Input: I understand your concern and desire to stop the calls that are not for you. No one should be spoken to with disrespect. I dislike the fact that there isn' t a clearinghouse of sorts for phone numbers that would help eliminate the needless calls. Of course how would you stop a responsible party from adding their number to the NOT responsible list? It is also unproductive for collection calls to be made to wrong party consumers. There isn' t a benefit to anyone to spend time making these calls. There are many rules and regulations to keep collection agencies honest and legal. And there are consequences if they don' t. Do you know of any consequences to someone who gives out a bad phone number, address or even a name? I think we should all ban together to restore integrity in the world of credit and stop making excuses for people who want to get out of paying.

I understand your concern and desire to stop the calls that are not for you.

I dislike the fact that there isn' t a clearinghouse of sorts for phone numbers that would help eliminate the needless calls.

Of course how would you stop a responsible party from adding their number to the NOT responsible list?

It is also unproductive for collection calls to be made to wrong party consumers.

There isn' t a benefit to anyone to spend time making these calls.

Do you know of any consequences to someone who gives out a bad phone number, address or even a name?

No one should be spoken to with disrespect.

I think we should all ban together to restore integrity in the world of credit and stop making excuses for people who want to get out of paying.

There are many rules and regulations to keep collection agencies honest and legal.

And there are consequences if they don' t.

I understand your concern and desire to stop the calls that are not for you.

No one should be spoken to with disrespect.

I dislike the fact that there isn' t a clearinghouse of sorts for phone numbers that would help eliminate the needless calls.

Of course how would you stop a responsible party from adding their number to the NOT responsible list?

It is also unproductive for collection calls to be made to wrong party consumers.

There isn' t a benefit to anyone to spend time making these calls.


Input: I have a 20 year plus debt. A couple of times I have refinanced and payed everything on my credit report. They never appear until it' s over. Every year they get a judgement against me and freeze my bank account putting me behind on my bills

I have a 20 year plus debt.

A couple of times I have refinanced and payed everything on my credit report.

They never appear until it' s over.

Every year they get a judgement against me

and freeze my bank account putting me behind on my bills


Input: I too am a family member of a consumer who claims to have paid his debt of 12-15 years ago, but my husband and I receive two or three calls a day asking for him to call various agencies about a " matter " with a case #. In one instance they said they would be at the door in one hour. This family member has not lived here for about 16 years. They should not be allowed to call anyone other than the debtor who nowadays can be found on the internet!!!

I too am a family member of a consumer who claims to have paid his debt of 12-15 years ago,

but my husband and I receive two or three calls a day asking for him to call various agencies about a " matter " with a case #.

In one instance they said they would be at the door in one hour.

This family member has not lived here for about 16 years.

They should not be allowed to call anyone other than the debtor who nowadays can be found on the internet!!!

They should not be allowed to call anyone other than the debtor who nowadays can be found on the internet!!!

I too am a family member of a consumer who claims to have paid his debt of 12-15 years ago,


Input: I was just watching " CBS This Morning " and they mentioned that FICO is going to be partnering with more financial institutions to allow the financial institutions " customers to get their FICO score for free. FICO is already offered for free with many financial institutions, but now FICO is aggressively expanding this offer through their " Open Access " program. __URL__ I have known about this ever since FICO put out a press release earlier this month. What I found out today on " CBS This Morning " is that Discover is going to allow their cardholders to see their FICO score for free on their monthly billing statement. I don' t think this is appropriate for Discover or any other business to put a consumer " s FICO score on a billing statement or any other materials that can be turned over to debt collectors. Right now, debt collectors do not have access to any consumers FICO score. They do, however, have access to something called a " collection score " which is nothing at all related to FICO or a consumers creditworthiness. This action by Discover is a HUGE privacy concern and the CFPB should not allow creditors or anyone else to have access to a consumer " s FICO score.

I was just watching " CBS This Morning "

I have known about this ever since FICO put out a press release earlier this month.

and they mentioned that FICO is going to be partnering with more financial institutions to allow the financial institutions " customers to get their FICO score for free.

FICO is already offered for free with many financial institutions,

but now FICO is aggressively expanding this offer through their " Open Access " program.

What I found out today on " CBS This Morning " is that Discover is going to allow their cardholders to see their FICO score for free on their monthly billing statement.

Right now, debt collectors do not have access to any consumers FICO score.

They do, however, have access to something called a " collection score "

I don' t think this is appropriate for Discover or any other business to put a consumer " s FICO score on a billing statement or any other materials that can be turned over to debt collectors.

which is nothing at all related to FICO or a consumers creditworthiness.

This action by Discover is a HUGE privacy concern

and the CFPB should not allow creditors or anyone else to have access to a consumer " s FICO score.

but now FICO is aggressively expanding this offer through their " Open Access " program.

and the CFPB should not allow creditors or anyone else to have access to a consumer " s FICO score.

This action by Discover is a HUGE privacy concern


Input: Give Consumers Fair Notice and A Chance to Bid on Their Own Debts When Banks Sell Defaulted Obligations to Debt Buyers When a consumer falls behind on loan or credit card payments, the bank often " sells " the account to a debt buying company for a few pennies on the dollar. Debt buyers contribute nothing to society. Yet, they are allowed to obtain windfall profits by pursuing impoverished consumers for the full face value of such debts. This is unfair. If a bank is going to sell a consumer " s debt for pennies on the dollar, the bank should be required to notify that consumer, and allow that consumer a fair chance to bid on and purchase his/her own debt, on terms just as favorable as the terms offered to any other debt buyer. I hope the CFPB will consider new rules in this regard. Please note there is currently a petition on the White House website for this issue at: __URL__ It was initiated here: __URL__

Give Consumers Fair Notice and A Chance to Bid on Their Own Debts When Banks Sell Defaulted Obligations to Debt Buyers

If a bank is going to sell a consumer " s debt for pennies on the dollar, the bank should be required to notify that consumer, and allow that consumer a fair chance to bid on and purchase his/her own debt, on terms just as favorable as the terms offered to any other debt buyer.

When a consumer falls behind on loan or credit card payments, the bank often " sells " the account to a debt buying company for a few pennies on the dollar.

Please note there is currently a petition on the White House website for this issue at:

It was initiated here:

Debt buyers contribute nothing to society.

Yet, they are allowed to obtain windfall profits by pursuing impoverished consumers for the full face value of such debts.

This is unfair.

I hope the CFPB will consider new rules in this regard.

This is unfair.

Debt buyers contribute nothing to society.

This is unfair.

Yet, they are allowed to obtain windfall profits by pursuing impoverished consumers for the full face value of such debts.


Input: I agree with josephusmyer. Our son ran up small debts at several stores and banks around eight years ago. Debt-collectors (debt-buyers) have contacted him and threatened him with legal action on time-barred debts (without notifying him of the status).

I agree with josephusmyer.

Our son ran up small debts at several stores and banks around eight years ago.

Debt-collectors (debt-buyers) have contacted him and threatened him with legal action on time-barred debts (without notifying him of the status).

I agree with josephusmyer.

Our son ran up small debts at several stores and banks around eight years ago.

I agree with josephusmyer.

Debt-collectors (debt-buyers) have contacted him and threatened him with legal action on time-barred debts (without notifying him of the status).


Input: Since the UCC and to the best of my knowledge, State laws do not define reasonable period of time, this is a problem and has been a problem for most lenders and third party collectors based on me experience of over 40 years. Consumers should be able to seek assistance from an attorney and be required to provide the attorney contact information to a collector, unless the attorney has not already. The attorney should be required to notify all creditors of representation within 20 business days of the consumer' s signed agreement of that representation. While most attorneys do notify lenders and/or third party agencies some do not and some do not respond to inquiries concerning representation. After the first lender/third party inquiry the attorney should be required to notify the lender and/or agency within 10 business days in writing of representation. The attorney should be required to notify a lender and/or third party within 7 business days that representation of the debtor has been terminated. It should not be a violation for a lender or third party to contact the debtor after 30 days to only determine if the debtor has continued representation of an attorney if there has been no communication provided by the attorney after 30 days of the initial notification in writing of representation. I have experienced no communication after the initial notice by the debtor and/or attorney received over 60-90 days and even six months. If non profit credit counseling agencies can send notification to lenders and third party collectors for representation of a consumer to reduce payments after an initial meeting I believe attorneys should be able to notify in the time periods specified. Setting rules of notification time frames would benefit all parties.

Since the UCC and to the best of my knowledge, State laws do not define reasonable period of time,

While most attorneys do notify lenders and/or third party agencies some do not and some do not respond to inquiries concerning representation.

this is a problem and has been a problem for most lenders and third party collectors based on me experience of over 40 years.

Setting rules of notification time frames would benefit all parties.

Consumers should be able to seek assistance from an attorney

and be required to provide the attorney contact information to a collector, unless the attorney has not already.

The attorney should be required to notify all creditors of representation within 20 business days of the consumer' s signed agreement of that representation.

After the first lender/third party inquiry the attorney should be required to notify the lender and/or agency within 10 business days in writing of representation.

The attorney should be required to notify a lender and/or third party within 7 business days that representation of the debtor has been terminated.

It should not be a violation for a lender or third party to contact the debtor after 30 days to only determine if the debtor has continued representation of an attorney if there has been no communication provided by the attorney after 30 days of the initial notification in writing of representation.

If non profit credit counseling agencies can send notification to lenders and third party collectors for representation of a consumer to reduce payments after an initial meeting I believe attorneys should be able to notify in the time periods specified.

I have experienced no communication after the initial notice by the debtor and/or attorney received over 60-90 days and even six months.

After the first lender/third party inquiry the attorney should be required to notify the lender and/or agency within 10 business days in writing of representation.

While most attorneys do notify lenders and/or third party agencies some do not and some do not respond to inquiries concerning representation.

The attorney should be required to notify a lender and/or third party within 7 business days that representation of the debtor has been terminated.

While most attorneys do notify lenders and/or third party agencies some do not and some do not respond to inquiries concerning representation.

If non profit credit counseling agencies can send notification to lenders and third party collectors for representation of a consumer to reduce payments after an initial meeting I believe attorneys should be able to notify in the time periods specified.

Setting rules of notification time frames would benefit all parties.


Input: I used to have a lot of debt and told every single company that called to send me something in the mail. I paid every single debt that I received mail for. Years later someone went after me and me, not knowing the rules, got stuck with it. I still have not seen anything in writing to even verify what the debt is for-and the court wasn' t any better-I didn' t even have a chance to talk to the judge. How is this right?

I used to have a lot of debt and told every single company that called to send me something in the mail.

I paid every single debt that I received mail for.

Years later someone went after me

I still have not seen anything in writing to even verify what the debt is for

I didn' t even have a chance to talk to the judge.

and me, not knowing the rules, got stuck with it.

-and the court wasn' t any better-

How is this right?

-and the court wasn' t any better-

I didn' t even have a chance to talk to the judge.


Input: They need to include the name of the original creditor as well as the account number and the brand name the consumer would recognize. Date and amount of last payment, copy of the last billing statement (supposedly) sent to the consumer. However I also think they need to send a copy of the original debt document with the consumer' s signature. Someone can send me bills for something I don' t owe, but they can' t send me a signed paper I never signed.

They need to include the name of the original creditor as well as the account number and the brand name the consumer would recognize. Date and amount of last payment, copy of the last billing statement (supposedly) sent to the consumer.

However I also think they need to send a copy of the original debt document with the consumer' s signature.

Someone can send me bills for something I don' t owe,

but they can' t send me a signed paper I never signed.

However I also think they need to send a copy of the original debt document with the consumer' s signature.

Someone can send me bills for something I don' t owe,

However I also think they need to send a copy of the original debt document with the consumer' s signature.

but they can' t send me a signed paper I never signed.


Input: I do not communicate with anyone I owe money to by phone. I want a written trail. It' s too easy for them to say I agreed to something or to give me misleading information by phone. I want it IN THE MAIL.

I do not communicate with anyone I owe money to by phone.

I want a written trail.

It' s too easy for them to say I agreed to something or to give me misleading information by phone.

I want it IN THE MAIL.

I do not communicate with anyone I owe money to by phone.

I want a written trail.

I do not communicate with anyone I owe money to by phone.

I want it IN THE MAIL.

I want a written trail.

It' s too easy for them to say I agreed to something or to give me misleading information by phone.

I want it IN THE MAIL.

I want a written trail.

I want it IN THE MAIL.

It' s too easy for them to say I agreed to something or to give me misleading information by phone.


Input: The burden of proof should be on the creditor. If you make the debtor responsible for following up with a request, it gives the creditor an opportunity to say they never received anything from the debtor... If they had to send the documents to start with, there would not be any question.

The burden of proof should be on the creditor.

If you make the debtor responsible for following up with a request, it gives the creditor an opportunity to say they never received anything from the debtor...

If they had to send the documents to start with, there would not be any question.

The burden of proof should be on the creditor.

If you make the debtor responsible for following up with a request, it gives the creditor an opportunity to say they never received anything from the debtor...

The burden of proof should be on the creditor.

If you make the debtor responsible for following up with a request, it gives the creditor an opportunity to say they never received anything from the debtor...

The burden of proof should be on the creditor.

If they had to send the documents to start with, there would not be any question.

The burden of proof should be on the creditor.

If they had to send the documents to start with, there would not be any question.


Input: The burden of proof cannot be placed anywhere else, JClark53. But, a disputed account is rare. Most people are aware of their obligations, but just cannot pay them now. Starting the process should be simple and clear to each party, not talk about judgments or disputes where it is unlikely that either apply.

The burden of proof cannot be placed anywhere else, JClark53.

But, a disputed account is rare.

Most people are aware of their obligations, but just cannot pay them now.

Starting the process should be simple and clear to each party, not talk about judgments or disputes where it is unlikely that either apply.

But, a disputed account is rare.

Most people are aware of their obligations, but just cannot pay them now.


Input: Enlisting the help of an attorney or other intermediary should also be considered a dispute. I had both my attorney and my financial advisor contact my lender. Emails, phone calls and letters all constitute disputes. I think somehow it should be taken into account that a consumer may not know the specific cause of the dispute but they may know that the end result is wrong. I knew I had made " x " number of principal payments on my loan and my lender claimed I had made " y " number of principal payments. I had emails and cancelled checks supporting the " x " number of payments and the history from my issuing bank also supported my case and dates. My lender refused to investigate, saying they had done everything just as I asked and I had instructed them to apply " y " number of payments to principal. They had no documentation to back up this assertion (their documentation was just a statement of how they processed my payments, not any of my direction). In order to get my situation fixed, I had to find the specific payment the lender misapplied from their own records, which were a mess due to the amount of errors they had made. This was not an easy task, as it was time consuming and the lenders records were not exactly layperson friendly reading. A couple of things... the average joe may not be able to read an institution' s financial recordkeeping. In my case, my bank' s history, cancelled checks and emails were all sufficient proof to my mind and the extent of consumer responsibility. At that point, the institution needed to justify their claim beyond " we did what you told us to do " and to provide proof of exactly that.

Enlisting the help of an attorney or other intermediary should also be considered a dispute.

I think somehow it should be taken into account that a consumer may not know the specific cause of the dispute but they may know that the end result is wrong.

I had both my attorney and my financial advisor contact my lender.

I knew I had made " x " number of principal payments on my loan

and my lender claimed I had made " y " number of principal payments.

I had emails and cancelled checks supporting the " x " number of payments

and the history from my issuing bank also supported my case and dates.

My lender refused to investigate, saying they had done everything just as I asked and I had instructed them to apply " y " number of payments to principal.

They had no documentation to back up this assertion

(their documentation was just a statement of how they processed my payments, not any of my direction).

In order to get my situation fixed, I had to find the specific payment the lender misapplied from their own records, which were a mess due to the amount of errors they had made.

Emails, phone calls and letters all constitute disputes.

This was not an easy task,

as it was time consuming and the lenders records were not exactly layperson friendly reading.

A couple of things... the average joe may not be able to read an institution' s financial recordkeeping.

In my case, my bank' s history, cancelled checks and emails were all sufficient proof to my mind and the extent of consumer responsibility.

At that point, the institution needed to justify their claim beyond " we did what you told us to do " and to provide proof of exactly that.

This was not an easy task,

as it was time consuming and the lenders records were not exactly layperson friendly reading.


Input: This so-called " validation notice " might better be called a' justification notice.' After all, the notification should supply the justification underlying the demand for payment; (" Why am I being asked to pay this money? "). This justification, obviously, should clearly specify the original transaction; i. e., specific product or service purchased, prior efforts to collect, (the history of the collection efforts) and present status. It' s not so much' additional information' which is required, it' s more the clarity of the information provided. That said, I' m convinced that communications between creditor and debtor should avoid words like' creditor' and' debtor,' along with words like,' charge-off',' default' (already mentioned by myself and emmacollector in this thread) and any and all words that belong in an accounting 101 book. I understand what these words signify and sometimes I get confused by who' s the creditor and who' s the debtor. Again, simplicity, which entails clarity, ought to be the guiding principle.

This so-called " validation notice " might better be called a' justification notice.'

It' s not so much' additional information' which is required,

it' s more the clarity of the information provided.

I understand what these words signify

and sometimes I get confused by who' s the creditor and who' s the debtor.

After all, the notification should supply the justification underlying the demand for payment; (" Why am I being asked to pay this money? ").

This justification, obviously, should clearly specify the original transaction; i. e., specific product or service purchased, prior efforts to collect, (the history of the collection efforts) and present status.

That said, I' m convinced that communications between creditor and debtor should avoid words like' creditor' and' debtor,' along with words like,' charge-off',' default' (already mentioned by myself and emmacollector in this thread) and any and all words that belong in an accounting 101 book.

Again, simplicity, which entails clarity, ought to be the guiding principle.

This so-called " validation notice " might better be called a' justification notice.'

After all, the notification should supply the justification underlying the demand for payment; (" Why am I being asked to pay this money? ").

Again, simplicity, which entails clarity, ought to be the guiding principle.

and sometimes I get confused by who' s the creditor and who' s the debtor.


Input: Our office throws a wide net around " disputes ". This is largely a hard one to define because it can take very specific and individual forms. Generally, however, the type of disputes we see center around when a debt buyer has purchased the debt and the consumer does not recognize the name of the debt buyer, they may generally state they don' t owe the debt (with no further reasoning as to why not) or they don' t owe as much as is being sought. Additionally, there may be claims of fraud or payment. Our office conservatively accepts verbal disputes as well as written. I think the greater issue is not what is considered a dispute, but how does a collector validate the debt? Many consumers ask for incredibly specific items. There is a poor form letter that floats around the internet that many consumers find and use, in which the consumer requests verification not validation, whatever the difference in that may be, then demands specific information be provided. I say this because then I believe many consumers feel each of those requested items must then be provided, when in fact the FDCPA is silent to the issue as to what proper verification is. I will leave that for another post, though my thought there will be defining what is verification will prove to be a difficult task as you can' t be so defined that the various types of creditors cannot possibly provide the information sought or so loosely defined that there is load of litigation needed to define it.

Our office throws a wide net around " disputes ".

This is largely a hard one to define

because it can take very specific and individual forms.

Our office conservatively accepts verbal disputes as well as written.

I think the greater issue is not what is considered a dispute,

but how does a collector validate the debt?

Many consumers ask for incredibly specific items.

I say this because then I believe many consumers feel each of those requested items must then be provided,

I will leave that for another post, though my thought there will be defining what is verification will prove to be a difficult task

as you can' t be so defined that the various types of creditors cannot possibly provide the information sought or so loosely defined that there is load of litigation needed to define it.

Generally, however, the type of disputes we see center around when a debt buyer has purchased the debt and the consumer does not recognize the name of the debt buyer,

they may generally state they don' t owe the debt (with no further reasoning as to why not) or they don' t owe as much as is being sought.

Additionally, there may be claims of fraud or payment.

There is a poor form letter that floats around the internet that many consumers find and use, in which the consumer requests verification not validation, whatever the difference in that may be, then demands specific information be provided.

when in fact the FDCPA is silent to the issue as to what proper verification is.

This is largely a hard one to define

because it can take very specific and individual forms.

There is a poor form letter that floats around the internet that many consumers find and use, in which the consumer requests verification not validation, whatever the difference in that may be, then demands specific information be provided.

I say this because then I believe many consumers feel each of those requested items must then be provided,

There is a poor form letter that floats around the internet that many consumers find and use, in which the consumer requests verification not validation, whatever the difference in that may be, then demands specific information be provided.

when in fact the FDCPA is silent to the issue as to what proper verification is.

I will leave that for another post, though my thought there will be defining what is verification will prove to be a difficult task

as you can' t be so defined that the various types of creditors cannot possibly provide the information sought or so loosely defined that there is load of litigation needed to define it.


Input: Many disputes are difficult to investigate because it is unclear what the consumer' s dispute actually is. If the consumer is specific enough so that there is a clear item to research, we will do so. However, its a vague dispute such as " I dispute this debt " or " I don' t owe this debt " (which is incredibly common), then we will provide statements or a contract to attempt to address it. The amount of the investigation is largely lead by the amount of detail the consumer relays, and most of it results in us relying on the documentation the creditor provides to resolve the dispute. Sometimes we may need to ask the creditor to research their records for indication of X, Y, or Z, but most the time the dispute isn' t that specific. I find in my practice that we will often ask a consumer to provide information to support their dispute (such as proof of payment), but then the consumer does not provide it, and we are stuck in our efforts to investigate further. Requiring only a " reasonable " investigation without further definition sounds like a punt to the courts to decide the defintion after a lot of litigation. I think at least a broad definition of obtaining documentation to support the position that consumer owes the debt/amount/and creditor is a good place to start. I would love to see consumers use a form letter prepared by the CFPB which spells out a variety of disputes and helps them articulate the dispute better. I do think one of the toughest hurdles for a collector (and one of the biggest complaints from persons against whom collection efforts are made) is when they get a person that states the debt is not theirs (but someone else' s) with the same name. We do our homework on our end to investigate (we' ll attempt to compare the last 4 digits of the social, we may run a skip trace to see if party we contacted lived at the address on the statements, etcand we will provide verification, but in a mobile world investigating that the John Smith you contacted is the same John Smith you are attempting to resolve a debt with can prove tricky. This is especially tricky if there is NEVER indication that we have reached the wrong person. We never wish to contact the wrong party regarding a debt, but it unfortunately happens because consumers don' t always relay updated contacted information to creditors and a collector then has to rely upon the best information available to them. Unfortunately, I don' t know what the fix is here. Despite the stories to the contrary, it simply is not the intent of any professional and responsible collection agency or firm to attempt collections from a party that does not owe the debt, but this is a hard one to address without good communication from the wrongly contacted party and the collector.

Many disputes are difficult to investigate

because it is unclear what the consumer' s dispute actually is.

If the consumer is specific enough so that there is a clear item to research, we will do so.

However, its a vague dispute such as " I dispute this debt " or " I don' t owe this debt " (which is incredibly common), then we will provide statements or a contract to attempt to address it.

The amount of the investigation is largely lead by the amount of detail the consumer relays,

and most of it results in us relying on the documentation the creditor provides to resolve the dispute.

but most the time the dispute isn' t that specific.

Requiring only a " reasonable " investigation without further definition sounds like a punt to the courts to decide the defintion after a lot of litigation.

I think at least a broad definition of obtaining documentation to support the position that consumer owes the debt/amount/and creditor is a good place to start.

I would love to see consumers use a form letter prepared by the CFPB which spells out a variety of disputes and helps them articulate the dispute better.

I do think one of the toughest hurdles for a collector (and one of the biggest complaints from persons against whom collection efforts are made) is when they get a person that states the debt is not theirs (but someone else' s) with the same name.

but in a mobile world investigating that the John Smith you contacted is the same John Smith you are attempting to resolve a debt with can prove tricky.

This is especially tricky if there is NEVER indication that we have reached the wrong person.

We never wish to contact the wrong party regarding a debt,

Unfortunately, I don' t know what the fix is here.

Despite the stories to the contrary, it simply is not the intent of any professional and responsible collection agency or firm to attempt collections from a party that does not owe the debt,

but this is a hard one to address without good communication from the wrongly contacted party and the collector.

Sometimes we may need to ask the creditor to research their records for indication of X, Y, or Z,

but it unfortunately happens

because consumers don' t always relay updated contacted information to creditors and a collector then has to rely upon the best information available to them.

I find in my practice that we will often ask a consumer to provide information to support their dispute (such as proof of payment), but then the consumer does not provide it, and we are stuck in our efforts to investigate further.

We do our homework on our end to investigate

(we' ll attempt to compare the last 4 digits of the social,

we may run a skip trace to see if party we contacted lived at the address on the statements, etc

and we will provide verification,

We do our homework on our end to investigate

(we' ll attempt to compare the last 4 digits of the social,

We do our homework on our end to investigate

we may run a skip trace to see if party we contacted lived at the address on the statements, etc

Many disputes are difficult to investigate

because it is unclear what the consumer' s dispute actually is.

I think at least a broad definition of obtaining documentation to support the position that consumer owes the debt/amount/and creditor is a good place to start.

Requiring only a " reasonable " investigation without further definition sounds like a punt to the courts to decide the defintion after a lot of litigation.

I would love to see consumers use a form letter prepared by the CFPB which spells out a variety of disputes and helps them articulate the dispute better.

I think at least a broad definition of obtaining documentation to support the position that consumer owes the debt/amount/and creditor is a good place to start.

but it unfortunately happens

because consumers don' t always relay updated contacted information to creditors and a collector then has to rely upon the best information available to them.


Input: While Demand Letters can be ineffective for the purpose of collecting a debt, " notice is the hallmark of fairness. " It' s more important that people are held to standards, which, in turn, help to eliminate abusive practices. Procedural safeguards, like demand letters, are an important standard regardless of their effectiveness.

While Demand Letters can be ineffective for the purpose of collecting a debt,

" notice is the hallmark of fairness. "

It' s more important that people are held to standards,

which, in turn, help to eliminate abusive practices.

Procedural safeguards, like demand letters, are an important standard regardless of their effectiveness.

It' s more important that people are held to standards,

which, in turn, help to eliminate abusive practices.

Procedural safeguards, like demand letters, are an important standard regardless of their effectiveness.

which, in turn, help to eliminate abusive practices.


Input: I would like to have some protection from the calls I have received over several years from debt collection services looking for a woman who does not live at this address and has never lived at this address. I keep getting reassurances that my number will be removed, but the calls continue.

I would like to have some protection from the calls I have received over several years from debt collection services looking for a woman who does not live at this address and has never lived at this address.

I keep getting reassurances that my number will be removed, but the calls continue.

I would like to have some protection from the calls I have received over several years from debt collection services looking for a woman who does not live at this address and has never lived at this address.

I keep getting reassurances that my number will be removed, but the calls continue.


Input: If a bank or loan company makes the installment loan and does collections itself, and the debt is not sold or turned over to a collection agency, then there is no reason for a notice to the consumers to recognize the debt. They have been making payments to the debt collector for months and already know about the debt. Besides, the lender has already sent several past due statements and a certified letter about the debt.

If a bank or loan company makes the installment loan and does collections itself, and the debt is not sold or turned over to a collection agency, then there is no reason for a notice to the consumers to recognize the debt.

They have been making payments to the debt collector for months and already know about the debt.

Besides, the lender has already sent several past due statements and a certified letter about the debt.

If a bank or loan company makes the installment loan and does collections itself, and the debt is not sold or turned over to a collection agency, then there is no reason for a notice to the consumers to recognize the debt.

They have been making payments to the debt collector for months and already know about the debt.

If a bank or loan company makes the installment loan and does collections itself, and the debt is not sold or turned over to a collection agency, then there is no reason for a notice to the consumers to recognize the debt.

Besides, the lender has already sent several past due statements and a certified letter about the debt.


Input: I have the same exact problem. I have had this problem for 20 + years. I can' t tell you how many times I' ve told the person on the other end that the person they are looking for has NEVER lived here and not a relative. It sure is disgusting. I can' t figure out what to do.

I have the same exact problem.

I have had this problem for 20 + years.

I can' t tell you how many times I' ve told the person on the other end that the person they are looking for has NEVER lived here and not a relative.

It sure is disgusting.

I can' t figure out what to do.

It sure is disgusting.

I can' t tell you how many times I' ve told the person on the other end that the person they are looking for has NEVER lived here and not a relative.


Input: It is mind-boggling that this has even been allowed to continue for so long. This should have been addressed years ago! Stop allowing the company to change names to continue poor practices. Stop allowing the companies to use hundreds of phone numbers to try to trick someone. Stop letting them block numbers so caller ID only shows " unknown " or even 000-0000. Stop putting the burden of stopping this entire industry on the consumer (who has no teeth or way to be sure the judgment is being enforced THAT IS THE JOB OF CONSUMER PROTECTION! It' s in your name! You are there to PROTECT the CONSUMER. Force these companies to properly identify themselves when asked! Debt collectors have been calling my cell phone for 5 years trying to collect a debt from someone I have never heard of. This random person put down my phone number as a contact on a loan, defaulted on that loan, and now i am the one being harassed because of a stranger! When called and they identify who they are looking for, i used to say that i did not know the person then try to ask for the name of the company, but they had already hung up on me and would then call again later. So then, after they ask for the person, I immediately ask for the name and address for the company. They would ask again for " name, " I would ask again for the name and address for the company. They would ask again for " name, " I would ask again for the name and address for the company. It becomes a shouting match, they say " I' ll just call back later when you are in a more' information giving' mood, " and hang up on me. There was/is no recourse, protection, or help for people like me. The company won' t give me their name and I don' t have a phone number (because it is " unknown ") to give to the regulating bodies to report harassing behavior. I have no way to stop these people from calling my cell phone! It is my phone! I pay the bill, not them! They should have no " RIGHT " as they put it to call a cell phone!

It is mind-boggling that this has even been allowed to continue for so long.

This should have been addressed years ago!

THAT IS THE JOB OF CONSUMER PROTECTION!

You are there to PROTECT the CONSUMER.

Stop allowing the company to change names to continue poor practices.

Stop allowing the companies to use hundreds of phone numbers to try to trick someone.

Stop letting them block numbers so caller ID only shows " unknown " or even 000-0000.

Stop putting the burden of stopping this entire industry on the consumer (who has no teeth or way to be sure the judgment is being enforced

Force these companies to properly identify themselves when asked!

They should have no " RIGHT " as they put it to call a cell phone!

It' s in your name!

Debt collectors have been calling my cell phone for 5 years trying to collect a debt from someone I have never heard of.

This random person put down my phone number as a contact on a loan, defaulted on that loan,

and now i am the one being harassed because of a stranger!

When called and they identify who they are looking for, i used to say that i did not know the person then try to ask for the name of the company, but they had already hung up on me and would then call again later.

So then, after they ask for the person, I immediately ask for the name and address for the company.

They would ask again for " name, " I would ask again for the name and address for the company.

They would ask again for " name, "

I would ask again for the name and address for the company.

It becomes a shouting match, they say " I' ll just call back later when you are in a more' information giving' mood, " and hang up on me.

There was/is no recourse, protection, or help for people like me.

The company won' t give me their name and I don' t have a phone number (because it is " unknown ") to give to the regulating bodies to report harassing behavior.

I have no way to stop these people from calling my cell phone!

It is my phone!

I pay the bill, not them!

Stop putting the burden of stopping this entire industry on the consumer (who has no teeth or way to be sure the judgment is being enforced

THAT IS THE JOB OF CONSUMER PROTECTION!

Stop putting the burden of stopping this entire industry on the consumer (who has no teeth or way to be sure the judgment is being enforced

You are there to PROTECT the CONSUMER.

You are there to PROTECT the CONSUMER.

THAT IS THE JOB OF CONSUMER PROTECTION!

and now i am the one being harassed because of a stranger!

This random person put down my phone number as a contact on a loan, defaulted on that loan,

I pay the bill, not them!

It is my phone!

They should have no " RIGHT " as they put it to call a cell phone!

It is my phone!

They should have no " RIGHT " as they put it to call a cell phone!

I pay the bill, not them!


Input: You are a liar! I have been harassed for over 5 years by companies looking for someone I have never heard of because this person put a random string of our area code, local exchange and 4 numbers together (that turned out to be my number) on a loan that he then defaulted on. I have told them to stop calling, they have a wrong number, and guess what " 5 Years later, they are still calling!

You are a liar!

I have been harassed for over 5 years by companies looking for someone I have never heard of

because this person put a random string of our area code, local exchange and 4 numbers together (that turned out to be my number) on a loan that he then defaulted on.

I have told them to stop calling, they have a wrong number, and guess what "

5 Years later, they are still calling!

I have been harassed for over 5 years by companies looking for someone I have never heard of

because this person put a random string of our area code, local exchange and 4 numbers together (that turned out to be my number) on a loan that he then defaulted on.


Input: Because it it the consumer' s phone and that is their right! Why should the consumer pay to be harassed?! Put the cost of doing this business where it belongs, which is on the companies not the consumers! I pay for my cell phone, I pay for the minutes, I am the person that will decide how they are used and who will call me, not these shady, nasty companies!

Because it it the consumer' s phone

and that is their right!

Why should the consumer pay to be harassed?!

Put the cost of doing this business where it belongs, which is on the companies not the consumers!

I pay for my cell phone,

I pay for the minutes,

I am the person that will decide how they are used and who will call me, not these shady, nasty companies!

and that is their right!

Because it it the consumer' s phone

Put the cost of doing this business where it belongs, which is on the companies not the consumers!

Why should the consumer pay to be harassed?!

I am the person that will decide how they are used and who will call me, not these shady, nasty companies!

I pay for my cell phone,

I am the person that will decide how they are used and who will call me, not these shady, nasty companies!

I pay for the minutes,


Input: I have seen the " moderator " in the caller ID forum ask if it would be okay to put the company' s name on the caller ID because this could show to others around that the person has a debt and would then compromise the consumer' s privacy and security. Yet, there is a discussion to allow these calls at a consumer' s work? many people do not work in an office, so a message would have to be left with a secretary. This is letting someone else know of a debt who should not be privy to that information. The ONLY reason these companies have to calling someone at work is to publicly shame the person into paying. It is the modern version of putting someone in stockades and throwing fruit at them, or a modern scarlet letter. If there is another phone number on an application, that is the one that needs to be used. If there is an address on the application, that is what needs to be used. Calls to someone' s work are off limits PERIOD! There is not way for the collection agency or the government regulation body to GUARANTEE that no one besides the consumer gets the information when someone' s work is called.

I have seen the " moderator " in the caller ID forum ask if it would be okay to put the company' s name on the caller ID because this could show to others around that the person has a debt and would then compromise the consumer' s privacy and security.

Yet, there is a discussion to allow these calls at a consumer' s work?

This is letting someone else know of a debt who should not be privy to that information.

The ONLY reason these companies have to calling someone at work is to publicly shame the person into paying.

It is the modern version of putting someone in stockades and throwing fruit at them, or a modern scarlet letter.

Calls to someone' s work are off limits PERIOD!

There is not way for the collection agency or the government regulation body to GUARANTEE that no one besides the consumer gets the information when someone' s work is called.

many people do not work in an office,

so a message would have to be left with a secretary.

If there is another phone number on an application, that is the one that needs to be used.

If there is an address on the application, that is what needs to be used.

so a message would have to be left with a secretary.

many people do not work in an office,

Calls to someone' s work are off limits PERIOD!

There is not way for the collection agency or the government regulation body to GUARANTEE that no one besides the consumer gets the information when someone' s work is called.


Input: Most companies have a strict " NO PERSONAL CALLS " policy; hence the act should include a clause that "... unless specifically allowed, in writing, by the debtor, a collector is barred from attempting to contact a debtor at his/her place of employment. "

Most companies have a strict " NO PERSONAL CALLS " policy;

hence the act should include a clause that "... unless specifically allowed, in writing, by the debtor, a collector is barred from attempting to contact a debtor at his/her place of employment. "

hence the act should include a clause that "... unless specifically allowed, in writing, by the debtor, a collector is barred from attempting to contact a debtor at his/her place of employment. "

Most companies have a strict " NO PERSONAL CALLS " policy;


Input: While not specifically addressed in this website, the current punishment for violations of the FDCPA are practically teethless. 100 is of little consequence to most companies. The law show be changed to all ow a 7 year statute of limitations (it is currently one year) and a maximum penalty, payable to the plaintiff, of either $10, 000 or $100, 000 for each violation.

While not specifically addressed in this website, the current punishment for violations of the FDCPA are practically teethless.

100 is of little consequence to most companies.

The law show be changed to all ow a 7 year statute of limitations (it is currently one year) and a maximum penalty, payable to the plaintiff, of either $10, 000 or $100, 000 for each violation.

While not specifically addressed in this website, the current punishment for violations of the FDCPA are practically teethless.

100 is of little consequence to most companies.

The law show be changed to all ow a 7 year statute of limitations (it is currently one year) and a maximum penalty, payable to the plaintiff, of either $10, 000 or $100, 000 for each violation.

While not specifically addressed in this website, the current punishment for violations of the FDCPA are practically teethless.


Input: I too, do not answer calls with no name, no number or 800 numbers. After over a year of unemployment and only able to get part time work, I had to give up my landline. I get repeated unknown calls on my cell, even though all creditors were sent written notices not to contact my cell number. I' m almost at a point that I cannot afford my cell, but if it give it up I have no way to get contact from a potential employer. When I get a full time job I will gladly pay my debts, but constant calls will not get the debt paid any faster. Not one company called me to give the the credit, so they should not call my cell and cost me more money that will prolong them getting paid. Besides, most of the calls are robo-calls with no message ever being left so I never know who the call is for.

I too, do not answer calls with no name, no number or 800 numbers.

After over a year of unemployment and only able to get part time work, I had to give up my landline.

I get repeated unknown calls on my cell,

even though all creditors were sent written notices not to contact my cell number.

I' m almost at a point that I cannot afford my cell,

Not one company called me to give the the credit,

Besides, most of the calls are robo-calls with no message ever being left

but if it give it up I have no way to get contact from a potential employer.

When I get a full time job I will gladly pay my debts,

but constant calls will not get the debt paid any faster.

so I never know who the call is for.

so they should not call my cell and cost me more money that will prolong them getting paid.

so they should not call my cell and cost me more money that will prolong them getting paid.

Not one company called me to give the the credit,

so I never know who the call is for.

Besides, most of the calls are robo-calls with no message ever being left


Input: Dan says that the " Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits creditors from using automated dialing systems to call cell phone numbers without consent from the customer " and that sounds reasonable if that were true. I receive countless ro-bo calls on my cell, to which most never leave a message so there is no way to report it. To add to that, I have sent written notice to all creditors not to call my cell because of the charges, yet someone is calling. I do not answer those unknown calls because I have nothing more to add to any previous calls about the debt. The only call that has ever left a message is about a debt for someone else, too which I called and told them ithey have the wrong number and not to call, but they still call.

Dan says that the " Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits creditors from using automated dialing systems to call cell phone numbers without consent from the customer "

and that sounds reasonable if that were true.

because I have nothing more to add to any previous calls about the debt.

I receive countless ro-bo calls on my cell, to which most never leave a message

so there is no way to report it.

To add to that, I have sent written notice to all creditors not to call my cell because of the charges,

yet someone is calling.

I do not answer those unknown calls

The only call that has ever left a message is about a debt for someone else, too which I called and told them ithey have the wrong number and not to call, but they still call.

so there is no way to report it.

I receive countless ro-bo calls on my cell, to which most never leave a message

I do not answer those unknown calls

because I have nothing more to add to any previous calls about the debt.


Input: Calls at work are too instrusive. Most companies, like mine, do not allow personal calls. Not all people have M-F 9-5 office jobs. If you work in a warehouse, a production line or as a cashier, you cannot take calls and it can cause issues with a supervisor. As someone who has answered a company phone, you can tell a caller that the employee cannot take calls or that they don' t work there, but that caller will repeatedly call back. My position on this is simple, if the creditor does not call to confirm employment before credit is issued, they should not call after the debt is in collection. If they confirm employment then they could also inquire about the communication policy. Personally, I am in a position of constant public contact with no available phone with me and it would be hard to immpossible to have a phone conversation without leaving my work area which would cause issues with management for my job.

Calls at work are too instrusive.

My position on this is simple,

Most companies, like mine, do not allow personal calls.

Not all people have M-F 9-5 office jobs.

If you work in a warehouse, a production line or as a cashier, you cannot take calls and it can cause issues with a supervisor.

As someone who has answered a company phone, you can tell a caller that the employee cannot take calls or that they don' t work there, but that caller will repeatedly call back.

if the creditor does not call to confirm employment before credit is issued, they should not call after the debt is in collection.

If they confirm employment then they could also inquire about the communication policy.

Personally, I am in a position of constant public contact with no available phone with me and it would be hard to immpossible to have a phone conversation without leaving my work area which would cause issues with management for my job.


Input: The collection agency is not required to actually validate the debt and provide information to the consumer. Example, I disputed a debt as valid. The return validation consisted of a one line sentence: " The consumer owes the debt. " This is not to me or to any reasonable person validation. The collection agency should be required to at least furnish enough information to allow the consumer to recognize or dispute the debt. That information ideally would be a copy of the original application and a copy of the final billing statement.

The collection agency is not required to actually validate the debt and provide information to the consumer.

Example, I disputed a debt as valid.

The return validation consisted of a one line sentence: " The consumer owes the debt. "

This is not to me or to any reasonable person validation.

That information ideally would be a copy of the original application and a copy of the final billing statement.

The collection agency should be required to at least furnish enough information to allow the consumer to recognize or dispute the debt.


Input: Failure to properly validate the debt as described by furnishing final billing statement and original application would invoke the consumer' s rights to have all further collection activity immediately barred and the ability of the consumer to have the debt IMMEDIATELY removed from their credit report. All too often it takes years to have false or misleading information removed from a consumer' s credit report.

Failure to properly validate the debt as described by furnishing final billing statement and original application would invoke the consumer' s rights to have all further collection activity immediately barred and the ability of the consumer to have the debt IMMEDIATELY removed from their credit report.

All too often it takes years to have false or misleading information removed from a consumer' s credit report.


Input: A credit reporting agency should be required to immediately comply with information regarding disputed debt and completely remove any reference to the debt. As an example, I am attempting to have a time barred paid lien removed from my Credit Report. 2 of the 3 bureaus immediately removed, 1 refuses to remove. I have sent documentation from the court, the original creditor, from the office of probate judge all to no avail. Without a remedy, I am left with a false item on my credit report.

A credit reporting agency should be required to immediately comply with information regarding disputed debt and completely remove any reference to the debt.

As an example, I am attempting to have a time barred paid lien removed from my Credit Report.

2 of the 3 bureaus immediately removed, 1 refuses to remove.

I have sent documentation from the court, the original creditor, from the office of probate judge all to no avail.

Without a remedy, I am left with a false item on my credit report.


Input: I have one debt in the court. Here is my issue, I never received any paperwork saying there was a court date. I did receive a letter from my bank a month after the court hearing saying they received a garnishment notice. They could' ve saved the court costs since I already had told them I was unemployed. Secondly, after I received the bank letter, I then received three (that' s right three) garnishment hearing notices from three different companies for the same debt. Since I was unemployed I could not afford to get an attorney. It would' ve been nice if I could have provided the court (telephonically or by pre-trial documents) with documentation to explain why I was unable to pay the debt, but the paperwork said to only respond if you did not owe the debt. I believe court documents and debt companies should have easier and clearer paperwork for the lay person to understand their rights. And yes, debt collectors should have to provide documentation that the debt is owed and they have the right to collect.

I have one debt in the court.

Here is my issue, I never received any paperwork saying there was a court date.

I did receive a letter from my bank a month after the court hearing saying they received a garnishment notice.

They could' ve saved the court costs since I already had told them I was unemployed.

Secondly, after I received the bank letter, I then received three (that' s right three) garnishment hearing notices from three different companies for the same debt.

Since I was unemployed I could not afford to get an attorney.

but the paperwork said to only respond if you did not owe the debt.

It would' ve been nice if I could have provided the court (telephonically or by pre-trial documents) with documentation to explain why I was unable to pay the debt,

I believe court documents and debt companies should have easier and clearer paperwork for the lay person to understand their rights.

And yes, debt collectors should have to provide documentation that the debt is owed and they have the right to collect.


Input: About a month after my husband left the military and before we even moved into a new place, a creditor called his parents and told them he was in the military with my husband and had papers that hadn' t been signed so he had to get in touch with him. My mother-in-law knew we didn' t have a phone yet, so because she thought it was something urgent she gave him our friends number. That collector called the friends number told the friend he was collecting a debt and my husband (not knowing what was told or how he got the number) let the collector know we had just moved and the payment was an oversight. Of course, the collector was trying very hard to get new address, phone, employer, etc but we did not have that yet. The bill was paid, yet they continued to call his parents and the friend after they had new contact info for him. Keep in mind, this was over a late $10 payment. I understand they are trying to collect a debt but doing so by false statements and telling others of the debt should never be allowed. Shouldn' t they just be allowed to leave a name and contact number?

About a month after my husband left the military and before we even moved into a new place, a creditor called his parents and told them he was in the military with my husband and had papers that hadn' t been signed so he had to get in touch with him.

My mother-in-law knew we didn' t have a phone yet, so because she thought it was something urgent she gave him our friends number.

That collector called the friends number told the friend he was collecting a debt and my husband (not knowing what was told or how he got the number) let the collector know we had just moved and the payment was an oversight.

Of course, the collector was trying very hard to get new address, phone, employer, etc but we did not have that yet.

The bill was paid, yet they continued to call his parents and the friend after they had new contact info for him.

Keep in mind, this was over a late $10 payment.

I understand they are trying to collect a debt

but doing so by false statements and telling others of the debt should never be allowed.

Shouldn' t they just be allowed to leave a name and contact number?


Input: Additionally, collectors should not be allow, under ANY circumstance, to use any method which would cost the conusmer money. For example, cellphones and texting should be banned completely from calls from collectors.

Additionally, collectors should not be allow, under ANY circumstance, to use any method which would cost the conusmer money.

For example, cellphones and texting should be banned completely from calls from collectors.


Input: Many states currently have laws that make it illegal to engage in debt collection without being licensed to do so in the state. However, this does not stop debt collectors from violating these state laws and threatening to sue individuals, even though they legally cannot because they are unlicensed in the state. This is unlawful and menacing behavior. It would be easier to bring claims under the FDCPA if the act were more clear that threats to sue when a debt collector is unlicensed to collect on a debt in a state is a false, deceptive, or misleading representation. This clarity combined with stronger penalties might serve to better dissuade debt collectors from continuing to violate the law in attempts to collect on debts in state where they have no right to.

Many states currently have laws that make it illegal to engage in debt collection without being licensed to do so in the state.

However, this does not stop debt collectors from violating these state laws and threatening to sue individuals,

even though they legally cannot

because they are unlicensed in the state.

This is unlawful and menacing behavior.

It would be easier to bring claims under the FDCPA if the act were more clear that threats to sue when a debt collector is unlicensed to collect on a debt in a state is a false, deceptive, or misleading representation.

This clarity combined with stronger penalties might serve to better dissuade debt collectors from continuing to violate the law in attempts to collect on debts in state where they have no right to.

even though they legally cannot

because they are unlicensed in the state.


Input: I recommend that the option to bring a suit in the jurisdiction where the consumer signed the contract should be removed. In many situations, consumers may not actually sign a contract (e. g. credit cards), they may sign an agreement in a distant location (for medical payment at a hospital on vacation), or they may have moved in the years since opening the account. I believe the most consumer-friendly option is to file suit where the consumer resides at time of commencement (unless it concerns real property and then it should be where the property is located). With respect to geographic size concerns, it is important to note that many states are facing budget crises that affect the civil divisions of state courts. In one of our largest districts, our options for filing suit was reduced from 32 courts down to 2. If there is a concern for protecting consumers in this particular area, I recommend a section of the rule that prohibits collections from choosing a court venue with the intention of interfering with the consumer' s ability to participate in the action. To prove a violation, the consumer (or regulatory agency) would need to demonstrate that the collector had no reason to file suit in that court other than burdening the consumer (thus demonstrating intent).

I recommend that the option to bring a suit in the jurisdiction where the consumer signed the contract should be removed.

If there is a concern for protecting consumers in this particular area, I recommend a section of the rule that prohibits collections from choosing a court venue with the intention of interfering with the consumer' s ability to participate in the action.

In many situations, consumers may not actually sign a contract (e. g. credit cards),

they may sign an agreement in a distant location (for medical payment at a hospital on vacation),

or they may have moved in the years since opening the account.

With respect to geographic size concerns, it is important to note that many states are facing budget crises that affect the civil divisions of state courts.

In one of our largest districts, our options for filing suit was reduced from 32 courts down to 2.

To prove a violation, the consumer (or regulatory agency) would need to demonstrate that the collector had no reason to file suit in that court other than burdening the consumer (thus demonstrating intent).

I believe the most consumer-friendly option is to file suit where the consumer resides at time of commencement (unless it concerns real property and then it should be where the property is located).


Input: Attorneys are not exempted from the FDCPA, and most State Bars take reports of unethical conduct by attorneys very seriously. There is no need for additional regulation of attorneys.

Attorneys are not exempted from the FDCPA,

and most State Bars take reports of unethical conduct by attorneys very seriously.

There is no need for additional regulation of attorneys.

There is no need for additional regulation of attorneys.

Attorneys are not exempted from the FDCPA,

There is no need for additional regulation of attorneys.

and most State Bars take reports of unethical conduct by attorneys very seriously.


Input: It sounds like you believe the creditor/debt collector' s attorney should be responsible for giving legal advice to the consumer (i. e. the opposing party). This is a serious conflict of interest and a violation of his duties to his client. Even worse, it sounds like you also want debt collectors who are NOT attorneys or employed by attorneys to also give legal advice to consumers. This is a violation of the prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law. I understand that the ignorance and lack of sophistication exhibited by defendant debtors is a concern. I recommend that the CFPB develop a model notice of rights under the FDCPA. If it so chooses, it can also maintain on its website an area for state-specific resources related to State laws, and reference this website on the form notice.

It sounds like you believe the creditor/debt collector' s attorney should be responsible for giving legal advice to the consumer (i. e. the opposing party).

This is a serious conflict of interest and a violation of his duties to his client.

Even worse, it sounds like you also want debt collectors who are NOT attorneys or employed by attorneys to also give legal advice to consumers.

I understand that the ignorance and lack of sophistication exhibited by defendant debtors is a concern.

If it so chooses, it can also maintain on its website an area for state-specific resources related to State laws, and reference this website on the form notice.

This is a violation of the prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law.

I recommend that the CFPB develop a model notice of rights under the FDCPA.


Input: I don' t understand, Mr. Bartmann you believe creditors should just wait until consumers feel like they can afford to pay? What if that takes years? Litigation preserves the creditor' s right to recover the money owed and allows it to be collected later, when the consumer is able to do so. If litigation cannot be used to enforce creditors' rights, the debt could become uncollectable in as little as three years. As noted by another commentator, this will most certainly have a negative impact on the economy and the cost of credit because it will drive up prices to cover that risk. It will also make obtaining credit next to impossible for high-risk individuals.

I don' t understand, Mr. Bartmann

you believe creditors should just wait until consumers feel like they can afford to pay?

What if that takes years?

If litigation cannot be used to enforce creditors' rights, the debt could become uncollectable in as little as three years.

As noted by another commentator, this will most certainly have a negative impact on the economy and the cost of credit

because it will drive up prices to cover that risk.

It will also make obtaining credit next to impossible for high-risk individuals.

Litigation preserves the creditor' s right to recover the money owed and allows it to be collected later, when the consumer is able to do so.

As noted by another commentator, this will most certainly have a negative impact on the economy and the cost of credit

because it will drive up prices to cover that risk.


Input: Unfortunately, a few of the suggestions you made would actually violate the FDCPA. Debt collectors are not permitted to " overshadow " the validation notice by giving consumers deadlines, making demands for payments, or giving settlement offers. Further, I don' t believe consumers need a " sample " dispute notice. If the consumer truly has a disagreement or dispute with the debt being collected, he or she should be able to articulate that dispute.

Unfortunately, a few of the suggestions you made would actually violate the FDCPA.

Debt collectors are not permitted to " overshadow " the validation notice by giving consumers deadlines, making demands for payments, or giving settlement offers.

Further, I don' t believe consumers need a " sample " dispute notice.

If the consumer truly has a disagreement or dispute with the debt being collected, he or she should be able to articulate that dispute.

Unfortunately, a few of the suggestions you made would actually violate the FDCPA.

Debt collectors are not permitted to " overshadow " the validation notice by giving consumers deadlines, making demands for payments, or giving settlement offers.

Further, I don' t believe consumers need a " sample " dispute notice.

If the consumer truly has a disagreement or dispute with the debt being collected, he or she should be able to articulate that dispute.


Input: But private arrangement between these entities doesn' t change the fact that the money is still owed. Just because the original creditor took a loss on it, doesn' t change what is really due. Is it ethical for someone to rack up tens of thousands of dollars of debt and never pay it back?

But private arrangement between these entities doesn' t change the fact that the money is still owed.

Just because the original creditor took a loss on it, doesn' t change what is really due.

Is it ethical for someone to rack up tens of thousands of dollars of debt and never pay it back?


Input: I think the requirement for a debt collector to send a validation notice 5 days after the initial contact is backwards. I believe communication between the debtor and debt collector would be improved if the debtor has the validation notice before the initial telephone contact. The debt collector should be required to mail the debtor a validation notice 5 days before any phone contact, not 5 days after. Otherwise, the debtor is speaking with an unknown caller, who has surprised them with a demand for money. The debtor has not been provided with any time to prepare their thoughts, or to formulate important questions about the alleged debt. They may be caught " off guard ", increasing the fear and anxiety of the debtor, which would necessarily lead to impaired verbal communication. The debtor has no written factual statement to refer to during the phone call, while the debt collector has all of the factual details in from of them on their computer screen, and can cite facts and figures. This situation creates an imbalance of power not conducive to good communication. This proposal to require debt collectors to send a validation notice 5 days before the first telephone contact would impose no financial burden on the debt collector, because validation notices are already required to be sent to the debtor. It is simply a change in the timing of an already existing requirement.

I think the requirement for a debt collector to send a validation notice 5 days after the initial contact is backwards.

I believe communication between the debtor and debt collector would be improved if the debtor has the validation notice before the initial telephone contact.

Otherwise, the debtor is speaking with an unknown caller, who has surprised them with a demand for money.

The debtor has not been provided with any time to prepare their thoughts, or to formulate important questions about the alleged debt.

They may be caught " off guard ", increasing the fear and anxiety of the debtor, which would necessarily lead to impaired verbal communication.

This situation creates an imbalance of power not conducive to good communication.

This proposal to require debt collectors to send a validation notice 5 days before the first telephone contact would impose no financial burden on the debt collector,

It is simply a change in the timing of an already existing requirement.

The debt collector should be required to mail the debtor a validation notice 5 days before any phone contact, not 5 days after.

The debtor has no written factual statement to refer to during the phone call, while the debt collector has all of the factual details in from of them on their computer screen, and can cite facts and figures.

because validation notices are already required to be sent to the debtor.

This proposal to require debt collectors to send a validation notice 5 days before the first telephone contact would impose no financial burden on the debt collector,

because validation notices are already required to be sent to the debtor.


Input: I think the issue you have identified here in this post is key-lack of financial literacy. So many people borrow money without reading contracts, without understanding the law, without considering the risks. We live in a society centered on immediate gratification, where people who can' t afford things just charge them, thinking they' ll pay it back later. But then something happens-a job loss, medical issues, unexpected expenses. So few people even maintain sufficient savings accounts these days, or put money away for retirement. If we really want to get to the heart of this issue, it has to start with education, and financial literacy. Now, I' m not saying the banks and lenders are innocent participants they have certainly taken advantage of the " instant gratification " mindset by extending credit with high interest rates and fees, knowing that someone somewhere will sign up for it. But they can' t bear the brunt of the blame for societal ignorance.

I think the issue you have identified here in this post is key-lack of financial literacy.

So many people borrow money without reading contracts, without understanding the law, without considering the risks.

We live in a society centered on immediate gratification,

Now, I' m not saying the banks and lenders are innocent participants

they have certainly taken advantage of the " instant gratification " mindset by extending credit with high interest rates and fees, knowing that someone somewhere will sign up for it.

But they can' t bear the brunt of the blame for societal ignorance.

where people who can' t afford things just charge them, thinking they' ll pay it back later.

But then something happens-a job loss, medical issues, unexpected expenses.

So few people even maintain sufficient savings accounts these days, or put money away for retirement.

If we really want to get to the heart of this issue, it has to start with education, and financial literacy.

I think the issue you have identified here in this post is key-lack of financial literacy.

So many people borrow money without reading contracts, without understanding the law, without considering the risks.

If we really want to get to the heart of this issue, it has to start with education, and financial literacy.

We live in a society centered on immediate gratification,

If we really want to get to the heart of this issue, it has to start with education, and financial literacy.

where people who can' t afford things just charge them, thinking they' ll pay it back later.

If we really want to get to the heart of this issue, it has to start with education, and financial literacy.

But then something happens-a job loss, medical issues, unexpected expenses.

If we really want to get to the heart of this issue, it has to start with education, and financial literacy.

So few people even maintain sufficient savings accounts these days, or put money away for retirement.

Now, I' m not saying the banks and lenders are innocent participants

they have certainly taken advantage of the " instant gratification " mindset by extending credit with high interest rates and fees, knowing that someone somewhere will sign up for it.


Input: The reason they can sell it for a fraction of what is owed is because the debt buyer is purchasing entire portfolios of bad debt. It spreads out the risk. If you can get a million other delinquent consumers to go in with you on a 10% offer, you could probably get them to take it. But it doesn' t make financial sense for them to offer the same transaction to you as the debt buyer.

The reason they can sell it for a fraction of what is owed is because the debt buyer is purchasing entire portfolios of bad debt.

It spreads out the risk.

If you can get a million other delinquent consumers to go in with you on a 10% offer, you could probably get them to take it.

But it doesn' t make financial sense for them to offer the same transaction to you as the debt buyer.


Input: This option doesn' t make economic sense. Debt buyers do serve a practical purpose because they allow the creditor to unload a massive amount of debt at one time. The cost of negotiating individual deals with each of those 1 million delinquent consumers would negate the benefit they get from the consolidated offload. Debt buyers allow the creditors to clear their books, which enables the cycle of lending to continue. The transaction between those two entities doesn' t change what is actually owed on the account.

This option doesn' t make economic sense.

Debt buyers do serve a practical purpose

The cost of negotiating individual deals with each of those 1 million delinquent consumers would negate the benefit they get from the consolidated offload.

Debt buyers allow the creditors to clear their books, which enables the cycle of lending to continue.

because they allow the creditor to unload a massive amount of debt at one time.

The transaction between those two entities doesn' t change what is actually owed on the account.

Debt buyers do serve a practical purpose

because they allow the creditor to unload a massive amount of debt at one time.


Input: I agree that it benefits everyone when notice of sale or assignment is given to the consumer. I am not aware of any part of the industry other than mortgage servicers who presently give notice. The benefit is clear it reduces confusion, reduces the risk of misapplied/lost payments, and produces a clear chain of ownership. It would be costly to the creditors selling the debt, but not so much as to be prohibitive. Creditors have to send notices under a variety of other laws. I don' t think this addition would make that much of a difference. I think the notice should state the account number, the entity to who it is being sold (including contact information) and the amount currently owed. It should be sent by the seller, who has the most current information for the consumer, and a copy should be provided to the debt buyer as part of the sale package.

I agree that it benefits everyone when notice of sale or assignment is given to the consumer.

The benefit is clear

it reduces confusion, reduces the risk of misapplied/lost payments, and produces a clear chain of ownership.

It would be costly to the creditors selling the debt, but not so much as to be prohibitive.

I don' t think this addition would make that much of a difference.

I am not aware of any part of the industry other than mortgage servicers who presently give notice.

Creditors have to send notices under a variety of other laws.

I think the notice should state the account number, the entity to who it is being sold (including contact information) and the amount currently owed.

It should be sent by the seller, who has the most current information for the consumer, and a copy should be provided to the debt buyer as part of the sale package.

The benefit is clear

it reduces confusion, reduces the risk of misapplied/lost payments, and produces a clear chain of ownership.


Input: From a collection standpoint, I can tell you that many creditors would LOVE to check with the DMV to get current address information. Unfortunately, many privacy laws make that impossible. It' s also extremely common for people to fail to update their addresses either with their creditors or with the post office. Any legitimate collector wants to find the right person.

From a collection standpoint, I can tell you that many creditors would LOVE to check with the DMV to get current address information.

Any legitimate collector wants to find the right person.

Unfortunately, many privacy laws make that impossible.

It' s also extremely common for people to fail to update their addresses either with their creditors or with the post office.

From a collection standpoint, I can tell you that many creditors would LOVE to check with the DMV to get current address information.

Unfortunately, many privacy laws make that impossible.

From a collection standpoint, I can tell you that many creditors would LOVE to check with the DMV to get current address information.

It' s also extremely common for people to fail to update their addresses either with their creditors or with the post office.


Input: The FICO impact on sold debts appearing twice needs to be addressed with the credit reporting agencies and the companies that create credit scores. Creditors have a right to report the status of a debt, and shouldn' t be precluded just because it already appears by the previous creditor. However, the double penalty against the consumer is certainly unfair. But it' s not the collectors' fault. It should be addressed in enforcement of the FCRA.

The FICO impact on sold debts appearing twice needs to be addressed with the credit reporting agencies and the companies that create credit scores.

Creditors have a right to report the status of a debt, and shouldn' t be precluded just because it already appears by the previous creditor.

It should be addressed in enforcement of the FCRA.

However, the double penalty against the consumer is certainly unfair.

But it' s not the collectors' fault.


Input: When debt collectors send that Validation Notice, they are required to state the creditor to whom the debt is owed. I think that is sufficient notice that the debt is being assigned for collection. I commented on the other thread that I DO believe notice should be given when the debt is sold. But if the current creditor is retaining ownership but just assigning it to a collection agency or law firm, they will be notified when that agency contacts them and sends a Validation Notice. Besides, the collection agency or law firm may end up refusing to accept the account due to a conflict or a variety of other reasons. Giving notice that ends up being false would certainly cause confusion.

When debt collectors send that Validation Notice, they are required to state the creditor to whom the debt is owed.

But if the current creditor is retaining ownership but just assigning it to a collection agency or law firm, they will be notified when that agency contacts them and sends a Validation Notice.

I think that is sufficient notice that the debt is being assigned for collection.

I commented on the other thread that I DO believe notice should be given when the debt is sold.

Besides, the collection agency or law firm may end up refusing to accept the account due to a conflict or a variety of other reasons.

Giving notice that ends up being false would certainly cause confusion.


Input: This is entirely too much information to require. It' s not the job of creditors or collectors to send notices about " best practices " or personnel information. This thread is about notice that a debt is assigned to collection. NOT sold, but simply outsourced to someone who specializes in collecting past due debts. Notices is given when the validation notice is sent. The company who sends it is the collector; the letter itself will state the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. That' s enough.

This is entirely too much information to require.

It' s not the job of creditors or collectors to send notices about " best practices " or personnel information.

This thread is about notice that a debt is assigned to collection.

NOT sold, but simply outsourced to someone who specializes in collecting past due debts.

That' s enough.

Notices is given when the validation notice is sent.

The company who sends it is the collector;

the letter itself will state the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.

This is entirely too much information to require.

It' s not the job of creditors or collectors to send notices about " best practices " or personnel information.


Input: Breaking a promise to pay isn' t the same as breaking the law. We can' t keep comparing criminal law to civil law because it' s just not the same. But the item that' s missing here is the legitimacy of interest. Forget about big banks for a minute, and think about borrowing money from a friend or neighbor. When you keep money that is rightfully owed to someone else, you damage him, because he doesn' t have that money, which he could be investing (to increase it) or spending (to improve his quality of life). That' s one of the reasons that interest exists to compensate someone for the loss of their money for a portion of time until it gets repaid. I' m not saying interest rates aren' t excessive they certainly are unfortunately, that' s a separate issue. But suspending interest all together and allowing a debtor to freeze the amount of his debt indefinitely, because he borrowed more than he could pay back and didn' t plan for unexpected expenses.... I don' t know anyone who would loan money under those terms, except for maybe Mom and Dad.

Breaking a promise to pay isn' t the same as breaking the law.

We can' t keep comparing criminal law to civil law

because it' s just not the same.

But the item that' s missing here is the legitimacy of interest.

When you keep money that is rightfully owed to someone else, you damage him,

That' s one of the reasons that interest exists

to compensate someone for the loss of their money for a portion of time until it gets repaid.

they certainly are

unfortunately, that' s a separate issue.

But suspending interest all together and allowing a debtor to freeze the amount of his debt indefinitely, because he borrowed more than he could pay back and didn' t plan for unexpected expenses.... I don' t know anyone who would loan money under those terms, except for maybe Mom and Dad.

Forget about big banks for a minute,

and think about borrowing money from a friend or neighbor.

because he doesn' t have that money, which he could be investing (to increase it) or spending (to improve his quality of life).

I' m not saying interest rates aren' t excessive

We can' t keep comparing criminal law to civil law

because it' s just not the same.

When you keep money that is rightfully owed to someone else, you damage him,

because he doesn' t have that money, which he could be investing (to increase it) or spending (to improve his quality of life).

I' m not saying interest rates aren' t excessive

they certainly are


Input: It' s important to understand that a Validation Notice (sent within 5 days pursuant to 1692g) is NOT a validation of debt. It' s a NOTICE of your right to validation, if you choose to invoke it. I do agree that there should be additional regulation around this issue. But part of the problem is the way the statute is written. Most collectors cite 1692g verbatim to avoid liability for misleading consumers. But it' s kind of a big convoluted sentence that the average person can' t understand. I' d like to see a plain language amendment to that section of the FDCPA,

It' s important to understand that a Validation Notice (sent within 5 days pursuant to 1692g) is NOT a validation of debt.

It' s a NOTICE of your right to validation, if you choose to invoke it.

Most collectors cite 1692g verbatim to avoid liability for misleading consumers.

I do agree that there should be additional regulation around this issue.

I' d like to see a plain language amendment to that section of the FDCPA,

But part of the problem is the way the statute is written.

But it' s kind of a big convoluted sentence that the average person can' t understand.

But part of the problem is the way the statute is written.

Most collectors cite 1692g verbatim to avoid liability for misleading consumers.

But part of the problem is the way the statute is written.

But it' s kind of a big convoluted sentence that the average person can' t understand.

I' d like to see a plain language amendment to that section of the FDCPA,

But part of the problem is the way the statute is written.

I' d like to see a plain language amendment to that section of the FDCPA,

But it' s kind of a big convoluted sentence that the average person can' t understand.


Input: Where in the adhesion contract does it state that the credit card agreement, an allegedly " unsecured " form of debt, takes priority over every single other occurrence that might happen in a person' s life? Are the Philippine hurricane victims or even more recent Tornado victims in the midwest who lost their homes and their streets soon to become " defaulters " who are then subject to ongoing penalties, fees and interest rate charges while also having their credit scores damaged? The point of involuntary default is that an event occurred beyond one' s control that has prevented them from making monthly payments of the amount they are required to make. Involuntary Default simply means the defaulter promises to pay back what they owed at the time of the default, and nothing more. I would suggest that the " promise to pay " tenet is constitutional violation of cruel and inhuman punishment because credit card companies literally lord over their customers without clearly mentioning their Godlike status at the time of the agreement. The correlation between cigarettes and credit cards are astounding. Isn' t it time for a clear warning on credit card products that state the truth? Warning: Your promise to pay your credit card bill on a monthly basis is more important than any natural disaster or personal tragedy that may occur in your life. By allowing credit card companies to not place the warning from above in a viewable context to all sign-ups, they gain monetarily while not revealing a basic contract tenet that should be revealed. Therefore the " promise to pay " has been arranged under a false pretense.

Where in the adhesion contract does it state that the credit card agreement, an allegedly " unsecured " form of debt, takes priority over every single other occurrence that might happen in a person' s life?

Involuntary Default simply means the defaulter promises to pay back what they owed at the time of the default, and nothing more.

By allowing credit card companies to not place the warning from above in a viewable context to all sign-ups, they gain monetarily while not revealing a basic contract tenet that should be revealed.

Are the Philippine hurricane victims or even more recent Tornado victims in the midwest who lost their homes and their streets soon to become " defaulters " who are then subject to ongoing penalties, fees and interest rate charges while also having their credit scores damaged?

The point of involuntary default is that an event occurred beyond one' s control that has prevented them from making monthly payments of the amount they are required to make.

I would suggest that the " promise to pay " tenet is constitutional violation of cruel and inhuman punishment

because credit card companies literally lord over their customers without clearly mentioning their Godlike status at the time of the agreement.

The correlation between cigarettes and credit cards are astounding.

Isn' t it time for a clear warning on credit card products that state the truth?

Warning: Your promise to pay your credit card bill on a monthly basis is more important than any natural disaster or personal tragedy that may occur in your life.

Therefore the " promise to pay " has been arranged under a false pretense.

I would suggest that the " promise to pay " tenet is constitutional violation of cruel and inhuman punishment

because credit card companies literally lord over their customers without clearly mentioning their Godlike status at the time of the agreement.

Therefore the " promise to pay " has been arranged under a false pretense.

By allowing credit card companies to not place the warning from above in a viewable context to all sign-ups, they gain monetarily while not revealing a basic contract tenet that should be revealed.


Input: What I mean is I have had my credit report cleared three times they were never on either of them. And when i think I have cleared all of my crediters they get a judgement and freeze my account.

What I mean is I have had my credit report cleared three times they were never on either of them.

And when i think I have cleared all of my crediters they get a judgement and freeze my account.


Input: I just want to add that I am not advocating getting out of the debt because of a life changing event. I am advocating that the debt be frozen at the amount it was at the time of the involuntary default and then paid back even if it takes ten years.

I just want to add that I am not advocating getting out of the debt because of a life changing event.

I am advocating that the debt be frozen at the amount it was at the time of the involuntary default and then paid back even if it takes ten years.


Input: I believe lawsuits should be initiated in the jurisdiction in which the consumer resides, and that the case should be subject to the laws of that jurisdiction, especially concerning the statute of limitations. Yes, I realize that a SOL defense is an affirmative one).

I believe lawsuits should be initiated in the jurisdiction in which the consumer resides,

and that the case should be subject to the laws of that jurisdiction, especially concerning the statute of limitations.

Yes, I realize that a SOL defense is an affirmative one).