cases lined up


Input: I am in the same situation as From_ill_annoy. I have been denied credit and loans as a result of these adverse actions which have impacted both my personal and professional life.

I am in the same situation as From_ill_annoy.

I have been denied credit and loans as a result of these adverse actions which have impacted both my personal and professional life.


Input: Texting should follow all rules regarding phone calls. Email should follow rules set in place regarding written, mailed, letters.

Texting should follow all rules regarding phone calls.

Email should follow rules set in place regarding written, mailed, letters.


Input: There are currently no " teeth " in the enforcement mechanism as well. Right now filing complaints with the regulators does absolutely nothing except get you into some database but nothing is every done about violations. Requiring accurate identification of the collector with a working call-back number should be the bare minimum. At least that way the consumer has a fighting chance of at least talking to them and trying to get erroneous calls stopped. Right now government enforcement is non-existent and completely worthless.

There are currently no " teeth " in the enforcement mechanism as well.

At least that way the consumer has a fighting chance of at least talking to them and trying to get erroneous calls stopped.

Right now government enforcement is non-existent and completely worthless.

Right now filing complaints with the regulators does absolutely nothing except get you into some database

but nothing is every done about violations.

Requiring accurate identification of the collector with a working call-back number should be the bare minimum.

There are currently no " teeth " in the enforcement mechanism as well.

Right now filing complaints with the regulators does absolutely nothing except get you into some database

Requiring accurate identification of the collector with a working call-back number should be the bare minimum.

Right now filing complaints with the regulators does absolutely nothing except get you into some database

Requiring accurate identification of the collector with a working call-back number should be the bare minimum.

but nothing is every done about violations.

Requiring accurate identification of the collector with a working call-back number should be the bare minimum.

At least that way the consumer has a fighting chance of at least talking to them and trying to get erroneous calls stopped.

Right now government enforcement is non-existent and completely worthless.

Right now filing complaints with the regulators does absolutely nothing except get you into some database

Right now government enforcement is non-existent and completely worthless.

but nothing is every done about violations.


Input: There are laws on the books. There is no enforcement by the regulators.

There are laws on the books.

There is no enforcement by the regulators.


Input: After a court verdict in favor of a debt collector, Banks assess a significant fee against a customer when a customer' s account is levied by the debt collector, even if there are scant funds in the account on the day the levy is imposed. Explain how assessing a 125 dollar bank levy fee when an account has 50 dollars in it helps resolve the ongoing debt resolution. The Debt collector gets nothing and the customer is hit with a 125 dollar bank levy fee. Why isn' t there a 100 dollar float that is impervious to a bank levy fee and protected from the debt collector' s clutches as well? Once again, we get back to the same underpinning, Judges who simply decide on whether a default has occurred without caring why the default occurred are basically rubber stamping minions of a system corrupted by a lack of fairness. People can lose income based on circumstances beyond their control, yet the system doesn' t even blanche an eye. A debtor who purposely runs up debt quickly and defaults is treated identically to someone who had a perfect payment history but had to stop working to become a CareGiver for a family member. A debtor who purposely runs up debt quickly and hires a lawyer can strategically default and possibly get a better resolution than an honest person with an impeccable payment history who has lost income because of an event beyond their control.

After a court verdict in favor of a debt collector, Banks assess a significant fee against a customer when a customer' s account is levied by the debt collector, even if there are scant funds in the account on the day the levy is imposed.

The Debt collector gets nothing and the customer is hit with a 125 dollar bank levy fee.

A debtor who purposely runs up debt quickly and hires a lawyer can strategically default and possibly get a better resolution than an honest person with an impeccable payment history who has lost income because of an event beyond their control.

Explain how assessing a 125 dollar bank levy fee when an account has 50 dollars in it helps resolve the ongoing debt resolution.

Once again, we get back to the same underpinning, Judges who simply decide on whether a default has occurred without caring why the default occurred are basically rubber stamping minions of a system corrupted by a lack of fairness.

People can lose income based on circumstances beyond their control, yet the system doesn' t even blanche an eye.

A debtor who purposely runs up debt quickly and defaults is treated identically to someone who had a perfect payment history but had to stop working to become a CareGiver for a family member.

Why isn' t there a 100 dollar float that is impervious to a bank levy fee and protected from the debt collector' s clutches as well?


Input: There should be clear guidelines on what constitutes " irrelevant and frivolous ". In my own experience, the CRA' s consistently refused to delete trade lines not belonging to me even when I had provided documentation from the original creditor validating the debt was not mine. They falsely claimed they received additional information from the original creditor that superseded the documentation I had. When I circled back to the original creditor, I had learned the debt was sold to a junk debt buyer which leads to a separate issue. If the junk debt buyer is reporting to a credit reporting agency, why are they misrepresenting themselves as the original creditor. Junk Debt buying should be prohibited all together. The original creditors should know their vendors just as the law mandates they know their customers. If the vendor is violating the law on the original creditor' s behalf the original creditor should hold responsibility to some extent.

There should be clear guidelines on what constitutes " irrelevant and frivolous ".

Junk Debt buying should be prohibited all together.

The original creditors should know their vendors just as the law mandates they know their customers.

If the vendor is violating the law on the original creditor' s behalf the original creditor should hold responsibility to some extent.

In my own experience, the CRA' s consistently refused to delete trade lines not belonging to me even when I had provided documentation from the original creditor validating the debt was not mine.

They falsely claimed they received additional information from the original creditor that superseded the documentation I had.

When I circled back to the original creditor, I had learned the debt was sold to a junk debt buyer which leads to a separate issue.

If the junk debt buyer is reporting to a credit reporting agency, why are they misrepresenting themselves as the original creditor.

Junk Debt buying should be prohibited all together.

If the junk debt buyer is reporting to a credit reporting agency, why are they misrepresenting themselves as the original creditor.


Input: I am all for consumers right protection but when you see CFPB, FDCPA and other law they are all to make it difficult for collection agencies to do their honest job. But there is never a talk about consumers responsibilities. I agree that some collection agencies are aggressive. but I think a good honest collection agencies also need their rights to do honest work.

I am all for consumers right protection

but when you see CFPB, FDCPA and other law they are all to make it difficult for collection agencies to do their honest job.

I agree that some collection agencies are aggressive.

but I think a good honest collection agencies also need their rights to do honest work.

But there is never a talk about consumers responsibilities.


Input: I received several Robo calls leaving messages to have me served at my job on a debt I do not owe. They have Threatened me via voice mail. They also use Voip numbers we have reversed them different each time. I have reported them several times but they continue to call.

I received several Robo calls leaving messages to have me served at my job on a debt I do not owe.

They have Threatened me via voice mail.

They also use Voip numbers we have reversed them different each time.

I have reported them several times

but they continue to call.


Input: Explaining why the repeat phone call abuse happens does not justify it. Apparently there are autodialers that call several consumers at the same time, than hang up on all but the first consumer that answers the phone. The result is a person can get several collection calls and hang ups through out the day, that is just not right.

Explaining why the repeat phone call abuse happens does not justify it.

that is just not right.

Apparently there are autodialers that call several consumers at the same time, than hang up on all but the first consumer that answers the phone.

The result is a person can get several collection calls and hang ups through out the day,

The result is a person can get several collection calls and hang ups through out the day,

Apparently there are autodialers that call several consumers at the same time, than hang up on all but the first consumer that answers the phone.


Input: One communication from the debt collector per week is plenty. On top of that, The debt collector' s phone rep should have power over the autodialer in the following way. A consumer' s number is on the screen, the report log on that number is on the screen, the most current info at the top of the screen. If the debt collector phone rep sees that the very last communication does is already updated (such as waiting on a job interview with a date that is still in the future), then the debt collector phone rep should have the power to prevent the auto dialer from making the call. Not only does this prevent unnecessary hounding of the customer, it also helps prevent abusive reactions from consumers towards the debt collector phone rep because the consumer recalls their last communication and that what was discussed could not have reasonably happened yet.

One communication from the debt collector per week is plenty.

Not only does this prevent unnecessary hounding of the customer, it also helps prevent abusive reactions from consumers towards the debt collector phone rep

because the consumer recalls their last communication and that what was discussed could not have reasonably happened yet.

On top of that, The debt collector' s phone rep should have power over the autodialer in the following way.

A consumer' s number is on the screen, the report log on that number is on the screen, the most current info at the top of the screen.

If the debt collector phone rep sees that the very last communication does is already updated (such as waiting on a job interview with a date that is still in the future), then the debt collector phone rep should have the power to prevent the auto dialer from making the call.

Not only does this prevent unnecessary hounding of the customer, it also helps prevent abusive reactions from consumers towards the debt collector phone rep

because the consumer recalls their last communication and that what was discussed could not have reasonably happened yet.


Input: Collection agencies are not an all loose for the consumer nor they should be. Some collections agencies have gone beyond their job scope and their role in the process of repayment.

Collection agencies are not an all loose for the consumer nor they should be.

Some collections agencies have gone beyond their job scope and their role in the process of repayment.


Input: I have dealt with the issue of disputes and when you file a dispute and it as been closed it is placed in the comment section that you have filed a dispute. By doing this, this has kept me from refinancing my home just because the word dispute was there. The mortgage company said I had to have this removed, so I filed another form to ask for this to be removed it never was. I believe that once the dispute has been closed there should be no indication that there was a dispute filed. You again get penalized for trying to correct mistakes on your report. Another issue that has come up regarding when an account has been charged off or in my case a repossession of a vehicle I had turn over due to not being released by my doctor to go back to work and my disability ran out, I had no other choice but to hand the vehicle over. then 6 years later I received a 1099 for over $6000. 00. Plus the 16% interest they charged me for 4 years. We keep paying these high interest rates but yet we still have to pay for our credit scores and only receive one free report a year, If we are trying to stay on top of credit fraud and inaccurate information that is not of our doing but from reporting agencies, these agencies should be putting more funds in for these things.

I have dealt with the issue of disputes

By doing this, this has kept me from refinancing my home

The mortgage company said I had to have this removed,

so I filed another form to ask for this to be removed it never was.

Another issue that has come up regarding when an account has been charged off or in my case a repossession of a vehicle I had turn over due to not being released by my doctor to go back to work and my disability ran out, I had no other choice but to hand the vehicle over.

then 6 years later I received a 1099 for over $6000. 00.

Plus the 16% interest they charged me for 4 years.

We keep paying these high interest rates

but yet we still have to pay for our credit scores and only receive one free report a year,

and when you file a dispute and it as been closed it is placed in the comment section that you have filed a dispute.

just because the word dispute was there.

You again get penalized for trying to correct mistakes on your report.

I believe that once the dispute has been closed there should be no indication that there was a dispute filed.

If we are trying to stay on top of credit fraud and inaccurate information that is not of our doing but from reporting agencies, these agencies should be putting more funds in for these things.

By doing this, this has kept me from refinancing my home

just because the word dispute was there.

so I filed another form to ask for this to be removed it never was.

The mortgage company said I had to have this removed,

I believe that once the dispute has been closed there should be no indication that there was a dispute filed.

You again get penalized for trying to correct mistakes on your report.


Input: I think the cost of education needs to be reduced to a more reasonable amount or repayment plans need to be income based. As far as consumer protection, legal aid needs to be made available, affordable and effective, and consumers need to take time to really know their rights and stop complaining about harassment because that' s a completely different cause of action than restitution.

I think the cost of education needs to be reduced to a more reasonable amount or repayment plans need to be income based.

As far as consumer protection, legal aid needs to be made available, affordable and effective,

and consumers need to take time to really know their rights and stop complaining about harassment

because that' s a completely different cause of action than restitution.

and consumers need to take time to really know their rights and stop complaining about harassment

because that' s a completely different cause of action than restitution.


Input: I would like to see some strict regulation on the number of times a creditor can call in a given period of time. Capital One Bank' s dialers will call every single hour if a payment is overdue... sometimes these things are simply overlooked. If I know I am paying bills on a given day, I just use my caller ID and ignore them. I do think that these calls need to be at least limited. It comes down to simple harrasment.

I would like to see some strict regulation on the number of times a creditor can call in a given period of time.

sometimes these things are simply overlooked.

It comes down to simple harrasment.

Capital One Bank' s dialers will call every single hour if a payment is overdue...

If I know I am paying bills on a given day, I just use my caller ID and ignore them.

I do think that these calls need to be at least limited.

I do think that these calls need to be at least limited.

It comes down to simple harrasment.


Input: Yes, the Massachusetts model sounds very sensible and the Feds should consider adopting it or something similar. Two contacts in a 7-day period is plenty, but I think wherever the limits are set they will have to be very strictly enforced. These collectors will find any loopholes, excuses or reasons to get around a regulation like this. There has to be zero tolerance, every time, no exceptions. They have violated our privacy and the right to peaceful enjoyment of our home one too many times.

Yes, the Massachusetts model sounds very sensible

Two contacts in a 7-day period is plenty,

but I think wherever the limits are set they will have to be very strictly enforced.

These collectors will find any loopholes, excuses or reasons to get around a regulation like this.

They have violated our privacy and the right to peaceful enjoyment of our home one too many times.

and the Feds should consider adopting it or something similar.

There has to be zero tolerance, every time, no exceptions.

and the Feds should consider adopting it or something similar.

Yes, the Massachusetts model sounds very sensible

but I think wherever the limits are set they will have to be very strictly enforced.

These collectors will find any loopholes, excuses or reasons to get around a regulation like this.

but I think wherever the limits are set they will have to be very strictly enforced.

They have violated our privacy and the right to peaceful enjoyment of our home one too many times.

There has to be zero tolerance, every time, no exceptions.

These collectors will find any loopholes, excuses or reasons to get around a regulation like this.

There has to be zero tolerance, every time, no exceptions.

They have violated our privacy and the right to peaceful enjoyment of our home one too many times.


Input: They should not have free-to-end-user it will just making worse for consumer. This does not make sense.

They should not have free-to-end-user

it will just making worse for consumer.

This does not make sense.

They should not have free-to-end-user

it will just making worse for consumer.


Input: There are a few states that have the barbaric practice of actually arresting people for their debts by using a legal loophole. Some of the most egregious examples are in Minnesota, Illinois, and Missouri. The creditor sues the debtor in court. If the person fails to show, a warrant can be issued for their arrest. The police can actually arrest and jail the debtor until a court hearing, or until they pay the bond (which is usually the amount of the debt). This is a downright abuse of the legal system. These loopholes need to be closed in all states.

There are a few states that have the barbaric practice of actually arresting people for their debts by using a legal loophole.

If the person fails to show, a warrant can be issued for their arrest.

The police can actually arrest and jail the debtor until a court hearing, or until they pay the bond (which is usually the amount of the debt).

Some of the most egregious examples are in Minnesota, Illinois, and Missouri.

The creditor sues the debtor in court.

This is a downright abuse of the legal system.

These loopholes need to be closed in all states.


Input: I appreciate Mr. Bartmann' s comments but they appear to be grounded in a collection agency perspective (there is always business and market share tension between collection agencies and law firms). The reality is that (and this was voiced by other participants) many (not all but many) debtors simply won' t/can' t pay until they have to. The FDCPA and TCPA have truly made communications with debtor both difficult and hazardous for the collector. For instance, the fact that you can' t safely leave a voice message for a debtor should be very troubling. Over the years, our firm has stopped initial outbound calling (responding only to inbound calls) and also limited our pre-suit letters to just two. We send the required disclosure letter and (there being no response and the account reviewed for suit) then send a discounted payment offer that says we are going to file suit but would rather settle. We offer reasonable terms to the debtors to avoid a costly suit but the response rate is absolutely miserable, probably in the single digits percentage wise. Believe me, suits are time consuming and expensive, but they are often simply the only option. Even when the debtors are served, few contact us, and even fewer when the court sends them the judgment. Worse, a judgment doesn' t guarantee payment on the account. Clarification via Regulations as to what we can say and do in communications would at least promote more communication between the parties. With that, perhaps more points of contact could resolve debts before suit. I strongly disagree that litigation should be " discouraged " as it is not only a simple reality in much of debt collection but a fundamental right of a creditor. However, I think Regulations making it clear what can and cannot be done in communications that can shield the industry from the wild west of FDCPA and TCPA lawsuits would greatly encourage more communication. I also think a reasonable, good faith attempt to resolve the case (offering a payment plan and/or lump sum) before suit is filed is still a good idea as well even though our own response rate has not been great. Anything more will infringe on a creditor' s rights and interfere with state law. Perhaps the CFPB Portal could have a debt resolution aspect to it where a debtor could try to resolve an account in a " safer " more disarming manner.

I appreciate Mr. Bartmann' s comments

but they appear to be grounded in a collection agency perspective

The FDCPA and TCPA have truly made communications with debtor both difficult and hazardous for the collector.

For instance, the fact that you can' t safely leave a voice message for a debtor should be very troubling.

the response rate is absolutely miserable, probably in the single digits percentage wise.

Believe me, suits are time consuming and expensive,

Worse, a judgment doesn' t guarantee payment on the account.

Clarification via Regulations as to what we can say and do in communications would at least promote more communication between the parties.

With that, perhaps more points of contact could resolve debts before suit.

I strongly disagree that litigation should be " discouraged "

as it is not only a simple reality in much of debt collection but a fundamental right of a creditor.

However, I think Regulations making it clear what can and cannot be done in communications that can shield the industry from the wild west of FDCPA and TCPA lawsuits would greatly encourage more communication.

I also think a reasonable, good faith attempt to resolve the case (offering a payment plan and/or lump sum) before suit is filed is still a good idea as well

even though our own response rate has not been great.

Anything more will infringe on a creditor' s rights and interfere with state law.

Perhaps the CFPB Portal could have a debt resolution aspect to it where a debtor could try to resolve an account in a " safer " more disarming manner.

(there is always business and market share tension between collection agencies and law firms).

The reality is that (and this was voiced by other participants) many (not all but many) debtors simply won' t/can' t pay until they have to.

but they are often simply the only option.

Over the years, our firm has stopped initial outbound calling (responding only to inbound calls) and also limited our pre-suit letters to just two.

We send the required disclosure letter and (there being no response and the account reviewed for suit) then send a discounted payment offer that says we are going to file suit but would rather settle.

We offer reasonable terms to the debtors to avoid a costly suit but

Even when the debtors are served, few contact us, and even fewer when the court sends them the judgment.

I strongly disagree that litigation should be " discouraged "

as it is not only a simple reality in much of debt collection but a fundamental right of a creditor.

I also think a reasonable, good faith attempt to resolve the case (offering a payment plan and/or lump sum) before suit is filed is still a good idea as well

Anything more will infringe on a creditor' s rights and interfere with state law.


Input: This is the PROBLEM over and over Why should lawyers get a pass from rules of the Bar Associations or rules of the court because they are now considered " debt collectors " even I did not know this, though I have seen advertised quite a bit lawyers in the " collection " business. This is wrong. I hope if anything, this very thing is addressed. Using a lawyer to send a letter is often a way to intimidate. People become too frightened to even respond. The rules are blown off by lawyers who go into this debt collection business because they make a fast easy buck, and they know the debtor has very little recourse, and there is so few rules that protect the consumer/debtor. Being in debt stopped being a crime decades ago, but the lack of rules that protect the debtor are bringing back these draconian practices. Uniformity, is needed, and making lawyers abide by the rules of the Bar. Just two right off. It is bringing to light why this system has become so fraught with abuse.

This is the PROBLEM over and over

even I did not know this, though I have seen advertised quite a bit lawyers in the " collection " business.

This is wrong.

I hope if anything, this very thing is addressed.

Using a lawyer to send a letter is often a way to intimidate.

People become too frightened to even respond.

The rules are blown off by lawyers who go into this debt collection business

because they make a fast easy buck, and they know the debtor has very little recourse, and there is so few rules that protect the consumer/debtor.

but the lack of rules that protect the debtor are bringing back these draconian practices.

It is bringing to light why this system has become so fraught with abuse.

Why should lawyers get a pass from rules of the Bar Associations or rules of the court because they are now considered " debt collectors "

Uniformity, is needed, and making lawyers abide by the rules of the Bar.

Being in debt stopped being a crime decades ago,

I hope if anything, this very thing is addressed.

This is wrong.

The rules are blown off by lawyers who go into this debt collection business

because they make a fast easy buck, and they know the debtor has very little recourse, and there is so few rules that protect the consumer/debtor.


Input: I disagree. Keeping a paper trail protects everyone, especially the most vulnerable and least able to protect oneself.

I disagree.

Keeping a paper trail protects everyone, especially the most vulnerable and least able to protect oneself.

I disagree.

Keeping a paper trail protects everyone, especially the most vulnerable and least able to protect oneself.


Input: The Permissible hours of 9am-8 pm is good. I actually would like to see it moved to the other proposed time of 9am-7pm, but i think 8pm is a fair compromise. Because the current 8am-9pm really is just way to early/late. I (and many families) are in bed after 8pm and phone afer 8pm really is way too late. I support the 9am-8pm hours. I further support weekend calling lessened to noon-5pm because people like to sleep in on the weekends and spend time with family. Having a phone call after 5pm really is not necessary as most people will be out and/or entertaining guests at their homes and will not take calls in the afternoon. I further support adherence to blue laws that prohibit consumer contact on Sundays. Sundays really are when most people are spending whatever little time they have left before the workweek with friends and family. I do not conduct business on Sundays. The work week really should be when debt collectors are working on trying to contact consumers.

The Permissible hours of 9am-8 pm is good.

I actually would like to see it moved to the other proposed time of 9am-7pm,

but i think 8pm is a fair compromise.

Because the current 8am-9pm really is just way to early/late.

I (and many families) are in bed after 8pm

and phone afer 8pm really is way too late.

I support the 9am-8pm hours.

I further support weekend calling lessened to noon-5pm

because people like to sleep in on the weekends and spend time with family.

Having a phone call after 5pm really is not necessary

as most people will be out and/or entertaining guests at their homes and will not take calls in the afternoon.

I further support adherence to blue laws that prohibit consumer contact on Sundays.

Sundays really are when most people are spending whatever little time they have left before the workweek with friends and family.

I do not conduct business on Sundays.

The work week really should be when debt collectors are working on trying to contact consumers.

The Permissible hours of 9am-8 pm is good.

Because the current 8am-9pm really is just way to early/late.

Because the current 8am-9pm really is just way to early/late.

I (and many families) are in bed after 8pm

and phone afer 8pm really is way too late.

I (and many families) are in bed after 8pm

I support the 9am-8pm hours.

Because the current 8am-9pm really is just way to early/late.

I further support weekend calling lessened to noon-5pm

because people like to sleep in on the weekends and spend time with family.

Having a phone call after 5pm really is not necessary

as most people will be out and/or entertaining guests at their homes and will not take calls in the afternoon.

I further support adherence to blue laws that prohibit consumer contact on Sundays.

Sundays really are when most people are spending whatever little time they have left before the workweek with friends and family.

I do not conduct business on Sundays.

Sundays really are when most people are spending whatever little time they have left before the workweek with friends and family.


Input: For further reference on debt tolling: __URL__ So, again, it seems as though the SOL matters very little in these cases. Perhaps the bigger question is whether or not eliminating debt tolling should be considered as a new rule.

For further reference on debt tolling: __URL__

So, again, it seems as though the SOL matters very little in these cases.

Perhaps the bigger question is whether or not eliminating debt tolling should be considered as a new rule.