Input: I have a common last name, and for about three years I was bombarded with collection calls for other individuals with my last name and first initial. I finally changed my phone listing from my initials to my nickname and have had only collection call since. I am an elderly retiree. I have no car loan or mortgage. I pay all my bills on time, and I don' t carry balances on my credit cards. No debt collector has ever admitted to me that they got my number out of the phone but, but that' s what they' re doing. I would like to see every debt collector tell the individual they are calling the source of their information. I now have a long list of people with debts in collection. Since I' m not a debt collector, I don' t believe that I have a legal obligation not to reveal their names. I do, however, believe that I have a moral obligation not to do so. Please find a way to keep debt collectors from harassing innocent people.

I have a common last name,

and for about three years I was bombarded with collection calls for other individuals with my last name and first initial.

I finally changed my phone listing from my initials to my nickname and have had only collection call since.

I am an elderly retiree.

I have no car loan or mortgage.

I pay all my bills on time,

and I don' t carry balances on my credit cards.

No debt collector has ever admitted to me that they got my number out of the phone but,

but that' s what they' re doing.

I now have a long list of people with debts in collection.

Since I' m not a debt collector,

I would like to see every debt collector tell the individual they are calling the source of their information.

I don' t believe that I have a legal obligation not to reveal their names.

I do, however, believe that I have a moral obligation not to do so.

Please find a way to keep debt collectors from harassing innocent people.

and for about three years I was bombarded with collection calls for other individuals with my last name and first initial.

I have a common last name,

I don' t believe that I have a legal obligation not to reveal their names.

Since I' m not a debt collector,


Input: As a mortgage lender for an FDIC-insured bank, I' m astounded at the number of customers who sit across from me and are wholly dumbfounded when I tell them their loan request is denied because of outstanding collections. For certain there are some people who knew full well they would have collections items and are playing dumb (and not doing so very well). But many of them had no clue, and 90% of those collections are medical in nature. If the CFPB truly is about protecting the interests of the consumer, then the debt collection process needs to be simplified drastically in regard to collection items (medical, utilities, etc.). after 60 days of non-payment, the account can be closed. The creditor sends a certified letter to the last known address of the debtor, informing them they have 30 days to bring the account current or make other payment arrangements, or the account will be turned over to a collection agency. Said letter also needs to contain the contact information for that collection agency, so they know in advance who to contact if they don' t respond within 30 days. Yes, a lot of those letters will be returned undeliverable or will end up in someone else' s hands. But that would demonstrate a good faith effort by the creditors to work with the debtors before passing the buck to a collection agency. The added benefit for the government is the increase in certified letters passing through the USPS!

As a mortgage lender for an FDIC-insured bank, I' m astounded at the number of customers who sit across from me and are wholly dumbfounded when I tell them their loan request is denied because of outstanding collections.

For certain there are some people who knew full well they would have collections items and are playing dumb (and not doing so very well).

But many of them had no clue,

after 60 days of non-payment, the account can be closed.

The creditor sends a certified letter to the last known address of the debtor, informing them they have 30 days to bring the account current or make other payment arrangements,

or the account will be turned over to a collection agency.

so they know in advance who to contact if they don' t respond within 30 days.

Yes, a lot of those letters will be returned undeliverable or will end up in someone else' s hands.

But that would demonstrate a good faith effort by the creditors to work with the debtors before passing the buck to a collection agency.

The added benefit for the government is the increase in certified letters passing through the USPS!

and 90% of those collections are medical in nature.

If the CFPB truly is about protecting the interests of the consumer, then the debt collection process needs to be simplified drastically in regard to collection items (medical, utilities, etc.).

Said letter also needs to contain the contact information for that collection agency,

If the CFPB truly is about protecting the interests of the consumer, then the debt collection process needs to be simplified drastically in regard to collection items (medical, utilities, etc.).

But many of them had no clue,

Said letter also needs to contain the contact information for that collection agency,

so they know in advance who to contact if they don' t respond within 30 days.


Input: When mortgage holders transfer servicing of a mortgage loan to another creditor, they have rules in place as to informing the consumer that their loan has been sold. Apply the same standards to any debt.

When mortgage holders transfer servicing of a mortgage loan to another creditor, they have rules in place as to informing the consumer that their loan has been sold.

Apply the same standards to any debt.


Input: The agency needs to be careful of new rules that will, though unintended, be harmful to the free market. However, it is important that litigation is monitored to ensure that the system does not allow reward with no risk. A plaintiff in a lawsuit cannot be placed in a situation where it is rewarding to sue with insufficient cause and minimal risk. Creditors and those following in the process of recovery do not need additional regulation in this area since their efforts are monitored by the CFPB. The CFPB does not need to set standards for the industry, but make it clear that only those documents provided to the court in the original filing will be considered in a CFPB review. If in the course of a CFPB review, it is found that litigation was filed without a successful verification of the facts, the CFPB could award the amount sought by the filing to the defendant of the case and a fine to the CFPB of no less than $2, 000 but no more than the amount sought. This position would motivate the litigant to ensure their facts were correct before any filing took place. This position would allow CFPB to review cases filed no matter how they were adjudicated by the involved court. This review could be conducted at CFPB offices since it only requires the original filings. This review could be initiated simply based on a complaint to the agency' s offices. The penalty could be adjustable based on a variety of agency standards. I would have to take more time to consider when the plaintiff was not the original creditor or a member of the recovery industry, but, again, there must be a risk associated with the reward to stop nuisance suits.

The agency needs to be careful of new rules that will, though unintended, be harmful to the free market.

but make it clear that only those documents provided to the court in the original filing will be considered in a CFPB review.

However, it is important that litigation is monitored to ensure that the system does not allow reward with no risk.

Creditors and those following in the process of recovery do not need additional regulation in this area

The CFPB does not need to set standards for the industry,

If in the course of a CFPB review, it is found that litigation was filed without a successful verification of the facts, the CFPB could award the amount sought by the filing to the defendant of the case and a fine to the CFPB of no less than $2, 000 but no more than the amount sought.

This position would motivate the litigant to ensure their facts were correct before any filing took place.

This position would allow CFPB to review cases filed no matter how they were adjudicated by the involved court.

This review could be conducted at CFPB offices

since it only requires the original filings.

This review could be initiated simply based on a complaint to the agency' s offices.

The penalty could be adjustable based on a variety of agency standards.

I would have to take more time to consider when the plaintiff was not the original creditor or a member of the recovery industry,

but, again, there must be a risk associated with the reward to stop nuisance suits.

A plaintiff in a lawsuit cannot be placed in a situation where it is rewarding to sue with insufficient cause and minimal risk.

since their efforts are monitored by the CFPB.

Creditors and those following in the process of recovery do not need additional regulation in this area

since their efforts are monitored by the CFPB.

If in the course of a CFPB review, it is found that litigation was filed without a successful verification of the facts, the CFPB could award the amount sought by the filing to the defendant of the case and a fine to the CFPB of no less than $2, 000 but no more than the amount sought.

This position would motivate the litigant to ensure their facts were correct before any filing took place.

If in the course of a CFPB review, it is found that litigation was filed without a successful verification of the facts, the CFPB could award the amount sought by the filing to the defendant of the case and a fine to the CFPB of no less than $2, 000 but no more than the amount sought.

This position would allow CFPB to review cases filed no matter how they were adjudicated by the involved court.

This review could be conducted at CFPB offices

since it only requires the original filings.


Input: There needs to be something in place to stop the frivilous law suits that agencies have to spend thousands of dollars to defend even though they have tried to explain to the consumers/attorneys that there was no wrong doing and no case a lot of these consumers file the suits Pro Se and continue pushing for a settlement or trial in these cases the agencies spend monies to prove there was no cause for action to begin with and to have a judge agree with the agency. Please look at putting some kind of penalty on consumers or their attorneys when they send settlement demands or file law suits when they have been shown that there is/was no case

There needs to be something in place to stop the frivilous law suits that agencies have to spend thousands of dollars to defend even though they have tried to explain to the consumers/attorneys that there was no wrong doing and no case

Please look at putting some kind of penalty on consumers or their attorneys when they send settlement demands or file law suits when they have been shown that there is/was no case

a lot of these consumers file the suits Pro Se and continue pushing for a settlement or trial

in these cases the agencies spend monies to prove there was no cause for action to begin with and to have a judge agree with the agency.

There needs to be something in place to stop the frivilous law suits that agencies have to spend thousands of dollars to defend even though they have tried to explain to the consumers/attorneys that there was no wrong doing and no case

a lot of these consumers file the suits Pro Se and continue pushing for a settlement or trial


Input: Debt collectors should not be allowed to alter their caller ID information. They call misrepresenting themselves as " Process Servers " inquiring information about another person' s debt. This prevents the consumer from reporting the debt collector for violating consumer protection laws because a false identify was used.

Debt collectors should not be allowed to alter their caller ID information.

They call misrepresenting themselves as " Process Servers " inquiring information about another person' s debt.

This prevents the consumer from reporting the debt collector for violating consumer protection laws

because a false identify was used.

Debt collectors should not be allowed to alter their caller ID information.

They call misrepresenting themselves as " Process Servers " inquiring information about another person' s debt.

Debt collectors should not be allowed to alter their caller ID information.

This prevents the consumer from reporting the debt collector for violating consumer protection laws

This prevents the consumer from reporting the debt collector for violating consumer protection laws

because a false identify was used.


Input: First, a third party collecting on behalf of a lender isn' t, nor should be, defined as a furnisher of information. While the FDCPA requires notice specific to the validity of the debt, the FCRA has requirements for users of consumer reports. Combining two statue requirements in the initial notice of a debt serves no purpose. Sending during the 30 day notice would create confusion in the event the consumer responds, for example, to the validity of the debt and does not include a request about a credit report accuracy. I believe the issue is whether a third party debt collector or debt buyer should report an account to a credit reporting agency which would overlap the original lender' s last report on the consumer account. In my opinion they should not. I have seen confusion due to lack of rule clarity. For example, if a consumer files a bankruptcy petition who should report that event? If a third party opts to report then the third party would be required to report events that take place during or after the bankruptcy filing. To date, Title 11 offers no direction to reporting and neither does the FCRA other than a credit reporting agency removing after 10 years.

First, a third party collecting on behalf of a lender isn' t, nor should be, defined as a furnisher of information.

While the FDCPA requires notice specific to the validity of the debt,

the FCRA has requirements for users of consumer reports.

To date, Title 11 offers no direction to reporting and neither does the FCRA other than a credit reporting agency removing after 10 years.

Combining two statue requirements in the initial notice of a debt serves no purpose.

Sending during the 30 day notice would create confusion in the event the consumer responds, for example, to the validity of the debt and does not include a request about a credit report accuracy.

I believe the issue is whether a third party debt collector or debt buyer should report an account to a credit reporting agency which would overlap the original lender' s last report on the consumer account.

In my opinion they should not.

I have seen confusion due to lack of rule clarity.

For example, if a consumer files a bankruptcy petition who should report that event?

If a third party opts to report then the third party would be required to report events that take place during or after the bankruptcy filing.

First, a third party collecting on behalf of a lender isn' t, nor should be, defined as a furnisher of information.

While the FDCPA requires notice specific to the validity of the debt,

First, a third party collecting on behalf of a lender isn' t, nor should be, defined as a furnisher of information.

the FCRA has requirements for users of consumer reports.

First, a third party collecting on behalf of a lender isn' t, nor should be, defined as a furnisher of information.

Combining two statue requirements in the initial notice of a debt serves no purpose.

I believe the issue is whether a third party debt collector or debt buyer should report an account to a credit reporting agency which would overlap the original lender' s last report on the consumer account.

Sending during the 30 day notice would create confusion in the event the consumer responds, for example, to the validity of the debt and does not include a request about a credit report accuracy.

In my opinion they should not.

I have seen confusion due to lack of rule clarity.

In my opinion they should not.

For example, if a consumer files a bankruptcy petition who should report that event?

If a third party opts to report then the third party would be required to report events that take place during or after the bankruptcy filing.

To date, Title 11 offers no direction to reporting and neither does the FCRA other than a credit reporting agency removing after 10 years.


Input: As a Director for Collections now for Kennedy Space Center Federal Credit Union, which is over 500 Million in asset size I try as I have for prior union to file suit closest to the Consumers current address. One method is to assign over to an attorney within the current residence-venue of the Consumer. In legal terms we attempt to get service when filing a suit out of state, its method is called obtaining if possible a Alien Juddgement outside from the County and or State the contract/note was originally signed. There are states in the Union that do note accept foreighn judgments. So recording a judgement obtained for example in Floirda and rerecorded in another State may not be possible.

As a Director for Collections now for Kennedy Space Center Federal Credit Union, which is over 500 Million in asset size I try as I have for prior union to file suit closest to the Consumers current address.

One method is to assign over to an attorney within the current residence-venue of the Consumer.

its method is called obtaining if possible a Alien Juddgement outside from the County and or State the contract/note was originally signed.

There are states in the Union that do note accept foreighn judgments.

So recording a judgement obtained for example in Floirda and rerecorded in another State may not be possible.

In legal terms we attempt to get service when filing a suit out of state,

So recording a judgement obtained for example in Floirda and rerecorded in another State may not be possible.

There are states in the Union that do note accept foreighn judgments.


Input: Very confusing if I can pay my student loans directly to DOE or to one of the many private companies who have owned my loan over the years. They continue to try to entice me to restructure the student loan debt-very misleading-without disclosure of their fees at this point I cannot even trace a $30000 fee that was double billed to my total. It is a web of confusion that I cannot escape. I intend to take my student loans to my death as I have no other way of making the monthly payments.

Very confusing if I can pay my student loans directly to DOE or to one of the many private companies who have owned my loan over the years.

It is a web of confusion that I cannot escape.

I intend to take my student loans to my death

They continue to try to entice me to restructure the student loan debt-very misleading-without disclosure of their fees

at this point I cannot even trace a $30000 fee that was double billed to my total.

as I have no other way of making the monthly payments.

at this point I cannot even trace a $30000 fee that was double billed to my total.

It is a web of confusion that I cannot escape.

It is a web of confusion that I cannot escape.

They continue to try to entice me to restructure the student loan debt-very misleading-without disclosure of their fees

I intend to take my student loans to my death

as I have no other way of making the monthly payments.


Input: Most of the consumer debt I see if coming from debt buyers and the consumer doesn' t recognize the name or the amount. Many of these are beyond the statute of limitations to file suit but suit is filed anyway. Many consumers don' t know to file an answer is court and a default judgment is entered. The information you suggest would help a lot in letting consumers know what this debt is. I would include the trail of ownership of the debt as there could be intermediary owners between the original creditor and final collector. Debts are sold and resold. It would also help to have some documentation of the specific debt having been sold so the consumer can verify the current ownership of the debt. Currently, all they get in response to a validation request is " we checked and you owe it ". Our firm asks for specific documents related to the claimed debt and the response we get is " the courts say we don' t have to provide any documents... go fish ".

Most of the consumer debt I see if coming from debt buyers and the consumer doesn' t recognize the name or the amount.

Many of these are beyond the statute of limitations to file suit

but suit is filed anyway.

Many consumers don' t know to file an answer is court

and a default judgment is entered.

Our firm asks for specific documents related to the claimed debt and the response we get is " the courts say we don' t have to provide any documents... go fish ".

The information you suggest would help a lot in letting consumers know what this debt is.

I would include the trail of ownership of the debt

as there could be intermediary owners between the original creditor and final collector.

It would also help to have some documentation of the specific debt having been sold

so the consumer can verify the current ownership of the debt.

Debts are sold and resold.

Currently, all they get in response to a validation request is " we checked and you owe it ".

and a default judgment is entered.

Many consumers don' t know to file an answer is court

I would include the trail of ownership of the debt

as there could be intermediary owners between the original creditor and final collector.

as there could be intermediary owners between the original creditor and final collector.

Debts are sold and resold.

It would also help to have some documentation of the specific debt having been sold

so the consumer can verify the current ownership of the debt.

It would also help to have some documentation of the specific debt having been sold

Currently, all they get in response to a validation request is " we checked and you owe it ".

It would also help to have some documentation of the specific debt having been sold

Our firm asks for specific documents related to the claimed debt and the response we get is " the courts say we don' t have to provide any documents... go fish ".


Input: The price of paper (bad debt) varies depending on the collectability of the debt based on info known about the debtor and also varies based on the amount of documentation purchased from the original creditor. Most debt buyers only pay for a couple of recent credit card statements. They may provide a " bill of sale " but these never identify a specific account being sold and reference a master purchase contract which is never provided.

The price of paper (bad debt) varies depending on the collectability of the debt based on info known about the debtor and also varies based on the amount of documentation purchased from the original creditor.

Most debt buyers only pay for a couple of recent credit card statements.

They may provide a " bill of sale "

but these never identify a specific account being sold and reference a master purchase contract which is never provided.


Input: The majority of the collection disputes I help my clients with are never validated with documentation. The CRA simply sends a letter stating that the debt was verified although the dispute letter specifically asked for documentation.

The majority of the collection disputes I help my clients with are never validated with documentation.

The CRA simply sends a letter stating that the debt was verified

although the dispute letter specifically asked for documentation.


Input: The majority of the clients I work with try to settle their accounts. The main issue is that most of the collection companies will not provide the client with a letter of agreement until after the payment is made. They also will often wait weeks for a receipt. I have even had clients tell me that the company required a $10. 00 payment for the receipt.

The majority of the clients I work with try to settle their accounts.

I have even had clients tell me that the company required a $10. 00 payment for the receipt.

The main issue is that most of the collection companies will not provide the client with a letter of agreement until after the payment is made.

They also will often wait weeks for a receipt.

They also will often wait weeks for a receipt.

I have even had clients tell me that the company required a $10. 00 payment for the receipt.


Input: Unscrupulous debt collectors use this tactic trying to force people into agreeing to repay a debt. The threat of debt collection calls at work is a powerful incentive to repay a debt.

Unscrupulous debt collectors use this tactic trying to force people into agreeing to repay a debt.

The threat of debt collection calls at work is a powerful incentive to repay a debt.

Unscrupulous debt collectors use this tactic trying to force people into agreeing to repay a debt.

The threat of debt collection calls at work is a powerful incentive to repay a debt.


Input: The Pro Publica piece on one " installment " loan lender has plenty of examples of harassment that goes over the line that is not covered by this language Truly dreadful conduct. __URL__

The Pro Publica piece on one " installment " loan lender has plenty of examples of harassment that goes over the line that is not covered by this language

Truly dreadful conduct.


Input: As a creditor, I can agree with this notification on medical services since most people receive bills from companies they never heard of. When it comes to auto loans, and other monthly installment loans, I am sure the consumers are aware of the debt and who it is payable to, unless sold. This could be a huge regulatory burden on creditors that don' t sell loans and follow current collection laws. After all, do very many people pay monthly payment to the same people for several months and them forget they owe the debt. All laws should not apply to all creditors.

As a creditor, I can agree with this notification on medical services

When it comes to auto loans, and other monthly installment loans, I am sure the consumers are aware of the debt and who it is payable to, unless sold.

This could be a huge regulatory burden on creditors that don' t sell loans and follow current collection laws.

After all, do very many people pay monthly payment to the same people for several months and them forget they owe the debt.

since most people receive bills from companies they never heard of.

All laws should not apply to all creditors.

As a creditor, I can agree with this notification on medical services

since most people receive bills from companies they never heard of.

This could be a huge regulatory burden on creditors that don' t sell loans and follow current collection laws.

After all, do very many people pay monthly payment to the same people for several months and them forget they owe the debt.


Input: I was never informed by Bank of America that they sold my credit card and closed the card. When I realized it, I paid it off immediately. During that quarter, after long illnesses, my Father and Mother both passed (within 31 days of each other) and frankly, credit card payments were not in the forefront of my thinking. ALSO, just because a bank or credit card company has been exempted from Usury laws does not mean they do not commit the violation! THAT needs to be stopped!

I was never informed by Bank of America that they sold my credit card and closed the card.

When I realized it, I paid it off immediately.

During that quarter, after long illnesses, my Father and Mother both passed (within 31 days of each other)

and frankly, credit card payments were not in the forefront of my thinking.

ALSO, just because a bank or credit card company has been exempted from Usury laws does not mean they do not commit the violation!

THAT needs to be stopped!


Input: Depends on the type of Bankruptcy. If it is a CH 13 many times the creditors receive more money than if they choose to forgive a portion of the debt and settle direct with the consumer. This is because of the strict " means test " for CH 7.

Depends on the type of Bankruptcy.

This is because of the strict " means test " for CH 7.

If it is a CH 13 many times the creditors receive more money than if they choose to forgive a portion of the debt and settle direct with the consumer.

If it is a CH 13 many times the creditors receive more money than if they choose to forgive a portion of the debt and settle direct with the consumer.

This is because of the strict " means test " for CH 7.


Input: I am concerned about the perception consumers have concerning older debts. With the knowledge that this legislation is both to improve debt collection practices (helping the credit industry) and to educate and protect consumers (to increase confidence and enforce their rights), this is especially relevent. Many consumers appear to be under the impression, if they haven' t managed to pay off the debt within the first initial years, they should * ignore * it until it falls off their credit report. Reviving the debt is the issue. Yet these consumers are not concerned about paying the debt off in full they might be in much better financial standing now. They' re concerned about how paying a debt affects their credit score. I believe this should be concerning. If a debt is outstanding, and repying part (or all) of this debt actually would * worsen * a consumer' s credit, it seems counter-intuitive. It works both against the interests of creditors and debt collectors-and the interest of consumers who owe money on a debt. I don' t know of a viable solution, but I' m certain this is a concern which should be addressed.

I am concerned about the perception consumers have concerning older debts.

With the knowledge that this legislation is both to improve debt collection practices (helping the credit industry) and to educate and protect consumers (to increase confidence and enforce their rights), this is especially relevent.

Reviving the debt is the issue.

Yet these consumers are not concerned about paying the debt off in full

they might be in much better financial standing now.

They' re concerned about how paying a debt affects their credit score.

I believe this should be concerning.

If a debt is outstanding, and repying part (or all) of this debt actually would * worsen * a consumer' s credit, it seems counter-intuitive.

It works both against the interests of creditors and debt collectors-and the interest of consumers who owe money on a debt.

I don' t know of a viable solution,

but I' m certain this is a concern which should be addressed.

Many consumers appear to be under the impression, if they haven' t managed to pay off the debt within the first initial years, they should * ignore * it until it falls off their credit report.

I am concerned about the perception consumers have concerning older debts.

With the knowledge that this legislation is both to improve debt collection practices (helping the credit industry) and to educate and protect consumers (to increase confidence and enforce their rights), this is especially relevent.

I believe this should be concerning.

If a debt is outstanding, and repying part (or all) of this debt actually would * worsen * a consumer' s credit, it seems counter-intuitive.

I believe this should be concerning.

It works both against the interests of creditors and debt collectors-and the interest of consumers who owe money on a debt.


Input: If a consumer is notified that their debt has been sold, there should be a way to contact the original creditor to verify. e. there should be a paper trail I see an opportunity for scam artists to claim that (as they are now) the consumer owes money to them and to pay off their debt immediately to the scam artist. With a clear paper/electronic trail, the path a debt takes from creditor to collector to collector can be verified and authenticated for the consumer' s peace of mind, and so the right party gets paid.

If a consumer is notified that their debt has been sold, there should be a way to contact the original creditor to verify.

e. there should be a paper trail

I see an opportunity for scam artists to claim that (as they are now) the consumer owes money to them and to pay off their debt immediately to the scam artist.

With a clear paper/electronic trail, the path a debt takes from creditor to collector to collector can be verified and authenticated for the consumer' s peace of mind,

and so the right party gets paid.

If a consumer is notified that their debt has been sold, there should be a way to contact the original creditor to verify.

I see an opportunity for scam artists to claim that (as they are now) the consumer owes money to them and to pay off their debt immediately to the scam artist.

e. there should be a paper trail

I see an opportunity for scam artists to claim that (as they are now) the consumer owes money to them and to pay off their debt immediately to the scam artist.

e. there should be a paper trail

and so the right party gets paid.

and so the right party gets paid.

With a clear paper/electronic trail, the path a debt takes from creditor to collector to collector can be verified and authenticated for the consumer' s peace of mind,


Input: If a consumer sends a post dated check (s) and it bounces then it may not fall under the bad check enforcement. Also, consumers use ACH capability to repay a debt, so if the amount is not available, then this may also not fall under bad check enforcement. My experience is more consumers use ACH rather than personal check distribution. there are numerous reasons why checks bounce so I suggest a look see as to determining the reason or cause why the check bounced.

If a consumer sends a post dated check (s) and it bounces then it may not fall under the bad check enforcement.

so if the amount is not available, then this may also not fall under bad check enforcement.

there are numerous reasons why checks bounce

Also, consumers use ACH capability to repay a debt,

My experience is more consumers use ACH rather than personal check distribution.

so I suggest a look see as to determining the reason or cause why the check bounced.

so if the amount is not available, then this may also not fall under bad check enforcement.

Also, consumers use ACH capability to repay a debt,

so I suggest a look see as to determining the reason or cause why the check bounced.

there are numerous reasons why checks bounce


Input: while this isn' t the best forum for me to go into my company' s entire collection process, we work a debt for at least 120 days with letters, live agent calls, robo calls, emails, mailed invoices, and by suspending subscription service (where allowed) as part of our collection campaign. Even then, we only go to litigation after the debtor has been unresponsive to our attempts to contact them. I' ve found that if a debtor talks to their creditors, many times creditors will take their situation into account. I' ve offered lengthy repayment plans, reduced or waived interest or late fees, or partial settlement for those explain their hardship. But if a debtor is uncooperative or doesn' t respond to our attempts to work out a balance, what other alternatives do creditors have?

while this isn' t the best forum for me to go into my company' s entire collection process, we work a debt for at least 120 days with letters, live agent calls, robo calls, emails, mailed invoices, and by suspending subscription service (where allowed) as part of our collection campaign.

Even then, we only go to litigation after the debtor has been unresponsive to our attempts to contact them.

I' ve found that if a debtor talks to their creditors, many times creditors will take their situation into account.

I' ve offered lengthy repayment plans, reduced or waived interest or late fees, or partial settlement for those explain their hardship.

But if a debtor is uncooperative or doesn' t respond to our attempts to work out a balance, what other alternatives do creditors have?


Input: The CFPB should require debt sellers to contact the debtor and inform them the debt has been sold. Additionally, ALL pertinent information must be given to the debtor to eliminate any confusion. Furthermore, the seller of the debt must be required and enforced to annotate the debtors credit report with the sale to help eliminate confusion and in a way to not increase the bad debt. Essentially, debts that are sold sometimes appear as two seperate debts on a consumers report which increases the penalty of having bad debt. A consumer should not be penalized twice for 1 debt.

The CFPB should require debt sellers to contact the debtor and inform them the debt has been sold.

Additionally, ALL pertinent information must be given to the debtor to eliminate any confusion.

Furthermore, the seller of the debt must be required and enforced to annotate the debtors credit report with the sale to help eliminate confusion and in a way to not increase the bad debt.

A consumer should not be penalized twice for 1 debt.

Essentially, debts that are sold sometimes appear as two seperate debts on a consumers report which increases the penalty of having bad debt.

The CFPB should require debt sellers to contact the debtor and inform them the debt has been sold.

Essentially, debts that are sold sometimes appear as two seperate debts on a consumers report which increases the penalty of having bad debt.

Additionally, ALL pertinent information must be given to the debtor to eliminate any confusion.

Essentially, debts that are sold sometimes appear as two seperate debts on a consumers report which increases the penalty of having bad debt.

Furthermore, the seller of the debt must be required and enforced to annotate the debtors credit report with the sale to help eliminate confusion and in a way to not increase the bad debt.

Essentially, debts that are sold sometimes appear as two seperate debts on a consumers report which increases the penalty of having bad debt.


Input: The idea is sound in principle, but as any technology geared towards convienance, there are risks against privacy encouraging identity theft. Having creditors, collectors, and consumers come together " on the same page " regarding debt would be fantastic for everyone involved. But any technology which accomplishes this needs to be very secure with very strict authentication requirements to ensure * only * the relevant parties can view information concerning the debt. Otherwise, not only thieves would have access to this information but also non-criminal third parties, who may never have learned of such information due to the protection of consumer privacy laws. Knowledge of the debt and money owed would need to have the same level of security afforded to consumer reports and information within a consumer report (as defined in the FCRA).

The idea is sound in principle,

but as any technology geared towards convienance, there are risks against privacy encouraging identity theft.

Having creditors, collectors, and consumers come together " on the same page " regarding debt would be fantastic for everyone involved.

Otherwise, not only thieves would have access to this information

but also non-criminal third parties, who may never have learned of such information due to the protection of consumer privacy laws.

But any technology which accomplishes this needs to be very secure with very strict authentication requirements to ensure * only * the relevant parties can view information concerning the debt.

Knowledge of the debt and money owed would need to have the same level of security afforded to consumer reports and information within a consumer report (as defined in the FCRA).

But any technology which accomplishes this needs to be very secure with very strict authentication requirements to ensure * only * the relevant parties can view information concerning the debt.

Otherwise, not only thieves would have access to this information

But any technology which accomplishes this needs to be very secure with very strict authentication requirements to ensure * only * the relevant parties can view information concerning the debt.

but also non-criminal third parties, who may never have learned of such information due to the protection of consumer privacy laws.


Input: security would be paramound. Since the weaknesses in current authentication practices financial institutions/others covered by FACTA and the FCRA are not within the scope of this legislation, it shouldn' t be difficult to impose those same security standards on any centralized debt collection database.

security would be paramound.

Since the weaknesses in current authentication practices financial institutions/others covered by FACTA and the FCRA are not within the scope of this legislation,

it shouldn' t be difficult to impose those same security standards on any centralized debt collection database.

it shouldn' t be difficult to impose those same security standards on any centralized debt collection database.

Since the weaknesses in current authentication practices financial institutions/others covered by FACTA and the FCRA are not within the scope of this legislation,


Input: I strongly endore drose977' s response. Currently, debt collection agencies can sell debt without proper validation. Or they can sell the debt if a consumer disputes the debt and the agency can' t product the proper validation. These things should not be allowed and are very detrimental to the consumer. Consumers should be protected above collectors and other agencies as they, typically, have far less resources to fight inaccurate information. Additionally, the inaccurate information adversely effects consumers more than any other group in these situations. Collectors should not be allowed to report a debt as 30 days late if the debt isn' t 30 days late. The law should include stiff enforcable penalities to deter collectors from pre-dating debt. These rules should apply for any debt reported late at any time, not just the first 30 days.

I strongly endore drose977' s response.

as they, typically, have far less resources to fight inaccurate information.

Additionally, the inaccurate information adversely effects consumers more than any other group in these situations.

Currently, debt collection agencies can sell debt without proper validation.

Or they can sell the debt if a consumer disputes the debt and the agency can' t product the proper validation.

These things should not be allowed and are very detrimental to the consumer.

Consumers should be protected above collectors and other agencies

Collectors should not be allowed to report a debt as 30 days late if the debt isn' t 30 days late.

The law should include stiff enforcable penalities to deter collectors from pre-dating debt.

These rules should apply for any debt reported late at any time, not just the first 30 days.

I strongly endore drose977' s response.

Currently, debt collection agencies can sell debt without proper validation.

I strongly endore drose977' s response.

Or they can sell the debt if a consumer disputes the debt and the agency can' t product the proper validation.

I strongly endore drose977' s response.

These things should not be allowed and are very detrimental to the consumer.

I strongly endore drose977' s response.

Consumers should be protected above collectors and other agencies

Consumers should be protected above collectors and other agencies

as they, typically, have far less resources to fight inaccurate information.

Consumers should be protected above collectors and other agencies

Additionally, the inaccurate information adversely effects consumers more than any other group in these situations.


Input: The most common consumer contact my firm receives as a dispute is the comment by the consumer on a call with the agency that " it' s not my debt ". While that may be a true statement in some cases, some proof from the consumer should be required as to why the debt isn' t theirs. For our customers, proof of residence at a different address from where our service was provided is usually sufficient for us to remove that customer from the debt. The consumers must understand that they have to work with the creditor or agency to correct whatever info lead to an " incorrect link " (common name, bad SSN, fraud...). The 3 items listed in CFPB summary is usually adequate.

The most common consumer contact my firm receives as a dispute is the comment by the consumer on a call with the agency that " it' s not my debt ".

While that may be a true statement in some cases, some proof from the consumer should be required as to why the debt isn' t theirs.

The consumers must understand that they have to work with the creditor or agency to correct whatever info lead to an " incorrect link " (common name, bad SSN, fraud...).

For our customers, proof of residence at a different address from where our service was provided is usually sufficient for us to remove that customer from the debt.

The 3 items listed in CFPB summary is usually adequate.


Input: Consumers should not be allowed to dispute a debt using identity theft as a reason without proof as well. Otherwise some consumers will " game " the system and make false disputes.

Consumers should not be allowed to dispute a debt using identity theft as a reason without proof as well.

Otherwise some consumers will " game " the system and make false disputes.

Consumers should not be allowed to dispute a debt using identity theft as a reason without proof as well.

Otherwise some consumers will " game " the system and make false disputes.


Input: I currently have an alias on my Credit report that I have NEVER gone by. I' ve disputed this serveral times and I can' t get this alias and the related debt off my report. As such I want federal laws that REQUIRE an agency to produce some paperwork, legal document that proves a consumer used that alias on a credit application/paperwork. When disputed with a CRA they should be requesting this information from the agencies as well. CRA' s should be the neutral parties and be the enforcing agencies on both sides. CRA' s should be mandated to report accurate information and be responsible to gather the accurate information. currently they are warehouses of bad information that err on the side of collectors. Consumers do not have a reliable agency fighting for their rights. without enforcement Federal laws equate to a bunch of useless words on a paper.

I currently have an alias on my Credit report that I have NEVER gone by.

I' ve disputed this serveral times

and I can' t get this alias and the related debt off my report.

As such I want federal laws that REQUIRE an agency to produce some paperwork, legal document that proves a consumer used that alias on a credit application/paperwork.

When disputed with a CRA they should be requesting this information from the agencies as well.

CRA' s should be the neutral parties and be the enforcing agencies on both sides.

CRA' s should be mandated to report accurate information and be responsible to gather the accurate information.

currently they are warehouses of bad information that err on the side of collectors.

Consumers do not have a reliable agency fighting for their rights.

without enforcement Federal laws equate to a bunch of useless words on a paper.

As such I want federal laws that REQUIRE an agency to produce some paperwork, legal document that proves a consumer used that alias on a credit application/paperwork.

I currently have an alias on my Credit report that I have NEVER gone by.

As such I want federal laws that REQUIRE an agency to produce some paperwork, legal document that proves a consumer used that alias on a credit application/paperwork.

I' ve disputed this serveral times

As such I want federal laws that REQUIRE an agency to produce some paperwork, legal document that proves a consumer used that alias on a credit application/paperwork.

and I can' t get this alias and the related debt off my report.

When disputed with a CRA they should be requesting this information from the agencies as well.

CRA' s should be the neutral parties and be the enforcing agencies on both sides.

CRA' s should be the neutral parties and be the enforcing agencies on both sides.

Consumers do not have a reliable agency fighting for their rights.

CRA' s should be mandated to report accurate information and be responsible to gather the accurate information.

CRA' s should be the neutral parties and be the enforcing agencies on both sides.

CRA' s should be mandated to report accurate information and be responsible to gather the accurate information.

currently they are warehouses of bad information that err on the side of collectors.


Input: The CFPB should ban workplace calls completely. Consumers provided a home phone number when they take on the debt and that should be the number they call to collect it. Communicating by registered/certified letter should also be the alternate method not workplace calls. Second Massachusetts limiting the total number of calls is a fabulous idea. We don' t throw debtors in prison today yet the ridiculous amount of abuse and scorn they must endure is totally unacceptable. CFPB desperately needs to clean up the debt collection industry.

The CFPB should ban workplace calls completely.

and that should be the number they call to collect it.

Communicating by registered/certified letter should also be the alternate method not workplace calls.

CFPB desperately needs to clean up the debt collection industry.

Consumers provided a home phone number when they take on the debt

We don' t throw debtors in prison today

Second Massachusetts limiting the total number of calls is a fabulous idea.

yet the ridiculous amount of abuse and scorn they must endure is totally unacceptable.

The CFPB should ban workplace calls completely.

Consumers provided a home phone number when they take on the debt

The CFPB should ban workplace calls completely.

and that should be the number they call to collect it.

Second Massachusetts limiting the total number of calls is a fabulous idea.

yet the ridiculous amount of abuse and scorn they must endure is totally unacceptable.

Second Massachusetts limiting the total number of calls is a fabulous idea.

CFPB desperately needs to clean up the debt collection industry.

CFPB desperately needs to clean up the debt collection industry.

yet the ridiculous amount of abuse and scorn they must endure is totally unacceptable.


Input: More information to the consumer with the initial notification would be more confusing and intimidating than it already is for them. Simplifying the initial notification while including information about how to contact someone if you do not recognized this obligation is the way to go. Then the CFPB can design and require everyone to send a separate Summary of Consumer Rights to a consumer. It could also be available in the exact same form on the CFPB website and on informed professionals websites within the industry. I would maintain the consumer' s right to ask for a cease communication, but I would suggest that the CFPB would serve everyone better by including that the CFPB would suggest that the consumer may be better served by keeping this communication available except as a last resort. This solution also bears the added advantage of making sure the public is aware of the assistance available through the CFPB.

More information to the consumer with the initial notification would be more confusing and intimidating than it already is for them.

Simplifying the initial notification while including information about how to contact someone if you do not recognized this obligation is the way to go.

Then the CFPB can design and require everyone to send a separate Summary of Consumer Rights to a consumer.

It could also be available in the exact same form on the CFPB website and on informed professionals websites within the industry.

I would maintain the consumer' s right to ask for a cease communication,

but I would suggest that the CFPB would serve everyone better by including that the CFPB would suggest that the consumer may be better served by keeping this communication available except as a last resort.

This solution also bears the added advantage of making sure the public is aware of the assistance available through the CFPB.

Simplifying the initial notification while including information about how to contact someone if you do not recognized this obligation is the way to go.

More information to the consumer with the initial notification would be more confusing and intimidating than it already is for them.

Simplifying the initial notification while including information about how to contact someone if you do not recognized this obligation is the way to go.

Then the CFPB can design and require everyone to send a separate Summary of Consumer Rights to a consumer.

Simplifying the initial notification while including information about how to contact someone if you do not recognized this obligation is the way to go.

It could also be available in the exact same form on the CFPB website and on informed professionals websites within the industry.

but I would suggest that the CFPB would serve everyone better by including that the CFPB would suggest that the consumer may be better served by keeping this communication available except as a last resort.

This solution also bears the added advantage of making sure the public is aware of the assistance available through the CFPB.


Input: my in-laws had the same issue with BoA. They paid their mortgate EARLY every month and still were reported as late every month. This is tragic and ruined their credit. When these things happen it takes years for the credit to br repaired even though a collector reported the information falsely, incurracately, and repeatedly. BoA should be penalized HEAVILY for these infractions otherwise they just ignore consumers.

my in-laws had the same issue with BoA.

They paid their mortgate EARLY every month and still were reported as late every month.

This is tragic

and ruined their credit.

When these things happen it takes years for the credit to br repaired even though a collector reported the information falsely, incurracately, and repeatedly.

otherwise they just ignore consumers.

BoA should be penalized HEAVILY for these infractions

This is tragic

and ruined their credit.

BoA should be penalized HEAVILY for these infractions

otherwise they just ignore consumers.


Input: As someone who regularly reviews credit reports, I am appalled by a practice I see regularly. Debt Collectors frequently resubmit the report of a debt as delinquent every month. This will have a highly adverse impact on the consumer' s credit scores.

As someone who regularly reviews credit reports,

I am appalled by a practice I see regularly.

This will have a highly adverse impact on the consumer' s credit scores.

Debt Collectors frequently resubmit the report of a debt as delinquent every month.


Input: If federal rules can be ignored by local/municipal/state laws then the federal laws are irrelevant. Consumer credit is recognized in all 50 states and internationally. As such these laws should be enforced by each state and lower courts and states and such should not be able to make laws that ignore of superseed federal law.

If federal rules can be ignored by local/municipal/state laws then the federal laws are irrelevant.

Consumer credit is recognized in all 50 states and internationally.

As such these laws should be enforced by each state and lower courts and states and such should not be able to make laws that ignore of superseed federal law.


Input: Calling someone' s work is clearly and without dispute intended to embarrass and annoy. It is never acceptable.

Calling someone' s work is clearly and without dispute intended to embarrass and annoy.

It is never acceptable.

It is never acceptable.

Calling someone' s work is clearly and without dispute intended to embarrass and annoy.


Input: Unless the consumer chooses to communicate by phone, all correspondences from collectors should go through mail. This allows the consumer to take time in considering what the collector is requesting. It also avoids confusion for both parties. The only reason this isn' t the standard approach is because it limits how annoying and embarrassing collectors can be--plain and simple.

Unless the consumer chooses to communicate by phone, all correspondences from collectors should go through mail.

This allows the consumer to take time in considering what the collector is requesting.

It also avoids confusion for both parties.

The only reason this isn' t the standard approach is because it limits how annoying and embarrassing collectors can be--plain and simple.

Unless the consumer chooses to communicate by phone, all correspondences from collectors should go through mail.

This allows the consumer to take time in considering what the collector is requesting.

Unless the consumer chooses to communicate by phone, all correspondences from collectors should go through mail.

It also avoids confusion for both parties.


Input: Once a debt has reached the end of its statue of limitations is should be removed from the consumer credit report. However, collectors use the law to refresh old debts so they effectively never leave a report. If a collector can' t sue to retrieve the debt it has no business on a consumer report.

Once a debt has reached the end of its statue of limitations is should be removed from the consumer credit report.

However, collectors use the law to refresh old debts so they effectively never leave a report.

If a collector can' t sue to retrieve the debt it has no business on a consumer report.


Input: Legally, I don' t believe that CFPB authority should stretch into this area since the federal laws do not include such a limitation. Notification to a consumer that a debt is beyond statute is problematicsince that date is not permanent. Partial payment on an account restarts the statute of limitations. I don' t believe that a rule issued by the CFPB can help here. Education of consumers is the only pro-active method that I see as available here. However, this education should include notification to the legal profession that the CFPB will bring violations in this area to the attention of the Attorney General in their state.

Legally, I don' t believe that CFPB authority should stretch into this area

However, this education should include notification to the legal profession that the CFPB will bring violations in this area to the attention of the Attorney General in their state.

since the federal laws do not include such a limitation.

since that date is not permanent.

Partial payment on an account restarts the statute of limitations.

Notification to a consumer that a debt is beyond statute is problematic

I don' t believe that a rule issued by the CFPB can help here.

Education of consumers is the only pro-active method that I see as available here.

Legally, I don' t believe that CFPB authority should stretch into this area

since the federal laws do not include such a limitation.

Notification to a consumer that a debt is beyond statute is problematic

since that date is not permanent.


Input: Current debt substantiation requirements all suffer from the same significant shortcoming in that they fail to address the often symbiotic relationship between first-line creditors, collectors, reporting agencies, consumer data clearinghouses, buyers of bad debt, and others industry players. Each has a vested profit motive in the " validation " of debt. Without appropriate disincentive--i. e., enforcement of rules and stiff penalties for non-compliance--corners are cut and quid pro quo-type behaviors begin to surface. Consumers hold few cards and have to play against a stacked deck. The validation process should involve more than merely inquiring with the creditor about the validity of the debt or the identity of the debtor, and failure to observe all the necessary steps--in the sunshine, no less--should have severe consequences. The best deterrent would be putting the power back in the hands of the (truly-wronged) consumer through the inclusion of " private attorney general " style enforcement mechanism. Awarding attorneys' fees and damages, with the ability to elect either actual or meaningful statutory damages (similar to the scheme introduced by Congress into the copyright statutes), would create serious disincentives for anyone involved in unscrupulous validation practices.

Current debt substantiation requirements all suffer from the same significant shortcoming in that they fail to address the often symbiotic relationship between first-line creditors, collectors, reporting agencies, consumer data clearinghouses, buyers of bad debt, and others industry players.

Each has a vested profit motive in the " validation " of debt.

Without appropriate disincentive--i. e., enforcement of rules and stiff penalties for non-compliance--corners are cut and quid pro quo-type behaviors begin to surface.

Consumers hold few cards and have to play against a stacked deck.

The best deterrent would be putting the power back in the hands of the (truly-wronged) consumer through the inclusion of " private attorney general " style enforcement mechanism.

Awarding attorneys' fees and damages, with the ability to elect either actual or meaningful statutory damages (similar to the scheme introduced by Congress into the copyright statutes), would create serious disincentives for anyone involved in unscrupulous validation practices.

The validation process should involve more than merely inquiring with the creditor about the validity of the debt or the identity of the debtor, and failure to observe all the necessary steps--in the sunshine, no less--should have severe consequences.

Current debt substantiation requirements all suffer from the same significant shortcoming in that they fail to address the often symbiotic relationship between first-line creditors, collectors, reporting agencies, consumer data clearinghouses, buyers of bad debt, and others industry players.

Each has a vested profit motive in the " validation " of debt.


Input: This is a problem that needs to be corrected. In this case, the line of credit is negatively affecting your credit a multiple of times even though it is one line.

This is a problem that needs to be corrected.

In this case, the line of credit is negatively affecting your credit a multiple of times even though it is one line.

This is a problem that needs to be corrected.

In this case, the line of credit is negatively affecting your credit a multiple of times even though it is one line.


Input: We live in the Information Age. All the information this individual is requesting is readily available with a few keystrokes.

We live in the Information Age.

All the information this individual is requesting is readily available with a few keystrokes.


Input: First parties should still have the right to sue if they deem it necessary. I have no problem with this rule if it is directed to third party debt buyers.

First parties should still have the right to sue if they deem it necessary.

I have no problem with this rule if it is directed to third party debt buyers.


Input: I don' t believe in abusive behavior (i. e. the behavior spelled out in the FDCPA), but what this individual is saying that she owes a debt that she is not paying. Instead, she wants to be the offensive party and paint the collector into a corner using a recording device.

I don' t believe in abusive behavior

Instead, she wants to be the offensive party and paint the collector into a corner using a recording device.

(i. e. the behavior spelled out in the FDCPA),

but what this individual is saying that she owes a debt that she is not paying.


Input: Can there be a national repository to report abusive phone calls from debt collectors that masked (fake and " spoof ") their caller ID? I got a brand new phone number a few years ago and it obviously previously belonged to someone who is delinquent on their bills because I get calls everyday from debt collectors looking for the person who had my phone number before me. No matter how many times I tell them they have the wrong number, they don' t care and they just keep calling and they call from spoofed phone numbers. And this is my cell phone, which is against the law for debt collectors to call. The same debt collectors call with faked caller IDs. Here are just some of the phone numbers these debt collectors use: 808-792-8186 462643 858-568-7632 805-322-4584 706-913-1192 808-348-0083 858-345-4076 858-312-7724 908-505-9008 800-633-2677 252-808-7969 571-522-0386 407-712-3093 213-816-2972 804-721-3193 678-781-4530 427307 858-240-4079

Can there be a national repository to report abusive phone calls from debt collectors that masked (fake and " spoof ") their caller ID?

I got a brand new phone number a few years ago

because I get calls everyday from debt collectors looking for the person who had my phone number before me.

No matter how many times I tell them they have the wrong number, they don' t care and they just keep calling and they call from spoofed phone numbers.

The same debt collectors call with faked caller IDs.

Here are just some of the phone numbers these debt collectors use: 808-792-8186 462643 858-568-7632 805-322-4584 706-913-1192 808-348-0083 858-345-4076 858-312-7724 908-505-9008 800-633-2677 252-808-7969 571-522-0386 407-712-3093 213-816-2972 804-721-3193 678-781-4530 427307 858-240-4079

and it obviously previously belonged to someone who is delinquent on their bills

And this is my cell phone, which is against the law for debt collectors to call.

and it obviously previously belonged to someone who is delinquent on their bills

because I get calls everyday from debt collectors looking for the person who had my phone number before me.


Input: Compliance 2013 demonstrates the type of arrogance that I have been addressing in my prior comments. The belief that a default is a default by courts along with the practice of REWARDING Strategic Defaulters while sentencing INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS to never ending escalating debt because of the ongoing interest rate charges needs to be addressed. I have been researching consumer debt for the past few years and Consumer Debt is ON THE RISE GLOBALLY, and that is not a good thing. Canadian finance expert warns about rising consumer debt. __URL__ I can replace Canada in the title with England, Australia, South Africa, China, Russia, Ireland and on and on and on. The consumer debt escalation is being caused by a ridiculously low 2% monthly minimum payment, the gateway drug to higher and higher debt, and because consumers who have legitimate life Changing events that cause them to default cannot plead INVOLUNTARY DEFAULT in court. We let criminals plead involuntary to many crimes, but not law abiding citizens when it comes to their credit cards and student loans!

Compliance 2013 demonstrates the type of arrogance that I have been addressing in my prior comments.

and that is not a good thing.

The belief that a default is a default by courts along with the practice of REWARDING Strategic Defaulters while sentencing INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS to never ending escalating debt because of the ongoing interest rate charges needs to be addressed.

I have been researching consumer debt for the past few years

and Consumer Debt is ON THE RISE GLOBALLY,

I can replace Canada in the title with England, Australia, South Africa, China, Russia, Ireland and on and on and on.

The consumer debt escalation is being caused by a ridiculously low 2% monthly minimum payment, the gateway drug to higher and higher debt, and because consumers who have legitimate life Changing events that cause them to default cannot plead INVOLUNTARY DEFAULT in court.

We let criminals plead involuntary to many crimes, but not law abiding citizens when it comes to their credit cards and student loans!

Canadian finance expert warns about rising consumer debt. __URL__

I have been researching consumer debt for the past few years

Canadian finance expert warns about rising consumer debt. __URL__


Input: Consumers are typically notified numerous times before the account is sent to a collection agency. It is in the best interests of the credit union to try and resolve the delinquency before it is sent to a collection agency due to the added cost.

Consumers are typically notified numerous times before the account is sent to a collection agency.

It is in the best interests of the credit union to try and resolve the delinquency before it is sent to a collection agency due to the added cost.


Input: Any form of written communication should count as a notice in writing. If a debt collector receives a notice via email of contact they should be required to follow it.

Any form of written communication should count as a notice in writing.

If a debt collector receives a notice via email of contact they should be required to follow it.


Input: jfearon, I think you have to do it online. I was able to clean up a family member' s credit report online.

jfearon, I think you have to do it online.

I was able to clean up a family member' s credit report online.

jfearon, I think you have to do it online.

I was able to clean up a family member' s credit report online.


Input: The consumer should be allowed to record all calls for proof of conversation with collectors. And once a collector received a notice to not contact a debtor at their workplace it should be required that they do not even for " location "

The consumer should be allowed to record all calls for proof of conversation with collectors.

And once a collector received a notice to not contact a debtor at their workplace it should be required that they do not even for " location "


Input: I am concerned that there is some type of rewards system in place that somehow monetizes those who report when a consumer has a potential bad credit scenario. As a conspiracy theory it makes sense since it drives up the cost of a loan.

I am concerned that there is some type of rewards system in place that somehow monetizes those who report when a consumer has a potential bad credit scenario.

As a conspiracy theory it makes sense since it drives up the cost of a loan.


Input: I am concerned that state and federal agencies are contributing to identity theft, big time. In just the past month I had to make an online payment on what I believe was a federal hobbs act violation by the Los Angeles building and Safety department. A day after making the payment or risk losing my home, that same credit card was being used online by thieves. Then a few weeks later another agency asked for bank documents, I supplied them via fax, and they were lost! And on top of that, there really didn' t seem to be a big deal made out of the fact that the documents went missing.

I am concerned that state and federal agencies are contributing to identity theft, big time.

And on top of that, there really didn' t seem to be a big deal made out of the fact that the documents went missing.

In just the past month I had to make an online payment on what I believe was a federal hobbs act violation by the Los Angeles building and Safety department.

A day after making the payment or risk losing my home, that same credit card was being used online by thieves.

Then a few weeks later another agency asked for bank documents, I supplied them via fax, and they were lost!


Input: I agree. I have been harassed for years (after getting a new cell phone number) from debt collectors calling for someone else. I presume it is the person who had my phone number before me. No matter how many times I tell them that they have the wrong number, they just keep calling over and over.

I agree.

I have been harassed for years (after getting a new cell phone number) from debt collectors calling for someone else.

I presume it is the person who had my phone number before me.

No matter how many times I tell them that they have the wrong number, they just keep calling over and over.

I agree.

I have been harassed for years (after getting a new cell phone number) from debt collectors calling for someone else.


Input: I agree. I' ve heard of this happening and it' s unjust.

I agree.

and it' s unjust.

I' ve heard of this happening


Input: Consumers need to be pro-active in everything they do. If an individual had the capability to take on a debt then they should have the capability to resolve the debt. Every credit union I know goes the extra mile to help their members achieve financial success.

Consumers need to be pro-active in everything they do.

If an individual had the capability to take on a debt then they should have the capability to resolve the debt.

Every credit union I know goes the extra mile to help their members achieve financial success.

If an individual had the capability to take on a debt then they should have the capability to resolve the debt.

Consumers need to be pro-active in everything they do.


Input: If a consumer states that he disputes the debt, the debt collector should immediately cease ALL collection activity until the debt is validated. And, by validation, it needs to be more than " the name and social security information matches the creditor' s records. The validation process should include a clear and complete copy of ALL DOCUMENTS that create the alleged obligation. If none is available, then the debt should be cancelled.

If a consumer states that he disputes the debt, the debt collector should immediately cease ALL collection activity until the debt is validated.

And, by validation, it needs to be more than " the name and social security information matches the creditor' s records.

The validation process should include a clear and complete copy of ALL DOCUMENTS that create the alleged obligation.

If none is available, then the debt should be cancelled.


Input: As a bankruptcy lawyer, I frequently deal with clients or are harassed by debt collectors calling family or neighbors. the collectors will claim they are acquiring location information, but this is frequently the case where the consumer has been at the same location for years. I hope the rules will narrow the " location information " exception so that it can only be used where there is really doubt about the consumer' s location.

As a bankruptcy lawyer, I frequently deal with clients or are harassed by debt collectors calling family or neighbors.

the collectors will claim they are acquiring location information, but this is frequently the case where the consumer has been at the same location for years.

I hope the rules will narrow the " location information " exception

so that it can only be used where there is really doubt about the consumer' s location.

I hope the rules will narrow the " location information " exception

so that it can only be used where there is really doubt about the consumer' s location.


Input: Paying a debt in full will always improve a credit score unless the debt is over 7 years old. If that is the case, I' m sure you can make a request to the financial institution to not report the payment.

Paying a debt in full will always improve a credit score unless the debt is over 7 years old.

If that is the case, I' m sure you can make a request to the financial institution to not report the payment.


Input: It seems that just about anyone can create a debt collection company and if the owners and/or employees have unscrupulous desires, then it seems that privacy is a big concern. Plus, if anyone can create/own debt collection companies, then it doesn' t seem to surprise me why so many debt collecting companies break the laws. There should be tighter laws on the formation of debt collection companies and the employees that they can hire.

It seems that just about anyone can create a debt collection company

and if the owners and/or employees have unscrupulous desires, then it seems that privacy is a big concern.

Plus, if anyone can create/own debt collection companies, then it doesn' t seem to surprise me why so many debt collecting companies break the laws.

There should be tighter laws on the formation of debt collection companies and the employees that they can hire.


Input: another issue is an original business which isn' t covered under FDCPA only needs a servicemember' s military address (usually their only address), they simple replace the servicemember/customer' s name with Commanding Officer on a mailing or use a unit locator and ask for Commanding Officer. Considering some of the businesses located outside of a base that prey on unsophisticated young troops, like a used car lot and it' s easy to have more leverage with that troop.

another issue is an original business which isn' t covered under FDCPA only needs a servicemember' s military address (usually their only address),

they simple replace the servicemember/customer' s name with Commanding Officer on a mailing or use a unit locator and ask for Commanding Officer.

Considering some of the businesses located outside of a base that prey on unsophisticated young troops, like a used car lot and it' s easy to have more leverage with that troop.


Input: Check your state law, such as Illinois has its own Collection Agency Act. It' s a licensed profession and Atty general for the state would be a start for a complaint. __URL__

Check your state law,

such as Illinois has its own Collection Agency Act.

It' s a licensed profession and Atty general for the state would be a start for a complaint.

such as Illinois has its own Collection Agency Act.


Input: At least in Illinois there is a Caller ID spoofing law. Still get calls every day with false/unintelligible called ID listed and no message left. __URL__

At least in Illinois there is a Caller ID spoofing law.

Still get calls every day with false/unintelligible called ID listed and no message left.

At least in Illinois there is a Caller ID spoofing law.


Input: Creditors generally do not send accounts to collection until after they have sent multiple notices. Requiring a specific notice will expose small creditors to liability beyond any benefit to consumers.

Creditors generally do not send accounts to collection until after they have sent multiple notices.

Requiring a specific notice will expose small creditors to liability beyond any benefit to consumers.


Input: A standard first letter would be an excellent idea-especially if states would agree on the content. Consumers could recognize the format and know where to look for the information they need. Consumer testing would be a very good idea. I believe that industry members would favor this to reduce litigation over technical violations. Taxpayers would benefit by reduced federal court expenses.

A standard first letter would be an excellent idea-especially if states would agree on the content.

Consumer testing would be a very good idea.

I believe that industry members would favor this to reduce litigation over technical violations.

Taxpayers would benefit by reduced federal court expenses.

Consumers could recognize the format and know where to look for the information they need.

A standard first letter would be an excellent idea-especially if states would agree on the content.

Consumers could recognize the format and know where to look for the information they need.

Consumer testing would be a very good idea.

I believe that industry members would favor this to reduce litigation over technical violations.

Consumer testing would be a very good idea.

Taxpayers would benefit by reduced federal court expenses.


Input: I knew a man who was sued by a debt collector and he was not served. " Someone " was served, but not at his address and he was denied due process. He learned of the suit when it was a judgment on his credit report. He attempted to have the judgment overturned for lack of due process and the judge would not grant it. Unfortunate, but yes they are allowed to deny due process and get away with it.

I knew a man who was sued by a debt collector and he was not served.

" Someone " was served, but not at his address and he was denied due process.

He learned of the suit when it was a judgment on his credit report.

He attempted to have the judgment overturned for lack of due process and the judge would not grant it.

Unfortunate, but yes they are allowed to deny due process and get away with it.


Input: I agree both party' s should be aware if any recording is going on. It is fair for both sides

I agree both party' s should be aware if any recording is going on.

It is fair for both sides

I agree both party' s should be aware if any recording is going on.

It is fair for both sides


Input: The FTC got this one right. Alternative one is easy to communicate and understand. Terms like default and charge-off can be confusing and subject to interpretation.

The FTC got this one right.

Alternative one is easy to communicate and understand.

Terms like default and charge-off can be confusing and subject to interpretation.

Alternative one is easy to communicate and understand.

Terms like default and charge-off can be confusing and subject to interpretation.


Input: I don' t think that is the solution, I hear there isn' t room in the jails to put all the bill collectors. A lot of the multiple calls problems come from an dialer calling, if it doesn' t get an answer it will call back later.

I don' t think that is the solution,

I hear there isn' t room in the jails to put all the bill collectors.

A lot of the multiple calls problems come from an dialer calling, if it doesn' t get an answer it will call back later.

I don' t think that is the solution,

I hear there isn' t room in the jails to put all the bill collectors.

I don' t think that is the solution,

A lot of the multiple calls problems come from an dialer calling, if it doesn' t get an answer it will call back later.


Input: I have a debt in dispute with the CFPB, and it has not yet been resolved, but during the government shutdown the Original Creditor turned it over to a collection agency. The collection agency has not contacted me in writing at all, but they did a hard pull on my credit report. I legitimately closed the account when it was paid in full, but they continued billing me after I had cancelled the service. Now the matter is simply snowballing. I am very upset about this. If a consumer is in the midst of a dispute with the CFPB, I would think there would be a " time out " on collection actions and especially malicious hard pull of the credit report while the dispute is ongoing.

I have a debt in dispute with the CFPB, and it has not yet been resolved, but during the government shutdown the Original Creditor turned it over to a collection agency.

The collection agency has not contacted me in writing at all, but they did a hard pull on my credit report.

I legitimately closed the account when it was paid in full, but they continued billing me after I had cancelled the service.

Now the matter is simply snowballing.

I am very upset about this.

If a consumer is in the midst of a dispute with the CFPB, I would think there would be a " time out " on collection actions and especially malicious hard pull of the credit report while the dispute is ongoing.


Input: A simple request for a call back is the best. " Foti " messages serve no one. It' s clear to everyone that the call is from a collector and 3rd parties are unnecessarily inconvenienced.

A simple request for a call back is the best.

" Foti " messages serve no one.

It' s clear to everyone that the call is from a collector

and 3rd parties are unnecessarily inconvenienced.

A simple request for a call back is the best.

" Foti " messages serve no one.

A simple request for a call back is the best.

It' s clear to everyone that the call is from a collector

A simple request for a call back is the best.

and 3rd parties are unnecessarily inconvenienced.


Input: You don' t answer you' ll get a call again. Rather than ignore you could answer and ask the company not to call you.

You don' t answer you' ll get a call again.

Rather than ignore you could answer and ask the company not to call you.

Rather than ignore you could answer and ask the company not to call you.

You don' t answer you' ll get a call again.


Input: Consumers should be able to review all encoding and information in e-OSCAR and there should be a comprehensive means to submit corrections and evidence to a dispute.

Consumers should be able to review all encoding and information in e-OSCAR

and there should be a comprehensive means to submit corrections and evidence to a dispute.


Input: I don' t think that we are discussing how to block a collector from calling you. You shouldn' t have to feel that you have to " block " a call. You should just answer and ask them not to call you.

I don' t think that we are discussing how to block a collector from calling you.

You shouldn' t have to feel that you have to " block " a call.

You should just answer and ask them not to call you.

You shouldn' t have to feel that you have to " block " a call.

You should just answer and ask them not to call you.


Input: Creditors should be entitled to require consumers to provide them with a contact address and phone number and to provide updates while debts are outstanding. If consumers do not do so, it should be fair for creditors (and collectors) to skip-trace or to reach them at other numbers. Collectors should not be allowed to make calls to work until they have made multiple attempts to contact a consumer at home.

Creditors should be entitled to require consumers to provide them with a contact address and phone number and to provide updates while debts are outstanding.

If consumers do not do so, it should be fair for creditors (and collectors) to skip-trace or to reach them at other numbers.

Collectors should not be allowed to make calls to work until they have made multiple attempts to contact a consumer at home.


Input: I don' t think limiting the time to call a person at work is an option. Everyone works at different times. Some people moves, change cell phone numbers, so call them at work is sometimes the only option. It' s hard to know what place " prefers " no personal calls, and a list could be an option, but most people work for smaller company' s and the lists will cater to the large company' s. Most people have information about where they work somewhere on the web. I don' t see a problem if a debt collector calls a customer at work if they don' t know prior of any inconvenience.

I don' t think limiting the time to call a person at work is an option.

so call them at work is sometimes the only option.

It' s hard to know what place " prefers " no personal calls,

and a list could be an option,

and the lists will cater to the large company' s.

I don' t see a problem if a debt collector calls a customer at work if they don' t know prior of any inconvenience.

Everyone works at different times.

Some people moves, change cell phone numbers,

but most people work for smaller company' s

Most people have information about where they work somewhere on the web.

I don' t think limiting the time to call a person at work is an option.

Everyone works at different times.

so call them at work is sometimes the only option.

Some people moves, change cell phone numbers,

and the lists will cater to the large company' s.

but most people work for smaller company' s


Input: Let' s start by assuming the creditor provided something for which a consumer agreed to pay. Creditors should be entitled to get a phone number and address at which the creditor can reach the consumer and to get updates as long as a debt is outstanding. If a consumer chooses to use only a cell phone, the creditor and collector should be able to contact him at that number.

Let' s start by assuming the creditor provided something for which a consumer agreed to pay.

Creditors should be entitled to get a phone number and address at which the creditor can reach the consumer and to get updates as long as a debt is outstanding.

If a consumer chooses to use only a cell phone, the creditor and collector should be able to contact him at that number.


Input: To start e-oscar should take internet complaints the same a shad written letters. They do not do that. They take internet disputes differently then they do hand written letter. That is in regards to disputed debts and it is important that the credit bureaus be consistent about the dispute process and the statues of limitations based on state laws. They should also have limits on how many collection agencies they sell the account of too including their shady practice of selling accounts of to collection agencies in different states. Their should be a cap on debts owed and the power that the agencies have on consumers. I think ultimatel it is about the collection agencies not abusing the consumer and helping consumers find ways to keep their accounts out default. A good start to offer consumers to get their accounts out of default would be based on charging consumers a small percentage of% coupled with a promissory note with a date to begin making payments to the debt collector. They abuse the consumers and they should stop it. Overall, the communication process between consumers and debt collectors is flawed with mis communications and a lack of options to pay back what they owe.

To start e-oscar should take internet complaints the same a shad written letters.

They should also have limits on how many collection agencies they sell the account of too including their shady practice of selling accounts of to collection agencies in different states.

Their should be a cap on debts owed and the power that the agencies have on consumers.

and they should stop it.

They do not do that.

They take internet disputes differently then they do hand written letter.

That is in regards to disputed debts and it is important that the credit bureaus be consistent about the dispute process and the statues of limitations based on state laws.

I think ultimatel it is about the collection agencies not abusing the consumer and helping consumers find ways to keep their accounts out default.

A good start to offer consumers to get their accounts out of default would be based on charging consumers a small percentage of% coupled with a promissory note with a date to begin making payments to the debt collector.

They abuse the consumers

Overall, the communication process between consumers and debt collectors is flawed with mis communications and a lack of options to pay back what they owe.


Input: I have no personal experiences with debt to speak of, only my experiences working with victims of identity theft who have fraudulent debts; which is a horse of a different color. Consumers are not educated about how debt collection and revival works. The issue in the end isn' t the mechanics, or if they can request the debt not be reported. The issue is that, the way things stand now, it is not clear how repaying a debt will improve their score. It is not clear that they can ask for the collector not to report the debt payment if the debt is older than seven years. Consumers are confused and have these inaccurate perceptions because things are not clear. Again, it is the perception which concerns me-it would benefit both creditors and consumers if it was plain and clear, in language the average consumer could understand, that paying off a debt is a good thing.

I have no personal experiences with debt to speak of, only my experiences working with victims of identity theft who have fraudulent debts; which is a horse of a different color.

Consumers are not educated about how debt collection and revival works.

The issue in the end isn' t the mechanics, or if they can request the debt not be reported.

The issue is that, the way things stand now, it is not clear how repaying a debt will improve their score.

It is not clear that they can ask for the collector not to report the debt payment if the debt is older than seven years.

Consumers are confused and have these inaccurate perceptions because things are not clear.

Again, it is the perception which concerns me-it would benefit both creditors and consumers if it was plain and clear, in language the average consumer could understand, that paying off a debt is a good thing.

The issue is that, the way things stand now, it is not clear how repaying a debt will improve their score.

It is not clear that they can ask for the collector not to report the debt payment if the debt is older than seven years.


Input: Please go hard after the service industry. They have done a lot to foul up the debt collection process by having their service people FALSE SERVE and FALSE SUBSERVE prospective debt collection alleged defaulters. It' s happened to me twice, the first time the process server simply guessed by using the most generic age size, weight and assign a made up name! The second time the servicer simply called the sub server " Jane Doe " and once again made up the most generic cut across as many age, height and race descriptions they could come up with, which meant they could not be more far off. Then when I went to court I just happened to hear another defendant make the claim to the judge that they were never served, that the paper work was left outside the door. Besides the service company lying in court documents about serving someone that was not actually served, which in and of itself should be enough to give the judge some type of latitude to do something to protect the defendants, when a debt collector knows they can get a false service, they have MUCH LESS MOTIVATION to negotiate with the defendant. Judges don' t seem to get this aspect of false service. I know what I know and I will state unequivocally anywhere that I have twice been false served/subserved.

Please go hard after the service industry.

which in and of itself should be enough to give the judge some type of latitude to do something to protect the defendants,

They have done a lot to foul up the debt collection process by having their service people FALSE SERVE and FALSE SUBSERVE prospective debt collection alleged defaulters.

It' s happened to me twice,

the first time the process server simply guessed by using the most generic age size, weight and assign a made up name!

The second time the servicer simply called the sub server " Jane Doe " and once again made up the most generic cut across as many age, height and race descriptions they could come up with, which meant they could not be more far off.

Then when I went to court I just happened to hear another defendant make the claim to the judge that they were never served, that the paper work was left outside the door.

Besides the service company lying in court documents about serving someone that was not actually served,

I know what I know

and I will state unequivocally anywhere that I have twice been false served/subserved.

when a debt collector knows they can get a false service, they have MUCH LESS MOTIVATION to negotiate with the defendant.

Judges don' t seem to get this aspect of false service.

They have done a lot to foul up the debt collection process by having their service people FALSE SERVE and FALSE SUBSERVE prospective debt collection alleged defaulters.

It' s happened to me twice,

They have done a lot to foul up the debt collection process by having their service people FALSE SERVE and FALSE SUBSERVE prospective debt collection alleged defaulters.

the first time the process server simply guessed by using the most generic age size, weight and assign a made up name!

They have done a lot to foul up the debt collection process by having their service people FALSE SERVE and FALSE SUBSERVE prospective debt collection alleged defaulters.

The second time the servicer simply called the sub server " Jane Doe " and once again made up the most generic cut across as many age, height and race descriptions they could come up with, which meant they could not be more far off.

They have done a lot to foul up the debt collection process by having their service people FALSE SERVE and FALSE SUBSERVE prospective debt collection alleged defaulters.

Then when I went to court I just happened to hear another defendant make the claim to the judge that they were never served, that the paper work was left outside the door.

They have done a lot to foul up the debt collection process by having their service people FALSE SERVE and FALSE SUBSERVE prospective debt collection alleged defaulters.

Besides the service company lying in court documents about serving someone that was not actually served,

Please go hard after the service industry.

They have done a lot to foul up the debt collection process by having their service people FALSE SERVE and FALSE SUBSERVE prospective debt collection alleged defaulters.


Input: Innocent until proven guilty is the American Justice System. And the burden of the proof is on the one bringing the suit. Debt collectors need to get their act together before trying to file frivolous lawsuits.

Innocent until proven guilty is the American Justice System.

And the burden of the proof is on the one bringing the suit.

Debt collectors need to get their act together before trying to file frivolous lawsuits.


Input: That' s the price of being in the business. If debt collectors can' t hack it in the real world, then they need to find another business industry to be for their " careers. "

That' s the price of being in the business.

If debt collectors can' t hack it in the real world, then they need to find another business industry to be for their " careers. "