Input: A lot of excellent points made by MLegz13. My elderly parents needed help with day to day activities even if they were too proud to say anything. I stopped my award winning video business to be their CareGiver. Once the savings ran out, I had to default after 15 years of having a perfect credit card payment history. The debt collectors were constantly accusing me of being a " refuse to pay " even though I said I acknowledge the debt but had no income at the moment. It is this type of scenario that requires debts be frozen where they were at the time of default and in exchange the debtor agrees to pay off the debt, even if the initial monthly payments are just for a couple of dollars. What this does is free the debtor' s phone lines so they can completely focus on moving forward rather than engage in pointless rat a tat with repetitive debt collection callers. It' s why I started the Debt Neutrality Petition as well. If you click on the link PLEASE read the comments left by some of the 500 plus people who have signed the petition. Even a debt collector signed the petition, their comment speaks volumes of truth, as did all the others as well. Debt Neutrality Petition. __URL__

A lot of excellent points made by MLegz13.

It is this type of scenario that requires debts be frozen where they were at the time of default and in exchange the debtor agrees to pay off the debt, even if the initial monthly payments are just for a couple of dollars.

What this does is free the debtor' s phone lines so they can completely focus on moving forward rather than engage in pointless rat a tat with repetitive debt collection callers.

My elderly parents needed help with day to day activities even if they were too proud to say anything.

I stopped my award winning video business to be their CareGiver.

Once the savings ran out, I had to default after 15 years of having a perfect credit card payment history.

The debt collectors were constantly accusing me of being a " refuse to pay " even though I said I acknowledge the debt but had no income at the moment.

It' s why I started the Debt Neutrality Petition as well.

If you click on the link PLEASE read the comments left by some of the 500 plus people who have signed the petition.

Even a debt collector signed the petition, their comment speaks volumes of truth, as did all the others as well.

Debt Neutrality Petition. __URL__

It is this type of scenario that requires debts be frozen where they were at the time of default and in exchange the debtor agrees to pay off the debt, even if the initial monthly payments are just for a couple of dollars.

What this does is free the debtor' s phone lines so they can completely focus on moving forward rather than engage in pointless rat a tat with repetitive debt collection callers.

It' s why I started the Debt Neutrality Petition as well.

It is this type of scenario that requires debts be frozen where they were at the time of default and in exchange the debtor agrees to pay off the debt, even if the initial monthly payments are just for a couple of dollars.


Input: How about allowing arbitrators to not be bound entirely by the law, but also by common sense when it comes credit card defaults? Common sense tells us that if a Colorado flood washes away a community, those in the community are possibly not going to be able to pay their credit card bills for a few months. Common sense tells us that a medical emergency, being the victim of a hit and run accident, destruction of a home, or becoming an unpaid CareGiver for a family member should take precedence over the monthly payment requirement. This is not about debt forgiveness, its about declaring a debt neutral, no more penalties, fees or interest rate charges are applied to the debt, and the debtor agrees to pay off the debt in a reasonable manner, even if it takes 10 years to do so. __URL__

How about allowing arbitrators to not be bound entirely by the law, but also by common sense when it comes credit card defaults?

Common sense tells us that if a Colorado flood washes away a community, those in the community are possibly not going to be able to pay their credit card bills for a few months.

This is not about debt forgiveness,

its about declaring a debt neutral, no more penalties, fees or interest rate charges are applied to the debt, and the debtor agrees to pay off the debt in a reasonable manner, even if it takes 10 years to do so.

Common sense tells us that a medical emergency, being the victim of a hit and run accident, destruction of a home, or becoming an unpaid CareGiver for a family member should take precedence over the monthly payment requirement.

How about allowing arbitrators to not be bound entirely by the law, but also by common sense when it comes credit card defaults?

Common sense tells us that if a Colorado flood washes away a community, those in the community are possibly not going to be able to pay their credit card bills for a few months.


Input: With a fully communicative voicemail identifying the purpose of the call I think one call is quite diligent. If they choose to call and leave no message then they might as well have done nothing. At least this way their message is being delivered.

With a fully communicative voicemail identifying the purpose of the call I think one call is quite diligent.

If they choose to call and leave no message then they might as well have done nothing.

At least this way their message is being delivered.


Input: The national database and licensing would be a good idea if it were used effectively to weed out the bad collectors and put them (and their corporate officers) out of business permanently. Not those who get caught up in technical violations over mini-Mirandas, but the ones who knowingly commit serious violations of the FDCPA, FCRA, and TCPA. As Tfleeman noted in his very insightful comment above, the " private policing " we have now has not been effective in stopping the worst abuses. As for the main topic of this page, I think it' s far better for a collector to leave a voicemail (with clear identification of the caller and callee) than to call the same number 50 times without leaving a message. The rules should encourage this rather than frustrate it. So, I would favor option #1, with the mini-Miranda deferred until the collector is sure he is talking to the right person.

The national database and licensing would be a good idea if it were used effectively to weed out the bad collectors and put them (and their corporate officers) out of business permanently. Not those who get caught up in technical violations over mini-Mirandas, but the ones who knowingly commit serious violations of the FDCPA, FCRA, and TCPA.

As Tfleeman noted in his very insightful comment above, the " private policing " we have now has not been effective in stopping the worst abuses.

As for the main topic of this page, I think it' s far better for a collector to leave a voicemail (with clear identification of the caller and callee) than to call the same number 50 times without leaving a message.

So, I would favor option #1, with the mini-Miranda deferred until the collector is sure he is talking to the right person.

The rules should encourage this rather than frustrate it.

The national database and licensing would be a good idea if it were used effectively to weed out the bad collectors and put them (and their corporate officers) out of business permanently. Not those who get caught up in technical violations over mini-Mirandas, but the ones who knowingly commit serious violations of the FDCPA, FCRA, and TCPA.

As Tfleeman noted in his very insightful comment above, the " private policing " we have now has not been effective in stopping the worst abuses.

The rules should encourage this rather than frustrate it.

As for the main topic of this page, I think it' s far better for a collector to leave a voicemail (with clear identification of the caller and callee) than to call the same number 50 times without leaving a message.

So, I would favor option #1, with the mini-Miranda deferred until the collector is sure he is talking to the right person.

The rules should encourage this rather than frustrate it.


Input: I would have to point out that there is many complaints in regards to how abusive or harassing debt collectors are according to consumers. As a third-party debt collector, I receive dozens harassment complaints daily. I would just like to note that 80% of the time, these consumers that my fellow co-workers and I come across, are complaining of harassment and abuse; and 100% of them are truly just unwilling to face the facts. That' s what they are complaining about. When we tell them that they owe a debt, they consider it harassment and abuse. They just don' t want to hear their problems. Yes, grant it, there are some debt collectors that are harassing and abusive, but the other 98% are just pointing out the truth. When consumers realize that it is them and not us, debt collectors would receive a better reputation. But until then, we are the enemy in the consumer' s eyes.

I would have to point out that there is many complaints in regards to how abusive or harassing debt collectors are according to consumers.

As a third-party debt collector, I receive dozens harassment complaints daily.

I would just like to note that 80% of the time, these consumers that my fellow co-workers and I come across, are complaining of harassment and abuse;

and 100% of them are truly just unwilling to face the facts.

That' s what they are complaining about.

When we tell them that they owe a debt, they consider it harassment and abuse.

They just don' t want to hear their problems.

Yes, grant it, there are some debt collectors that are harassing and abusive, but the other 98% are just pointing out the truth.

When consumers realize that it is them and not us, debt collectors would receive a better reputation.

But until then, we are the enemy in the consumer' s eyes.

and 100% of them are truly just unwilling to face the facts.

When we tell them that they owe a debt, they consider it harassment and abuse.

They just don' t want to hear their problems.

and 100% of them are truly just unwilling to face the facts.


Input: The majority of the time, when a debt has been paid off, it has been paid to the client, not the collection agency. Most of that time when that debt has been paid to the client, the client neglects to report it to the agency. So the collectors continue to call on a paid debt that they have no knowledge of. It' s really not the collectors fault, it is generally the client' s.

The majority of the time, when a debt has been paid off, it has been paid to the client, not the collection agency.

Most of that time when that debt has been paid to the client, the client neglects to report it to the agency.

So the collectors continue to call on a paid debt that they have no knowledge of.

It' s really not the collectors fault, it is generally the client' s.

So the collectors continue to call on a paid debt that they have no knowledge of.

The majority of the time, when a debt has been paid off, it has been paid to the client, not the collection agency.

So the collectors continue to call on a paid debt that they have no knowledge of.

Most of that time when that debt has been paid to the client, the client neglects to report it to the agency.

It' s really not the collectors fault, it is generally the client' s.

The majority of the time, when a debt has been paid off, it has been paid to the client, not the collection agency.

It' s really not the collectors fault, it is generally the client' s.

Most of that time when that debt has been paid to the client, the client neglects to report it to the agency.


Input: If a debt is to be turned over to a collection agency, the owner of the debt should be required to send a fully itemized statement to the debtor. The statement should have a large-type header, something like, " [NAME OF CREDITOR] IS TURNING THIS DEBT OVER TO [NAME], A DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY. " This would give the debtor another chance to pay in the simplest way, before getting tangled up in idiot phone calls, and it would help the debtor identify the debt. The debt owner already has the itemized bill; it would be just a matter of copying it again and sending it. there should be a requirement that the original creditor make a true, good-faith effort to contact the debtor. I' ve dealt with those who do this, and those who don' t. Some will send you a bill, and then when they get no answer, call you and check the address, which is often wrong. Some, it seems, hardly wait for the ink to dry on their first bill before they turn it over to collection.

If a debt is to be turned over to a collection agency, the owner of the debt should be required to send a fully itemized statement to the debtor.

The statement should have a large-type header, something like, " [NAME OF CREDITOR] IS TURNING THIS DEBT OVER TO [NAME], A DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY. "

there should be a requirement that the original creditor make a true, good-faith effort to contact the debtor.

This would give the debtor another chance to pay in the simplest way, before getting tangled up in idiot phone calls,

and it would help the debtor identify the debt.

The debt owner already has the itemized bill;

it would be just a matter of copying it again and sending it.

Some will send you a bill, and then when they get no answer, call you and check the address, which is often wrong.

Some, it seems, hardly wait for the ink to dry on their first bill before they turn it over to collection.

I' ve dealt with those who do this, and those who don' t.

If a debt is to be turned over to a collection agency, the owner of the debt should be required to send a fully itemized statement to the debtor.

This would give the debtor another chance to pay in the simplest way, before getting tangled up in idiot phone calls,

If a debt is to be turned over to a collection agency, the owner of the debt should be required to send a fully itemized statement to the debtor.

and it would help the debtor identify the debt.

If a debt is to be turned over to a collection agency, the owner of the debt should be required to send a fully itemized statement to the debtor.

it would be just a matter of copying it again and sending it.

it would be just a matter of copying it again and sending it.

The debt owner already has the itemized bill;

there should be a requirement that the original creditor make a true, good-faith effort to contact the debtor.

I' ve dealt with those who do this, and those who don' t.


Input: My experience is only with medical bills. The debt collectors seem only to know (a) what hospital and (b) how much. When you' ve been doing the hokey-pokey from emergency room to nursing home and back again over a period of months, that information is not much help. What' s really needed is an itemized bill that' s a lot clearer than the " statement of benefits " we get now. Something as clear as: " You were in X hospital on this date. You had this test and that test. They cost a gazillion dollars, but we bargained them down to $17. 48. Please pay this amount. "

My experience is only with medical bills.

The debt collectors seem only to know (a) what hospital and (b) how much.

When you' ve been doing the hokey-pokey from emergency room to nursing home and back again over a period of months, that information is not much help.

What' s really needed is an itemized bill that' s a lot clearer than the " statement of benefits " we get now. Something as clear as: " You were in X hospital on this date. You had this test and that test. They cost a gazillion dollars, but we bargained them down to $17. 48. Please pay this amount. "

What' s really needed is an itemized bill that' s a lot clearer than the " statement of benefits " we get now. Something as clear as: " You were in X hospital on this date. You had this test and that test. They cost a gazillion dollars, but we bargained them down to $17. 48. Please pay this amount. "

The debt collectors seem only to know (a) what hospital and (b) how much.

What' s really needed is an itemized bill that' s a lot clearer than the " statement of benefits " we get now. Something as clear as: " You were in X hospital on this date. You had this test and that test. They cost a gazillion dollars, but we bargained them down to $17. 48. Please pay this amount. "

When you' ve been doing the hokey-pokey from emergency room to nursing home and back again over a period of months, that information is not much help.


Input: Wow, I didn' t even know we had those rights except for the one about the workplace, they' re all news to me. So I' ve no experience, but my guess would be that the debt collectors would rather not receive this information.

Wow, I didn' t even know we had those rights

except for the one about the workplace, they' re all news to me.

So I' ve no experience,

but my guess would be that the debt collectors would rather not receive this information.

So I' ve no experience,

Wow, I didn' t even know we had those rights

So I' ve no experience,

except for the one about the workplace, they' re all news to me.


Input: I think probably the benefits of giving debt collectors and buyers access to these documents would NOT worth the costs unless the documents have to be included with the validation notice. If the debt collectors were anxious to be sure they had the right debtor, sure, great. But I don' t think they are. The actual guy on the phone is only anxious to get the money; he doesn' t really care where it comes from or whether the debt is legal. Giving him the information, without giving it to the debtor, probably wouldn' t be much good. And maybe I' m being unfair. Maybe these companies are strict about making sure the debt is collected from the right person. Naaah....

I think probably the benefits of giving debt collectors and buyers access to these documents would NOT worth the costs unless the documents have to be included with the validation notice.

If the debt collectors were anxious to be sure they had the right debtor, sure, great.

But I don' t think they are.

The actual guy on the phone is only anxious to get the money;

he doesn' t really care where it comes from or whether the debt is legal.

Giving him the information, without giving it to the debtor, probably wouldn' t be much good.

And maybe I' m being unfair.

Maybe these companies are strict about making sure the debt is collected from the right person.

Naaah....

I think probably the benefits of giving debt collectors and buyers access to these documents would NOT worth the costs unless the documents have to be included with the validation notice.

Giving him the information, without giving it to the debtor, probably wouldn' t be much good.

But I don' t think they are.

he doesn' t really care where it comes from or whether the debt is legal.

he doesn' t really care where it comes from or whether the debt is legal.

The actual guy on the phone is only anxious to get the money;

Giving him the information, without giving it to the debtor, probably wouldn' t be much good.

he doesn' t really care where it comes from or whether the debt is legal.


Input: The main problem with privacy is that we use the SS #for everything, so everything can be connected. That' s been a bad idea since they started using it as a taxpayer i. d. It probably prevents a little fraud, but it' s not worth it. We have, in effect, made it illegal to be untraceable--not a good thing for victims of domestic abuse, among others.

The main problem with privacy is that we use the SS #for everything, so everything can be connected.

That' s been a bad idea since they started using it as a taxpayer i. d.

It probably prevents a little fraud,

but it' s not worth it.

We have, in effect, made it illegal to be untraceable--not a good thing for victims of domestic abuse, among others.

The main problem with privacy is that we use the SS #for everything, so everything can be connected.

We have, in effect, made it illegal to be untraceable--not a good thing for victims of domestic abuse, among others.

That' s been a bad idea since they started using it as a taxpayer i. d.

We have, in effect, made it illegal to be untraceable--not a good thing for victims of domestic abuse, among others.

but it' s not worth it.

We have, in effect, made it illegal to be untraceable--not a good thing for victims of domestic abuse, among others.


Input: I generally prefer e-mail to telephone communication, but you can' t be sure the e-mail has reached the person. I would suggest a notice that says, " If you don' t acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, we' ll start phoning you. "

I generally prefer e-mail to telephone communication,

but you can' t be sure the e-mail has reached the person.

I would suggest a notice that says, " If you don' t acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, we' ll start phoning you. "

I would suggest a notice that says, " If you don' t acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, we' ll start phoning you. "

I generally prefer e-mail to telephone communication,

I would suggest a notice that says, " If you don' t acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, we' ll start phoning you. "

but you can' t be sure the e-mail has reached the person.


Input: Payment processor Visa has general information and the corresponding state statutes about the 10 states that prohibit companies from charging credit/debit card fees located on their website. Texas, which most people would think would be business friendly, is actually really consumer friendly when it comes to these fees, for example. Texas has had a long-standing state law against credit card fees, and just recently this year created a new state law to cover against debit card fees and other stored value cards (like prepaid debit cards). __URL__ __URL__ __URL__ __URL__ And, no, I do not have any knowledge of if debt collectors are charging debtors payment processing fees or not, but if they are--especially in the states that forbid this practice--they should not be allowed to do so. And I further believe that in the remaining states that do not have any laws forbidding credit/debit cards surcharges, that a fed reg/law should forbid debt collectors in all states from doing so.

Payment processor Visa has general information and the corresponding state statutes about the 10 states that prohibit companies from charging credit/debit card fees located on their website.

Texas has had a long-standing state law against credit card fees, and just recently this year created a new state law to cover against debit card fees and other stored value cards (like prepaid debit cards).

Texas, which most people would think would be business friendly, is actually really consumer friendly when it comes to these fees, for example.

And, no, I do not have any knowledge of if debt collectors are charging debtors payment processing fees or not,

but if they are--especially in the states that forbid this practice--they should not be allowed to do so.

And I further believe that in the remaining states that do not have any laws forbidding credit/debit cards surcharges, that a fed reg/law should forbid debt collectors in all states from doing so.

Payment processor Visa has general information and the corresponding state statutes about the 10 states that prohibit companies from charging credit/debit card fees located on their website.

Payment processor Visa has general information and the corresponding state statutes about the 10 states that prohibit companies from charging credit/debit card fees located on their website.

Texas has had a long-standing state law against credit card fees, and just recently this year created a new state law to cover against debit card fees and other stored value cards (like prepaid debit cards).

Texas has had a long-standing state law against credit card fees, and just recently this year created a new state law to cover against debit card fees and other stored value cards (like prepaid debit cards).

Texas, which most people would think would be business friendly, is actually really consumer friendly when it comes to these fees, for example.

Texas has had a long-standing state law against credit card fees, and just recently this year created a new state law to cover against debit card fees and other stored value cards (like prepaid debit cards).


Input: Yes, I am also concerned with whether or not collectors should identify themselves in a message, or if they should be more general in identifying who they are in a voice message as to not invade the privacy of the debtor for whomever else may share the same answering machine or otherwise may over hear the message. So far, I have purposely remained neutral on this matter because I have yet to form an opinion. I can see both sides of the arguments. I think I lean more to wanting the collectors to be more discrete and general about who is calling, but I still am not sure. The big concern that is more concrete is definitely the phone number caller id, in that it should be the true number of the business and (if a message is left) should also be the call back number.

Yes, I am also concerned with whether or not collectors should identify themselves in a message, or if they should be more general in identifying who they are in a voice message as to not invade the privacy of the debtor for whomever else may share the same answering machine or otherwise may over hear the message.

So far, I have purposely remained neutral on this matter

because I have yet to form an opinion.

I can see both sides of the arguments.

I think I lean more to wanting the collectors to be more discrete and general about who is calling,

but I still am not sure.

The big concern that is more concrete is definitely the phone number caller id,

in that it should be the true number of the business and (if a message is left) should also be the call back number.

So far, I have purposely remained neutral on this matter

because I have yet to form an opinion.

because I have yet to form an opinion.

I can see both sides of the arguments.

The big concern that is more concrete is definitely the phone number caller id,

in that it should be the true number of the business and (if a message is left) should also be the call back number.


Input: I have found, on numerous occasions, that the debt collection process allowing firms purchasing debt-for pennies on the dollar-often use intimidating tactics that can easily be considered extortion. Every time a deb t collector purchases an old, out-of-date debt, they re-file the debt with the credit bureau (s). This continues the credit report damage for years-sometimes decades. As a mortgage banker, those persons often find it impossible to secure a mortgage and realize the American dream of home ownership.

I have found, on numerous occasions, that the debt collection process allowing firms purchasing debt-for pennies on the dollar-often use intimidating tactics that can easily be considered extortion.

As a mortgage banker, those persons often find it impossible to secure a mortgage and realize the American dream of home ownership.

Every time a deb t collector purchases an old, out-of-date debt, they re-file the debt with the credit bureau (s).

This continues the credit report damage for years-sometimes decades.


Input: I think I do kind of like this idea. This designated database/website could also list Summary of Rights for state laws and Fed laws. Then this same website might also be able to be used as a way to report abusive behaviors (or link to the appropriate websites to do so), and other relevant information for consumers regarding consumer debt, credit, and credit reports, and other various useful information that is currently available but is spread across many agency websites. The website could be paid for and maintained by the debt collectors (sort of like how annualcreditreport. com is paid for and maintained by the credit reporting agencies). It could be a way to help bring legitimacy to the debt collection industry by having a way to identify them to separate the legit companies from the bad ones while allowing collectors to operate effectively.

I think I do kind of like this idea.

This designated database/website could also list Summary of Rights for state laws and Fed laws.

Then this same website might also be able to be used as a way to report abusive behaviors (or link to the appropriate websites to do so), and other relevant information for consumers regarding consumer debt, credit, and credit reports, and other various useful information that is currently available but is spread across many agency websites.

The website could be paid for and maintained by the debt collectors (sort of like how annualcreditreport. com is paid for and maintained by the credit reporting agencies).

It could be a way to help bring legitimacy to the debt collection industry by having a way to identify them to separate the legit companies from the bad ones while allowing collectors to operate effectively.


Input: Please include calls to family and friends of debtor. We are called frequently to pass on messages for people that have our last name, some of them we don' t know.

Please include calls to family and friends of debtor.

We are called frequently to pass on messages for people that have our last name, some of them we don' t know.

Please include calls to family and friends of debtor.

We are called frequently to pass on messages for people that have our last name, some of them we don' t know.


Input: I often get robo calls about family members debt, sometimes 3 or 4 a day, usually for family members that I haven' t spoken to for decades. I am not sure how they get my phone no. as it is unlisted and I am sure the family members don' t have it.

I often get robo calls about family members debt, sometimes 3 or 4 a day, usually for family members that I haven' t spoken to for decades.

as it is unlisted and I am sure the family members don' t have it.

I am not sure how they get my phone no.

I am not sure how they get my phone no.

as it is unlisted and I am sure the family members don' t have it.


Input: Mslade, you have some valid points about the confusing Foti rulings, but I think you are wrong about the TCPA. This law has always applied to debt collectors, politicians, and even charities with respect to cellular phones. And it' s not just one judge who has ruled in this way. The FCC and the courts have repeatedly affirmed it.

Mslade, you have some valid points about the confusing Foti rulings,

but I think you are wrong about the TCPA.

This law has always applied to debt collectors, politicians, and even charities with respect to cellular phones.

And it' s not just one judge who has ruled in this way.

The FCC and the courts have repeatedly affirmed it.

but I think you are wrong about the TCPA.

This law has always applied to debt collectors, politicians, and even charities with respect to cellular phones.


Input: Tiffany, I think part of the problem is that the 2% of collectors who harass and abuse are responsible for a disproportionate share of the contacts that consumers have with your industry. Everyone (whether they owe a debt or not) has had an encounter with one of these bad apples, and then they want to take out their anger on you. And when you make an honest mistake and get sued for a technical violation, you pay the same penalty as a company that has deliberately harassed someone with 100 phone calls.

Tiffany, I think part of the problem is that the 2% of collectors who harass and abuse are responsible for a disproportionate share of the contacts that consumers have with your industry.

Everyone (whether they owe a debt or not) has had an encounter with one of these bad apples,

and then they want to take out their anger on you.

And when you make an honest mistake and get sued for a technical violation, you pay the same penalty as a company that has deliberately harassed someone with 100 phone calls.

Tiffany, I think part of the problem is that the 2% of collectors who harass and abuse are responsible for a disproportionate share of the contacts that consumers have with your industry.

Everyone (whether they owe a debt or not) has had an encounter with one of these bad apples,

Tiffany, I think part of the problem is that the 2% of collectors who harass and abuse are responsible for a disproportionate share of the contacts that consumers have with your industry.

and then they want to take out their anger on you.

Tiffany, I think part of the problem is that the 2% of collectors who harass and abuse are responsible for a disproportionate share of the contacts that consumers have with your industry.

And when you make an honest mistake and get sued for a technical violation, you pay the same penalty as a company that has deliberately harassed someone with 100 phone calls.


Input: My daughter has both private and federal loans through Sallie Mae. They call her cell phone and my cell phone daily, at least 10 times a day. They called me, by the way, they do not have her permission to speak with me, and tell me to stop paying her federal loans because they can be deferred and pay the private loans. My daughter owes 176000. 00 in private loans and can' t afford to make the payments that they are asking for. They called her employer requesting information on her. She sent a letter and requested that they only contact her through email and US mail. When they called me I asked them if they received this and they said yes but they need to be able to talk to someone. Well, they don' t have my number as a contact number. I told them and they still call my cell phone daily. My daughter can barely pay the bills she has now. I help her pay her private loans. I am not on any of her loans. This harassment needs to stop!

My daughter has both private and federal loans through Sallie Mae.

They call her cell phone and my cell phone daily, at least 10 times a day.

They called me,

by the way, they do not have her permission to speak with me, and tell me to stop paying her federal loans because they can be deferred and pay the private loans.

My daughter owes 176000. 00 in private loans and can' t afford to make the payments that they are asking for.

They called her employer requesting information on her.

She sent a letter and requested that they only contact her through email and US mail.

When they called me I asked them if they received this

and they said yes but they need to be able to talk to someone.

Well, they don' t have my number as a contact number.

I told them and they still call my cell phone daily.

My daughter can barely pay the bills she has now.

I help her pay her private loans.

I am not on any of her loans.

This harassment needs to stop!


Input: All? It' s just not so. Maybe retailers do; I have no experience with them. But medical billers are consistently mistaken, careless, and just plain wrong. One medical facility called my daughter-in-law' s cell phone about a bill for my mother! They had her number as, I think, the fourth emergency number. And this was a GOOD place, that actually tried and finally managed to get in touch with me. I was very pleased with their billing department, compared to others we had dealt with.

All? It' s just not so.

Maybe retailers do;

I have no experience with them.

One medical facility called my daughter-in-law' s cell phone about a bill for my mother!

They had her number as, I think, the fourth emergency number.

But medical billers are consistently mistaken, careless, and just plain wrong.

And this was a GOOD place, that actually tried and finally managed to get in touch with me.

I was very pleased with their billing department, compared to others we had dealt with.


Input: I see what you mean, but that tiny percentage suffers incredible annoyance and harassment. Should they pay what they don' t owe, merely to get out from under? All we' ve ever asked for is an itemized bill from the original creditor, but the collectors act as if that' s too much. And they say--and probably believe--that we' ve received other bills, but we haven' t. We' ve lived in the same place for 30 years how awful it must be for people who move a lot.

I see what you mean,

but that tiny percentage suffers incredible annoyance and harassment.

but the collectors act as if that' s too much.

how awful it must be for people who move a lot.

Should they pay what they don' t owe, merely to get out from under?

All we' ve ever asked for is an itemized bill from the original creditor,

And they say--and probably believe--that we' ve received other bills,

but we haven' t.

We' ve lived in the same place for 30 years

how awful it must be for people who move a lot.

And they say--and probably believe--that we' ve received other bills,

how awful it must be for people who move a lot.

but we haven' t.

how awful it must be for people who move a lot.

We' ve lived in the same place for 30 years


Input: Yep, that' s right. Isn' t the point supposed to be to collect the debt?

Yep, that' s right.

Isn' t the point supposed to be to collect the debt?


Input: The state in which I practice does not allow jurisdiction based solely on where the contract was signed. As such, we limit our filings to the venues where we reasonably believe the consumer resides. The states typically define what is the proper court thereafter, whether its based on amount, location, etc. so even if there is a large judicial districts we do not have the choice to file elsewhere by local rules.

The state in which I practice does not allow jurisdiction based solely on where the contract was signed.

The states typically define what is the proper court thereafter, whether its based on amount, location, etc.

As such, we limit our filings to the venues where we reasonably believe the consumer resides.

so even if there is a large judicial districts we do not have the choice to file elsewhere by local rules.

As such, we limit our filings to the venues where we reasonably believe the consumer resides.

The state in which I practice does not allow jurisdiction based solely on where the contract was signed.

so even if there is a large judicial districts we do not have the choice to file elsewhere by local rules.

The states typically define what is the proper court thereafter, whether its based on amount, location, etc.


Input: I am sorry to hear about this situation. This kind of abusive behavior is upsetting to hear as a consumer. They don' t need to " speak " with anyone. You/your daughter are perfectly within your legal rights to ask the phone calls to stop and to communicate by other means. And the collectors who are refusing to honor this request is in violation. Moreover, they should not be contacting you nor they should be contacting you/your daughter 10 times a day. This is clearly excessive and abusive. I would like to also mention, that although they do have a point about the federal loans can usually be placed into deferment, debt collectors are not fiduciaries and are not acting with nor are capable of providing financial advice that is in the best interest of the consumer/debtor. The collectors will say anything and do anything just to get paid. They should not be allowed to offer advice on what bills to pay and how to pay them. This sort of " advice " can be detrimental to consumers/debtors. Perhaps the CFPB should allow collectors to offer referrals on financial advice, but they should not allow collectors to outright give financial advice.

I am sorry to hear about this situation.

This kind of abusive behavior is upsetting to hear as a consumer.

They don' t need to " speak " with anyone.

This is clearly excessive and abusive.

I would like to also mention, that although they do have a point about the federal loans can usually be placed into deferment,

and are not acting with nor are capable of providing financial advice that is in the best interest of the consumer/debtor.

The collectors will say anything and do anything just to get paid.

This sort of " advice " can be detrimental to consumers/debtors.

You/your daughter are perfectly within your legal rights to ask the phone calls to stop and to communicate by other means.

And the collectors who are refusing to honor this request is in violation.

debt collectors are not fiduciaries

Moreover, they should not be contacting you

nor they should be contacting you/your daughter 10 times a day.

They should not be allowed to offer advice on what bills to pay and how to pay them.

Perhaps the CFPB should allow collectors to offer referrals on financial advice,

but they should not allow collectors to outright give financial advice.

They don' t need to " speak " with anyone.

You/your daughter are perfectly within your legal rights to ask the phone calls to stop and to communicate by other means.

nor they should be contacting you/your daughter 10 times a day.

This is clearly excessive and abusive.

They should not be allowed to offer advice on what bills to pay and how to pay them.

The collectors will say anything and do anything just to get paid.

They should not be allowed to offer advice on what bills to pay and how to pay them.

This sort of " advice " can be detrimental to consumers/debtors.


Input: Debt collectors file a large number of default judgments because quite simply consumers do not take action, not because they are unaware of the issue. Usually at the time a lawsuit is filed, a debt collector has attempted to resolve the issue via telephone calls and/or letters. This doesn' t even include the efforts the original creditor may have made. A lawsuit is never a first response. It is usually done after numerous and repeated failed efforts to work with a consumer to resolve an outstanding debt. A default judgment is just a further extension of that. Even after we file suit, we may attempt to reach the consumer to resolve the lawsuit prior to judgment being taken. I have seen numerous files where we have spoken to the consumer and told them they can file an answer, and they still don' t. In my opinion, default judgments are largely the result of consumer' s deliberate uninvolvement with the process, rather than a collector taking deceptive steps. I will state that many states have local rules that if there is no response to a summons and the consumer has defaulted, they do not need to be noticed on a motion for a default judgment. Therefore, the actual entry of the judgment may in fact come as a surprise, despite the summons stating if you don' t answer a judgment may be taken. However, an attorney who follows the local rules is not acting deceptively. In order to curb this shock for the consumer who doesn' t answer, it wouldn' t be bad to require all motions for judgment be served upon the consumer, despite local rules which may require otherwise. I would point out, many default judgment motions are not noticed for motion hour. They may simply be submitted for a ruling without a court hearing. As to the inquiry as to what is required to support a default judgment, this varies court to court and judge to judge. The courts that I have seen require more documentation are largely looking for affidavits of debt, charge off statements and statement showing payments or charges, and the assignment (if the plaintiff is a debt buyer).

Debt collectors file a large number of default judgments

A lawsuit is never a first response.

As to the inquiry as to what is required to support a default judgment, this varies court to court and judge to judge.

because quite simply consumers do not take action, not because they are unaware of the issue.

Usually at the time a lawsuit is filed, a debt collector has attempted to resolve the issue via telephone calls and/or letters.

This doesn' t even include the efforts the original creditor may have made.

It is usually done after numerous and repeated failed efforts to work with a consumer to resolve an outstanding debt.

A default judgment is just a further extension of that.

Even after we file suit, we may attempt to reach the consumer to resolve the lawsuit prior to judgment being taken.

In my opinion, default judgments are largely the result of consumer' s deliberate uninvolvement with the process, rather than a collector taking deceptive steps.

I will state that many states have local rules that if there is no response to a summons and the consumer has defaulted, they do not need to be noticed on a motion for a default judgment.

Therefore, the actual entry of the judgment may in fact come as a surprise, despite the summons stating if you don' t answer a judgment may be taken.

However, an attorney who follows the local rules is not acting deceptively.

In order to curb this shock for the consumer who doesn' t answer, it wouldn' t be bad to require all motions for judgment be served upon the consumer, despite local rules which may require otherwise.

I would point out, many default judgment motions are not noticed for motion hour.

They may simply be submitted for a ruling without a court hearing.

I have seen numerous files where we have spoken to the consumer and told them they can file an answer, and they still don' t.

The courts that I have seen require more documentation are largely looking for affidavits of debt, charge off statements and statement showing payments or charges, and the assignment (if the plaintiff is a debt buyer).

As to the inquiry as to what is required to support a default judgment, this varies court to court and judge to judge.

The courts that I have seen require more documentation are largely looking for affidavits of debt, charge off statements and statement showing payments or charges, and the assignment (if the plaintiff is a debt buyer).

Debt collectors file a large number of default judgments

because quite simply consumers do not take action, not because they are unaware of the issue.

A lawsuit is never a first response.

It is usually done after numerous and repeated failed efforts to work with a consumer to resolve an outstanding debt.

Therefore, the actual entry of the judgment may in fact come as a surprise, despite the summons stating if you don' t answer a judgment may be taken.

I will state that many states have local rules that if there is no response to a summons and the consumer has defaulted, they do not need to be noticed on a motion for a default judgment.

I would point out, many default judgment motions are not noticed for motion hour.

They may simply be submitted for a ruling without a court hearing.


Input: I would like to see requirements that the consumers are required to provide written notice of any new addresses for the creditor to reach them so in the event the account does go into default, the creditor has current information to attempt to contact the consumer. Many consumers move frequently, yet fail to update the creditors

I would like to see requirements that the consumers are required to provide written notice of any new addresses for the creditor to reach them

so in the event the account does go into default, the creditor has current information to attempt to contact the consumer.

Many consumers move frequently, yet fail to update the creditors

I would like to see requirements that the consumers are required to provide written notice of any new addresses for the creditor to reach them

so in the event the account does go into default, the creditor has current information to attempt to contact the consumer.


Input: I believe that this practice in already in place in three major ways. The creditor usually already requires all of their customers to provided updated contact information, Once a consumer moves the address change and other contact information changes are updated on the consumers credit report, and finally, The USPS has records of mail forwarding procedures once a consumer moves.

I believe that this practice in already in place in three major ways.

The creditor usually already requires all of their customers to provided updated contact information,

Once a consumer moves the address change and other contact information changes are updated on the consumers credit report,

and finally, The USPS has records of mail forwarding procedures once a consumer moves.

I believe that this practice in already in place in three major ways.

The creditor usually already requires all of their customers to provided updated contact information,

I believe that this practice in already in place in three major ways.

Once a consumer moves the address change and other contact information changes are updated on the consumers credit report,

I believe that this practice in already in place in three major ways.

and finally, The USPS has records of mail forwarding procedures once a consumer moves.


Input: From a creditor' s standpoint, I generally agree with this comment. I think a good validation notice could answer a lot of the consumer' s question. I think the author of the above note had some very well reasoned thoughts. I wouldn' t go so far as to add that an itemized statement must be provided, particularly if one might not be available (perhaps because of record retention rules or because one simply may not exist), but providing information as to the type of account, brand name of the original creditor issuing the account, the account number, the date of last pay, and the name of the party from whom the debt may have been purchased would help. Providing documentation at the get go seems rather unneccessary and costly, particularly if the wording of the letter allows the consumer to readily identify the account, and the disclosures allow the consumer to request documentation for validation.

From a creditor' s standpoint, I generally agree with this comment.

I think a good validation notice could answer a lot of the consumer' s question.

I think the author of the above note had some very well reasoned thoughts.

I wouldn' t go so far as to add that an itemized statement must be provided, particularly if one might not be available (perhaps because of record retention rules or because one simply may not exist),

but providing information as to the type of account, brand name of the original creditor issuing the account, the account number, the date of last pay, and the name of the party from whom the debt may have been purchased would help.

Providing documentation at the get go seems rather unneccessary and costly, particularly if the wording of the letter allows the consumer to readily identify the account, and the disclosures allow the consumer to request documentation for validation.

From a creditor' s standpoint, I generally agree with this comment.

I think a good validation notice could answer a lot of the consumer' s question.

From a creditor' s standpoint, I generally agree with this comment.

I think the author of the above note had some very well reasoned thoughts.

I wouldn' t go so far as to add that an itemized statement must be provided, particularly if one might not be available (perhaps because of record retention rules or because one simply may not exist),

Providing documentation at the get go seems rather unneccessary and costly, particularly if the wording of the letter allows the consumer to readily identify the account, and the disclosures allow the consumer to request documentation for validation.


Input: Alternative one is the easiest to communicate and probably the easiest to understand. Accouting systems will vary from creditor to creditor and requirements beyond this would only become more cumbersome and costly for a creditor and more confusing for a consumer. I would not have the breakdown be different for different types of credit extended. Computers and brains all across America will start smoking.

Alternative one is the easiest to communicate and probably the easiest to understand.

Accouting systems will vary from creditor to creditor

and requirements beyond this would only become more cumbersome and costly for a creditor and more confusing for a consumer.

I would not have the breakdown be different for different types of credit extended.

Computers and brains all across America will start smoking.

and requirements beyond this would only become more cumbersome and costly for a creditor and more confusing for a consumer.

Accouting systems will vary from creditor to creditor

I would not have the breakdown be different for different types of credit extended.

Computers and brains all across America will start smoking.


Input: You raise an issue that has two distinct definitions: " sent " and " received " I don' t think that any consumer wishes that they " receive " a notice that wasn' t " sent " in the first place. In addition, letters and parcels get lost in the mail all the time. If there is a requirement for a credit/collector to " send " the notices you are referring to, the first place to send them are going to be an address that is on file. If the letters then get returned, then you would know that they are not at the address that is on file. But the letters have to be " sent " in the first place.

You raise an issue that has two distinct definitions: " sent " and " received "

I don' t think that any consumer wishes that they " receive " a notice that wasn' t " sent " in the first place.

If the letters then get returned, then you would know that they are not at the address that is on file.

In addition, letters and parcels get lost in the mail all the time.

If there is a requirement for a credit/collector to " send " the notices you are referring to, the first place to send them are going to be an address that is on file.

But the letters have to be " sent " in the first place.


Input: You are correct. There is quite a difference between send and receive. All I am suggesting is that a creditor only be required to send any notice to the last known address-not that the consumer receive it. and you presume too much if you think that all mail is returned if not delivered to the proper recipeint), then the creditor must send the notice to that new address. If the point of this dialogue is to ensure the consumer is protected, then require the consumer to protect themselves and provide this information to the creditor. If they don' t then a creditor can' t be hanged in a lawsuit for a letter failing to reach a consumer, when the creditor actions used the best information on hand.

You are correct.

There is quite a difference between send and receive.

All I am suggesting is that a creditor only be required to send any notice to the last known address-not that the consumer receive it.

and you presume too much if you think that all mail is returned if not delivered to the proper recipeint),

If they don' t then a creditor can' t be hanged in a lawsuit for a letter failing to reach a consumer, when the creditor actions used the best information on hand.

then the creditor must send the notice to that new address.

If the point of this dialogue is to ensure the consumer is protected, then require the consumer to protect themselves and provide this information to the creditor.

You are correct.

There is quite a difference between send and receive.


Input: Sorry, but you are mistaken about debt collectors not being able to change information in your credit file. Yes, they can, and yes they do. If my account has been sold (several) times to other people, and my original creditor no longer owns the account, then how would my account be (updated/reported) by that company (debt collector) that purchased it? And, yes they (the person furnishing) the information to the credit bureau can and do supply credit bureaus with fraudulent information. That' s how Debt Collector' s get sued in the first place.

Sorry, but you are mistaken about debt collectors not being able to change information in your credit file.

If my account has been sold (several) times to other people, and my original creditor no longer owns the account, then how would my account be (updated/reported) by that company (debt collector) that purchased it?

Yes, they can,

and yes they do.

And, yes they (the person furnishing) the information to the credit bureau can and do supply credit bureaus with fraudulent information.

That' s how Debt Collector' s get sued in the first place.

Sorry, but you are mistaken about debt collectors not being able to change information in your credit file.

Yes, they can,

Sorry, but you are mistaken about debt collectors not being able to change information in your credit file.

and yes they do.

And, yes they (the person furnishing) the information to the credit bureau can and do supply credit bureaus with fraudulent information.

That' s how Debt Collector' s get sued in the first place.


Input: I agree. Most creditors already have this information in contracts and other correspondence to the debtor. This additional notice is unnecessary would be cumbersome and costly.

I agree.

Most creditors already have this information in contracts and other correspondence to the debtor.

This additional notice is unnecessary would be cumbersome and costly.

I agree.

This additional notice is unnecessary would be cumbersome and costly.

This additional notice is unnecessary would be cumbersome and costly.

Most creditors already have this information in contracts and other correspondence to the debtor.


Input: this is not necessarily true. There are services that text and the sender pays for the text.

this is not necessarily true.

There are services that text and the sender pays for the text.

this is not necessarily true.

There are services that text and the sender pays for the text.


Input: I had a 19 year old debt come back to haunt me I went to three attorney' s to attempt to pay them to " talk " to the company, as the information I was given, would not call me back after leaving several messages, along with an offer to settle it for slightly more than one-half of what they claimed I owed. This debt went from around $1200 up to $9, 300 in those 19 years. This type of behavior must be regulated it is only out and out a scam.

I had a 19 year old debt come back to haunt me

I went to three attorney' s to attempt to pay them to " talk " to the company, as the information I was given, would not call me back after leaving several messages, along with an offer to settle it for slightly more than one-half of what they claimed I owed.

This debt went from around $1200 up to $9, 300 in those 19 years.

This type of behavior must be regulated

it is only out and out a scam.

This type of behavior must be regulated

it is only out and out a scam.


Input: Once companies have sold the debt to a collection agency they do not help resolve it in any way and the collection agency is only interested in getting money not whether the debt is real or there were some mitigating circumstances.

Once companies have sold the debt to a collection agency they do not help resolve it in any way

and the collection agency is only interested in getting money not whether the debt is real or there were some mitigating circumstances.


Input: The most important would be not to call at work. That' s really the most important to the collectors, too, because a person out of work isn' t likely to pay.

The most important would be not to call at work.

That' s really the most important to the collectors, too,

because a person out of work isn' t likely to pay.

That' s really the most important to the collectors, too,

because a person out of work isn' t likely to pay.


Input: I believe most default judgments occur for one reason: the consumers know they owe the debt and see no reason to prolong the situation. Many consumers will call us and make payment arrangements after being served. We advise them they have the opportunity to be heard in court but most decline. They simply want to resolve the debt.

I believe most default judgments occur for one reason: the consumers know they owe the debt and see no reason to prolong the situation.

They simply want to resolve the debt.

Many consumers will call us and make payment arrangements after being served.

We advise them they have the opportunity to be heard in court but most decline.

I believe most default judgments occur for one reason: the consumers know they owe the debt and see no reason to prolong the situation.

Many consumers will call us and make payment arrangements after being served.

I believe most default judgments occur for one reason: the consumers know they owe the debt and see no reason to prolong the situation.

We advise them they have the opportunity to be heard in court but most decline.

I believe most default judgments occur for one reason: the consumers know they owe the debt and see no reason to prolong the situation.

They simply want to resolve the debt.

We advise them they have the opportunity to be heard in court but most decline.

They simply want to resolve the debt.


Input: My experience is the collection agency will not correct the debt on the credit report! we need a law requiring the collection company to report debt repayment or debt settlement to the credit bureau in a timely manner... Say 30 days after the debt has been settled, or payment arrangements have been made. It can be very hard to clean up your credit when working with collection companies... they want their money but they don' t care if your credit report is accurate!

My experience is the collection agency will not correct the debt on the credit report!

we need a law requiring the collection company to report debt repayment or debt settlement to the credit bureau in a timely manner... Say 30 days after the debt has been settled, or payment arrangements have been made.

It can be very hard to clean up your credit when working with collection companies...

they want their money but they don' t care if your credit report is accurate!

we need a law requiring the collection company to report debt repayment or debt settlement to the credit bureau in a timely manner... Say 30 days after the debt has been settled, or payment arrangements have been made.

My experience is the collection agency will not correct the debt on the credit report!

It can be very hard to clean up your credit when working with collection companies...

they want their money but they don' t care if your credit report is accurate!


Input: Massachusetts has this right. There need to be strict and enforceable limits on the number of times a collector can call during the week. I' ve received as many as 40 calls over a 5-day period from Citicards and calls every 50 minutes at work during the day by Wells Fargo. THIS IS SHAMEFUL AND THIS FREQUENT REPEAT CALLING HAS TO BE STOPPED BY LAW! Those of us who are in debt know it and don' t have to be reminded over and over again. Calling numerous times per day or per week won' t get the debt paid any faster. If you explain that to the collector on the other end of the phone, they blame the repeat dialing on their computers. Now that' s lame. The computers can be programmed to call once a day or a hundred times a day. Once is enough.

Massachusetts has this right.

THIS IS SHAMEFUL

Those of us who are in debt know it and don' t have to be reminded over and over again.

Calling numerous times per day or per week won' t get the debt paid any faster.

If you explain that to the collector on the other end of the phone, they blame the repeat dialing on their computers.

Now that' s lame.

Once is enough.

There need to be strict and enforceable limits on the number of times a collector can call during the week.

AND THIS FREQUENT REPEAT CALLING HAS TO BE STOPPED BY LAW!

I' ve received as many as 40 calls over a 5-day period from Citicards and calls every 50 minutes at work during the day by Wells Fargo.

The computers can be programmed to call once a day or a hundred times a day.

There need to be strict and enforceable limits on the number of times a collector can call during the week.

I' ve received as many as 40 calls over a 5-day period from Citicards and calls every 50 minutes at work during the day by Wells Fargo.

AND THIS FREQUENT REPEAT CALLING HAS TO BE STOPPED BY LAW!

THIS IS SHAMEFUL

Calling numerous times per day or per week won' t get the debt paid any faster.

Those of us who are in debt know it and don' t have to be reminded over and over again.

Now that' s lame.

The computers can be programmed to call once a day or a hundred times a day.


Input: Please READ this article about global debt. Enforcing the existing debt collection paradigm simply legitimizes and illegitimate system. PLEASE DO MORE than that, Please LEVEL THE DEBT PLAYING FIELD. GLOBAL DEBT ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. __URL__

Please READ this article about global debt.

PLEASE DO MORE than that,

Please LEVEL THE DEBT PLAYING FIELD.

Enforcing the existing debt collection paradigm simply legitimizes and illegitimate system.

GLOBAL DEBT ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. __URL__

Enforcing the existing debt collection paradigm simply legitimizes and illegitimate system.

GLOBAL DEBT ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. __URL__


Input: I would suggest that debtors who INVOLUNTARILY defaulted on a debt don' t have the money to hire an attorney, so they don' t see the point to going to court without an attorney. Why doesn' t the court give access to free legal counsel to debt defaulters the way they do to those who are accused of committing a crime?

I would suggest that debtors who INVOLUNTARILY defaulted on a debt don' t have the money to hire an attorney,

so they don' t see the point to going to court without an attorney.

Why doesn' t the court give access to free legal counsel to debt defaulters the way they do to those who are accused of committing a crime?

so they don' t see the point to going to court without an attorney.

I would suggest that debtors who INVOLUNTARILY defaulted on a debt don' t have the money to hire an attorney,


Input: The CFPB doesn' t need to craft rules to encourage non-litigation alternatives or not to sell to those who utilize litigation models. BillBartmann' s data is suspect as to 10M lawsuits filed yearly and likely his models comparing litigation and non litigation data has not been published. The facts are consumers need to reach out and communicate to a lender, agency, or debt buyer rather than not communicating at all. Debts not repaid usually result in the debt being charged off so the consumer had a minimum of 180 days to seek alternative repayment options. Lenders, collection agencies and debt buyers have a right to sue a legal debt just like the IRS. Keep in mind that judgments last longer than open credit accounts looking at statute of limitations. To BillBatram' s comment that filing bankruptcy creates hell as far as FICO scores, consumers face that issue with non payment of debt and bankruptcy is an alternative for a consumer to have a fresh start. That was the intent of the bankruptcy law and still is. Consumers with little or no hope to repay debts care more about moving forward with their lives instead of worrying about FICO SCORES.

The CFPB doesn' t need to craft rules to encourage non-litigation alternatives or not to sell to those who utilize litigation models.

BillBartmann' s data is suspect as to 10M lawsuits filed yearly and likely his models comparing litigation and non litigation data has not been published.

Keep in mind that judgments last longer than open credit accounts looking at statute of limitations.

To BillBatram' s comment that filing bankruptcy creates hell as far as FICO scores, consumers face that issue with non payment of debt

and bankruptcy is an alternative for a consumer to have a fresh start.

That was the intent of the bankruptcy law and still is.

Consumers with little or no hope to repay debts care more about moving forward with their lives instead of worrying about FICO SCORES.

The facts are consumers need to reach out and communicate to a lender, agency, or debt buyer rather than not communicating at all.

Debts not repaid usually result in the debt being charged off

so the consumer had a minimum of 180 days to seek alternative repayment options.

Lenders, collection agencies and debt buyers have a right to sue a legal debt just like the IRS.

The CFPB doesn' t need to craft rules to encourage non-litigation alternatives or not to sell to those who utilize litigation models.

BillBartmann' s data is suspect as to 10M lawsuits filed yearly and likely his models comparing litigation and non litigation data has not been published.

so the consumer had a minimum of 180 days to seek alternative repayment options.

Debts not repaid usually result in the debt being charged off

and bankruptcy is an alternative for a consumer to have a fresh start.

That was the intent of the bankruptcy law and still is.

That was the intent of the bankruptcy law and still is.

Consumers with little or no hope to repay debts care more about moving forward with their lives instead of worrying about FICO SCORES.


Input: I think your idea is an excellent one. My concern is that it might force interest rates even higher. Ideally, there would probably be less overall defaults if consumers, when first getting credit were required to pay at least 5% of the total due each and every month.

I think your idea is an excellent one.

My concern is that it might force interest rates even higher.

Ideally, there would probably be less overall defaults if consumers, when first getting credit were required to pay at least 5% of the total due each and every month.


Input: My deceased daughter (she passed 2 years ago) had some debt. We continue to receive calls from debt collectors even after we have asked them not to call us anymore. My wife has filed complaints with the Oregon State Justice dept. to complain about the harrassment. Why can' t these collectors do their research on the debtor, before they harrass the parents!!

My deceased daughter (she passed 2 years ago) had some debt.

We continue to receive calls from debt collectors even after we have asked them not to call us anymore.

My wife has filed complaints with the Oregon State Justice dept. to complain about the harrassment.

Why can' t these collectors do their research on the debtor, before they harrass the parents!!


Input: These are all excellent suggestions but they don' t address people who are incapable of paying down the interest bearing debt in a timely manner but could pay it down in a longer manner and if no more interest rate charges were accruing.

These are all excellent suggestions

but they don' t address people who are incapable of paying down the interest bearing debt in a timely manner but could pay it down in a longer manner and if no more interest rate charges were accruing.


Input: and if you remain skeptical, please check out this article by a completely independent source about global debt. Global Debt Elephant in the Room. __URL__

and if you remain skeptical, please check out this article by a completely independent source about global debt.

Global Debt Elephant in the Room. __URL__


Input: Larry S, your quote... " A plaintiff in a lawsuit cannot be placed in a situation where it is rewarding to sue with insufficient cause and minimal risk " is a very powerful statement and one that I entirely agree with. It is this scenario that emboldens debt collectors to hire riff raff service companies who will lie about doing a legal service or sub service, and apparently get away with it. I have been victimized by two false subservices. I think both were done by the same service company.

Larry S, your quote... " A plaintiff in a lawsuit cannot be placed in a situation where it is rewarding to sue with insufficient cause and minimal risk " is a very powerful statement and one that I entirely agree with.

It is this scenario that emboldens debt collectors to hire riff raff service companies who will lie about doing a legal service or sub service, and apparently get away with it.

I have been victimized by two false subservices.

I think both were done by the same service company.

It is this scenario that emboldens debt collectors to hire riff raff service companies who will lie about doing a legal service or sub service, and apparently get away with it.

I have been victimized by two false subservices.

Larry S, your quote... " A plaintiff in a lawsuit cannot be placed in a situation where it is rewarding to sue with insufficient cause and minimal risk " is a very powerful statement and one that I entirely agree with.

It is this scenario that emboldens debt collectors to hire riff raff service companies who will lie about doing a legal service or sub service, and apparently get away with it.

Larry S, your quote... " A plaintiff in a lawsuit cannot be placed in a situation where it is rewarding to sue with insufficient cause and minimal risk " is a very powerful statement and one that I entirely agree with.

I have been victimized by two false subservices.

Larry S, your quote... " A plaintiff in a lawsuit cannot be placed in a situation where it is rewarding to sue with insufficient cause and minimal risk " is a very powerful statement and one that I entirely agree with.

I think both were done by the same service company.


Input: I have been falsely subserved twice. Both times resulted in verdicts against me. Thank you for taking the time to express your viewpoint, which should carry a LOT OF WEIGHT since you are in it at the ground level. If I had not been falsely subserved, it is possible that the debt collector would have been more humbled and more amenable to my extremely generous offer of agreeing to the pay the debt in full based on what it was at the time of the default, as long as I could start with a very low monthly payment and build it up over time. And as along as I was honoring my word, the debt would no longer be reported negatively on my credit report. But I never got that far because the debt collection companies simply hired someone who would deliver a service, no questions asked as to its legality.

I have been falsely subserved twice.

Both times resulted in verdicts against me.

But I never got that far

because the debt collection companies simply hired someone who would deliver a service, no questions asked as to its legality.

Thank you for taking the time to express your viewpoint, which should carry a LOT OF WEIGHT

since you are in it at the ground level.

If I had not been falsely subserved, it is possible that the debt collector would have been more humbled and more amenable to my extremely generous offer of agreeing to the pay the debt in full based on what it was at the time of the default, as long as I could start with a very low monthly payment and build it up over time.

And as along as I was honoring my word, the debt would no longer be reported negatively on my credit report.

Thank you for taking the time to express your viewpoint, which should carry a LOT OF WEIGHT

since you are in it at the ground level.

But I never got that far

because the debt collection companies simply hired someone who would deliver a service, no questions asked as to its legality.


Input: Jeffreyjon, it sounds like you are identifying how a strategic defaulter acts. However, Involuntary Defaulters don' t have the income available to pay down a debt if the interest rate charges are going to keep accruing.

Jeffreyjon, it sounds like you are identifying how a strategic defaulter acts.

However, Involuntary Defaulters don' t have the income available to pay down a debt if the interest rate charges are going to keep accruing.


Input: By the time a file reaches litigation, the debtor has already received at least one prior opportunity to resolve the debt with the collector (the initial demand letter, which by law must inform the debtor of his/her right to challenge the veracity of the debt being pursued). By making default judgment more difficult, the CFPB would only be rewarding the debtors who choose to take no action to resolve their complaints. Furthermore, the CFPB arguably has no authority to impose new, more burdensome requirements upon litigants in state court fora. Doing so would constitute an admission that state court rules of civil procedure deny due process in other types of proceedings that are not granted the " benefit " of Federal oversight.

By the time a file reaches litigation, the debtor has already received at least one prior opportunity to resolve the debt with the collector (the initial demand letter, which by law must inform the debtor of his/her right to challenge the veracity of the debt being pursued).

By making default judgment more difficult, the CFPB would only be rewarding the debtors who choose to take no action to resolve their complaints.

Furthermore, the CFPB arguably has no authority to impose new, more burdensome requirements upon litigants in state court fora.

Doing so would constitute an admission that state court rules of civil procedure deny due process in other types of proceedings that are not granted the " benefit " of Federal oversight.

By making default judgment more difficult, the CFPB would only be rewarding the debtors who choose to take no action to resolve their complaints.

By the time a file reaches litigation, the debtor has already received at least one prior opportunity to resolve the debt with the collector (the initial demand letter, which by law must inform the debtor of his/her right to challenge the veracity of the debt being pursued).

Furthermore, the CFPB arguably has no authority to impose new, more burdensome requirements upon litigants in state court fora.

Doing so would constitute an admission that state court rules of civil procedure deny due process in other types of proceedings that are not granted the " benefit " of Federal oversight.


Input: It is unwise to require that the debt collector send sensitive personal information to the debtor (e. g., SSN, account number as such a requirement would expose the debtor to the danger of ID theft.

It is unwise to require that the debt collector send sensitive personal information to the debtor (e. g., SSN, account number

as such a requirement would expose the debtor to the danger of ID theft.

It is unwise to require that the debt collector send sensitive personal information to the debtor (e. g., SSN, account number

as such a requirement would expose the debtor to the danger of ID theft.


Input: For attorney debt collectors, being required to provide a list of all the rights the consumer may have comes perilously close to the provision of legal advice; even if it doesn' t cross that line, the unsophisticated debtor may believe that an attorney is acting as a neutral court officer rather than as an advocate for an adverse party. I' ve had debtors ask me " Do I need to come to court for this? " after I' ve sued them.

For attorney debt collectors, being required to provide a list of all the rights the consumer may have comes perilously close to the provision of legal advice;

even if it doesn' t cross that line, the unsophisticated debtor may believe that an attorney is acting as a neutral court officer rather than as an advocate for an adverse party.

I' ve had debtors ask me " Do I need to come to court for this? " after I' ve sued them.

even if it doesn' t cross that line, the unsophisticated debtor may believe that an attorney is acting as a neutral court officer rather than as an advocate for an adverse party.

I' ve had debtors ask me " Do I need to come to court for this? " after I' ve sued them.


Input: Several courts have held " and the [FTC] and the [CFPB] agree' that a collector who sues or threatens suit on a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA. The FDCPA prohibits, among other things, the use of " any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. " These include making a false representation of' the character, amount, or legal status of any debt, " threatening' to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken, " and " using any false or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. " __URL__ It is in fact your gross distortion of the law and misunderstanding to claim that SOL are a defensive mechanism to allow a plaintiff " to avoid being disadvantaged " for not filing a lawful suit within a lawful time frame.

Several courts have held " and the [FTC] and the [CFPB] agree' that a collector who sues or threatens suit on a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA.

The FDCPA prohibits, among other things, the use of " any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. "

These include making a false representation of' the character, amount, or legal status of any debt, " threatening' to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken, " and " using any false or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. "

It is in fact your gross distortion of the law and misunderstanding to claim that SOL are a defensive mechanism to allow a plaintiff " to avoid being disadvantaged " for not filing a lawful suit within a lawful time frame.

The FDCPA prohibits, among other things, the use of " any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. "

These include making a false representation of' the character, amount, or legal status of any debt, " threatening' to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken, " and " using any false or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. "

Several courts have held " and the [FTC] and the [CFPB] agree' that a collector who sues or threatens suit on a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA.

The FDCPA prohibits, among other things, the use of " any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. "

It is in fact your gross distortion of the law and misunderstanding to claim that SOL are a defensive mechanism to allow a plaintiff " to avoid being disadvantaged " for not filing a lawful suit within a lawful time frame.

Several courts have held " and the [FTC] and the [CFPB] agree' that a collector who sues or threatens suit on a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA.


Input: As I frequent many of the consumer credit forums, I will tell you that most consumers do think that a debt can still be brought to court when the receive contact past the SOL. And others I have run into also still get contacted even after the 7 year mark when the debt has finally dropped from their credit report. In fact, just the debt dropping off from the reports that has otherwise been dormant will get an automatic response from debt collectors. It seems they purposely wait for it to drop off and then pounce to instill fear. As in a " gentle " reminder that they are still there. They act like sharks in the water circling their prey. And the consumers bring up questions like " when will this end? " and " I thought the debt wipes out after 7 years, why are they still contacting me? " Something needs to be done about this. SOL are SOL for a reason. Debt collectors should not be able to harass and harass and harass.

As I frequent many of the consumer credit forums,

And others I have run into also still get contacted even after the 7 year mark when the debt has finally dropped from their credit report.

I will tell you that most consumers do think that a debt can still be brought to court when the receive contact past the SOL.

In fact, just the debt dropping off from the reports that has otherwise been dormant will get an automatic response from debt collectors.

It seems they purposely wait for it to drop off and then pounce to instill fear. As in a " gentle " reminder that they are still there.

They act like sharks in the water circling their prey.

And the consumers bring up questions like " when will this end? " and " I thought the debt wipes out after 7 years, why are they still contacting me? "

SOL are SOL for a reason.

Something needs to be done about this.

Debt collectors should not be able to harass and harass and harass.

I will tell you that most consumers do think that a debt can still be brought to court when the receive contact past the SOL.

As I frequent many of the consumer credit forums,

Debt collectors should not be able to harass and harass and harass.

SOL are SOL for a reason.


Input: A marital spouse is no longer a marital spouse when either martial partner dies. To death do us part. The end is death. A spouse doesn' t remarry while still married, but unmarried people will remarry. A divorced spouse or a widowed spouse, may become the spouse of another once remarried. The term spouse, in my opinion, relates to a marriage. Once the marriage is over, the " spouse " is no longer a " spouse. "

A marital spouse is no longer a marital spouse when either martial partner dies.

A spouse doesn' t remarry while still married,

A divorced spouse or a widowed spouse, may become the spouse of another once remarried.

Once the marriage is over, the " spouse " is no longer a " spouse. "

The end is death.

but unmarried people will remarry.

The term spouse, in my opinion, relates to a marriage.

A marital spouse is no longer a marital spouse when either martial partner dies.

The end is death.

A divorced spouse or a widowed spouse, may become the spouse of another once remarried.

but unmarried people will remarry.

Once the marriage is over, the " spouse " is no longer a " spouse. "

The term spouse, in my opinion, relates to a marriage.


Input: After offering documentation that I didn' t owe a debt, the collection company ignored what I offered as proof and continued to try to collect the debt even stated they didn' t care that I didn' t owe it. They should be required to investigate and respond in writing to a consumer' s defense, so a follow up can be made, or complaint filed with a governmental agency. Documentation should also follow the claim as collection companies sell their lists to new companies. Better, no documented defense of a claim should be eligible for sale until resolved.

After offering documentation that I didn' t owe a debt, the collection company ignored what I offered as proof and continued to try to collect the debt

even stated they didn' t care that I didn' t owe it.

They should be required to investigate and respond in writing to a consumer' s defense,

Documentation should also follow the claim

Better, no documented defense of a claim should be eligible for sale until resolved.

so a follow up can be made, or complaint filed with a governmental agency.

as collection companies sell their lists to new companies.

They should be required to investigate and respond in writing to a consumer' s defense,

so a follow up can be made, or complaint filed with a governmental agency.

Documentation should also follow the claim

as collection companies sell their lists to new companies.


Input: Debt collectors should announce themselves and refrain from acting like: investigators, attorneys, or hitmen. There needs to be an enforced code of behavior that represents a professional on the other end of the phone. Most recently, my husband has been receiving threatning phone calls from a collector pretending to be a law enforcement investigator. The most humiliating part is that the calls have escalated to his ex-wife, cousin, and associates. He has a common name and the " investigator " has not properly identified himself or clearly identified if my husband is the right person that the debt belongs too. In addition, the so called debt is 8 yrs old, and they call from unknown numbers or if the number shows up and it' s googled there are comments stating that the persons calling are harassing.

Debt collectors should announce themselves and refrain from acting like: investigators, attorneys, or hitmen.

There needs to be an enforced code of behavior that represents a professional on the other end of the phone.

Most recently, my husband has been receiving threatning phone calls from a collector pretending to be a law enforcement investigator.

He has a common name and the " investigator " has not properly identified himself or clearly identified if my husband is the right person that the debt belongs too.

In addition, the so called debt is 8 yrs old,

and they call from unknown numbers

or if the number shows up and it' s googled there are comments stating that the persons calling are harassing.

The most humiliating part is that the calls have escalated to his ex-wife, cousin, and associates.

Debt collectors should announce themselves and refrain from acting like: investigators, attorneys, or hitmen.

Most recently, my husband has been receiving threatning phone calls from a collector pretending to be a law enforcement investigator.

Debt collectors should announce themselves and refrain from acting like: investigators, attorneys, or hitmen.

The most humiliating part is that the calls have escalated to his ex-wife, cousin, and associates.

Debt collectors should announce themselves and refrain from acting like: investigators, attorneys, or hitmen.

He has a common name and the " investigator " has not properly identified himself or clearly identified if my husband is the right person that the debt belongs too.

Debt collectors should announce themselves and refrain from acting like: investigators, attorneys, or hitmen.

In addition, the so called debt is 8 yrs old,

Debt collectors should announce themselves and refrain from acting like: investigators, attorneys, or hitmen.

and they call from unknown numbers

Debt collectors should announce themselves and refrain from acting like: investigators, attorneys, or hitmen.

or if the number shows up and it' s googled there are comments stating that the persons calling are harassing.

There needs to be an enforced code of behavior that represents a professional on the other end of the phone.

Debt collectors should announce themselves and refrain from acting like: investigators, attorneys, or hitmen.

There needs to be an enforced code of behavior that represents a professional on the other end of the phone.

Most recently, my husband has been receiving threatning phone calls from a collector pretending to be a law enforcement investigator.

There needs to be an enforced code of behavior that represents a professional on the other end of the phone.

The most humiliating part is that the calls have escalated to his ex-wife, cousin, and associates.

There needs to be an enforced code of behavior that represents a professional on the other end of the phone.

He has a common name and the " investigator " has not properly identified himself or clearly identified if my husband is the right person that the debt belongs too.

There needs to be an enforced code of behavior that represents a professional on the other end of the phone.

In addition, the so called debt is 8 yrs old,

There needs to be an enforced code of behavior that represents a professional on the other end of the phone.

and they call from unknown numbers

There needs to be an enforced code of behavior that represents a professional on the other end of the phone.

or if the number shows up and it' s googled there are comments stating that the persons calling are harassing.


Input: Well, I get at least one call per week from a litigant saying " I was served with a summons today, and it says I must appear within 10 (or 30) days to answer this complaint, but there is no court date on the papers for me to appear ", and I have to tell them the procedure (and point out to them the blurb about you not physically having to come to court to answer). I' m not sure how much clearer the wording in the summons has to be, I understand them fully, and not just because I' m familiar with the forms, I' m just smarter than the average litigant I have to deal with I guess. The complaints do state that they have the rights to the debt, under verification that is notarized, at first... but they cannot enter the default judgment unless they provide the affidavit signed by both parties who owned and now owns the debt, which is generally attached to their judgments.

Well, I get at least one call per week from a litigant saying " I was served with a summons today, and it says I must appear within 10 (or 30) days to answer this complaint, but there is no court date on the papers for me to appear ",

and I have to tell them the procedure (and point out to them the blurb about you not physically having to come to court to answer).

I' m not sure how much clearer the wording in the summons has to be,

I understand them fully, and not just because I' m familiar with the forms,

I' m just smarter than the average litigant I have to deal with I guess.

The complaints do state that they have the rights to the debt, under verification that is notarized, at first...

but they cannot enter the default judgment unless they provide the affidavit signed by both parties who owned and now owns the debt, which is generally attached to their judgments.

I' m not sure how much clearer the wording in the summons has to be,

I understand them fully, and not just because I' m familiar with the forms,


Input: I was not the one with debt. I was a mediator trying to help. The people with this situation sometimes ignore the first notice to them and don' t ask for a validation letter. Others, I believe, do not read it carefully and see they have a small window of time to dispute the claim. I think the original notice letter to the debtor should HIGHLIGHT the part about a validation letter. I also, think the original creditor should be required to help resolve disputes instead of debtors or third parties like me only being able to talk with the collection agency. Probably 50% of the agencies I have dealt with do not follow existing regulations. Without penalties they never will. The few that are reasonable and follow the rules are a pleasure to deal with, as a third party.

I was not the one with debt.

I was a mediator trying to help.

Probably 50% of the agencies I have dealt with do not follow existing regulations.

The people with this situation sometimes ignore the first notice to them and don' t ask for a validation letter.

Others, I believe, do not read it carefully and see they have a small window of time to dispute the claim.

Without penalties they never will.

The few that are reasonable and follow the rules are a pleasure to deal with, as a third party.

I think the original notice letter to the debtor should HIGHLIGHT the part about a validation letter.

I also, think the original creditor should be required to help resolve disputes instead of debtors or third parties like me only being able to talk with the collection agency.

I think the original notice letter to the debtor should HIGHLIGHT the part about a validation letter.

The people with this situation sometimes ignore the first notice to them and don' t ask for a validation letter.

I think the original notice letter to the debtor should HIGHLIGHT the part about a validation letter.

Others, I believe, do not read it carefully and see they have a small window of time to dispute the claim.

I also, think the original creditor should be required to help resolve disputes instead of debtors or third parties like me only being able to talk with the collection agency.

Probably 50% of the agencies I have dealt with do not follow existing regulations.

I also, think the original creditor should be required to help resolve disputes instead of debtors or third parties like me only being able to talk with the collection agency.

Without penalties they never will.


Input: Disputes are not investigated. That is a joke. Sending out a letter to whoever these debt collectors think is responsible for the debt is just rote--it is not done in good faith or follow the letter of the law. They 1) use vague names, no signature, post office boxes, a million aliases for their debt collection business THAT practice has to stop). The FTC says " reasonable " investigation but these companies do none, and that is the standard practice. A good start is having a realistic and fair and honest laws requiring the companies to verify debt without already having assumptions or worse, not caring if they have the right person or not. Any rule change needs to carry some penalty or it won' t have any impact on an industry that has run roughshod over consumers now for two decades. Abuses abound. There also should be special requirements for validating medical debt because of privacy rights. There seems to be no concern of violating people' s privacy when it comes to medical debt collection activities.

Disputes are not investigated.

That is a joke.

Sending out a letter to whoever these debt collectors think is responsible for the debt is just rote--it is not done in good faith or follow the letter of the law.

They 1) use vague names, no signature, post office boxes, a million aliases for their debt collection business

The FTC says " reasonable " investigation but these companies do none,

A good start is having a realistic and fair and honest laws requiring the companies to verify debt without already having assumptions or worse, not caring if they have the right person or not.

or it won' t have any impact on an industry that has run roughshod over consumers now for two decades.

Abuses abound.

There seems to be no concern of violating people' s privacy when it comes to medical debt collection activities.

THAT practice has to stop).

Any rule change needs to carry some penalty

There also should be special requirements for validating medical debt because of privacy rights.

and that is the standard practice.

Any rule change needs to carry some penalty

or it won' t have any impact on an industry that has run roughshod over consumers now for two decades.

There also should be special requirements for validating medical debt because of privacy rights.

There seems to be no concern of violating people' s privacy when it comes to medical debt collection activities.