Input: I meant to say, " all lawyers should be banned from being debt collectors. " They are unethical and work strictly out of greed to circumvent the laws that are supposed to protect consumers. Verification of debts should require the creditor to provide written proof of the initial debt instrument with the consumers' signature. There should be a notarized statement of authenticity along with it. This gives a consumer the documents to file a civil suit for fraud, if needed.

I meant to say, " all lawyers should be banned from being debt collectors. "

They are unethical and work strictly out of greed to circumvent the laws that are supposed to protect consumers.

This gives a consumer the documents to file a civil suit for fraud, if needed.

Verification of debts should require the creditor to provide written proof of the initial debt instrument with the consumers' signature.

There should be a notarized statement of authenticity along with it.

I meant to say, " all lawyers should be banned from being debt collectors. "

They are unethical and work strictly out of greed to circumvent the laws that are supposed to protect consumers.

Verification of debts should require the creditor to provide written proof of the initial debt instrument with the consumers' signature.

They are unethical and work strictly out of greed to circumvent the laws that are supposed to protect consumers.

There should be a notarized statement of authenticity along with it.

This gives a consumer the documents to file a civil suit for fraud, if needed.


Input: just the phone number should show up on the called ID. The consumer can google the number and figure out if they want to talk or call back the number. More importantly, it gives attorneys the ability to make fdcpa claims against collection agencies since we know who is calling.

just the phone number should show up on the called ID.

The consumer can google the number and figure out if they want to talk or call back the number.

More importantly, it gives attorneys the ability to make fdcpa claims against collection agencies

since we know who is calling.

just the phone number should show up on the called ID.

The consumer can google the number and figure out if they want to talk or call back the number.

just the phone number should show up on the called ID.

More importantly, it gives attorneys the ability to make fdcpa claims against collection agencies

More importantly, it gives attorneys the ability to make fdcpa claims against collection agencies

since we know who is calling.


Input: A central system has privacy concerns and it would be useful only if it included verification of who picked up the document and when. Instead creditors and debt buyers should be mandated to allow secure document uploading to their own website with official notification that the document has been reviewed. I have a pending case of a company misapplying my payments, I had to send many registered letters and faxes with proof of payment which cost some money and time. With this company anything you send them " doesn' t exist " unless you have verifiable proof they have been forced to accept it. It would be a lot easier for the consumers to just upload the documentation and get verification the company reviewed it which can be used for a complaint. There should be penalties of fines for not marking an uploaded document as " reviewed " after a period of time.

A central system has privacy concerns

and it would be useful only if it included verification of who picked up the document and when.

With this company anything you send them " doesn' t exist " unless you have verifiable proof they have been forced to accept it.

It would be a lot easier for the consumers to just upload the documentation and get verification the company reviewed it which can be used for a complaint.

Instead creditors and debt buyers should be mandated to allow secure document uploading to their own website with official notification that the document has been reviewed.

There should be penalties of fines for not marking an uploaded document as " reviewed " after a period of time.

I have a pending case of a company misapplying my payments,

I had to send many registered letters and faxes with proof of payment which cost some money and time.


Input: The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau needs to have a large core of undercover agents that get jobs at collection agencies, credit agencies and servicers. These agents need full federal law enforcement powers with guns and badges so they can perp-walk suspects out of their offices and take them to federal holding facilities for trial when they have proof of criminal activity. Currently it seems many creditors, servicers and debt collectors consider themselves above the law. There' s only two ways to discourage that thinking and that' s jail time and/or fines. After conviction, victims should receive a framed and signed (first name or nickname of the agent) photograph of the perp-walk. They usually don' t get their money back but that' s something they will treasure.

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau needs to have a large core of undercover agents that get jobs at collection agencies, credit agencies and servicers.

These agents need full federal law enforcement powers with guns and badges

After conviction, victims should receive a framed and signed (first name or nickname of the agent) photograph of the perp-walk.

so they can perp-walk suspects out of their offices and take them to federal holding facilities for trial when they have proof of criminal activity.

Currently it seems many creditors, servicers and debt collectors consider themselves above the law.

There' s only two ways to discourage that thinking and that' s jail time and/or fines.

but that' s something they will treasure.

They usually don' t get their money back

These agents need full federal law enforcement powers with guns and badges

so they can perp-walk suspects out of their offices and take them to federal holding facilities for trial when they have proof of criminal activity.


Input: When a debt collection company (Bayview) took over servicing of my mortgage, I began receiving phone calls at work and on my cell phone about my mortgage payments even thought they were not late. This included robo-calls. I was told this was' standard' and to ignore these phone calls, but I really got angry and filed a BBB complaint in the state of one office. I was never late with one payment, and our mortgage was not in debt collection. Bayview may be a debt collector, but they need to keep those services separate from their mortgage services. Calling people at work, robo-calls, and harassing them when they do not have delinquent debts should be against the law.

When a debt collection company (Bayview) took over servicing of my mortgage, I began receiving phone calls at work and on my cell phone about my mortgage payments

even thought they were not late.

This included robo-calls.

I was told this was' standard' and to ignore these phone calls,

but I really got angry and filed a BBB complaint in the state of one office.

I was never late with one payment,

and our mortgage was not in debt collection.

Bayview may be a debt collector,

but they need to keep those services separate from their mortgage services.

Calling people at work, robo-calls, and harassing them when they do not have delinquent debts should be against the law.


Input: I am dealing with a debt collection company who is also a mortgage company. They are having issues separating the two types of services. They are also having an incredible amount of IT (web) problems. Their website is down, or only their staff can see it, or they cannot upload my account information, etc. Other IT issues include their System, which " tells them " it has mailed me documents, but apparently does not really do it. My point is, I am able to capture a lot of this using ScreenShots and electronic communication, providing a very detailed log. I have sent my screenshots of the errors I saw on my account screen to their IT staff, and it may have helped resolve their website issues a few weeks later. I would highly recommend the use of electronic media as a formal way to communicate on both ends.

I am dealing with a debt collection company who is also a mortgage company.

They are having issues separating the two types of services.

and it may have helped resolve their website issues a few weeks later.

I would highly recommend the use of electronic media as a formal way to communicate on both ends.

They are also having an incredible amount of IT (web) problems.

Their website is down, or only their staff can see it, or they cannot upload my account information, etc.

Other IT issues include their System, which " tells them " it has mailed me documents, but apparently does not really do it.

My point is, I am able to capture a lot of this using ScreenShots and electronic communication, providing a very detailed log.

I have sent my screenshots of the errors I saw on my account screen to their IT staff,

They are also having an incredible amount of IT (web) problems.

Their website is down, or only their staff can see it, or they cannot upload my account information, etc.

They are also having an incredible amount of IT (web) problems.

Other IT issues include their System, which " tells them " it has mailed me documents, but apparently does not really do it.


Input: The agency I work for is small and follows FDCPA to the letter of the law. And yet we are still sued constantly by attorneys representing debtors. These attorneys count on the fact that it' s less costly to settle than to go to court to prove that we have not violated the law. Our retail division is in trouble because we' ve recently lost our two largest clients--for this reason. They' re now getting slapped with bogus lawsuits as well. People don' t even have to pay their bills any more; they just send a " cease and desist " letter, hire an attorney, and wait for a settlement to roll in. All this will lead to are more stringent rules around extending credit, which is not a good thing for the economy. If we keep going down this slope, the only people who will be able to get credit will be those who don' t need it.

The agency I work for is small and follows FDCPA to the letter of the law.

These attorneys count on the fact that it' s less costly to settle than to go to court to prove that we have not violated the law.

Our retail division is in trouble

They' re now getting slapped with bogus lawsuits as well.

People don' t even have to pay their bills any more;

they just send a " cease and desist " letter, hire an attorney, and wait for a settlement to roll in.

All this will lead to are more stringent rules around extending credit, which is not a good thing for the economy.

If we keep going down this slope, the only people who will be able to get credit will be those who don' t need it.

And yet we are still sued constantly by attorneys representing debtors.

because we' ve recently lost our two largest clients--for this reason.

Our retail division is in trouble

because we' ve recently lost our two largest clients--for this reason.


Input: This is a fantastic idea. Right now, debt buyers buy debt for an average price of 4 cents on the dollar. Many debts are bought for 2-4 cents on the dollar and many other debts are given away for free. If I were an original creditor, would like to get the most money I could for a debt owed to me. And so if I could get 10 cents on the dollar directly from the debtor, rather than 4 cents on the dollar from a debt buyer, then I would see no reason not to offer a significantly reduced debt settlement rate to the debtor (or as you call it, letting consumers bid on their own debt). Right now, original creditors offer no significant reduced rate to debtor before selling for 4 cents on the dollar. Most creditors barely even offer debtors 10% off the debt as a settlement offer. Sure, a creditor could more quickly offload portfolios to debt buyers by selling them at 4 cents on the dollar. But creditors could also make way more money offering a onetime chance at 10 cents on the dollar (or something really attractive but still more than 4 cents on the dollar). Perhaps the CFPB should make a rule that allows consumers/debtors the chance to receive a onetime offer that is valid for only X amount of days (maybe 45 days) from the date of the letter sent from their creditors of a significantly reduced rate. The offer would only be valid for a short amount of time and would also inform the consumer that, should the consumer not accept the offer, the creditor would then turn it over to a debt buyer. This letter would only be sent if the creditor " s intentions are to sell the debt and not just another attempt to collect. So that this way it gives the consumer one final chance to clear the debt owed and the creditors also have less loss and more profits and would be able to lend to more consumers, give better rates to consumers, and stimulate the economy. Because more money that is changing hands at higher values (10 cents on the dollar vs. 4 cents on the dollar) instead of sitting in the accounts receivable section waiting to be collected (one day, if ever) stimulates the economy. This rule would not negatively impact anything (or anyone) and only positively impacts everyone. One minor impact might be on the debt collection industry possibly receiving less debt in their portfolios that they buy, but this minor impact is offset by the large positive impacts on the economy.

This is a fantastic idea.

If I were an original creditor, would like to get the most money I could for a debt owed to me.

And so if I could get 10 cents on the dollar directly from the debtor, rather than 4 cents on the dollar from a debt buyer, then I would see no reason not to offer a significantly reduced debt settlement rate to the debtor (or as you call it, letting consumers bid on their own debt).

Sure, a creditor could more quickly offload portfolios to debt buyers by selling them at 4 cents on the dollar.

But creditors could also make way more money offering a onetime chance at 10 cents on the dollar (or something really attractive but still more than 4 cents on the dollar).

So that this way it gives the consumer one final chance to clear the debt owed

and the creditors also have less loss and more profits and would be able to lend to more consumers, give better rates to consumers, and stimulate the economy.

Because more money that is changing hands at higher values (10 cents on the dollar vs. 4 cents on the dollar) instead of sitting in the accounts receivable section waiting to be collected (one day, if ever) stimulates the economy.

This rule would not negatively impact anything (or anyone) and only positively impacts everyone.

One minor impact might be on the debt collection industry possibly receiving less debt in their portfolios that they buy,

but this minor impact is offset by the large positive impacts on the economy.

Right now, debt buyers buy debt for an average price of 4 cents on the dollar.

Many debts are bought for 2-4 cents on the dollar

and many other debts are given away for free.

Right now, original creditors offer no significant reduced rate to debtor before selling for 4 cents on the dollar.

Most creditors barely even offer debtors 10% off the debt as a settlement offer.

Perhaps the CFPB should make a rule that allows consumers/debtors the chance to receive a onetime offer that is valid for only X amount of days (maybe 45 days) from the date of the letter sent from their creditors of a significantly reduced rate.

The offer would only be valid for a short amount of time and would also inform the consumer that, should the consumer not accept the offer, the creditor would then turn it over to a debt buyer.

This letter would only be sent if the creditor " s intentions are to sell the debt and not just another attempt to collect.

This letter would only be sent if the creditor " s intentions are to sell the debt and not just another attempt to collect.

So that this way it gives the consumer one final chance to clear the debt owed

This letter would only be sent if the creditor " s intentions are to sell the debt and not just another attempt to collect.

and the creditors also have less loss and more profits and would be able to lend to more consumers, give better rates to consumers, and stimulate the economy.


Input: Yes, I do think your restrictions on workplace calls per week would be helpful, but I do not see any information requiring details on the content of Robo-Calls. For example, the calls I referred to earlier included robo-calls telling me that I had " messages " waiting for me in my Bayview Account, and to access these messages, I needed to call a special phone number. Well, this was a bunch of baloney it was just a recording wanting to know where I had sent my mortgage payment I had not set up an electronic deposit yet, like they wanted, so they assumed I was skipping a payment). I believe those robo-calls were fraudulent and misleading, particularly since I was never late on any payments, and I never had any " message " waiting for me. Just a robotic collection message. I received three of these messages and they are still saved in my cell phone voice mail.

Yes, I do think your restrictions on workplace calls per week would be helpful,

but I do not see any information requiring details on the content of Robo-Calls.

Well, this was a bunch of baloney

so they assumed I was skipping a payment).

I believe those robo-calls were fraudulent and misleading,

For example, the calls I referred to earlier included robo-calls telling me that I had " messages " waiting for me in my Bayview Account, and to access these messages, I needed to call a special phone number.

it was just a recording wanting to know where I had sent my mortgage payment

I had not set up an electronic deposit yet, like they wanted,

particularly since I was never late on any payments,

and I never had any " message " waiting for me. Just a robotic collection message.

I received three of these messages

and they are still saved in my cell phone voice mail.

I believe those robo-calls were fraudulent and misleading,

particularly since I was never late on any payments,

I believe those robo-calls were fraudulent and misleading,

and I never had any " message " waiting for me. Just a robotic collection message.


Input: I was flat out lied to by the attorney for a credit card company who brought a small claims suit against me. I disputed the debt (and still do even after they garnished my wagesbut they intimidated me into a payment arrangement then lied to me and said there was no court date anymore since I " settled ". I was skeptical and called the clerk of court' s office only to find out they liedand I did need to show up. I showed up for the court date, even as I argued that this court had no jurisdiction over me because I never lived in that countybut no-one even the clerk' s office would listen to meand I was denied the right to go before a judge. I was only given an opportunity to talk to the attorney for the credit card company and sign papers saying we had a payment arrangement. Long story short, I made 1 of 2 payments then lost my job. I called them immediately to tell them I would make the 2nd and final payment 2-3 weeks late because I had to wait for a final check. They told me okay, but unbeknownst to me, they went back to court without me and got a default judgement for $1600 on what would have been a $709 payment. iI never got notice of the court hearing nor did I ever get a copy of the judgement. I didn' t find out about it until I got a wage garnishment notice from my new employer 2 1/2 years later.... VERY humiliating! My employer got the wage garnishment notice a week before I didso I couldn' t even dispute it before my employer was involved. Second, I called the clerk of court' s office in that county (3 hours from my home) and argued that you can' t go to court without giving me a chance to defend myself and I shouldn' t be forced to drive 3 hours each way to a county I never lived in. I was told by the clerk' s office that they can file it wherever they want and I have to show up. I asked " So if they wanted to file this in California to be jerks you' re telling me I' d have to get on a plane and fly to California to defend a $709 lawsuit " " She said " Yes. " THAT HAS TO CHANGE.

I was flat out lied to by the attorney for a credit card company who brought a small claims suit against me.

wagesbut they intimidated me into a payment arrangement then lied to me and said there was no court date anymore since I " settled ".

countybut no-one even the clerk' s office would listen to meand

I didn' t find out about it until I got a wage garnishment notice from my new employer 2 1/2 years later.... VERY humiliating!

I disputed the debt (and still do even after they garnished my wages

I was skeptical and called the clerk of court' s office only to find out they liedand

and I did need to show up.

I showed up for the court date, even as I argued that this court had no jurisdiction over me because I never lived in that county

and I was denied the right to go before a judge.

I was only given an opportunity to talk to the attorney for the credit card company and sign papers saying we had a payment arrangement.

Long story short, I made 1 of 2 payments then lost my job.

I called them immediately to tell them I would make the 2nd and final payment 2-3 weeks late because I had to wait for a final check.

They told me okay,

but unbeknownst to me, they went back to court without me and got a default judgement for $1600 on what would have been a $709 payment.

iI never got notice of the court hearing

nor did I ever get a copy of the judgement.

My employer got the wage garnishment notice a week before I did

didso I couldn' t even dispute it before my employer was involved.

Second, I called the clerk of court' s office in that county (3 hours from my home) and argued that you can' t go to court without giving me a chance to defend myself and I shouldn' t be forced to drive 3 hours each way to a county I never lived in.

I was told by the clerk' s office that they can file it wherever they want and I have to show up.

I asked " So if they wanted to file this in California to be jerks you' re telling me I' d have to get on a plane and fly to California to defend a $709 lawsuit " "

She said " Yes. "

THAT HAS TO CHANGE.

didso I couldn' t even dispute it before my employer was involved.

My employer got the wage garnishment notice a week before I did


Input: I support these restrictions on robo-calling and any calls during the work hours. With respect to robo-calls, any robo-calls that are misleading should be restricted. That is, a robo-call that tells you that you have a message or an account update, and the only way to get it is to call a special number with an extension, but when you call, it is just the same message asking where your payment is, is a waste of the consumer' s time and the consumer' s cellular resources (two phone calls, one received, one sent).

I support these restrictions on robo-calling and any calls during the work hours.

That is, a robo-call that tells you that you have a message or an account update, and the only way to get it is to call a special number with an extension, but when you call, it is just the same message asking where your payment is, is a waste of the consumer' s time and the consumer' s cellular resources (two phone calls, one received, one sent).

With respect to robo-calls, any robo-calls that are misleading should be restricted.

I support these restrictions on robo-calling and any calls during the work hours.

That is, a robo-call that tells you that you have a message or an account update, and the only way to get it is to call a special number with an extension, but when you call, it is just the same message asking where your payment is, is a waste of the consumer' s time and the consumer' s cellular resources (two phone calls, one received, one sent).

With respect to robo-calls, any robo-calls that are misleading should be restricted.

That is, a robo-call that tells you that you have a message or an account update, and the only way to get it is to call a special number with an extension, but when you call, it is just the same message asking where your payment is, is a waste of the consumer' s time and the consumer' s cellular resources (two phone calls, one received, one sent).


Input: Please consider robo-calls when developing rules for this section. See my comments about robo-callers leaving messages on cell phones under robo-calling. I understand the need to protect privacy, but this is not the answer. The messages left for me on my cell phone could have been returned by anyone with access to the cell phone (family members, snoopy friends) and information on a supposedly late payment would be disclosed by the robo-caller. Robo-calling does not have the consumer' s privacy in mind.

Please consider robo-calls when developing rules for this section.

See my comments about robo-callers leaving messages on cell phones under robo-calling.

I understand the need to protect privacy,

but this is not the answer.

The messages left for me on my cell phone could have been returned by anyone with access to the cell phone (family members, snoopy friends) and information on a supposedly late payment would be disclosed by the robo-caller.

Robo-calling does not have the consumer' s privacy in mind.

Please consider robo-calls when developing rules for this section.

I understand the need to protect privacy,

Please consider robo-calls when developing rules for this section.

but this is not the answer.

but this is not the answer.

Robo-calling does not have the consumer' s privacy in mind.

Robo-calling does not have the consumer' s privacy in mind.

The messages left for me on my cell phone could have been returned by anyone with access to the cell phone (family members, snoopy friends) and information on a supposedly late payment would be disclosed by the robo-caller.


Input: Yes. I fell onto hard times during a divorce and found out a few years ago that my dad (whom I haven' t lived with for 20 + years) receives so many debt collection calls for me every day he quit answering his home phone. This is unacceptable. We cannot even figure out how they got his phone number because I never lived at that address at any point while I had those credit cards and he never co-signed any loans or credit cards with me. The only connection we can come up with is that my stepmom co-signed a short term furniture loan for me 20 years ago when I was just out of college and that maybe somehow her name is tied to my credit report in some way although I' ve never seen it on my credit reports. This is now 6 years after I went through my divorce and he told me a few months ago he still gets several calls per week for me from debt collectors. Personally, I don' t think they should be allowed to call ANY number for more than 3 months without successful contact with the debtor. Clearly, they don' t have proof they' ve got the right number and all they' re doing by calling the same unverified number for 6 years is harrassing an innocent party.

Yes. I fell onto hard times during a divorce and found out a few years ago that my dad (whom I haven' t lived with for 20 + years) receives so many debt collection calls for me every day he quit answering his home phone.

because I never lived at that address at any point while I had those credit cards and he never co-signed any loans or credit cards with me.

The only connection we can come up with is that my stepmom co-signed a short term furniture loan for me 20 years ago when I was just out of college and that maybe somehow her name is tied to my credit report in some way

although I' ve never seen it on my credit reports.

This is now 6 years after I went through my divorce

and he told me a few months ago he still gets several calls per week for me from debt collectors.

Clearly, they don' t have proof they' ve got the right number

This is unacceptable.

We cannot even figure out how they got his phone number

and all they' re doing by calling the same unverified number for 6 years is harrassing an innocent party.

Personally, I don' t think they should be allowed to call ANY number for more than 3 months without successful contact with the debtor.

We cannot even figure out how they got his phone number

because I never lived at that address at any point while I had those credit cards and he never co-signed any loans or credit cards with me.


Input: I guess I should also have clarified in my previous comment that I have made attempts to deal with creditors directly if I know who they are and who they claim to be representing but my personal perception is they PREFER to continue contacting 3rd parties because they hope I' ll just pay them to avoid the public humiliation. And in regards to a comment I read here that creditors can call a 3rd party again if they have a reasonable belief that the person knows how to contact the debtor, I disagree with that entirely. First of all, I' m not aware of any law that compels a 3rd party to provide current contact information for a debtor, so even if they do know where that debtor is, they don' t deserve to be harassed daily for months or years as punishment for not offering up that information. Many people don' t want to be involved and no law that I know of says they have to if they aren' t a party to the debt. Secondly, there is no clear and concise way I know of that a creditor can prove what was a reasonable belief. My in-laws have no idea how to reach my sister-in-law because she wants it that way. They haven' t spoken in 3 years and I don' t see that changing. You can' t assume that certain relatives MUST know where a debtor is.

I guess I should also have clarified in my previous comment that I have made attempts to deal with creditors directly if I know who they are and who they claim to be representing

My in-laws have no idea how to reach my sister-in-law

They haven' t spoken in 3 years

but my personal perception is they PREFER to continue contacting 3rd parties

because they hope I' ll just pay them to avoid the public humiliation.

And in regards to a comment I read here that creditors can call a 3rd party again if they have a reasonable belief that the person knows how to contact the debtor, I disagree with that entirely.

so even if they do know where that debtor is, they don' t deserve to be harassed daily for months or years as punishment for not offering up that information.

Secondly, there is no clear and concise way I know of that a creditor can prove what was a reasonable belief.

because she wants it that way.

and I don' t see that changing.

You can' t assume that certain relatives MUST know where a debtor is.

First of all, I' m not aware of any law that compels a 3rd party to provide current contact information for a debtor,

Many people don' t want to be involved

and no law that I know of says they have to if they aren' t a party to the debt.

but my personal perception is they PREFER to continue contacting 3rd parties

because they hope I' ll just pay them to avoid the public humiliation.

And in regards to a comment I read here that creditors can call a 3rd party again if they have a reasonable belief that the person knows how to contact the debtor, I disagree with that entirely.

First of all, I' m not aware of any law that compels a 3rd party to provide current contact information for a debtor,

And in regards to a comment I read here that creditors can call a 3rd party again if they have a reasonable belief that the person knows how to contact the debtor, I disagree with that entirely.

Secondly, there is no clear and concise way I know of that a creditor can prove what was a reasonable belief.

so even if they do know where that debtor is, they don' t deserve to be harassed daily for months or years as punishment for not offering up that information.

First of all, I' m not aware of any law that compels a 3rd party to provide current contact information for a debtor,

My in-laws have no idea how to reach my sister-in-law

because she wants it that way.

They haven' t spoken in 3 years

My in-laws have no idea how to reach my sister-in-law

You can' t assume that certain relatives MUST know where a debtor is.

My in-laws have no idea how to reach my sister-in-law


Input: I have had several doctor/laboratory debts placed on my credit report. These are debts that I never rec' d a bill for or even a phone call from the hospital or facility. I have very good health insurance that paid over $14k when I had my baby... 3 months go by and I start getting notified by my credit monitoring agency that my credit score is going down. things such as a (pediatric audiology test $83) when my baby was 1 day old. apparently the audiologist doesnt bill through the hospital.... subsequently, they also dont bill the patients.. they outsource their billing to a 3rd party collection agency who immediately reports it to all 3 credit bureaus. Maybe i missed that forumn on this sight, A company can send a $100 bill to Transunion and say I owe it, and BAM... my credit score takes a 10 point dive. Agencies should not be able to put something on your credit report without first having not only validated the debt and provided any and all documents that prove you owe the debt, but they must be required to have attempted to collect the debt. I have had businesses tell em that its cheaper to put the bill directly on your credit report than it is to hire a 3rd party to collect the debt. This is a horrible injustice to the people who pay their bills, maintain health iunsurance and who will pay their outstanding debts. The system is set up to force the consumer to prove their innocence (if you will) verus the creditor proving they are owed a debt.

I have had several doctor/laboratory debts placed on my credit report.

These are debts that I never rec' d a bill for or even a phone call from the hospital or facility.

I have very good health insurance that paid over $14k when I had my baby...

3 months go by and I start getting notified by my credit monitoring agency that my credit score is going down.

things such as a (pediatric audiology test $83) when my baby was 1 day old.

A company can send a $100 bill to Transunion and say I owe it,

and BAM... my credit score takes a 10 point dive.

I have had businesses tell em that its cheaper to put the bill directly on your credit report than it is to hire a 3rd party to collect the debt.

apparently the audiologist doesnt bill through the hospital....

subsequently, they also dont bill the patients..

they outsource their billing to a 3rd party collection agency who immediately reports it to all 3 credit bureaus.

Maybe i missed that forumn on this sight,

This is a horrible injustice to the people who pay their bills, maintain health iunsurance and who will pay their outstanding debts.

The system is set up to force the consumer to prove their innocence (if you will) verus the creditor proving they are owed a debt.

Agencies should not be able to put something on your credit report without first having not only validated the debt and provided any and all documents that prove you owe the debt, but they must be required to have attempted to collect the debt.

Agencies should not be able to put something on your credit report without first having not only validated the debt and provided any and all documents that prove you owe the debt, but they must be required to have attempted to collect the debt.

A company can send a $100 bill to Transunion and say I owe it,

Agencies should not be able to put something on your credit report without first having not only validated the debt and provided any and all documents that prove you owe the debt, but they must be required to have attempted to collect the debt.

and BAM... my credit score takes a 10 point dive.


Input: Currently, CRA' s deny responsibility for " reporting " inaccurate information given to them. CRA' s should be liable for both actual and punitive damages caused by " reporting " inaccurate information.

Currently, CRA' s deny responsibility for " reporting " inaccurate information given to them.

CRA' s should be liable for both actual and punitive damages caused by " reporting " inaccurate information.


Input: As a college grad since 1979 and a first-time homebuyer, I have found widespread violations of the FDCPA among the creditors and their outsourced private collections agencies. I' ve also found and been a victim of deception in the debt collection practice observing poor record keeping on the part of all parties. We must first examine debt collection from a derivative and forensic viewpoint; corporate finance, federally/state funded institutions and their debt obligations. GAAP allows for the write-off of old debts. Yet and still the creditors outsource collection agencies to collect debts the creditor has written off of their balance sheet. The debtor is always subject to the debt because the collection agency takes a percentage Then comes the finance charge (interest) and late payment charges. In essence, the original debt remains the same because the debtor is only paying commission, interest and late charges. I attended a Texas private college (state funded) that lost its accreditation for mismanagement of funds. My financial aid consisted of the BEOG, NDSL, Stafford Loan and the Merit Scholarship. The school policy was to clear the balance of my bill before my grades were released. Each grade period, whatever the balance was, my Mom used the funds she had left from our Social Security Income (father deceased 1972) after paying monthly expenses to send to me for my grades to be released. After my marriage, the Dept of Ed (Higher Ed) offset two years of joint tax returns, private collection agencies constantly called. When I was employed, I voluntarily paid $50/mo. for two years on this debt of which the principle was $4, 650. Even after over 30 yrs., the debt was recorded as a Federal Abstract of Judgement at the county registrar (filed by private attorneys) as if I still owe the debt. I wasn' t properly served. The process server (whomever it was) left a large manila envelope. Now the debt has been turned over to the Dept. of Justice in the State of Michigan. My point is that there is a widespread conflict of interest among the creditor and those outsourced by the creditor for debt collection. Most, if not all of these organizations are operated by taxpayer funding. The taxpayers are the ultimate creditors.

As a college grad since 1979 and a first-time homebuyer, I have found widespread violations of the FDCPA among the creditors and their outsourced private collections agencies.

I' ve also found and been a victim of deception in the debt collection practice observing poor record keeping on the part of all parties.

I attended a Texas private college (state funded) that lost its accreditation for mismanagement of funds.

My financial aid consisted of the BEOG, NDSL, Stafford Loan and the Merit Scholarship.

Each grade period, whatever the balance was, my Mom used the funds she had left from our Social Security Income (father deceased 1972) after paying monthly expenses to send to me for my grades to be released.

When I was employed, I voluntarily paid $50/mo. for two years on this debt of which the principle was $4, 650.

Even after over 30 yrs., the debt was recorded as a Federal Abstract of Judgement at the county registrar (filed by private attorneys) as if I still owe the debt.

The process server (whomever it was) left a large manila envelope.

Now the debt has been turned over to the Dept. of Justice in the State of Michigan.

We must first examine debt collection from a derivative and forensic viewpoint; corporate finance, federally/state funded institutions and their debt obligations.

GAAP allows for the write-off of old debts.

Yet and still the creditors outsource collection agencies to collect debts the creditor has written off of their balance sheet.

because the collection agency takes a percentage

Then comes the finance charge (interest) and late payment charges.

In essence, the original debt remains the same

because the debtor is only paying commission, interest and late charges.

The school policy was to clear the balance of my bill before my grades were released.

After my marriage, the Dept of Ed (Higher Ed) offset two years of joint tax returns, private collection agencies constantly called.

Most, if not all of these organizations are operated by taxpayer funding.

The debtor is always subject to the debt

I wasn' t properly served.

My point is that there is a widespread conflict of interest among the creditor and those outsourced by the creditor for debt collection.

The taxpayers are the ultimate creditors.

The debtor is always subject to the debt

because the collection agency takes a percentage

In essence, the original debt remains the same

because the debtor is only paying commission, interest and late charges.

I wasn' t properly served.

Even after over 30 yrs., the debt was recorded as a Federal Abstract of Judgement at the county registrar (filed by private attorneys) as if I still owe the debt.


Input: Technology does not allow debtors or alleged debtors to distinguish land lines from cellphones of debt collectors; whether private or federal. There appears to be a double standard between the debtor and collector. I have received calls after business hours and sometimes even on a Sunday from a mortgage servicer, whom I will not disclose. This particular servicer has even left an anonymous type of flyer (one that can be hung on a doorknob) with instructions to call the specific servicer' s customer service phone number; without disclosing the name of the servicer, although I was already familiar with the phone number. I would classify this as mail fraud because it bypassed the mail system. The same scenario with the service of process regarding my old school loan. The service of process bypassed the mail system These are both issues that should be resolved collectively by and among the FCC, FTC and DOJ (not all inclusive). A debt collector can call the debtor from a phone number outside of the collector' s company so it won' t be included in the company' s phone log. If the debtor attempts to return the phone call, the number is either inoperable or not able to receive incoming calls. Collectors may even call a debtor in order to attempt them to give personal information about lowering the interest rate on their credit card (even if the debtor doesn' t have a credit card). It is obvious or apparent that there may be a credit card floating around in the debtor' s name unknowingly. These are all scenarios I have experienced. We haven' t gotten to the subject of sharing a debtor' s information among the debtor' s financial institution and the financial institution' s correspondent institutions and investment advisor affiliates and other business combinations of the debtor (public utilities companies, mortgage servicers, insurance companies, pension fund mgrs, etc...

Technology does not allow debtors or alleged debtors to distinguish land lines from cellphones of debt collectors; whether private or federal.

because it bypassed the mail system.

The service of process bypassed the mail system

A debt collector can call the debtor from a phone number outside of the collector' s company

so it won' t be included in the company' s phone log.

If the debtor attempts to return the phone call, the number is either inoperable or not able to receive incoming calls.

Collectors may even call a debtor in order to attempt them to give personal information about lowering the interest rate on their credit card (even if the debtor doesn' t have a credit card).

It is obvious or apparent that there may be a credit card floating around in the debtor' s name unknowingly.

There appears to be a double standard between the debtor and collector.

I would classify this as mail fraud

The same scenario with the service of process regarding my old school loan.

We haven' t gotten to the subject of sharing a debtor' s information among the debtor' s financial institution and the financial institution' s correspondent institutions and investment advisor affiliates and other business combinations of the debtor (public utilities companies, mortgage servicers, insurance companies, pension fund mgrs, etc...

I have received calls after business hours and sometimes even on a Sunday from a mortgage servicer, whom I will not disclose.

This particular servicer has even left an anonymous type of flyer (one that can be hung on a doorknob) with instructions to call the specific servicer' s customer service phone number; without disclosing the name of the servicer, although I was already familiar with the phone number.

These are all scenarios I have experienced.

These are both issues that should be resolved collectively by and among the FCC, FTC and DOJ (not all inclusive).

I would classify this as mail fraud

because it bypassed the mail system.


Input: I had surgery at a hospital in 2006. I have 2 forms of insurance, both excellent. Therefore I rarely have a medical bill to pay, or it is for a very small amount. Sometime after the surgery (I do not recall how long after the procedure), there were repeated calls to my phone by an actual person who said, " This is (first name), give me a call at (phone number) ". Since we did not know the person, no one called back. We thought we should report it to the DONOTCALL list, but we had no company name to report. Finally I happened to answer the phone when that number appeared and the male voice said, " you know what this is about, right? " and I said, " no ". He said, " you have an overdue charge with (hospital name). You haven' t paid your bill. I work with a bill collection company ". I said " I have never received a bill. " He said " really? " I said, " yes " He said, " Call accounting at the hospital ". I called the hospital and they said to talk to my insurance company. I called my 2nd insurance company and they said both the first and the second insurance company had paid the hospital. The 2nd insurance company said I did owe money on the bill, something like $1. 08. A bill collection company had been hired to collect $1. 08 for which I had never received a bill! I asked both insurance companies to send me additional copies of the Explanation of Benefits. When I received the copies, I sent them to the billing department of the hospital with a check for the amount that the 2nd insurance company said I owed. I never did receive a bill. Nor was i warned it might go to a collection agency. A collection agency was hired for an amount just slightly over $1. 00. Because of this experience, I do not plan ever to use this hospital again if I can help it. My family has had referrals to doctors associated with this hospital, but I always try to get a doctor who is not associated with it.

I had surgery at a hospital in 2006.

I have 2 forms of insurance, both excellent.

Sometime after the surgery (I do not recall how long after the procedure), there were repeated calls to my phone by an actual person who said, " This is (first name), give me a call at (phone number) ".

Since we did not know the person,

no one called back.

but we had no company name to report.

Finally I happened to answer the phone when that number appeared and the male voice said, " you know what this is about, right? "

and I said, " no ".

He said, " you have an overdue charge with (hospital name). You haven' t paid your bill. I work with a bill collection company ".

I said " I have never received a bill. "

He said " really? "

I said, " yes "

He said, " Call accounting at the hospital ".

I called the hospital and they said to talk to my insurance company.

I called my 2nd insurance company and they said both the first and the second insurance company had paid the hospital.

The 2nd insurance company said I did owe money on the bill, something like $1. 08.

A bill collection company had been hired to collect $1. 08 for which I had never received a bill!

I asked both insurance companies to send me additional copies of the Explanation of Benefits.

When I received the copies, I sent them to the billing department of the hospital with a check for the amount that the 2nd insurance company said I owed.

I never did receive a bill.

Nor was i warned it might go to a collection agency.

A collection agency was hired for an amount just slightly over $1. 00.

My family has had referrals to doctors associated with this hospital,

Therefore I rarely have a medical bill to pay, or it is for a very small amount.

We thought we should report it to the DONOTCALL list,

Because of this experience, I do not plan ever to use this hospital again if I can help it.

but I always try to get a doctor who is not associated with it.

Therefore I rarely have a medical bill to pay, or it is for a very small amount.

I have 2 forms of insurance, both excellent.

no one called back.

Since we did not know the person,

We thought we should report it to the DONOTCALL list,

Since we did not know the person,


Input: This particular bill collector has in the past said that I owe $20. 00 more as I had a non sufficient funds. [which I would not do]. I disputed it with my bank statements and still they insisted that I have. I refused to pay that.

This particular bill collector has in the past said that I owe $20. 00 more as I had a non sufficient funds. [which I would not do].

I disputed it with my bank statements

and still they insisted that I have.

I refused to pay that.


Input: I always pay my debts on time, and this bill collector posts on my account late-which always has a' late fee'.

I always pay my debts on time,

and this bill collector posts on my account late-which always has a' late fee'.


Input: Recently I received an " offer " from a firm indicating it would approve a new Visa or MasterCard account if I agreed to assume responsibility for a debt allegedly owed to another credit card firm. The first firm, which apparently was the original creditor, apparently sold the alleged debt to a third party. It was this third party that was making the " offer " to open a new credit account. Of course, there was a " hook. " If I agreed to assume financial responsibility for the alleged debt and if the third party opened the new account, the credit limit would be for the alleged debt plus a significant " service charge " for the transaction. The finance charge was listed at 29%. Another questionable aspect of the matter was no guarantee a credit line would remain open as the account was paid down. Thus, if the initial " credit line " was $500 to cover the outstanding debt and service fee, as the balance were paid down and/or off, the credit limit could be decreased so as to prevent it from being used for new purchases. Obviously, I shredded the " offer " package as I did not owe the initial debt. I wonder how many people will consider this a relief of some type and agree to the " offer. "

Recently I received an " offer " from a firm indicating it would approve a new Visa or MasterCard account if I agreed to assume responsibility for a debt allegedly owed to another credit card firm.

The first firm, which apparently was the original creditor, apparently sold the alleged debt to a third party.

It was this third party that was making the " offer " to open a new credit account.

If I agreed to assume financial responsibility for the alleged debt and if the third party opened the new account, the credit limit would be for the alleged debt plus a significant " service charge " for the transaction.

The finance charge was listed at 29%.

Obviously, I shredded the " offer " package

as I did not owe the initial debt.

Of course, there was a " hook. "

Another questionable aspect of the matter was no guarantee a credit line would remain open as the account was paid down.

Thus, if the initial " credit line " was $500 to cover the outstanding debt and service fee, as the balance were paid down and/or off, the credit limit could be decreased

so as to prevent it from being used for new purchases.

I wonder how many people will consider this a relief of some type and agree to the " offer. "

Thus, if the initial " credit line " was $500 to cover the outstanding debt and service fee, as the balance were paid down and/or off, the credit limit could be decreased

so as to prevent it from being used for new purchases.

Obviously, I shredded the " offer " package

as I did not owe the initial debt.


Input: One issue I am experiencing is that since I allegedly received an overpayment of wages from a former employer, I have NONE of the consumer protections that I should. I fall into the gray space of being a consumer and my alleged (and incorrectly so) debt is considered " commercial " and therefore there are absolutely NO regulations on the activities of the debt collector. The individual assigned to my account has repeatedly revealed to a third party that he is trying to collect a debt from me. The alleged debt has never been substantiated,

One issue I am experiencing is that since I allegedly received an overpayment of wages from a former employer,

I have NONE of the consumer protections that I should.

and my alleged (and incorrectly so) debt is considered " commercial "

The individual assigned to my account has repeatedly revealed to a third party that he is trying to collect a debt from me.

The alleged debt has never been substantiated,

I fall into the gray space of being a consumer

and therefore there are absolutely NO regulations on the activities of the debt collector.

I have NONE of the consumer protections that I should.

One issue I am experiencing is that since I allegedly received an overpayment of wages from a former employer,

and therefore there are absolutely NO regulations on the activities of the debt collector.

I fall into the gray space of being a consumer

and therefore there are absolutely NO regulations on the activities of the debt collector.

and my alleged (and incorrectly so) debt is considered " commercial "


Input: Some years ago, a debt collector was trying to collect a debt for an emergency room visit that included foot/leg xrays. The problem was that the only time I had ever been to the hospital in question was a worker' s compensation covered workplace injury and it involved only my hand (sliced open, six stitches). I had contacted the collection agency and informed them that I did not owe anything and the circumstances of the visit. Although that did not work, once I contacted all three credit bureaus with the same information, the debt collector was unable to verify the debt and they removed it from my credit report-and stopped contacting me.

Some years ago, a debt collector was trying to collect a debt for an emergency room visit that included foot/leg xrays.

The problem was that the only time I had ever been to the hospital in question was a worker' s compensation covered workplace injury and it involved only my hand (sliced open, six stitches).

I had contacted the collection agency and informed them that I did not owe anything and the circumstances of the visit.

Although that did not work, once I contacted all three credit bureaus with the same information, the debt collector was unable to verify the debt

and they removed it from my credit report-and stopped contacting me.

and they removed it from my credit report-and stopped contacting me.

Although that did not work, once I contacted all three credit bureaus with the same information, the debt collector was unable to verify the debt


Input: I' m concerned that the proposed rules are just a back door to allow Director Cordray to find out about my special toy collection. He has sent me writings demanding my special toy collection, and I' m afraid that now that he' s Director of the CFPB, he' s using his power to come after my favorite toy, Mr. Longblack.

I' m concerned that the proposed rules are just a back door to allow Director Cordray to find out about my special toy collection.

and I' m afraid that now that he' s Director of the CFPB, he' s using his power to come after my favorite toy, Mr. Longblack.

He has sent me writings demanding my special toy collection,

and I' m afraid that now that he' s Director of the CFPB, he' s using his power to come after my favorite toy, Mr. Longblack.

He has sent me writings demanding my special toy collection,


Input: Validation should be obtained from the Creditor by the Collection Agency prior to any Collection attempt is made by the Collection Agency at the very least. It would be even better if the Collection Agency would give notice of validation at least 5 days before any attempt is made to Collect. This notice would give the Consumer a narrow window to contact the Creditor directly to satisfy a debt that may be outstanding or to inquire about the details of the alleged debt before making a good faith payment to the Collection Agency. The rules of Evidence Judicial Procedure should be horned during the validation process. With out meeting some measure of the burden of proof all functions of Debt Collection is simply a burden to the Tax Payer, any proceedings with out court worthy documentation would be frivolous. If Custody of the debt is transfered form a Creditor to and Collection Agency the Contract must be available for the Consumer or Custody of the debt by the Collection Agency should be invalidated. Privacy should be respected. When it come to mortgage debt; Upon the issuance of a mortgage form a bank the bottom line banks holding do not decrease. In essence The bank has written new currency (guaranteed by the future payment of the Property taxes, and other Taxes placed on the individual Citizens of the United States of America backed by there Social Security numbers and property deeds) in to existence. Essentially the Borrower is giving the full amount of the mortgage plus interest to the mortgage lender. If the FDIC truly backs Lenders, The lender should maintain the documentation of the agreed debt and a Default should be handled by the FDIC. Outsourcing to a Collection Agency can compromises the custody of the debt and encourages harassment of the consumer by a 3rd party. May Fraud be Minimal and Prosperity be Abundant.

Validation should be obtained from the Creditor by the Collection Agency prior to any Collection attempt is made by the Collection Agency at the very least.

The rules of Evidence Judicial Procedure should be horned during the validation process.

If Custody of the debt is transfered form a Creditor to and Collection Agency the Contract must be available for the Consumer or Custody of the debt by the Collection Agency should be invalidated.

Privacy should be respected.

If the FDIC truly backs Lenders, The lender should maintain the documentation of the agreed debt and a Default should be handled by the FDIC.

It would be even better if the Collection Agency would give notice of validation at least 5 days before any attempt is made to Collect.

This notice would give the Consumer a narrow window to contact the Creditor directly to satisfy a debt that may be outstanding or to inquire about the details of the alleged debt before making a good faith payment to the Collection Agency.

With out meeting some measure of the burden of proof all functions of Debt Collection is simply a burden to the Tax Payer,

any proceedings with out court worthy documentation would be frivolous.

In essence The bank has written new currency (guaranteed by the future payment of the Property taxes, and other Taxes placed on the individual Citizens of the United States of America backed by there Social Security numbers and property deeds) in to existence.

Outsourcing to a Collection Agency can compromises the custody of the debt and encourages harassment of the consumer by a 3rd party.

May Fraud be Minimal and Prosperity be Abundant.

When it come to mortgage debt; Upon the issuance of a mortgage form a bank the bottom line banks holding do not decrease.

Essentially the Borrower is giving the full amount of the mortgage plus interest to the mortgage lender.

It would be even better if the Collection Agency would give notice of validation at least 5 days before any attempt is made to Collect.

This notice would give the Consumer a narrow window to contact the Creditor directly to satisfy a debt that may be outstanding or to inquire about the details of the alleged debt before making a good faith payment to the Collection Agency.

The rules of Evidence Judicial Procedure should be horned during the validation process.

With out meeting some measure of the burden of proof all functions of Debt Collection is simply a burden to the Tax Payer,

In essence The bank has written new currency (guaranteed by the future payment of the Property taxes, and other Taxes placed on the individual Citizens of the United States of America backed by there Social Security numbers and property deeds) in to existence.

When it come to mortgage debt; Upon the issuance of a mortgage form a bank the bottom line banks holding do not decrease.

Essentially the Borrower is giving the full amount of the mortgage plus interest to the mortgage lender.

In essence The bank has written new currency (guaranteed by the future payment of the Property taxes, and other Taxes placed on the individual Citizens of the United States of America backed by there Social Security numbers and property deeds) in to existence.

If the FDIC truly backs Lenders, The lender should maintain the documentation of the agreed debt and a Default should be handled by the FDIC.

Outsourcing to a Collection Agency can compromises the custody of the debt and encourages harassment of the consumer by a 3rd party.


Input: States Rights versus Federal Rights are the biggest issues with the rule making process. There is a vast divergence of state law requirements that create areas that confuse consumers, regulators, and those in the industry as to what laws apply in what settings. A universal rule that would apply in all settings would assist all parties to remove the ambiguity and conflict that currently exists with state multiple levels of regulation at the municipal, state, and two regulators at the federal level

States Rights versus Federal Rights are the biggest issues with the rule making process.

There is a vast divergence of state law requirements that create areas that confuse consumers, regulators, and those in the industry as to what laws apply in what settings.

A universal rule that would apply in all settings would assist all parties to remove the ambiguity and conflict that currently exists with state multiple levels of regulation at the municipal, state, and two regulators at the federal level


Input: Although I don' t think that it is necessary for the CFPB to have undercover agents, I do think that the CFPB should create a new class of examiners. Currently the CFPB examiners only do examinations of the financial lenders and nonbank lenders. But since the CFPB is now taking on the collection industry, the CFPB should create a new classification of examiners to do onsite examinations of the debt collection companies. This would not create any harm to the CFPB nor would it impact the CFPB " s budget or operations. The CFPB " s budget is not allocated through congressional legislation " it is allocated through monetary transfers from the Federal Reserve. All the CFPB would need to do is ask for additional transfers from the Federal Reserve to create this new classification of examiners. These new examiners would help the CFPB monitor the debt collection industry and would help stimulate the economy by adding more jobs. This is a win-win solution.

Although I don' t think that it is necessary for the CFPB to have undercover agents, I do think that the CFPB should create a new class of examiners.

the CFPB should create a new classification of examiners to do onsite examinations of the debt collection companies.

Currently the CFPB examiners only do examinations of the financial lenders and nonbank lenders.

The CFPB " s budget is not allocated through congressional legislation "

it is allocated through monetary transfers from the Federal Reserve.

But since the CFPB is now taking on the collection industry,

This would not create any harm to the CFPB

nor would it impact the CFPB " s budget or operations.

All the CFPB would need to do is ask for additional transfers from the Federal Reserve to create this new classification of examiners.

These new examiners would help the CFPB monitor the debt collection industry and would help stimulate the economy by adding more jobs.

This is a win-win solution.

Although I don' t think that it is necessary for the CFPB to have undercover agents, I do think that the CFPB should create a new class of examiners.

But since the CFPB is now taking on the collection industry,

the CFPB should create a new classification of examiners to do onsite examinations of the debt collection companies.

But since the CFPB is now taking on the collection industry,

the CFPB should create a new classification of examiners to do onsite examinations of the debt collection companies.

This would not create any harm to the CFPB

the CFPB should create a new classification of examiners to do onsite examinations of the debt collection companies.

nor would it impact the CFPB " s budget or operations.


Input: I have a charged off loan which I have been trying to get a repay plan on but the debt is listed as one amount on my CBR and the debt collector had the balance increased by $12K more when discussing it over the phone. That is outrageous that they do not have an accurate amount of what is owed to the original lender.

I have a charged off loan which I have been trying to get a repay plan on

but the debt is listed as one amount on my CBR and the debt collector had the balance increased by $12K more when discussing it over the phone.

That is outrageous that they do not have an accurate amount of what is owed to the original lender.


Input: I have a charged off debt I want to pay off. I cannot afford a lump sum and asked the debt collector and original lender in writing mutiple times to work with me on a settlement. They refuse to answer my letters and I keep writing every month. I think they should be made to at least respond to a customer requests for repayment. They keep asking for my employer name and bank account number because I know they want to use it to garnish my wages and bank account. Of course I do not have $32k to settle. It was a 2nd mtg, I lost home due to loss of job, they refused to modify because they said investor wanted to foreclose instead.

I have a charged off debt I want to pay off.

I cannot afford a lump sum and asked the debt collector and original lender in writing mutiple times to work with me on a settlement.

They refuse to answer my letters

and I keep writing every month.

They keep asking for my employer name and bank account number

Of course I do not have $32k to settle.

It was a 2nd mtg,

I lost home due to loss of job,

they refused to modify

because they said investor wanted to foreclose instead.

I think they should be made to at least respond to a customer requests for repayment.

because I know they want to use it to garnish my wages and bank account.

and I keep writing every month.

They refuse to answer my letters

They keep asking for my employer name and bank account number

because I know they want to use it to garnish my wages and bank account.

they refused to modify

because they said investor wanted to foreclose instead.


Input: There is no need for these so-called examiners but there is definitely a need for courageous and dedicated attorneys determined to enforce the laws that the CFPB should pass, laws that protect the ordinary folk, the innocent, those who' re unable to protect themselves, even those who may have actually failed to pay their bills because our constitution guarantees the right to our innocence unless proven guilty. We cannot allow expediency to deny us such fundamental rights. I believe there is such a thing as the Gideon Decision by the Supreme Court that provides for any accused to an adequate defence, so if any debt-collector or creditor for that matter denies the alleged debtor the right to have his day in court or to a proper defence, then the CFPB attorneys should come down hard on such violators. The principle behind any rules promulgated by the CFPB must ensure that no alleged debtor get bullied into paying up or blind-sided by the court into doing so. Sometimes, there are reasons why the outstanding bills are not paid and the consumer should be allowed to confront the creditor to resolve any complaints by the consumer before the bills are paid. It' s a very straight-forward and simple situation actually. All the CFB needs to do is to enact basic regulations that protects the consumer and stipulates very clearly that the burden of proof must be borne by the creditor before any debt-collector can be engaged to pursue such debts. The debt-collector must only be allowed to follow specific guidelines when doing so and the matter should be referred to a small claims court to have both sides plead their case before the court issues a ruling, rather than to allow the claim to be reported to a credit reporting agency that will destroy the credit score or rating of the consumer without his knowledge, which is absolutely wrong. Only lawful and valid debts, i. e. when a judgment order has been made, should be allowed to be reported to any credit reporting agency, to avoid creditors and debt-collectors from using such agencies to damage the interests of alleged debtors with unfounded or unproven debts.

There is no need for these so-called examiners

but there is definitely a need for courageous and dedicated attorneys determined to enforce the laws that the CFPB should pass, laws that protect the ordinary folk, the innocent, those who' re unable to protect themselves, even those who may have actually failed to pay their bills

We cannot allow expediency to deny us such fundamental rights.

It' s a very straight-forward and simple situation actually.

that will destroy the credit score or rating of the consumer without his knowledge, which is absolutely wrong.

because our constitution guarantees the right to our innocence unless proven guilty.

I believe there is such a thing as the Gideon Decision by the Supreme Court that provides for any accused to an adequate defence,

Sometimes, there are reasons why the outstanding bills are not paid

so if any debt-collector or creditor for that matter denies the alleged debtor the right to have his day in court or to a proper defence, then the CFPB attorneys should come down hard on such violators.

The principle behind any rules promulgated by the CFPB must ensure that no alleged debtor get bullied into paying up or blind-sided by the court into doing so.

and the consumer should be allowed to confront the creditor to resolve any complaints by the consumer before the bills are paid.

All the CFB needs to do is to enact basic regulations that protects the consumer and stipulates very clearly that the burden of proof must be borne by the creditor before any debt-collector can be engaged to pursue such debts.

The debt-collector must only be allowed to follow specific guidelines when doing so

and the matter should be referred to a small claims court to have both sides plead their case before the court issues a ruling, rather than to allow the claim to be reported to a credit reporting agency

Only lawful and valid debts, i. e. when a judgment order has been made, should be allowed to be reported to any credit reporting agency, to avoid creditors and debt-collectors from using such agencies to damage the interests of alleged debtors with unfounded or unproven debts.

but there is definitely a need for courageous and dedicated attorneys determined to enforce the laws that the CFPB should pass, laws that protect the ordinary folk, the innocent, those who' re unable to protect themselves, even those who may have actually failed to pay their bills

because our constitution guarantees the right to our innocence unless proven guilty.

so if any debt-collector or creditor for that matter denies the alleged debtor the right to have his day in court or to a proper defence, then the CFPB attorneys should come down hard on such violators.

I believe there is such a thing as the Gideon Decision by the Supreme Court that provides for any accused to an adequate defence,

and the matter should be referred to a small claims court to have both sides plead their case before the court issues a ruling, rather than to allow the claim to be reported to a credit reporting agency

that will destroy the credit score or rating of the consumer without his knowledge, which is absolutely wrong.


Input: It could be treated just like any document you fax or snail mail, uploading is just an easier way to get it there. As to fine time, I would say 48 hours.

It could be treated just like any document you fax or snail mail,

uploading is just an easier way to get it there.

As to fine time, I would say 48 hours.


Input: I still stand by what I said; CFPB should have a large core of undercover agents with arresting powers.

I still stand by what I said;

CFPB should have a large core of undercover agents with arresting powers.


Input: I was a reference for an ex-boyfriend on a student loan application. One of the FDCPA rules is that the reference can only be contacted once by a creditor. Well, each time the account is sold to a new collection agency, they call me again, even though I tell them I have no idea where he is. I think creditors skirt the FDCPA regulations in a manner that harasses consumers. For any given account, the reference should only be able to be called a set amount of times--such as the first three collection agencies to purchase the debt from the original creditor. Here it is, almost 9 years later, and I am still getting calls for a person who is now a stranger to me. Since it is a student loan, it could go on forever. There is no statute of limitations for government guraranteed debt that I am aware of...

I was a reference for an ex-boyfriend on a student loan application.

Well, each time the account is sold to a new collection agency, they call me again,

even though I tell them I have no idea where he is.

Here it is, almost 9 years later, and I am still getting calls for a person who is now a stranger to me.

Since it is a student loan,

One of the FDCPA rules is that the reference can only be contacted once by a creditor.

There is no statute of limitations for government guraranteed debt that I am aware of...

I think creditors skirt the FDCPA regulations in a manner that harasses consumers.

it could go on forever.

For any given account, the reference should only be able to be called a set amount of times--such as the first three collection agencies to purchase the debt from the original creditor.

it could go on forever.

Since it is a student loan,

it could go on forever.

There is no statute of limitations for government guraranteed debt that I am aware of...


Input: Items 1 through 10 should all be provided on the validation notice. Number 10 specifically should include the Date-of-service or DOS for the medical debt. Many consumers do not realize that medical debt goes to collections just like any other consumer debt. They mistakenly believe that their insurance company will resolve the issue. Also with extensive medical bills (inpatient surgical stay) consumers have professional bills from each physician (radiology, pathology, etc) in addition to technical component bills for the facility. Many times the consumer never sees these medical providers and either mistakes the bill for another aspect of the service rendered or, again, just assumes the bill/debt will " be taken care of ". additionally the name of the consumer' s insurance Co./plan on the validation notice would be quite helpful. This may seem to be a great deal of extra information but the originating physician and/or facility obtain this information at the time of or prior to service.

Items 1 through 10 should all be provided on the validation notice.

Number 10 specifically should include the Date-of-service or DOS for the medical debt.

Many consumers do not realize that medical debt goes to collections just like any other consumer debt.

They mistakenly believe that their insurance company will resolve the issue.

additionally the name of the consumer' s insurance Co./plan on the validation notice would be quite helpful.

This may seem to be a great deal of extra information

Also with extensive medical bills (inpatient surgical stay) consumers have professional bills from each physician (radiology, pathology, etc) in addition to technical component bills for the facility.

Many times the consumer never sees these medical providers and either mistakes the bill for another aspect of the service rendered or, again, just assumes the bill/debt will " be taken care of ".

but the originating physician and/or facility obtain this information at the time of or prior to service.

Number 10 specifically should include the Date-of-service or DOS for the medical debt.

Many consumers do not realize that medical debt goes to collections just like any other consumer debt.

Number 10 specifically should include the Date-of-service or DOS for the medical debt.

They mistakenly believe that their insurance company will resolve the issue.

Number 10 specifically should include the Date-of-service or DOS for the medical debt.

Also with extensive medical bills (inpatient surgical stay) consumers have professional bills from each physician (radiology, pathology, etc) in addition to technical component bills for the facility.

Number 10 specifically should include the Date-of-service or DOS for the medical debt.

Many times the consumer never sees these medical providers and either mistakes the bill for another aspect of the service rendered or, again, just assumes the bill/debt will " be taken care of ".

They mistakenly believe that their insurance company will resolve the issue.

Many consumers do not realize that medical debt goes to collections just like any other consumer debt.


Input: When calling about a debt, debt collectors MUST verify that they are speaking to the debtor (s) or other adult within the household. I know that is stated within the FDCPA but from experience I know it doesn' t always happen. My situation goes back to the 1970' s but it was done then and it' s probably still being done today. Calling repeatedly, threatening, screaming, cursing at children gets collectors absolutely nowhere. It is a most disgusting form of abuse that should never be tolerated. New language in the FDCPA should specifically and clearly state this. Additionally, there should be some form of penalty for collectors who engage in this demeaning and useless practice.

When calling about a debt, debt collectors MUST verify that they are speaking to the debtor (s) or other adult within the household.

New language in the FDCPA should specifically and clearly state this.

Additionally, there should be some form of penalty for collectors who engage in this demeaning and useless practice.

I know that is stated within the FDCPA

but from experience I know it doesn' t always happen.

My situation goes back to the 1970' s

but it was done then

and it' s probably still being done today.

Calling repeatedly, threatening, screaming, cursing at children gets collectors absolutely nowhere.

It is a most disgusting form of abuse that should never be tolerated.

When calling about a debt, debt collectors MUST verify that they are speaking to the debtor (s) or other adult within the household.

I know that is stated within the FDCPA

Additionally, there should be some form of penalty for collectors who engage in this demeaning and useless practice.

It is a most disgusting form of abuse that should never be tolerated.


Input: My husband called a creditor about payments to an old account and wanted to make the account current after missed payments, due to job loss. The account was reopened under a new account number. Now I have 2 accounts on my credit report with the same amount.

My husband called a creditor about payments to an old account and wanted to make the account current after missed payments, due to job loss.

The account was reopened under a new account number.

Now I have 2 accounts on my credit report with the same amount.


Input: In Michigan a company had its Collection Agency Revoked due to unethical practices 2008. But this did not stop them. Now they practice as attorneys and continue the unethical practices. Yes states must figure out how to close this loophole.

In Michigan a company had its Collection Agency Revoked due to unethical practices 2008.

But this did not stop them.

Now they practice as attorneys and continue the unethical practices.

Yes states must figure out how to close this loophole.

Yes states must figure out how to close this loophole.

In Michigan a company had its Collection Agency Revoked due to unethical practices 2008.

Yes states must figure out how to close this loophole.

But this did not stop them.

Yes states must figure out how to close this loophole.

Now they practice as attorneys and continue the unethical practices.


Input: Yes, that just happened to me today, someone called trying to locate a friend saying they were a " courier service. "

Yes, that just happened to me today,

someone called trying to locate a friend saying they were a " courier service. "


Input: It might help to take a look at how debt collectors are compensated. I think, based upon people I know who have held such work, that collectors who receive their pay based on a commission are incentivized to abuse the consumer. I do not think the CFPB' s mission is to provide job security for the debt collection industry.

It might help to take a look at how debt collectors are compensated.

I do not think the CFPB' s mission is to provide job security for the debt collection industry.

I think, based upon people I know who have held such work, that collectors who receive their pay based on a commission are incentivized to abuse the consumer.


Input: Marian makes an excellent point about how Debt Collectors are paid. They try to get as much money upfront as possible. Ironically, if they get too much money upfront, the credit card company might snatch the account back from the debt collector. If the amount is " too low " that the debt collector receives, they are not interested. This goes against many sales principles that it is easier to interact at a later date with a paying customer versus trying to make a big score all at once.

Marian makes an excellent point about how Debt Collectors are paid.

If the amount is " too low " that the debt collector receives, they are not interested.

This goes against many sales principles that it is easier to interact at a later date with a paying customer versus trying to make a big score all at once.

They try to get as much money upfront as possible.

Ironically, if they get too much money upfront, the credit card company might snatch the account back from the debt collector.


Input: I had an issue where an attorney, acting on my behalf, requested verification of the loan debt and never heard back from the collector. Therefore can not move ahead with settlement until they respond.

I had an issue where an attorney, acting on my behalf, requested verification of the loan debt and never heard back from the collector.

Therefore can not move ahead with settlement until they respond.

Therefore can not move ahead with settlement until they respond.

I had an issue where an attorney, acting on my behalf, requested verification of the loan debt and never heard back from the collector.


Input: I too have received calls from collectors who are on fishing expeditions, looking for a person who owes money. THE PROBLEM IS, EVEN AFTER BEING INFORMED THAT THE PERSON THEY ARE LOOKING FOR CANNOT BE REACHED AT MY PHONE NUMER AND TO PUT ME ON THEIR DO NOT CALL LIST-THEY STILL CALL. I have contacted local law enforcement, state attorney general and federal levels and been informed that if I owed money, I can have the debt collector contact me in writing only, but if I don' t owe money, I have no protection because the debt collector has a right to do business. Unless the debt collector has more than a last name that matches the person' s who owes the debt, they should be allowed to attempt to contact that phone number ONLY until they are told that that person cannot be reached at that phone number. They should need to have more than a last name for any further phone calls. They should also have to tell the person they insist on calling why they believe they can find the person who owes the money there. Additionally, they should also be required to inform the consumer of how to file a complaint if the calls continue. There should be a penalty for harassing people who don' t owe money. When you don' t owe money, getting phone calls early in the morning or late at night twice a week is harassment the more abusive ones robo call several times a day and hang up when an answering machine picks up). Additionally, the means of protecting yourself from harassment should not require any financial burden to the consumer. I was told I could file a lawsuit in the case of one extremely abusive collector

I too have received calls from collectors who are on fishing expeditions, looking for a person who owes money.

THE PROBLEM IS, EVEN AFTER BEING INFORMED THAT THE PERSON THEY ARE LOOKING FOR CANNOT BE REACHED AT MY PHONE NUMER AND TO PUT ME ON THEIR DO NOT CALL LIST-THEY STILL CALL.

I have contacted local law enforcement, state attorney general and federal levels and been informed that if I owed money, I can have the debt collector contact me in writing only, but if I don' t owe money, I have no protection because the debt collector has a right to do business.

I was told I could file a lawsuit in the case of one extremely abusive collector

Unless the debt collector has more than a last name that matches the person' s who owes the debt, they should be allowed to attempt to contact that phone number ONLY until they are told that that person cannot be reached at that phone number.

They should need to have more than a last name for any further phone calls.

They should also have to tell the person they insist on calling why they believe they can find the person who owes the money there.

Additionally, they should also be required to inform the consumer of how to file a complaint if the calls continue.

There should be a penalty for harassing people who don' t owe money.

Additionally, the means of protecting yourself from harassment should not require any financial burden to the consumer.

When you don' t owe money, getting phone calls early in the morning or late at night twice a week is harassment

the more abusive ones robo call several times a day and hang up when an answering machine picks up).

Unless the debt collector has more than a last name that matches the person' s who owes the debt, they should be allowed to attempt to contact that phone number ONLY until they are told that that person cannot be reached at that phone number.

I too have received calls from collectors who are on fishing expeditions, looking for a person who owes money.

Unless the debt collector has more than a last name that matches the person' s who owes the debt, they should be allowed to attempt to contact that phone number ONLY until they are told that that person cannot be reached at that phone number.

THE PROBLEM IS, EVEN AFTER BEING INFORMED THAT THE PERSON THEY ARE LOOKING FOR CANNOT BE REACHED AT MY PHONE NUMER AND TO PUT ME ON THEIR DO NOT CALL LIST-THEY STILL CALL.

There should be a penalty for harassing people who don' t owe money.

When you don' t owe money, getting phone calls early in the morning or late at night twice a week is harassment


Input: It seems to me that the system must provide a series of' handshakes': When a dispute is initiated; when the dispue is resolved; or when a dispute is withdrawn. In each case the consumer must know with certainty that the collector acknowledges the consumer' s position and that the CRA has been properly notified. The CRA must be party to the handshake, It is unacceptable that consumer' s complaints can laguish for months with the consumer having no way to determine whether the CRA has received updated information from the collector or whether the CRA is taking unduly long to process the update.

It seems to me that the system must provide a series of' handshakes': When a dispute is initiated; when the dispue is resolved; or when a dispute is withdrawn.

In each case the consumer must know with certainty that the collector acknowledges the consumer' s position and that the CRA has been properly notified.

The CRA must be party to the handshake,

It is unacceptable that consumer' s complaints can laguish for months with the consumer having no way to determine whether the CRA has received updated information from the collector or whether the CRA is taking unduly long to process the update.

In each case the consumer must know with certainty that the collector acknowledges the consumer' s position and that the CRA has been properly notified.

It is unacceptable that consumer' s complaints can laguish for months with the consumer having no way to determine whether the CRA has received updated information from the collector or whether the CRA is taking unduly long to process the update.


Input: I have never been deliquent on my State taxes. Due to an error made by the company I worked for in 2008, which didn' t take out taxes, I am now faced with dealing with the State Collection agency. I have never heard of the State threating the residents to try to collect taxes. I called and coopertaed, however, the callers are harassing me from morning to night. I have excellent credit and have worked for many years to maintain my credit standing. I have never owed Federal taxes that I have not agreed to pay. And never in my life owed State taxes and I am shocked that they can hound the residents like private collectors do. I am retired and and on a fixed income. For the State to be able to threaten the residents who are making attempts to pay the taxes, (one year) seems like a violation of rights.

I have never been deliquent on my State taxes.

Due to an error made by the company I worked for in 2008, which didn' t take out taxes, I am now faced with dealing with the State Collection agency.

I called and coopertaed,

I have excellent credit and have worked for many years to maintain my credit standing.

I have never owed Federal taxes that I have not agreed to pay.

And never in my life owed State taxes

I am retired and and on a fixed income.

I have never heard of the State threating the residents to try to collect taxes.

however, the callers are harassing me from morning to night.

and I am shocked that they can hound the residents like private collectors do.

For the State to be able to threaten the residents who are making attempts to pay the taxes, (one year) seems like a violation of rights.

and I am shocked that they can hound the residents like private collectors do.

I have excellent credit and have worked for many years to maintain my credit standing.

and I am shocked that they can hound the residents like private collectors do.

I have never owed Federal taxes that I have not agreed to pay.

and I am shocked that they can hound the residents like private collectors do.

And never in my life owed State taxes


Input: In 2010 I was sued by a debt collector for a debt. At the time I was in my final year of law school and was surprised at the amount of misinformation used by the plaintiff' s attorney (e. g. claiming that no proof of assignment was necessary). I informed the attorney that I would need proof that this was my debt as well as proof that his client had proper assignment of the debt. He responded by threatening (via e-mail) to interfere with my Bar admission process. I did not believe that an unsubstantiated debt would affect my ability to sit for the bar and so I stood my ground. He dropped the case (without prejudice) in Magistrate Court and then re-filed in State Court five months later while I was going through my Certification for Fitness process. As a result of his second lawsuit, the State Bar did not allow me to sit for the Bar due to " a pending lawsuit " about debt. He eventually also dropped the lawsuit in State Court. He never shared proof of this purported debt nor did he ever produce proof of assignment presumably because he never had valid proof of either). Nonetheless he was effective in " punishing " me by interfering with my ability to sit for the Bar after graduating from law school. this occurred in Georgia. Their rules for Bar Admission are available online at __URL__

In 2010 I was sued by a debt collector for a debt.

At the time I was in my final year of law school and was surprised at the amount of misinformation used by the plaintiff' s attorney (e. g. claiming that no proof of assignment was necessary).

I informed the attorney that I would need proof that this was my debt as well as proof that his client had proper assignment of the debt.

He responded by threatening (via e-mail) to interfere with my Bar admission process.

He dropped the case (without prejudice) in Magistrate Court and then re-filed in State Court five months later while I was going through my Certification for Fitness process.

As a result of his second lawsuit, the State Bar did not allow me to sit for the Bar

He eventually also dropped the lawsuit in State Court.

He never shared proof of this purported debt nor did he ever produce proof of assignment

presumably because he never had valid proof of either).

this occurred in Georgia.

I did not believe that an unsubstantiated debt would affect my ability to sit for the bar

and so I stood my ground.

due to " a pending lawsuit " about debt.

Nonetheless he was effective in " punishing " me by interfering with my ability to sit for the Bar after graduating from law school.

Their rules for Bar Admission are available online at

this occurred in Georgia.

Their rules for Bar Admission are available online at

this occurred in Georgia.

and so I stood my ground.

I did not believe that an unsubstantiated debt would affect my ability to sit for the bar

As a result of his second lawsuit, the State Bar did not allow me to sit for the Bar

He dropped the case (without prejudice) in Magistrate Court and then re-filed in State Court five months later while I was going through my Certification for Fitness process.

He never shared proof of this purported debt nor did he ever produce proof of assignment

presumably because he never had valid proof of either).


Input: I agree that expanding the scope of the validation notice would benefit consumers. Especially important is a means for the consumer to contact the original creditor and identify the account in question. When debts are sold multiple times it becomes impossible for consumers to: (1) determine if the account is theirs; (2) validate proper assignment; and (3) determine if the statute of limitations has expired. The current requirements facilitate " zombie debt " accounts which-although already paid by the consumer-come back to life again and again. Absent a means for consumers to identify an account there is no way for them to verify that they have previously paid that debt.

I agree that expanding the scope of the validation notice would benefit consumers.

Especially important is a means for the consumer to contact the original creditor and identify the account in question.

The current requirements facilitate " zombie debt " accounts which-although already paid by the consumer-come back to life again and again.

When debts are sold multiple times it becomes impossible for consumers to: (1) determine if the account is theirs; (2) validate proper assignment; and (3) determine if the statute of limitations has expired.

Absent a means for consumers to identify an account there is no way for them to verify that they have previously paid that debt.

Especially important is a means for the consumer to contact the original creditor and identify the account in question.

When debts are sold multiple times it becomes impossible for consumers to: (1) determine if the account is theirs; (2) validate proper assignment; and (3) determine if the statute of limitations has expired.

Absent a means for consumers to identify an account there is no way for them to verify that they have previously paid that debt.

When debts are sold multiple times it becomes impossible for consumers to: (1) determine if the account is theirs; (2) validate proper assignment; and (3) determine if the statute of limitations has expired.


Input: As an " authorized user " who has no access to the actual credit card, my credit rating is suffering because the " account holder " presently, is only able to make the minimum monthly payments. I don' t think this is fair and have not been able to get a direct response from anyone to see if card companies can legally do this when they collected no information from me but my name! There was NO FULL DISCLOSURE stating that as only being an " authorized user " said card company would report on my credit report.

As an " authorized user " who has no access to the actual credit card, my credit rating is suffering

because the " account holder " presently, is only able to make the minimum monthly payments.

There was NO FULL DISCLOSURE stating that as only being an " authorized user " said card company would report on my credit report.

I don' t think this is fair and have not been able to get a direct response from anyone to see if card companies can legally do this when they collected no information from me but my name!

As an " authorized user " who has no access to the actual credit card, my credit rating is suffering

because the " account holder " presently, is only able to make the minimum monthly payments.


Input: I live in Florida where proof of the debt is getting difficult for debt buyers to prove without them falsifying documents. I currently have a case where the Debt bill of sale was whited out in three places, sadly these documents were filed by an attorney at law registered with the Florida Bar Association. Debt buyers have no scruples

I live in Florida where proof of the debt is getting difficult for debt buyers to prove without them falsifying documents.

Debt buyers have no scruples

I currently have a case where the Debt bill of sale was whited out in three places,

sadly these documents were filed by an attorney at law registered with the Florida Bar Association.