Input: I agree that this is about Financial Literacy, However, this is also about the court' s enforcing completely one sided credit card adhesion agreements that don' t give the debtor/defaulter, rights of any kind, even in the most humanitarian of situations, thereby calling into question the legality of these one sided credit card adhesion agreements. Lets not forget that it was the comptroller of the currency back in 2002 that prevented the Insurance industry from competing in the credit card debt suspension insurance arena with the credit card companies. This allowed the credit card companies to then have an obscene monopoly on overpriced credit card debt suspension insurance premiums they charged their own customers who otherwise could have carried insurance policies that would have frozen interest rate charges for a certain period of time when a life changing emergency occurred. Financial literacy is in play when it comes to the 2% monthly minimum payment addiction scam perpetrated on first time credit card borrowers. 2% monthly minimum payments are literally no different than a crack dealer giving out a few free hits of crack to get people hooked on their product. A person can be buy a $1, 000 top of the line television set and only have a 20 or 25 dollar payment due the next month. That' s credit card crack in my opinion. Financial Literacy could be a warning printed in bold letters on every credit card agreement warning how credit cards purposely have low monthly minimum payments to lure one into more and more debt, how credit card companies have no compassion for life changing events, and that credit card companies are overcharging for credit card debt suspension insurance by a factor of up to 2, 000%. Put those three warnings on every agreement in bold letters, and two things happen, customers have a better chance of becoming financially literate, and it also is an admission of fraud by the credit card companies for all the prior agreements already in place. So the irony is the credit card companies can' t change even if they wanted to. But where is the outside force to come from to make the obvious happen in regards to those three credit card wanrings? Apparently it can' t come from the CFPB, which is unfortunate because it turn this ties the courts hands that much more.

I agree that this is about Financial Literacy,

However, this is also about the court' s enforcing completely one sided credit card adhesion agreements that don' t give the debtor/defaulter, rights of any kind, even in the most humanitarian of situations, thereby calling into question the legality of these one sided credit card adhesion agreements.

Financial literacy is in play when it comes to the 2% monthly minimum payment addiction scam perpetrated on first time credit card borrowers.

2% monthly minimum payments are literally no different than a crack dealer giving out a few free hits of crack to get people hooked on their product.

That' s credit card crack in my opinion.

and two things happen,

customers have a better chance of becoming financially literate,

and it also is an admission of fraud by the credit card companies for all the prior agreements already in place.

So the irony is the credit card companies can' t change even if they wanted to.

But where is the outside force to come from to make the obvious happen in regards to those three credit card wanrings?

which is unfortunate

because it turn this ties the courts hands that much more.

Lets not forget that it was the comptroller of the currency back in 2002 that prevented the Insurance industry from competing in the credit card debt suspension insurance arena with the credit card companies.

This allowed the credit card companies to then have an obscene monopoly on overpriced credit card debt suspension insurance premiums they charged their own customers who otherwise could have carried insurance policies that would have frozen interest rate charges for a certain period of time when a life changing emergency occurred.

A person can be buy a $1, 000 top of the line television set and only have a 20 or 25 dollar payment due the next month.

Apparently it can' t come from the CFPB,

Financial Literacy could be a warning printed in bold letters on every credit card agreement warning how credit cards purposely have low monthly minimum payments to lure one into more and more debt, how credit card companies have no compassion for life changing events, and that credit card companies are overcharging for credit card debt suspension insurance by a factor of up to 2, 000%.

Put those three warnings on every agreement in bold letters,

Put those three warnings on every agreement in bold letters,

customers have a better chance of becoming financially literate,

Put those three warnings on every agreement in bold letters,

and it also is an admission of fraud by the credit card companies for all the prior agreements already in place.

which is unfortunate

because it turn this ties the courts hands that much more.


Input: I believe the most significant problem is due to financial institutions having two systems that are not fully integrated. One is the system of record that contains account level information and the second is a charge off system that is used to track events that occur after the account is charged off. Events that occur on the charge off system are normally not reported to the system of record. Also, charged off system does not or is not used for credit reporting. The second problem is a result of mergers and/or acquisitions where the financial institution only converts the system of record and not the acquired charge off system. This leaves a void as to the particular status after the account was charged off. As accounts are outsourced or purchased the reliance of information resides on the system of record and NOT the charge off system. The third problem involves a consumer who has more than one account with the original lender so the risk of one account going to a different agency or debt buyer is highly likely. Even if access by the debt buyer and collector is available, the events that took place on the account are normally not recorded in the system of record and the charge off system may have been decommissioned. As to the issue of credit reporting of disputes depends upon whether an agency or debt buyer furnish data to a credit reporting agency. The amount of consumer data currently and in the past reported to credit reporting agencies may not be accurate specific to charged off accounts and to require a chain of title would be expensive and the likely hood of accuracy would still not be achieved. Going forward I think the first focus must be on credit reporting accuracy.

I believe the most significant problem is due to financial institutions having two systems that are not fully integrated.

This leaves a void as to the particular status after the account was charged off.

As to the issue of credit reporting of disputes depends upon whether an agency or debt buyer furnish data to a credit reporting agency.

The amount of consumer data currently and in the past reported to credit reporting agencies may not be accurate specific to charged off accounts

and to require a chain of title would be expensive

and the likely hood of accuracy would still not be achieved.

One is the system of record that contains account level information

and the second is a charge off system that is used to track events that occur after the account is charged off.

Events that occur on the charge off system are normally not reported to the system of record.

Also, charged off system does not or is not used for credit reporting.

The second problem is a result of mergers and/or acquisitions where the financial institution only converts the system of record and not the acquired charge off system.

As accounts are outsourced or purchased

the reliance of information resides on the system of record and NOT the charge off system.

The third problem involves a consumer who has more than one account with the original lender so the risk of one account going to a different agency or debt buyer is highly likely.

Even if access by the debt buyer and collector is available, the events that took place on the account are normally not recorded in the system of record and the charge off system may have been decommissioned.

Going forward I think the first focus must be on credit reporting accuracy.

the reliance of information resides on the system of record and NOT the charge off system.

As accounts are outsourced or purchased

Going forward I think the first focus must be on credit reporting accuracy.

The amount of consumer data currently and in the past reported to credit reporting agencies may not be accurate specific to charged off accounts

Going forward I think the first focus must be on credit reporting accuracy.

and to require a chain of title would be expensive

Going forward I think the first focus must be on credit reporting accuracy.

and the likely hood of accuracy would still not be achieved.


Input: Though I do not agree with " someone to rack up tens of thousands of dollars of debt and never pay it back ". My current standing is that the laws of each and every state allow for higher interest rates to be charged for non-secured debt. This is because the lenders take more losses " the risk should be in alignment with the award ". In many cases the principal has been paid back in full or the majority of the debt has been paid back. To allow a " third party " to buy it at a significantly reduced price, after the debt has been charged off by the original " lender/creditor " AND allow the third party to collect the full alleged balance and interest is not just. This is the way I am leaning at this time. Explain to me why you or I feel differently?

Though I do not agree with " someone to rack up tens of thousands of dollars of debt and never pay it back ".

" the risk should be in alignment with the award ".

To allow a " third party " to buy it at a significantly reduced price, after the debt has been charged off by the original " lender/creditor " AND allow the third party to collect the full alleged balance and interest is not just.

This is the way I am leaning at this time.

Explain to me why you or I feel differently?

My current standing is that the laws of each and every state allow for higher interest rates to be charged for non-secured debt.

This is because the lenders take more losses

In many cases the principal has been paid back in full or the majority of the debt has been paid back.

My current standing is that the laws of each and every state allow for higher interest rates to be charged for non-secured debt.

This is because the lenders take more losses

My current standing is that the laws of each and every state allow for higher interest rates to be charged for non-secured debt.

" the risk should be in alignment with the award ".


Input: Your point about the overshadowing is well taken. My comments are based upon suggested changes to the debt collection process. You are correct, if the FDCPA remained the way it is currently it may be considered a violation. The FDCPA allegedly is geared to the " least sophisticated individual ". However, I currently speak to many people that are not able to properly respond to a debt validation (even when they have a credible dispute). I am currently dealing with a 72-year old woman whose son " stole " her identity. He was convicted of fraud and deported for other credit cards that he took out in her name. She received a dunning notice and now is being sued on another card that she was not even aware of. Our experiences are just different. I once felt the same way as you when I was in commercial debt collection. I truly appreciate your response but you and I will have to disagree that " he or she should be able to articulate that dispute ". I enjoyed reading your well thought out response and look forward to the continued debate.

Your point about the overshadowing is well taken.

My comments are based upon suggested changes to the debt collection process.

You are correct,

if the FDCPA remained the way it is currently it may be considered a violation.

The FDCPA allegedly is geared to the " least sophisticated individual ".

Our experiences are just different.

I once felt the same way as you when I was in commercial debt collection.

I truly appreciate your response

but you and I will have to disagree that " he or she should be able to articulate that dispute ".

I enjoyed reading your well thought out response and look forward to the continued debate.

However, I currently speak to many people that are not able to properly respond to a debt validation (even when they have a credible dispute).

I am currently dealing with a 72-year old woman whose son " stole " her identity.

He was convicted of fraud and deported for other credit cards that he took out in her name.

She received a dunning notice and now is being sued on another card that she was not even aware of.

You are correct,

if the FDCPA remained the way it is currently it may be considered a violation.


Input: My client needs to see a particular doctor. When she called his office she was informed that she needed to pay on her account of $278. She was not even aware that she had a balance there she had never received a bill from this office and when she asked when this bill was from, the gal told her 1986. They claim they never turned it over to a collection agency but the client filed bankruptcy in 2005. It is listed in her bankruptcy but the doctors office won' t forgive the bill. If a debt owners want to collect on debts they need to send out bills so families know they have bills due, that only makes sense. My client is disputing the bill, but with no luck so far.

My client needs to see a particular doctor.

When she called his office she was informed that she needed to pay on her account of $278.

She was not even aware that she had a balance there

she had never received a bill from this office

and when she asked when this bill was from, the gal told her 1986.

They claim they never turned it over to a collection agency

but the client filed bankruptcy in 2005.

It is listed in her bankruptcy

but the doctors office won' t forgive the bill.

My client is disputing the bill, but with no luck so far.

If a debt owners want to collect on debts they need to send out bills

so families know they have bills due,

that only makes sense.

so families know they have bills due,

If a debt owners want to collect on debts they need to send out bills


Input: In order to get a default judgment through a State Court, a collector' s pleadings have to spell out the theory of their case (usually contract) with sufficient specificity that a reasonable person can understand the basis for the claim. Without some form of affidavit from the actual creditor, very few courts will award a default judgment. Also, most state court approved forms are already written for the " least sophisticated debtor. " I don' t see any reason to impose a more stringent standard on collection lawsuits than are imposed on any other lawsuit.

In order to get a default judgment through a State Court, a collector' s pleadings have to spell out the theory of their case (usually contract) with sufficient specificity that a reasonable person can understand the basis for the claim.

Without some form of affidavit from the actual creditor, very few courts will award a default judgment.

Also, most state court approved forms are already written for the " least sophisticated debtor. "

I don' t see any reason to impose a more stringent standard on collection lawsuits than are imposed on any other lawsuit.

Without some form of affidavit from the actual creditor, very few courts will award a default judgment.

In order to get a default judgment through a State Court, a collector' s pleadings have to spell out the theory of their case (usually contract) with sufficient specificity that a reasonable person can understand the basis for the claim.

I don' t see any reason to impose a more stringent standard on collection lawsuits than are imposed on any other lawsuit.

In order to get a default judgment through a State Court, a collector' s pleadings have to spell out the theory of their case (usually contract) with sufficient specificity that a reasonable person can understand the basis for the claim.

I don' t see any reason to impose a more stringent standard on collection lawsuits than are imposed on any other lawsuit.

Without some form of affidavit from the actual creditor, very few courts will award a default judgment.

I don' t see any reason to impose a more stringent standard on collection lawsuits than are imposed on any other lawsuit.

Also, most state court approved forms are already written for the " least sophisticated debtor. "


Input: Either State or Federal law should provide some penalty for passing an NSF or " closed account " check that includes a presumption of guilt. The check either bounced or it did not. There' s not a lot of grey area here. That said, either State or Federal law should also allow the drafter of the check a " safe harbor " wherein they can pay the face value of the check and some nominal compensation for the hardship suffered by the recipient of that check in order to avoid this penalty. Michigan has such a procedure and it seems relatively equitable.

Either State or Federal law should provide some penalty for passing an NSF or " closed account " check that includes a presumption of guilt.

That said, either State or Federal law should also allow the drafter of the check a " safe harbor " wherein they can pay the face value of the check and some nominal compensation for the hardship suffered by the recipient of that check in order to avoid this penalty.

The check either bounced or it did not.

Michigan has such a procedure

There' s not a lot of grey area here.

and it seems relatively equitable.

Either State or Federal law should provide some penalty for passing an NSF or " closed account " check that includes a presumption of guilt.

The check either bounced or it did not.

Either State or Federal law should provide some penalty for passing an NSF or " closed account " check that includes a presumption of guilt.

There' s not a lot of grey area here.

There' s not a lot of grey area here.

The check either bounced or it did not.

That said, either State or Federal law should also allow the drafter of the check a " safe harbor " wherein they can pay the face value of the check and some nominal compensation for the hardship suffered by the recipient of that check in order to avoid this penalty.

Michigan has such a procedure

That said, either State or Federal law should also allow the drafter of the check a " safe harbor " wherein they can pay the face value of the check and some nominal compensation for the hardship suffered by the recipient of that check in order to avoid this penalty.

and it seems relatively equitable.


Input: I was receiving 4 or 5 calls a day from Midland Debt Collection daily for two weeks on my cellphone. As I' m unemployed and scraping by I was ignoring-or rather trying to ignore-the calls. They were always hang-ups. Never any message. As I live in Indiana-a " business-oriented " state, it seems the laws favor the debt collectors over the debtors. Limits on calls? Please, do. When I finally did have the gumption to answer when they called at 8: 10am on a Sunday morning, I made a strong case about being harrassed and informed him I didn' t want to be contacted on my cell phone. It' s only a few days but I' ll see. I still don' t know if it was any legit debt that they were calling about.

I was receiving 4 or 5 calls a day from Midland Debt Collection daily for two weeks on my cellphone.

As I' m unemployed and scraping by I was ignoring-or rather trying to ignore-the calls.

They were always hang-ups.

Never any message.

As I live in Indiana-a " business-oriented " state,

When I finally did have the gumption to answer when they called at 8: 10am on a Sunday morning, I made a strong case about being harrassed and informed him I didn' t want to be contacted on my cell phone.

It' s only a few days but I' ll see.

I still don' t know if it was any legit debt that they were calling about.

it seems the laws favor the debt collectors over the debtors.

Limits on calls? Please, do.

it seems the laws favor the debt collectors over the debtors.

As I live in Indiana-a " business-oriented " state,


Input: I think the 9-8 is a typo. I have seen other typos on this site too, and they provide to FDCPA link that shows it is 8-9, so no big deal. On this topic though, I would like to see the 8-9 changed to 9-8. 8 is too early and 9 is too late at night to get phone calls.

I think the 9-8 is a typo.

I have seen other typos on this site too,

and they provide to FDCPA link that shows it is 8-9,

so no big deal.

8 is too early and 9 is too late at night to get phone calls.

On this topic though, I would like to see the 8-9 changed to 9-8.

I think the 9-8 is a typo.

I have seen other typos on this site too,

I think the 9-8 is a typo.

and they provide to FDCPA link that shows it is 8-9,

so no big deal.

and they provide to FDCPA link that shows it is 8-9,

On this topic though, I would like to see the 8-9 changed to 9-8.

8 is too early and 9 is too late at night to get phone calls.


Input: I also don' t think that they should be able to call on Sundays. I understand that weekends are probably a good time to call people, but I think that weekend calling should be restricted to less hours (like maybe noon-5pm) and only on Saturdays. No Sunday phone calls.

I also don' t think that they should be able to call on Sundays.

but I think that weekend calling should be restricted to less hours (like maybe noon-5pm) and only on Saturdays.

No Sunday phone calls.

I understand that weekends are probably a good time to call people,


Input: These so-called " Blue Laws " that prohibit cars lots being opened on Sundays and liquor being sold on Sundays, requiring the debt collection industry from closing down on Sundays (no calls, no letters, no contact) would not create any undo burden as many other regulated industries (car, liquor, gambling, etc) already abide to such " blue laws " and they operate just fine and make plenty of profits. The debt collection industry should be required to close down completely on Sundays.

These so-called " Blue Laws " that prohibit cars lots being opened on Sundays and liquor being sold on Sundays, requiring the debt collection industry from closing down on Sundays (no calls, no letters, no contact) would not create any undo burden

as many other regulated industries (car, liquor, gambling, etc) already abide to such " blue laws " and they operate just fine and make plenty of profits.

The debt collection industry should be required to close down completely on Sundays.

These so-called " Blue Laws " that prohibit cars lots being opened on Sundays and liquor being sold on Sundays, requiring the debt collection industry from closing down on Sundays (no calls, no letters, no contact) would not create any undo burden

as many other regulated industries (car, liquor, gambling, etc) already abide to such " blue laws " and they operate just fine and make plenty of profits.

The debt collection industry should be required to close down completely on Sundays.

These so-called " Blue Laws " that prohibit cars lots being opened on Sundays and liquor being sold on Sundays, requiring the debt collection industry from closing down on Sundays (no calls, no letters, no contact) would not create any undo burden


Input: I have a fairly common last name, and my listing in the phone book uses two initials rather than a first name. I get calls from credit collectors several times a week looking for various people with my last name and one or the other of my two initials. They are just taking a stab in the dark. When I tell them that I don' t live with any other family members and that I have an excellent credit rating, they take me off of their list to of numbers for today' s person of interest. When I ask them not to call me at all because I have no other people living with me that they would be looking for, they say that they only had me listed for their person of the day. Tomorrow my number might pop up as a possibility for tomorrow' s person of the day, but they " can' t do anything about tomorrow. " I actually had a credit collection rep (in India) say that to me.

I have a fairly common last name,

They are just taking a stab in the dark.

and my listing in the phone book uses two initials rather than a first name.

I get calls from credit collectors several times a week looking for various people with my last name and one or the other of my two initials.

When I tell them that I don' t live with any other family members and that I have an excellent credit rating, they take me off of their list to of numbers for today' s person of interest.

When I ask them not to call me at all because I have no other people living with me that they would be looking for, they say that they only had me listed for their person of the day.

Tomorrow my number might pop up as a possibility for tomorrow' s person of the day, but they " can' t do anything about tomorrow. "

I actually had a credit collection rep (in India) say that to me.


Input: I' m in the same situation--get calls about numerous people with my last name and one or the other of my two initials. None of the people being sought are even related to me, as far as I know, much less living with me. I would like to be able to make an official declaration that I have no delinquent debt and that I do not live with anyone who does. I' d be willing to renew the declaration once a year in order to stop receiving these calls that are nothing more than fishing expeditions.

I' m in the same situation--get calls about numerous people with my last name and one or the other of my two initials.

None of the people being sought are even related to me, as far as I know, much less living with me.

I would like to be able to make an official declaration that I have no delinquent debt and that I do not live with anyone who does.

I' d be willing to renew the declaration once a year in order to stop receiving these calls that are nothing more than fishing expeditions.


Input: I would like to see a rule prohibiting debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates from being able to pull a debtor " s credit report once the debt is officially time-barred and out of SOL. I would also like there to be a rule that specifically distinguishes between a " hard pull " and a " soft pull " credit inquiry. I have been opted out of promotional marketing via the __URL__ website for years. I do not have debt and have never had debt. What I do have is a common name, and so from time to time I will have various debt collectors and debt buyers " soft pulling " my credit reports while they are trying to locate whomever they are trying to locate. This should not be allowed even if the debt is still collectable and within the SOL. No debt collector has a " permissible purpose " to just randomly " soft pull " my credit reports just because I have a common name. As far as being outside the SOL and time-barred debts: no debt collector and debt owners/debt buyers should be allowed to pull someone " s credit report since they can' t legally sue the debtor outside of the SOL. So there is no need to continue pulling someone " s credit report. As far as the " hard pull " " soft pull " is concerned: There needs to be specific language that prohibits any debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates from performing " hard pull " credit report inquiries. The FCRA makes it clear what " permissible purposes " are but it does not specifically state or distinguish between a " hard pull " and a " soft pull " credit inquiry. A " hard pull " is a consumer-initiated request for an extension of credit. Anything other than a consumer-initiated request is a " soft pull. " But time and time again, I have friends, family members, and online forum members, tell me and show me that a debt collector or a debt owner/debt buyer has " hard pulled " their credit report. And some of these times are when the debt is time-barred from being outside the SOL and also from the Credit Reporting Time Period. This is unacceptable. A " hard pull " will decrease a consumers credit score and will be visible for up to 25 months to anyone who does have a legitimate permissible purpose to view that consumer " s credit report Making a " hard pull " on a debtor " s credit report could be a violation of the FDCPA in the privacy of the debtor. Any debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates should be prohibited from doing " hard pulls " and the CFPB should make it absolutely clear. www. optoutprescreen. com __URL__

I would like to see a rule prohibiting debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates from being able to pull a debtor " s credit report once the debt is officially time-barred and out of SOL.

I would also like there to be a rule that specifically distinguishes between a " hard pull " and a " soft pull " credit inquiry.

This should not be allowed even if the debt is still collectable and within the SOL.

As far as being outside the SOL and time-barred debts: no debt collector and debt owners/debt buyers should be allowed to pull someone " s credit report

As far as the " hard pull " " soft pull " is concerned: There needs to be specific language that prohibits any debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates from performing " hard pull " credit report inquiries.

Any debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates should be prohibited from doing " hard pulls "

and the CFPB should make it absolutely clear.

I have been opted out of promotional marketing via the __URL__ website for years.

I do not have debt and have never had debt.

and so from time to time I will have various debt collectors and debt buyers " soft pulling " my credit reports while they are trying to locate whomever they are trying to locate.

But time and time again, I have friends, family members, and online forum members, tell me and show me that a debt collector or a debt owner/debt buyer has " hard pulled " their credit report.

And some of these times are when the debt is time-barred from being outside the SOL and also from the Credit Reporting Time Period.

What I do have is a common name,

So there is no need to continue pulling someone " s credit report.

The FCRA makes it clear what " permissible purposes " are

This is unacceptable.

No debt collector has a " permissible purpose " to just randomly " soft pull " my credit reports just because I have a common name.

since they can' t legally sue the debtor outside of the SOL.

but it does not specifically state or distinguish between a " hard pull " and a " soft pull " credit inquiry.

A " hard pull " is a consumer-initiated request for an extension of credit.

Anything other than a consumer-initiated request is a " soft pull. "

A " hard pull " will decrease a consumers credit score and will be visible for up to 25 months to anyone who does have a legitimate permissible purpose to view that consumer " s credit report

Making a " hard pull " on a debtor " s credit report could be a violation of the FDCPA in the privacy of the debtor.

www. optoutprescreen. com __URL__

and so from time to time I will have various debt collectors and debt buyers " soft pulling " my credit reports while they are trying to locate whomever they are trying to locate.

What I do have is a common name,

This should not be allowed even if the debt is still collectable and within the SOL.

No debt collector has a " permissible purpose " to just randomly " soft pull " my credit reports just because I have a common name.

As far as being outside the SOL and time-barred debts: no debt collector and debt owners/debt buyers should be allowed to pull someone " s credit report

So there is no need to continue pulling someone " s credit report.

As far as being outside the SOL and time-barred debts: no debt collector and debt owners/debt buyers should be allowed to pull someone " s credit report

since they can' t legally sue the debtor outside of the SOL.

So there is no need to continue pulling someone " s credit report.

since they can' t legally sue the debtor outside of the SOL.

As far as the " hard pull " " soft pull " is concerned: There needs to be specific language that prohibits any debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates from performing " hard pull " credit report inquiries.

The FCRA makes it clear what " permissible purposes " are

Any debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates should be prohibited from doing " hard pulls "

A " hard pull " will decrease a consumers credit score and will be visible for up to 25 months to anyone who does have a legitimate permissible purpose to view that consumer " s credit report

Any debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates should be prohibited from doing " hard pulls "

Making a " hard pull " on a debtor " s credit report could be a violation of the FDCPA in the privacy of the debtor.


Input: Filing suit in the state that the consumer lives in is the most practical. If a state has a large district there is nothing that can be done unless judges want to allow tele-conferencing,, or phone conferencing. However, if that is allowed it should be allowed for both sides provided the evidence of the debt is supplied to the court in advance.

Filing suit in the state that the consumer lives in is the most practical.

If a state has a large district there is nothing that can be done unless judges want to allow tele-conferencing,, or phone conferencing.

However, if that is allowed it should be allowed for both sides provided the evidence of the debt is supplied to the court in advance.


Input: Let' s remember that most debtors have had the original creditor from 2 to 4 collection agencies and the creditors attorneys office before a suit is ever filed. That process usually takes as much a 2 years or more. So it is difficult to think that the courts should make special accommodations for these individuals. Every person called into court has had many opportunities to have the debt validated or payment arrangements made prior to a default judgment. I do believe basic evidence should be supplied. This would be a statement or bill copy with a matching name of the consumer and proof of address at the time the debt was incurred. This proof of address could be provided by other confirming data available through skip tracing companies. There were significant problems with how debt buyers were allowed to file suit and receive default judgments with virtually no evidence. So improvements and consistency is needed in evidence but it should also not be expected to show every single bill copy.

Let' s remember that most debtors have had the original creditor from 2 to 4 collection agencies and the creditors attorneys office before a suit is ever filed.

That process usually takes as much a 2 years or more.

So it is difficult to think that the courts should make special accommodations for these individuals.

Every person called into court has had many opportunities to have the debt validated or payment arrangements made prior to a default judgment.

This would be a statement or bill copy with a matching name of the consumer and proof of address at the time the debt was incurred.

This proof of address could be provided by other confirming data available through skip tracing companies.

There were significant problems with how debt buyers were allowed to file suit and receive default judgments with virtually no evidence.

I do believe basic evidence should be supplied.

So improvements and consistency is needed in evidence but it should also not be expected to show every single bill copy.

So it is difficult to think that the courts should make special accommodations for these individuals.

Every person called into court has had many opportunities to have the debt validated or payment arrangements made prior to a default judgment.

Every person called into court has had many opportunities to have the debt validated or payment arrangements made prior to a default judgment.

Let' s remember that most debtors have had the original creditor from 2 to 4 collection agencies and the creditors attorneys office before a suit is ever filed.

Every person called into court has had many opportunities to have the debt validated or payment arrangements made prior to a default judgment.

That process usually takes as much a 2 years or more.

So improvements and consistency is needed in evidence but it should also not be expected to show every single bill copy.

There were significant problems with how debt buyers were allowed to file suit and receive default judgments with virtually no evidence.


Input: It is my companies practice to send a validation of debt notice to nearly all accounts placed. This is not required but a best practice. I also believe in most cases the original creditor provides notices to the consumer on their bill if they are going to be referred to collections. Also it is time to be realistic. Is it possible that a consumer is not notified of a transfer to collections? Yes. But that being said most if not all consumers know they have not paid their bill beyond 30 days and they could be sent to collections. It is time personal responsibility plaid a part in rule making and that the rules apply to the vast majority of circumstances instead of trying to account for the rare occurrences where the process does not work fully.

It is my companies practice to send a validation of debt notice to nearly all accounts placed.

This is not required but a best practice.

I also believe in most cases the original creditor provides notices to the consumer on their bill if they are going to be referred to collections.

Is it possible that a consumer is not notified of a transfer to collections?

Yes.

But that being said most if not all consumers know they have not paid their bill beyond 30 days and they could be sent to collections.

Also it is time to be realistic.

It is time personal responsibility plaid a part in rule making and that the rules apply to the vast majority of circumstances instead of trying to account for the rare occurrences where the process does not work fully.


Input: A simple solution to all of the hype about calling cells which is by far the most common means of contacting a consumer these days. Direct that all telecommunication companies offer a site that allows the agencies to register their phone numbers. If a call is placed to a consumer that does not have unlimited calling or testing then the charges are reversed to the registered phone agency.

A simple solution to all of the hype about calling cells which is by far the most common means of contacting a consumer these days.

Direct that all telecommunication companies offer a site that allows the agencies to register their phone numbers.

If a call is placed to a consumer that does not have unlimited calling or testing then the charges are reversed to the registered phone agency.


Input: I think the current limits are fine. The MA rules are too restrictive and frankly could be a disservice to the consumer who wants to try to resolve the debt. I do not believe in robo calling but do believe that preview dialing on an automated dialer system should not be prohibited as the agent still has to review the information on the account and push a button to allow the dial.

I think the current limits are fine.

The MA rules are too restrictive and frankly could be a disservice to the consumer who wants to try to resolve the debt.

I do not believe in robo calling but do believe that preview dialing on an automated dialer system should not be prohibited

as the agent still has to review the information on the account and push a button to allow the dial.

I do not believe in robo calling but do believe that preview dialing on an automated dialer system should not be prohibited

as the agent still has to review the information on the account and push a button to allow the dial.


Input: Someone keeps calling for a person named Sean, who does not live here and I don' t know anyone by that name. I tell them they have the wrong number, but they continue to call. They sometimes leave canned messages on my answering machine. I realize some debtors pretend not to be at the number being called, but these collectors need to verify the information so they don' t keep calling the wrong number. I don' t know if the debtor gave the wrong number intentionally, or this number was used by someone else before I got it. It is extremely irritating. And even though the callers do not say they are debt collectors, it is obvious.

Someone keeps calling for a person named Sean, who does not live here and I don' t know anyone by that name.

I tell them they have the wrong number, but they continue to call.

They sometimes leave canned messages on my answering machine.

I realize some debtors pretend not to be at the number being called,

so they don' t keep calling the wrong number.

but these collectors need to verify the information

I don' t know if the debtor gave the wrong number intentionally, or this number was used by someone else before I got it.

It is extremely irritating.

And even though the callers do not say they are debt collectors, it is obvious.

so they don' t keep calling the wrong number.

but these collectors need to verify the information


Input: Collectors are not calling me repeatedly because they don' t believe me. They are calling me repeatedly because there are so many people with the same last name as me and one of my initials. It is just as annoying to get frequent calls about different individuals as it is to get frequent calls about the same individual.

Collectors are not calling me repeatedly

because they don' t believe me.

It is just as annoying to get frequent calls about different individuals as it is to get frequent calls about the same individual.

They are calling me repeatedly

because there are so many people with the same last name as me and one of my initials.

Collectors are not calling me repeatedly

because they don' t believe me.

They are calling me repeatedly

because there are so many people with the same last name as me and one of my initials.


Input: I live in Georgia which seems to have laws that are very biased toward the debt owner. An example is the statutes of limitations for Mortgage debt. For instance, if the 1st lienholder forecloses, and you have a 2nd mortgage also, the 2nd remains in effect The OCGA states that the statute of limitations for any " debt instrument under seal ", is 20 years from the date of foreclosure. The 2nd lien can be sold over and over and the last one holding it can come after you for up to 20 years. In these times when houses are lost due to catastrophic illness, job loss and other situations that not due to the irresponsibility of the homeowner, legislation should be drafted to protect the consumer from financial ruin.

I live in Georgia which seems to have laws that are very biased toward the debt owner.

An example is the statutes of limitations for Mortgage debt.

For instance, if the 1st lienholder forecloses, and you have a 2nd mortgage also, the 2nd remains in effect

The OCGA states that the statute of limitations for any " debt instrument under seal ", is 20 years from the date of foreclosure.

The 2nd lien can be sold over and over

and the last one holding it can come after you for up to 20 years.

In these times when houses are lost due to catastrophic illness, job loss and other situations that not due to the irresponsibility of the homeowner, legislation should be drafted to protect the consumer from financial ruin.


Input: State regulations should preempt them from collecting exorbitant returns on such minimal investment (usury!!!). Other items to consider pertaining to this issue are: The bad debt buyer does not disclose what he/she purchased the bad debt for. This should be disclosed and transparent as they have the original debt information, including SSN, phone and financial information. I don' t begrudge them making a profit, but their predatory practices need to be regulated. A superior court judge should be able to examine the original transaction, all the documents concerning the purchase of this debt by a third party and determine a fair and equitable payment to resolve the problem, avoiding bankruptcy.

State regulations should preempt them from collecting exorbitant returns on such minimal investment (usury!!!).

This should be disclosed and transparent

but their predatory practices need to be regulated.

A superior court judge should be able to examine the original transaction,

all the documents concerning the purchase of this debt by a third party and determine a fair and equitable payment to resolve the problem, avoiding bankruptcy.

Other items to consider pertaining to this issue are: The bad debt

I don' t begrudge them making a profit,

buyer does not disclose what he/she purchased the bad debt for.

as they have the original debt information, including SSN, phone and financial information.

This should be disclosed and transparent

as they have the original debt information, including SSN, phone and financial information.


Input: I would like to see the CFPB address the issue of their " phishing " expeditions, i. e., trolling the phone listings and calling anyone with a similar name. I was listed by my initials, but with a common last name, I was getting daily calls from debt collectors until I switched my listing to a nickname. There are many comments on this site from people having the same problem, so it' s obviously a common practice. For some strange reason, the folks in the phone centers, react badly when I ask them to explain how my phone number ended up being programmed into their robo dialer. The usual response has been to hang up on me. I would also like to see the CFPB address the issue of repeated calls to the wrong person. If I' m not the person of interest on the first call, then I won' t be on any subsequent calls. In my experience with debt collectors, I have reached the conclusion that their are two reasons for repeatedly calling me: The people in the call centers are trained not to take No for an answer. By calling me repeatedly the debt collector is trying to wear me down and get me to pay a debt that isn' t mine just to get them to stop calling.

I would like to see the CFPB address the issue of their " phishing " expeditions, i. e., trolling the phone listings and calling anyone with a similar name.

I would also like to see the CFPB address the issue of repeated calls to the wrong person.

I was listed by my initials,

but with a common last name, I was getting daily calls from debt collectors until I switched my listing to a nickname.

For some strange reason, the folks in the phone centers, react badly when I ask them to explain how my phone number ended up being programmed into their robo dialer.

The usual response has been to hang up on me.

There are many comments on this site from people having the same problem,

The people in the call centers are trained not to take No for an answer.

so it' s obviously a common practice.

If I' m not the person of interest on the first call, then I won' t be on any subsequent calls.

In my experience with debt collectors, I have reached the conclusion that their are two reasons for repeatedly calling me:

By calling me repeatedly the debt collector is trying to wear me down and get me to pay a debt that isn' t mine just to get them to stop calling.

so it' s obviously a common practice.

There are many comments on this site from people having the same problem,

I would also like to see the CFPB address the issue of repeated calls to the wrong person.

If I' m not the person of interest on the first call, then I won' t be on any subsequent calls.


Input: I do think a " free to end user " would work and I don' t see any problems with using such a practice or service. It creates some fairness for the collection companies and will not charge the cell owner if they do not have unlimited calling.

I do think a " free to end user " would work

and I don' t see any problems with using such a practice or service.

It creates some fairness for the collection companies and will not charge the cell owner if they do not have unlimited calling.

I do think a " free to end user " would work

It creates some fairness for the collection companies and will not charge the cell owner if they do not have unlimited calling.


Input: Just to make my comment clear: I implied that the Free-to-end-user alternatives (if allowed to be used) need to be regulated so that they are not selling phone numbers and compromising the privacy of the consumers. My comment made it appear as though I think that the free texting apps (which allow people to text for free) and the free-to-end-user alternatives are the same thing. They are not. I don' t want the free-to-end-user alternatives to behave the same as free texting apps--selling phone numbers to Spammers.

Just to make my comment clear: I implied that the Free-to-end-user alternatives (if allowed to be used) need to be regulated

so that they are not selling phone numbers and compromising the privacy of the consumers.

My comment made it appear as though I think that the free texting apps (which allow people to text for free) and the free-to-end-user alternatives are the same thing.

I don' t want the free-to-end-user alternatives to behave the same as free texting apps--selling phone numbers to Spammers.

They are not.

Just to make my comment clear: I implied that the Free-to-end-user alternatives (if allowed to be used) need to be regulated

so that they are not selling phone numbers and compromising the privacy of the consumers.


Input: The Michigan program for handling NSF checks is outlined in Michigan statute (MCL 600. 2952). The statute provides the exact language to be used in the demand notice to the debtor but does not include the FDCPA Miranda language-which we add to the notice. We also send a copy of the dishonored check with the notice. The statute allows the debtor to pay the value of the check plus $25 is paid within 30 days of the notice, or $35 if paid thereafter. IF the creditor brings suit (after the first 30 days) they can sue for the value of the check, PLUS damages of 2 times the amount of the dishonored check PLUS $250 in costs. This may even be used in small claims court. It seems that the idea is to penalize those who pass bad checks such that merchants will be willing to accept checks from customers.

The Michigan program for handling NSF checks is outlined in Michigan statute (MCL 600. 2952).

The statute provides the exact language to be used in the demand notice to the debtor but does not include the FDCPA Miranda language-which we add to the notice.

We also send a copy of the dishonored check with the notice.

The statute allows the debtor to pay the value of the check plus $25 is paid within 30 days of the notice, or $35 if paid thereafter.

IF the creditor brings suit (after the first 30 days) they can sue for the value of the check, PLUS damages of 2 times the amount of the dishonored check PLUS $250 in costs.

This may even be used in small claims court.

It seems that the idea is to penalize those who pass bad checks such that merchants will be willing to accept checks from customers.


Input: The current validation notice is already too long--bordering on " boilerplate ". To add more language to this would confuse or intimidate the least sophisticated debtor and/or lead them to immediately ask that the creditor cease communication. The problem with that strategy is that it forces the creditor to file suit, thereby incurring court costs that will be added to the debt. Instead, debtors should be encouraged to communicate their questions & concerns to the collector who can then (after right-party verification) openly discuss the account & quite possibly answer the debtor' s question (s).

The current validation notice is already too long--bordering on " boilerplate ".

To add more language to this would confuse or intimidate the least sophisticated debtor and/or lead them to immediately ask that the creditor cease communication.

The problem with that strategy is that it forces the creditor to file suit, thereby incurring court costs that will be added to the debt.

Instead, debtors should be encouraged to communicate their questions & concerns to the collector who can then (after right-party verification) openly discuss the account & quite possibly answer the debtor' s question (s).


Input: As for medical collections, I very, very rarely see a legitimate dispute. Most often people are just trying to get the item removed from their credit or scare the collector with threats of FDCPA action. Many of the disputes we receive are copied directly from the internet and contain all kinds of demands for proof that are not required by any state or federal law OR even the rules of evidence during trial. CFPB really needs to address this issue and set a clear standard for what is (or is not) a legitimate dispute and how the collector should respond.

As for medical collections, I very, very rarely see a legitimate dispute.

Most often people are just trying to get the item removed from their credit or scare the collector with threats of FDCPA action.

Many of the disputes we receive are copied directly from the internet and contain all kinds of demands for proof that are not required by any state or federal law OR even the rules of evidence during trial.

CFPB really needs to address this issue and set a clear standard for what is (or is not) a legitimate dispute and how the collector should respond.

As for medical collections, I very, very rarely see a legitimate dispute.

Most often people are just trying to get the item removed from their credit or scare the collector with threats of FDCPA action.

As for medical collections, I very, very rarely see a legitimate dispute.

Many of the disputes we receive are copied directly from the internet and contain all kinds of demands for proof that are not required by any state or federal law OR even the rules of evidence during trial.

CFPB really needs to address this issue and set a clear standard for what is (or is not) a legitimate dispute and how the collector should respond.

As for medical collections, I very, very rarely see a legitimate dispute.

CFPB really needs to address this issue and set a clear standard for what is (or is not) a legitimate dispute and how the collector should respond.

Most often people are just trying to get the item removed from their credit or scare the collector with threats of FDCPA action.

CFPB really needs to address this issue and set a clear standard for what is (or is not) a legitimate dispute and how the collector should respond.

Many of the disputes we receive are copied directly from the internet and contain all kinds of demands for proof that are not required by any state or federal law OR even the rules of evidence during trial.


Input: We instruct our collectors to treat EVERY dispute the same--whether received in writing or over the phone and without regard to when it was received. Therefore, I agree that debtors should provide the information referenced in FCRA. The problem with FCRA disputes is the E-Oscar system that only affords the collector a couple options like " account information is accurate as of date reported " " this doesn' t even make sense as a response to the info provided by the debtor. If E-Oscar is going to be a valid " dispute " under FDCPA, that website needs some serious updating including making sure that disputes actually contain the information listed in CFR 1022. 43 (d) and allowing collectors to transmit the actual contract/itemized statements/etc back to the debtor.

We instruct our collectors to treat EVERY dispute the same--whether received in writing or over the phone and without regard to when it was received.

Therefore, I agree that debtors should provide the information referenced in FCRA.

If E-Oscar is going to be a valid " dispute " under FDCPA, that website needs some serious updating including making sure that disputes actually contain the information listed in CFR 1022. 43 (d) and allowing collectors to transmit the actual contract/itemized statements/etc back to the debtor.

The problem with FCRA disputes is the E-Oscar system that only affords the collector a couple options like " account information is accurate as of date reported " "

this doesn' t even make sense as a response to the info provided by the debtor.

Therefore, I agree that debtors should provide the information referenced in FCRA.

We instruct our collectors to treat EVERY dispute the same--whether received in writing or over the phone and without regard to when it was received.


Input: Any FTC rule regarding verification should absolutely include an exception for frivolous and irrelevant disputes because there are way too many websites out there providing sample dispute letters and the advice to keep using them that the process is abused by enough debtors that we now have a standard letter to address this issue.

Any FTC rule regarding verification should absolutely include an exception for frivolous and irrelevant disputes

because there are way too many websites out there providing sample dispute letters and the advice to keep using them that the process is abused by enough debtors that we now have a standard letter to address this issue.

Any FTC rule regarding verification should absolutely include an exception for frivolous and irrelevant disputes

because there are way too many websites out there providing sample dispute letters and the advice to keep using them that the process is abused by enough debtors that we now have a standard letter to address this issue.


Input: If our client (s) can' t provide any verification of the debt, we close the account and send the debtor a letter that we are doing so. Note: this has only happened once or twice in 20 years. an unresolved dispute account should NOT be sold. If so, seller should be liable.

If our client (s) can' t provide any verification of the debt, we close the account and send the debtor a letter that we are doing so.

Note: this has only happened once or twice in 20 years.

an unresolved dispute account should NOT be sold.

If so, seller should be liable.


Input: The problem is not with a form letter of dispute. The problem is that these websites and unreasonable letters lead unsophisticated debtors to believe that a creditor has to provide extraordinary proof that simply is not required.' stopwithspoofedcallerID' (if that IS your real name) is correct that no legitimate dispute should be ignored, regardless of the form, but nor should debtors be allowed to abuse the system by repeatedly asking for proofs that are not required.

The problem is not with a form letter of dispute.

The problem is that these websites and unreasonable letters lead unsophisticated debtors to believe that a creditor has to provide extraordinary proof that simply is not required.

' stopwithspoofedcallerID' (if that IS your real name) is correct that no legitimate dispute should be ignored, regardless of the form, but nor should debtors be allowed to abuse the system by repeatedly asking for proofs that are not required.


Input: I think the " unless " part of the rule about contacting a person more than once should be scrapped. They should not be allowed to contact anyone (other than the debtor him/herself) more than once. If the person (usually the innocent family member) they contact to try to locate the debtor is willing to give out contact info, fine. If not, whether they have it or not is beside the point. They should not be forced in the middle. It is not their debt, or in any way their responsibility. And when collectors claim they can' t give their name or a return phone number to be passed on because of privacy reasons, how can they expect someone else to share personal contact info with a stranger?

I think the " unless " part of the rule about contacting a person more than once should be scrapped.

They should not be allowed to contact anyone (other than the debtor him/herself) more than once.

They should not be forced in the middle.

If the person (usually the innocent family member) they contact to try to locate the debtor is willing to give out contact info, fine.

If not, whether they have it or not is beside the point.

It is not their debt, or in any way their responsibility.

And when collectors claim they can' t give their name or a return phone number to be passed on because of privacy reasons, how can they expect someone else to share personal contact info with a stranger?

They should not be forced in the middle.

It is not their debt, or in any way their responsibility.


Input: I' m not sure a registration system for debt collectors really addresses the issue. I' m not exactly sure how the registration system would operate. In MA, consumers can check online to see whether a debt collector is licensed to practice in the state, many just don' t know about the website or on a more basic level don' t know that the debt collector has no right to try to collect from them. Is the registration system meant to displace state laws requiring licensing of debt collectors in the individual states? I hope that' s not the case since states have a strong interest in regulating debt collectors for the protection of its consumers.

I' m not sure a registration system for debt collectors really addresses the issue.

I' m not exactly sure how the registration system would operate.

many just don' t know about the website or on a more basic level don' t know that the debt collector has no right to try to collect from them.

Is the registration system meant to displace state laws requiring licensing of debt collectors in the individual states?

I hope that' s not the case

since states have a strong interest in regulating debt collectors for the protection of its consumers.

In MA, consumers can check online to see whether a debt collector is licensed to practice in the state,

I' m not sure a registration system for debt collectors really addresses the issue.

I' m not exactly sure how the registration system would operate.

I hope that' s not the case

since states have a strong interest in regulating debt collectors for the protection of its consumers.


Input: There are still too often abuses by debt collectors in regard to time-barred debts. Zombie debt collectors who use partial payments, acknowledgement of the debt in writing, or other tactics are effectively hard-wiring around the laws having to do with the statute of limitations. I have witnessed situations where consumers were effectively tricked into setting up a series of payments on a long time-barred debt. Collectors continue to take advantage of consumers for whom ESL and also those who are unsophisticated and possibly naive.

There are still too often abuses by debt collectors in regard to time-barred debts.

Zombie debt collectors who use partial payments, acknowledgement of the debt in writing, or other tactics are effectively hard-wiring around the laws having to do with the statute of limitations.

I have witnessed situations where consumers were effectively tricked into setting up a series of payments on a long time-barred debt.

Collectors continue to take advantage of consumers for whom ESL and also those who are unsophisticated and possibly naive.

Zombie debt collectors who use partial payments, acknowledgement of the debt in writing, or other tactics are effectively hard-wiring around the laws having to do with the statute of limitations.

I have witnessed situations where consumers were effectively tricked into setting up a series of payments on a long time-barred debt.

There are still too often abuses by debt collectors in regard to time-barred debts.

Zombie debt collectors who use partial payments, acknowledgement of the debt in writing, or other tactics are effectively hard-wiring around the laws having to do with the statute of limitations.


Input: Given the highly coercive consequences of having negative information reported to or by CRAs on consumer credit reports, I think it is reasonable that a debt not be deemed " verified " or " substantiated " unless and until there' s a final non-appealable order, but only in circumstances where the consumer has timely disputed the existence or the amount of the debt. Currently, if you dispute a debt, the debt collector reports you to the CRAs and your credit standing is adversely impacted; i. e., the damage is already done at that point. In other words, the notation on the credit report that the debt is disputed by the consumer is largely ignored by potential lenders, employers, landlords, etc. Thus, disputing the debt does nothing to prevent harm to the consumer. The debt collector and creditor threaten to report you to the CRAs as a coercive tactic to force you to pay a debt even though you might legitimately not owe the debt or the amount claimed to be owed. As for my proposal, I do not think this will lead to more litigation. Just the opposite. If a consumer doesn' t timely dispute the debt, then the debt can be deemed verified or substantiated. If, however, the debt is timely disputed, creditors and debt collectors will have to evaluate whether to initiate litigation and weigh the likelihood of prevailing at trial and this may cause creditors and debt collectors to be more judicious about which debts to take to trial. This proposal would also protect consumers from having their credit standing negatively impacted until after it is conclusively determined that a purported debt that is disputed is in fact owed and the amount of such debt is conclusively determined. As an alternative to my initial proposal, a rule could be adopted that would impose significant statutory penalties, treble damanages and recovery of attorney' s fees against creditors, debt collectors and CRAs in the event the consumer can prove either the disputed debt doesn' t exist or the amount of the debt is less than that claimed to be owed. This approach, however, places the burden of proof on the consumer and I feel strongly that the burden of proof should be on the creditors and debt collectors to affirmatively prove the existence and amount of any disputed debt before a consumer' s credit report is adversely impacted.

Given the highly coercive consequences of having negative information reported to or by CRAs on consumer credit reports, I think it is reasonable that a debt not be deemed " verified " or " substantiated " unless and until there' s a final non-appealable order, but only in circumstances where the consumer has timely disputed the existence or the amount of the debt.

and I feel strongly that the burden of proof should be on the creditors and debt collectors to affirmatively prove the existence and amount of any disputed debt before a consumer' s credit report is adversely impacted.

Currently, if you dispute a debt, the debt collector reports you to the CRAs

and your credit standing is adversely impacted; i. e., the damage is already done at that point.

In other words, the notation on the credit report that the debt is disputed by the consumer is largely ignored by potential lenders, employers, landlords, etc.

Thus, disputing the debt does nothing to prevent harm to the consumer.

The debt collector and creditor threaten to report you to the CRAs as a coercive tactic to force you to pay a debt

even though you might legitimately not owe the debt or the amount claimed to be owed.

As for my proposal, I do not think this will lead to more litigation. Just the opposite.

If a consumer doesn' t timely dispute the debt, then the debt can be deemed verified or substantiated.

If, however, the debt is timely disputed, creditors and debt collectors will have to evaluate whether to initiate litigation and weigh the likelihood of prevailing at trial

and this may cause creditors and debt collectors to be more judicious about which debts to take to trial.

This proposal would also protect consumers from having their credit standing negatively impacted until after it is conclusively determined that a purported debt that is disputed is in fact owed and the amount of such debt is conclusively determined.

As an alternative to my initial proposal, a rule could be adopted that would impose significant statutory penalties, treble damanages and recovery of attorney' s fees against creditors, debt collectors and CRAs in the event the consumer can prove either the disputed debt doesn' t exist or the amount of the debt is less than that claimed to be owed.

This approach, however, places the burden of proof on the consumer

Given the highly coercive consequences of having negative information reported to or by CRAs on consumer credit reports, I think it is reasonable that a debt not be deemed " verified " or " substantiated " unless and until there' s a final non-appealable order, but only in circumstances where the consumer has timely disputed the existence or the amount of the debt.

As for my proposal, I do not think this will lead to more litigation. Just the opposite.

Thus, disputing the debt does nothing to prevent harm to the consumer.

Currently, if you dispute a debt, the debt collector reports you to the CRAs

Thus, disputing the debt does nothing to prevent harm to the consumer.

In other words, the notation on the credit report that the debt is disputed by the consumer is largely ignored by potential lenders, employers, landlords, etc.

As for my proposal, I do not think this will lead to more litigation. Just the opposite.

If a consumer doesn' t timely dispute the debt, then the debt can be deemed verified or substantiated.

As for my proposal, I do not think this will lead to more litigation. Just the opposite.

If, however, the debt is timely disputed, creditors and debt collectors will have to evaluate whether to initiate litigation and weigh the likelihood of prevailing at trial

As for my proposal, I do not think this will lead to more litigation. Just the opposite.

and this may cause creditors and debt collectors to be more judicious about which debts to take to trial.


Input: Once the consumer is located then nearbys, neighbors, relatives, prior used phone numbers may be abused by collectors to harass and embarrass consumers, or even to compel a relative or other third party to pay the debt. Violations of the FDCPA should be treated as serious breaches of law.

Once the consumer is located then nearbys, neighbors, relatives, prior used phone numbers may be abused by collectors to harass and embarrass consumers, or even to compel a relative or other third party to pay the debt.

Violations of the FDCPA should be treated as serious breaches of law.

Violations of the FDCPA should be treated as serious breaches of law.

Once the consumer is located then nearbys, neighbors, relatives, prior used phone numbers may be abused by collectors to harass and embarrass consumers, or even to compel a relative or other third party to pay the debt.


Input: Minors are not normally eligible to enter contracts or take on the obligation of credit arrangements, so this would seem necessarily rare. Regardless, every effort should be made and maintained to protect consumers from mistaken disclosure of personal business.

Minors are not normally eligible to enter contracts or take on the obligation of credit arrangements,

so this would seem necessarily rare.

Regardless, every effort should be made and maintained to protect consumers from mistaken disclosure of personal business.

so this would seem necessarily rare.

Minors are not normally eligible to enter contracts or take on the obligation of credit arrangements,


Input: I would like to see strict regulation of the so-called " skip-trace " vendors. These are the companies that debt collectors and others hire to provide them with contact information. From my own personal experience (common last name, many debt collectors after me), I can say that I believe that I' m at the mercy of these vendors. They gather all sorts of information about people without verifying any of it, as far as I can tell. One debt collector told my state' s Attorney General that they hired one of these vendors who provided my phone number as a valid contact for someone with my last name and first initial. This person was a stranger to me, but the debt collector wanted me to pay the debt. I think that these vendors should be strictly regulated and use a research tool other then the phone book to gather their information. They should not be able to provide " valid " information unless it really is valid.

I would like to see strict regulation of the so-called " skip-trace " vendors.

These are the companies that debt collectors and others hire to provide them with contact information.

From my own personal experience (common last name, many debt collectors after me), I can say that I believe that I' m at the mercy of these vendors.

This person was a stranger to me,

but the debt collector wanted me to pay the debt.

They gather all sorts of information about people without verifying any of it, as far as I can tell.

One debt collector told my state' s Attorney General that they hired one of these vendors who provided my phone number as a valid contact for someone with my last name and first initial.

I think that these vendors should be strictly regulated and use a research tool other then the phone book to gather their information.

They should not be able to provide " valid " information unless it really is valid.

They gather all sorts of information about people without verifying any of it, as far as I can tell.

One debt collector told my state' s Attorney General that they hired one of these vendors who provided my phone number as a valid contact for someone with my last name and first initial.

They gather all sorts of information about people without verifying any of it, as far as I can tell.

This person was a stranger to me,

They gather all sorts of information about people without verifying any of it, as far as I can tell.

but the debt collector wanted me to pay the debt.

I would like to see strict regulation of the so-called " skip-trace " vendors.

From my own personal experience (common last name, many debt collectors after me), I can say that I believe that I' m at the mercy of these vendors.

I would like to see strict regulation of the so-called " skip-trace " vendors.

They gather all sorts of information about people without verifying any of it, as far as I can tell.

From my own personal experience (common last name, many debt collectors after me), I can say that I believe that I' m at the mercy of these vendors.

They gather all sorts of information about people without verifying any of it, as far as I can tell.

I think that these vendors should be strictly regulated and use a research tool other then the phone book to gather their information.

From my own personal experience (common last name, many debt collectors after me), I can say that I believe that I' m at the mercy of these vendors.

I think that these vendors should be strictly regulated and use a research tool other then the phone book to gather their information.

They should not be able to provide " valid " information unless it really is valid.


Input: Unless and until debt collection practices have greater transparency for consumers there will be abuses and misunderstandings regarding legal liability. It' s too much a pat answer to say consumers should seek legal advice. Collectors should be required to say with a certain level of supported certainty whether the debt is valid or not. Collectors should not be allowed to rely merely on a borrower' s " moral obligation " to repay the debt. Financially disadvantaged, naive, and gullible consumers, and specifically those individuals on fixed, limited incomes, i. e., older Americans, ESL citizens, etc. are especially vulnerable.

Unless and until debt collection practices have greater transparency for consumers there will be abuses and misunderstandings regarding legal liability.

It' s too much a pat answer to say consumers should seek legal advice.

Financially disadvantaged, naive, and gullible consumers, and specifically those individuals on fixed, limited incomes, i. e., older Americans, ESL citizens, etc. are especially vulnerable.

Collectors should be required to say with a certain level of supported certainty whether the debt is valid or not.

Collectors should not be allowed to rely merely on a borrower' s " moral obligation " to repay the debt.

Collectors should be required to say with a certain level of supported certainty whether the debt is valid or not.

It' s too much a pat answer to say consumers should seek legal advice.

Collectors should be required to say with a certain level of supported certainty whether the debt is valid or not.

Collectors should not be allowed to rely merely on a borrower' s " moral obligation " to repay the debt.

Collectors should not be allowed to rely merely on a borrower' s " moral obligation " to repay the debt.

Financially disadvantaged, naive, and gullible consumers, and specifically those individuals on fixed, limited incomes, i. e., older Americans, ESL citizens, etc. are especially vulnerable.


Input: In the case of medical debt, the statement should inform the consumer of the date and location of the service provided, including the name of the doctor who was in charge of the case (rather than a consultant or firm that never contacted the consumer) or the commonly used name of the location (such as a hospital or clinic) where the service was performed. In my experience, cost-conscious consumers who are wary of scams have declined to pay legitimate medical debt because they did not recognize the debt and could not get an answer to the basic question, " Why do I owe this money? " When the debt is unexplained, it is prudent to refuse to send money, yet when the debt is in fact legitimate, the consumer may suffer severe penalties for failure to pay. A validation notice for medical debt should not simply repeat numerical codes or obscure abbreviations. It should state, " You were billed on (DATE) when you went to (PLACE). " If other debts related to the same visit have been paid, the letter should say so, e. g., " You already paid for other services during this visit, but you still owe... " Or, " Your insurance paid for some of the costs of this visit, but you still owe.... " This issue is related to the absurd complexities of medical billing, but those complexities should not be used to conceal the origin of a debt from a consumer.

In the case of medical debt, the statement should inform the consumer of the date and location of the service provided, including the name of the doctor who was in charge of the case (rather than a consultant or firm that never contacted the consumer) or the commonly used name of the location (such as a hospital or clinic) where the service was performed.

A validation notice for medical debt should not simply repeat numerical codes or obscure abbreviations.

It should state, " You were billed on (DATE) when you went to (PLACE). "

If other debts related to the same visit have been paid, the letter should say so, e. g., " You already paid for other services during this visit, but you still owe... " Or, " Your insurance paid for some of the costs of this visit, but you still owe.... "

but those complexities should not be used to conceal the origin of a debt from a consumer.

In my experience, cost-conscious consumers who are wary of scams have declined to pay legitimate medical debt

because they did not recognize the debt and could not get an answer to the basic question, " Why do I owe this money? "

When the debt is unexplained, it is prudent to refuse to send money,

yet when the debt is in fact legitimate, the consumer may suffer severe penalties for failure to pay.

This issue is related to the absurd complexities of medical billing,

In the case of medical debt, the statement should inform the consumer of the date and location of the service provided, including the name of the doctor who was in charge of the case (rather than a consultant or firm that never contacted the consumer) or the commonly used name of the location (such as a hospital or clinic) where the service was performed.

In my experience, cost-conscious consumers who are wary of scams have declined to pay legitimate medical debt

In the case of medical debt, the statement should inform the consumer of the date and location of the service provided, including the name of the doctor who was in charge of the case (rather than a consultant or firm that never contacted the consumer) or the commonly used name of the location (such as a hospital or clinic) where the service was performed.

because they did not recognize the debt and could not get an answer to the basic question, " Why do I owe this money? "

It should state, " You were billed on (DATE) when you went to (PLACE). "

A validation notice for medical debt should not simply repeat numerical codes or obscure abbreviations.


Input: Information about the source of the debt (such as the date of the service) can be provided without infringing on the patient' s privacy. No one should be asked to pay a debt without first being told why they owe the money. This is esp. true of medical debts, which are notoriously complex and apparently redundant, with many charges occurring on the same occasion.

Information about the source of the debt (such as the date of the service) can be provided without infringing on the patient' s privacy.

This is esp. true of medical debts,

which are notoriously complex and apparently redundant, with many charges occurring on the same occasion.

No one should be asked to pay a debt without first being told why they owe the money.

No one should be asked to pay a debt without first being told why they owe the money.

Information about the source of the debt (such as the date of the service) can be provided without infringing on the patient' s privacy.

This is esp. true of medical debts,

which are notoriously complex and apparently redundant, with many charges occurring on the same occasion.


Input: If this is an area that the CFPB is interested in regulating, I believe it will be necessary to initiate cooperative actions with local State judiciaries. Because the CFPB is a federal agency, it doesn' t have authority to tell State governments (including the judicial branch) how to operate or how to interpret its own law. Since some states are already taking steps in this direction (like New York), it is likely that the CFPB would find positive reception toward this effort. But trying to accomplish change through federal rulemaking is not an option in this particular area.

If this is an area that the CFPB is interested in regulating, I believe it will be necessary to initiate cooperative actions with local State judiciaries.

Since some states are already taking steps in this direction (like New York),

it is likely that the CFPB would find positive reception toward this effort.

But trying to accomplish change through federal rulemaking is not an option in this particular area.

Because the CFPB is a federal agency,

it doesn' t have authority to tell State governments (including the judicial branch) how to operate or how to interpret its own law.

If this is an area that the CFPB is interested in regulating, I believe it will be necessary to initiate cooperative actions with local State judiciaries.

it doesn' t have authority to tell State governments (including the judicial branch) how to operate or how to interpret its own law.

it doesn' t have authority to tell State governments (including the judicial branch) how to operate or how to interpret its own law.

Because the CFPB is a federal agency,

it is likely that the CFPB would find positive reception toward this effort.

Since some states are already taking steps in this direction (like New York),


Input: I have never applied for credit in any way other by paper application, and everyone I have ever owed money to has tons of paperwork. I don' t know how it works when you apply electronically, but what' s to prevent someone from saying they are owed money? The burden of proof is going to have to be on the creditor, and if they aren' t getting paper signatures, they' d better have some pretty good proof otherwise. Meanwhile, if you say they wouldn' t lie about it, I would love to sell you my ocean front property in Nebraska.

I have never applied for credit in any way other by paper application,

and everyone I have ever owed money to has tons of paperwork.

I don' t know how it works when you apply electronically,

but what' s to prevent someone from saying they are owed money?

The burden of proof is going to have to be on the creditor,

and if they aren' t getting paper signatures, they' d better have some pretty good proof otherwise.

Meanwhile, if you say they wouldn' t lie about it, I would love to sell you my ocean front property in Nebraska.

I don' t know how it works when you apply electronically,

I have never applied for credit in any way other by paper application,

I don' t know how it works when you apply electronically,

and everyone I have ever owed money to has tons of paperwork.

The burden of proof is going to have to be on the creditor,

but what' s to prevent someone from saying they are owed money?


Input: While Alternative 1 seems simplest, there are hidden complications. Who defines what " principal " means? With revolving credit accounts, interest accrues (as finance charges) and is rolled into the balance. So does " principal " mean only the part of the balance that was charged by the cardholder (very difficult, if not impossible, for a collector to calculate) or the total charged off amount? I understand that it can be difficult when dealing with different kinds of debts. But I don' t think this option will work for a large portion of consumer debt. Alternative 2 doesn' t work because who defines when a consumer " defaults " on an account? Many of us have missed a payment here or there, but we get back on track. So it' s too ambiguous. That leaves Alternative 3 as the most feasible, but what about accounts that never had a periodic statement or billing statement? I propose breaking down the total amount by stating the amount owed on the last statement issued by the original creditor, or, if no statement was ever issued, the original amount of the debt when incurred, and then an itemization of all debits and credits applied since that balance.

While Alternative 1 seems simplest,

there are hidden complications.

Who defines what " principal " means?

So does " principal " mean only the part of the balance that was charged by the cardholder (very difficult, if not impossible, for a collector to calculate) or the total charged off amount?

I understand that it can be difficult when dealing with different kinds of debts.

But I don' t think this option will work for a large portion of consumer debt.

Alternative 2 doesn' t work

because who defines when a consumer " defaults " on an account?

but we get back on track.

So it' s too ambiguous.

That leaves Alternative 3 as the most feasible,

but what about accounts that never had a periodic statement or billing statement?

With revolving credit accounts, interest accrues (as finance charges) and is rolled into the balance.

Many of us have missed a payment here or there,

I propose breaking down the total amount by stating the amount owed on the last statement issued by the original creditor, or, if no statement was ever issued, the original amount of the debt when incurred, and then an itemization of all debits and credits applied since that balance.

there are hidden complications.

With revolving credit accounts, interest accrues (as finance charges) and is rolled into the balance.

So does " principal " mean only the part of the balance that was charged by the cardholder (very difficult, if not impossible, for a collector to calculate) or the total charged off amount?

With revolving credit accounts, interest accrues (as finance charges) and is rolled into the balance.

Alternative 2 doesn' t work

So it' s too ambiguous.

Alternative 2 doesn' t work

because who defines when a consumer " defaults " on an account?

So it' s too ambiguous.

Many of us have missed a payment here or there,

So it' s too ambiguous.

but we get back on track.

That leaves Alternative 3 as the most feasible,

But I don' t think this option will work for a large portion of consumer debt.

That leaves Alternative 3 as the most feasible,

Alternative 2 doesn' t work


Input: The case law related to this portion of the FDCPA has made it risky for collectors to include anything other than exactly what the FDCPA says. However, I don' t think the law, as written, is easy to understand. For example-the first sentence says unless you dispute the debt, it will be considered valid (" dispute " and " valid " aren' t defined), but then goes on to say what the creditor will do if you notify them in writing. So if the consumer only disputes verbally, what rights do they have, if any? I think the law should be clarified, and then I think the CFPB should create a uniform " Summary of Consumer Rights " that can be required to be included with all initial letters from collectors. That way, debt collectors don' t have to worry about overshadowing and trying to fit everything onto one page, or with the tricky area of providing legal advice by interpreting the FDCPA for the consumer. Also, consumers can get a consistent message from all collectors. If there is a concern about it being separate from the initial letter from the collector, there can be a mandatory one-line disclosure providing a link to a CFPB website with that Summary of Consumer Rights.

The case law related to this portion of the FDCPA has made it risky for collectors to include anything other than exactly what the FDCPA says.

However, I don' t think the law, as written, is easy to understand.

So if the consumer only disputes verbally, what rights do they have, if any?

That way, debt collectors don' t have to worry about overshadowing and trying to fit everything onto one page, or with the tricky area of providing legal advice by interpreting the FDCPA for the consumer.

Also, consumers can get a consistent message from all collectors.

If there is a concern about it being separate from the initial letter from the collector, there can be a mandatory one-line disclosure providing a link to a CFPB website with that Summary of Consumer Rights.

For example-the first sentence says unless you dispute the debt, it will be considered valid (" dispute " and " valid " aren' t defined), but then goes on to say what the creditor will do if you notify them in writing.

I think the law should be clarified,

and then I think the CFPB should create a uniform " Summary of Consumer Rights " that can be required to be included with all initial letters from collectors.

However, I don' t think the law, as written, is easy to understand.

For example-the first sentence says unless you dispute the debt, it will be considered valid (" dispute " and " valid " aren' t defined), but then goes on to say what the creditor will do if you notify them in writing.

However, I don' t think the law, as written, is easy to understand.

So if the consumer only disputes verbally, what rights do they have, if any?

So if the consumer only disputes verbally, what rights do they have, if any?

For example-the first sentence says unless you dispute the debt, it will be considered valid (" dispute " and " valid " aren' t defined), but then goes on to say what the creditor will do if you notify them in writing.

I think the law should be clarified,

However, I don' t think the law, as written, is easy to understand.

and then I think the CFPB should create a uniform " Summary of Consumer Rights " that can be required to be included with all initial letters from collectors.

That way, debt collectors don' t have to worry about overshadowing and trying to fit everything onto one page, or with the tricky area of providing legal advice by interpreting the FDCPA for the consumer.

and then I think the CFPB should create a uniform " Summary of Consumer Rights " that can be required to be included with all initial letters from collectors.

Also, consumers can get a consistent message from all collectors.


Input: This proposed rulemaking is not about credit reporting. I understand that people have significant concerns about their credit reports. But that belongs in a reform of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, not the FDCPA. Inserting credit reporting rules into the FDCPA would make things difficult for debt collectors who don' t report to credit reporting agencies at all.

This proposed rulemaking is not about credit reporting.

I understand that people have significant concerns about their credit reports.

But that belongs in a reform of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, not the FDCPA.

Inserting credit reporting rules into the FDCPA would make things difficult for debt collectors who don' t report to credit reporting agencies at all.

But that belongs in a reform of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, not the FDCPA.

Inserting credit reporting rules into the FDCPA would make things difficult for debt collectors who don' t report to credit reporting agencies at all.


Input: I think it would. I work for an attorney at a debt collection law firm and I think this would make things a lot easier and simpler.

I think it would.

and I think this would make things a lot easier and simpler.

I work for an attorney at a debt collection law firm


Input: Credit bureaus are responsible for 95% of identity theft and inaccurate consumer credit files. It' s because their revenue comes from businesses who pay for access to their databases including phony ones. I have a letter from a credit bureau that says the only thing they do to investigate/verify accuracy is ask the entity that initially reported the information if it' s true. New rules have to put tighter restrictions and procedures on credit bureaus because they are the root of the actual problem. Secondly, because they are private companies who should not be able to collect or retain any financial information without consumers permission. Submission of proof of debt or other evidence/documents should be required. Retention of the identity of the actual [business] persons reporting the account information should be required. Credit bureaus and debt collectors should not be allowed to sell lists of accounts especially after the accounts are disputed. One creditor, one debt collector. All debt collectors should be required to register on a national database, including phone numbers, that' s publicly available online which they must update within 5 business days regarding any changes. All lawyers should not be banned from becoming debt collectors. Here is a a group of people that are trained, licensed in their State, but they lie to circumvent the law and the courts. At the heart of the mortgage fiasco were unethical lawyers who acted strictly for greed. None of them were prosecuted or disbarred because they hid themselves as representing lenders.

Credit bureaus are responsible for 95% of identity theft and inaccurate consumer credit files.

Here is a a group of people that are trained, licensed in their State,

None of them were prosecuted or disbarred

It' s because their revenue comes from businesses who pay for access to their databases including phony ones.

because they are the root of the actual problem.

but they lie to circumvent the law and the courts.

At the heart of the mortgage fiasco were unethical lawyers who acted strictly for greed.

because they hid themselves as representing lenders.

I have a letter from a credit bureau that says the only thing they do to investigate/verify accuracy is ask the entity that initially reported the information if it' s true.

New rules have to put tighter restrictions and procedures on credit bureaus

Secondly, because they are private companies who should not be able to collect or retain any financial information without consumers permission.

Submission of proof of debt or other evidence/documents should be required.

Retention of the identity of the actual [business] persons reporting the account information should be required.

Credit bureaus and debt collectors should not be allowed to sell lists of accounts especially after the accounts are disputed. One creditor, one debt collector.

All debt collectors should be required to register on a national database, including phone numbers, that' s publicly available online which they must update within 5 business days regarding any changes.

All lawyers should not be banned from becoming debt collectors.

Credit bureaus are responsible for 95% of identity theft and inaccurate consumer credit files.

It' s because their revenue comes from businesses who pay for access to their databases including phony ones.

New rules have to put tighter restrictions and procedures on credit bureaus

because they are the root of the actual problem.

New rules have to put tighter restrictions and procedures on credit bureaus

Secondly, because they are private companies who should not be able to collect or retain any financial information without consumers permission.

None of them were prosecuted or disbarred

because they hid themselves as representing lenders.