Input: State and local court rules sometimes make default judgments much more likely. For example, when a person who allegedly owes a debt is told to come to court on a work day, they may be forced to choose between a default judgment and their job. I urge the CFPB to find practices that involve scheduling hearings at inconvenient times unfair, deceptive, and abusive, or inconsistent with 1692i.

State and local court rules sometimes make default judgments much more likely.

For example, when a person who allegedly owes a debt is told to come to court on a work day, they may be forced to choose between a default judgment and their job.

I urge the CFPB to find practices that involve scheduling hearings at inconvenient times unfair, deceptive, and abusive, or inconsistent with 1692i.

State and local court rules sometimes make default judgments much more likely.

For example, when a person who allegedly owes a debt is told to come to court on a work day, they may be forced to choose between a default judgment and their job.

I urge the CFPB to find practices that involve scheduling hearings at inconvenient times unfair, deceptive, and abusive, or inconsistent with 1692i.

State and local court rules sometimes make default judgments much more likely.


Input: There is currently a split between the Ninth and First Circuits as to whether 1692i and other FDCPA provisions apply in garnishment proceedings. In many states, the nominal defendant is the judgment debtor' s employer, but the judgment debtor is the real party in interest. To allow consumers to better assert the defenses to and exemptions from garnishment available under state law, the CFPB should issue a rule applying 1692i to garnishment proceedings.

There is currently a split between the Ninth and First Circuits as to whether 1692i and other FDCPA provisions apply in garnishment proceedings.

In many states, the nominal defendant is the judgment debtor' s employer,

but the judgment debtor is the real party in interest.

To allow consumers to better assert the defenses to and exemptions from garnishment available under state law, the CFPB should issue a rule applying 1692i to garnishment proceedings.

To allow consumers to better assert the defenses to and exemptions from garnishment available under state law, the CFPB should issue a rule applying 1692i to garnishment proceedings.

There is currently a split between the Ninth and First Circuits as to whether 1692i and other FDCPA provisions apply in garnishment proceedings.


Input: In many districts where bad check diversion programs exist, there is anecdotal evidence that the companies administering the programs threaten with prosecution individuals who do not come within the state' s bad check law for example, checks that bounce due to printing errors, checks for which there were funds available when written but not when presented, and individuals who pay the amount due by other means within grace periods permitted by state law. The CFPB should ensure that bad check diversion programs have a realistic means of ensuring that only individuals realistically subject to prosecution are targeted, and should also require that, in order to qualify for the 1692p safe harbor, diversion programs prohibit misleading communications and misstatements of state bad check law.

In many districts where bad check diversion programs exist, there is anecdotal evidence that the companies administering the programs threaten with prosecution individuals who do not come within the state' s bad check law

for example, checks that bounce due to printing errors, checks for which there were funds available when written but not when presented, and individuals who pay the amount due by other means within grace periods permitted by state law.

The CFPB should ensure that bad check diversion programs have a realistic means of ensuring that only individuals realistically subject to prosecution are targeted,

and should also require that, in order to qualify for the 1692p safe harbor, diversion programs prohibit misleading communications and misstatements of state bad check law.

The CFPB should ensure that bad check diversion programs have a realistic means of ensuring that only individuals realistically subject to prosecution are targeted,

In many districts where bad check diversion programs exist, there is anecdotal evidence that the companies administering the programs threaten with prosecution individuals who do not come within the state' s bad check law


Input: Consumer attorneys occasionally advise their clients not to record unlawful communications due to state laws requiring both parties' consent for recording. The CFPB should require that debt collectors subject to the FDCPA impliedly consent to recording by consumers.

Consumer attorneys occasionally advise their clients not to record unlawful communications due to state laws requiring both parties' consent for recording.

The CFPB should require that debt collectors subject to the FDCPA impliedly consent to recording by consumers.

The CFPB should require that debt collectors subject to the FDCPA impliedly consent to recording by consumers.

Consumer attorneys occasionally advise their clients not to record unlawful communications due to state laws requiring both parties' consent for recording.


Input: When an attorney is a' Debt Collector' (as per their own documents) and not legally considered a' Collection Agency' the attorney is not held accountable for consumer protection law violations (both local and federal) within civil court. This loop hole needs to be addressed. The attorneys/debt collectors are not monitored by the state bar because it is a collection practice (the attorneys buy old debt and then collect upon that debt in civil court and the state and federal civil courts are not monitoring the attorneys because it is an attorneys office and not considered a collection agency-even though the attorneys buy old debt then take alleged debtors to civil court. I personally know of a very large attorney agency in Washington State that even gives classes thru the Washington state bar to other attorneys because it is a easy caseload to win.

When an attorney is a' Debt Collector' (as per their own documents) and not legally considered a' Collection Agency' the attorney is not held accountable for consumer protection law violations (both local and federal) within civil court.

The attorneys/debt collectors are not monitored by the state bar

because it is a collection practice

(the attorneys buy old debt and then collect upon that debt in civil court

and the state and federal civil courts are not monitoring the attorneys

because it is an attorneys office and not considered a collection agency

-even though the attorneys buy old debt then take alleged debtors to civil court.

This loop hole needs to be addressed.

I personally know of a very large attorney agency in Washington State that even gives classes thru the Washington state bar to other attorneys

because it is a easy caseload to win.

The attorneys/debt collectors are not monitored by the state bar

because it is a collection practice

and the state and federal civil courts are not monitoring the attorneys

because it is an attorneys office and not considered a collection agency

I personally know of a very large attorney agency in Washington State that even gives classes thru the Washington state bar to other attorneys

because it is a easy caseload to win.


Input: There is currently dispute among federal district and circuit courts as to whether a post-default assignee of a debt comes within the creditor exception. The CFPB should issue a rule providing that a post-default assignee is a collector for FDCPA purposes.

There is currently dispute among federal district and circuit courts as to whether a post-default assignee of a debt comes within the creditor exception.

The CFPB should issue a rule providing that a post-default assignee is a collector for FDCPA purposes.

The CFPB should issue a rule providing that a post-default assignee is a collector for FDCPA purposes.

There is currently dispute among federal district and circuit courts as to whether a post-default assignee of a debt comes within the creditor exception.


Input: The FDCPA contains an exception for creditors. The CFPB should include in any rule confirmation that the same practices prohibited for collectors under the FDCPA would be unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices if done by a creditor.

The FDCPA contains an exception for creditors.

The CFPB should include in any rule confirmation that the same practices prohibited for collectors under the FDCPA would be unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices if done by a creditor.

The CFPB should include in any rule confirmation that the same practices prohibited for collectors under the FDCPA would be unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices if done by a creditor.

The FDCPA contains an exception for creditors.


Input: Assignments without notice could lead to consumers paying the wrong person. The CFPB should encourage proper notice by ruling that a payment made to either of the assignee or the assignor reduces the debt.

Assignments without notice could lead to consumers paying the wrong person.

The CFPB should encourage proper notice by ruling that a payment made to either of the assignee or the assignor reduces the debt.

The CFPB should encourage proper notice by ruling that a payment made to either of the assignee or the assignor reduces the debt.

Assignments without notice could lead to consumers paying the wrong person.


Input: The original creditor has information about the debtor' s language; ii) The collector obtains information about the debtor' s language; * or * iii) The debtor lives in a ZIP code known to have a significant (5%?) number of non-English speakers. This requirement should only apply to languages with large LEP populations-a threshold might be 100, 000-to avoid undue cost. For smaller populations, where obtaining a full translation might be uneconomical, collectors could include the following passage translated into the appropriate languages on an otherwise English letter:

The original creditor has information about the debtor' s language;

ii) The collector obtains information about the debtor' s language; * or *

iii) The debtor lives in a ZIP code known to have a significant (5%?) number of non-English speakers.

For smaller populations, where obtaining a full translation might be uneconomical, collectors could include the following passage translated into the appropriate languages on an otherwise English letter:

This requirement should only apply to languages with large LEP populations-a threshold might be 100, 000-to avoid undue cost.


Input: I work at a private university and we do not sue for collections. Since the debt can be reported to the credit bureau for 7 years, we like to keep our accounts at collection agencies during that entire time. With the language now being offered due to time-barred states, our collection agencies do not want any of our accounts older than 4 years (TX).

I work at a private university

and we do not sue for collections.

we like to keep our accounts at collection agencies during that entire time.

With the language now being offered due to time-barred states, our collection agencies do not want any of our accounts older than 4 years (TX).

Since the debt can be reported to the credit bureau for 7 years,

we like to keep our accounts at collection agencies during that entire time.

Since the debt can be reported to the credit bureau for 7 years,


Input: I received a bill from an attorneys office regarding a bill I did not think that was mine. I sent a certified return receipt request for validation but never received a response. So I sent a 2nd certified return receipt-request for validation and again never received a response. The attorneys office filed a civil suit and took me to court. I explained this to the judge and gave proof. The proof I submitted into the court file were copies of request of validation, the USPS certified letter statement' s and request verification receipt statement' s. This was all ignored by the judge because I was pro se and did not know Washington state law. I had made the request prior to this case being filed. Later it was explained to me by an attorney that the local county civil courts do not enforce federal laws, only state laws and in state court a request for validation is not recognized. I also requested proof of licensing which I did not receive because the plaintiff was and currently is not a licensed in Washington state as a debt collection agency-they are attorneys. The plaintiff won their case and I owed a debt that was not mine. I ask you, where is the fairness in this? What needs to occur is the laws need to be made clear for both the lay person and the judicial system.

I received a bill from an attorneys office regarding a bill I did not think that was mine.

I sent a certified return receipt request for validation but never received a response.

So I sent a 2nd certified return receipt-request for validation and again never received a response.

The attorneys office filed a civil suit and took me to court.

I explained this to the judge and gave proof.

The proof I submitted into the court file were copies of request of validation, the USPS certified letter statement' s and request verification receipt statement' s.

This was all ignored by the judge

because I was pro se and did not know Washington state law.

I had made the request prior to this case being filed.

Later it was explained to me by an attorney that the local county civil courts do not enforce federal laws, only state laws and in state court a request for validation is not recognized.

I also requested proof of licensing which I did not receive

because the plaintiff was and currently is not a licensed in Washington state as a debt collection agency

-they are attorneys.

The plaintiff won their case

and I owed a debt that was not mine.

I ask you, where is the fairness in this?

What needs to occur is the laws need to be made clear for both the lay person and the judicial system.

So I sent a 2nd certified return receipt-request for validation and again never received a response.

I sent a certified return receipt request for validation but never received a response.

This was all ignored by the judge

because I was pro se and did not know Washington state law.

I also requested proof of licensing which I did not receive

because the plaintiff was and currently is not a licensed in Washington state as a debt collection agency

What needs to occur is the laws need to be made clear for both the lay person and the judicial system.

I ask you, where is the fairness in this?


Input: I' m aware of that, but I don' t think many appellate courts have considered the issue. To confirm that it' s the law, it should be included in a rule.

I' m aware of that,

but I don' t think many appellate courts have considered the issue.

To confirm that it' s the law, it should be included in a rule.

To confirm that it' s the law, it should be included in a rule.

but I don' t think many appellate courts have considered the issue.


Input: I do NOT owe any debt but have a COMMON FIRST and LAST NAME. My Constitutional rights are violated every time a lawyer fails to perform due diligence, per rule 137, BEFORE SIGNING and FILING COURT PAPER against me. The clerks are helpless, the judges & attorney disciplinary do nothing favoring " lawyer zealousness. " I then have to spend time & money, going to court to prove I am NOT the person who owes the debt. I urge the CFPB to create mechanisms for clerks & citizens that make it 1) easier to fix these messes &, 2) to bring sanctions against lawyers & judges for MISUSE OF LEGAL PROCEDURE, ABUSE OF PROCESS, WRONGFUL CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, & MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

I do NOT owe any debt but have a COMMON FIRST and LAST NAME.

I then have to spend time & money, going to court to prove I am NOT the person who owes the debt.

My Constitutional rights are violated every time a lawyer fails to perform due diligence, per rule 137, BEFORE SIGNING and FILING COURT PAPER against me.

The clerks are helpless,

the judges & attorney disciplinary do nothing favoring " lawyer zealousness. "

I urge the CFPB to create mechanisms for clerks & citizens that make it 1) easier to fix these messes &, 2) to bring sanctions against lawyers & judges for MISUSE OF LEGAL PROCEDURE, ABUSE OF PROCESS, WRONGFUL CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, & MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

My Constitutional rights are violated every time a lawyer fails to perform due diligence, per rule 137, BEFORE SIGNING and FILING COURT PAPER against me.

I do NOT owe any debt but have a COMMON FIRST and LAST NAME.


Input: Allow the States and/or local courts administer lawsuits. Regardless of any added rules, documents, etc. none will help increase debtors attending hearings. Since 1964 I have seen no significant increase of consumers attending hearings. I have, however, seen the major reason being attributed to not understanding due process by consumers.

Allow the States and/or local courts administer lawsuits.

Regardless of any added rules, documents, etc. none will help increase debtors attending hearings.

Since 1964 I have seen no significant increase of consumers attending hearings.

I have, however, seen the major reason being attributed to not understanding due process by consumers.

Allow the States and/or local courts administer lawsuits.

Regardless of any added rules, documents, etc. none will help increase debtors attending hearings.

Allow the States and/or local courts administer lawsuits.

Since 1964 I have seen no significant increase of consumers attending hearings.

Allow the States and/or local courts administer lawsuits.

I have, however, seen the major reason being attributed to not understanding due process by consumers.


Input: No federal rules. Allow States continued enforcement of their state laws.

No federal rules.

Allow States continued enforcement of their state laws.


Input: Maybe I missed something but I never received any notice from my original mortgage lender that my mortgage was sold. Maybe that is better since the new " owner " may be a pool of investors. my experience was the buyer sent the notice listing the original creditor name. Requiring the seller and buyer to send a notice would cause consumer confusion.

Maybe I missed something

Maybe that is better

Requiring the seller and buyer to send a notice would cause consumer confusion.

but I never received any notice from my original mortgage lender that my mortgage was sold.

my experience was the buyer sent the notice listing the original creditor name.

since the new " owner " may be a pool of investors.

Maybe that is better

since the new " owner " may be a pool of investors.

Requiring the seller and buyer to send a notice would cause consumer confusion.

my experience was the buyer sent the notice listing the original creditor name.


Input: Assuming debtors have a valid address, which is some cases they do not, additional notice that the debt is being assigned to a third party collection entity is no benefit. My experience is intervention to collect by a third party normally occurs when the consumer is over 180 contractual delinquent. Furthermore, if the consumer receives the warning the account would be placed with a third partyMany and more confusing to the consumer and agency.

Assuming debtors have a valid address, which is some cases they do not,

additional notice that the debt is being assigned to a third party collection entity is no benefit.

Furthermore, if the consumer receives the warning the account would be placed with a third party

Many and more confusing to the consumer and agency.

My experience is intervention to collect by a third party normally occurs when the consumer is over 180 contractual delinquent.

Assuming debtors have a valid address, which is some cases they do not,

My experience is intervention to collect by a third party normally occurs when the consumer is over 180 contractual delinquent.


Input: Suspend further action to collect or re-sell. Placing a rule that prohibits a collector from reporting information to a CRA during the 30 day window would be a nightmare from elm street and only cause more problems. Unresolved disputes should not be sold and should be removed from collection.. Period.

Suspend further action to collect or re-sell.

Unresolved disputes should not be sold and should be removed from collection.. Period.

Placing a rule that prohibits a collector from reporting information to a CRA during the 30 day window would be a nightmare from elm street and only cause more problems.

Suspend further action to collect or re-sell.

Placing a rule that prohibits a collector from reporting information to a CRA during the 30 day window would be a nightmare from elm street and only cause more problems.


Input: No, it is not even clear who a debt collector is, particularly under CA law. The person sending the validating notice is typically a debt collector. This just causes confusion.

No, it is not even clear who a debt collector is, particularly under CA law.

This just causes confusion.

The person sending the validating notice is typically a debt collector.

No, it is not even clear who a debt collector is, particularly under CA law.

The person sending the validating notice is typically a debt collector.


Input: CA has already made great strides as to debt buyers. This should be the rule for all collectors: that when they file, they must produce properly authenticated backing for the debt sued upon.

CA has already made great strides as to debt buyers.

This should be the rule for all collectors: that when they file, they must produce properly authenticated backing for the debt sued upon.


Input: There should be no option to attempt to verify the debt. Attempts should always be required and if verification is not made, the debt cannot be further transferred.

There should be no option to attempt to verify the debt.

Attempts should always be required

and if verification is not made, the debt cannot be further transferred.

There should be no option to attempt to verify the debt.

Attempts should always be required


Input: FDCPA should define what constitutes reasonable period of time. In my experience most attorneys who represent a debtor do not return communication inquiries about representation. In most cases the delay in response may be caused by the debtor paying installment payments to the attorney to file a bankruptcy proceeding. When the debtor does not keep the repayment terms a creditor is presently not notified that the representation has terminated and there is no attorney representation.

FDCPA should define what constitutes reasonable period of time.

In my experience most attorneys who represent a debtor do not return communication inquiries about representation.

In most cases the delay in response may be caused by the debtor paying installment payments to the attorney to file a bankruptcy proceeding.

When the debtor does not keep the repayment terms a creditor is presently not notified that the representation has terminated

and there is no attorney representation.

FDCPA should define what constitutes reasonable period of time.

In my experience most attorneys who represent a debtor do not return communication inquiries about representation.

FDCPA should define what constitutes reasonable period of time.

In most cases the delay in response may be caused by the debtor paying installment payments to the attorney to file a bankruptcy proceeding.

FDCPA should define what constitutes reasonable period of time.

When the debtor does not keep the repayment terms a creditor is presently not notified that the representation has terminated


Input: Collectors are responsible for re-establishing contact with delinquent customers and providing services that facilitate repayment of the loans, regardless of the technology utilized. In Collections, automated dialing systems effectively increase the ability for the collector to reach delinquent customers unwilling to proactively reach out to the creditors. Automated dialing systems are used in many other ways not related to debt collection: telemarketers use them to reach potential customers, schools use them to notify parents of closings due to inclement weather. The technology is the same but the intent is different based on the user. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits creditors from using automated dialing systems to call cell phone numbers without consent from the customer. The TCPA " s original purpose, protecting consumers from costly charges as a result of automated calls, has been subsumed by the new goal of preventing overly numerous call attempts to a number that (generally) is directly connected to the customer. It does not change the purpose of collection calls, it merely makes the process less efficient. Regulating which numbers can be called using an automated dialing system is also counter to the growing reality of wireless-only households. According to the Center for Disease Control' s' Wireless Substitution' latest report (Early release data, July-December 2012), over one third (36%) of adults in the United States live in a household with only wireless telephone service. That figure is even higher (45%) when you look at children living in the US. With an average annualized growth rate of 34%, it is conceivable that sometime before 2020 only a minority of the country' s adults will be living in households with a landline telephone that can be autodialed. The CFPB should allow for the autodialing of all telephone numbers provided by the customer without byzantine consent requirements. Regardless of whether it is at application or during the course of normal business, once the number is provided by the customer to the creditor, that number should be considered another viable option for collection.

Collectors are responsible for re-establishing contact with delinquent customers and providing services that facilitate repayment of the loans, regardless of the technology utilized.

In Collections, automated dialing systems effectively increase the ability for the collector to reach delinquent customers unwilling to proactively reach out to the creditors.

The technology is the same

but the intent is different based on the user.

The TCPA " s original purpose, protecting consumers from costly charges as a result of automated calls, has been subsumed by the new goal of preventing overly numerous call attempts to a number that (generally) is directly connected to the customer.

It does not change the purpose of collection calls,

it merely makes the process less efficient.

Regulating which numbers can be called using an automated dialing system is also counter to the growing reality of wireless-only households.

With an average annualized growth rate of 34%, it is conceivable that sometime before 2020 only a minority of the country' s adults will be living in households with a landline telephone that can be autodialed.

Automated dialing systems are used in many other ways not related to debt collection: telemarketers use them to reach potential customers, schools use them to notify parents of closings due to inclement weather.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits creditors from using automated dialing systems to call cell phone numbers without consent from the customer.

According to the Center for Disease Control' s' Wireless Substitution' latest report (Early release data, July-December 2012), over one third (36%) of adults in the United States live in a household with only wireless telephone service.

That figure is even higher (45%) when you look at children living in the US.

The CFPB should allow for the autodialing of all telephone numbers provided by the customer without byzantine consent requirements.

Regardless of whether it is at application or during the course of normal business, once the number is provided by the customer to the creditor, that number should be considered another viable option for collection.

The TCPA " s original purpose, protecting consumers from costly charges as a result of automated calls, has been subsumed by the new goal of preventing overly numerous call attempts to a number that (generally) is directly connected to the customer.

It does not change the purpose of collection calls,

Regulating which numbers can be called using an automated dialing system is also counter to the growing reality of wireless-only households.

According to the Center for Disease Control' s' Wireless Substitution' latest report (Early release data, July-December 2012), over one third (36%) of adults in the United States live in a household with only wireless telephone service.

Regulating which numbers can be called using an automated dialing system is also counter to the growing reality of wireless-only households.

That figure is even higher (45%) when you look at children living in the US.

Regulating which numbers can be called using an automated dialing system is also counter to the growing reality of wireless-only households.

With an average annualized growth rate of 34%, it is conceivable that sometime before 2020 only a minority of the country' s adults will be living in households with a landline telephone that can be autodialed.


Input: They can' t be sued on in court and communications should reflect that. I have found that persons who buy old debts are not competent and rely on software and letter services to fulfill their collection obligations. Perhaps it is time to return to licensing of collectors.

They can' t be sued on in court

and communications should reflect that.

I have found that persons who buy old debts are not competent and rely on software and letter services to fulfill their collection obligations.

Perhaps it is time to return to licensing of collectors.

Perhaps it is time to return to licensing of collectors.

I have found that persons who buy old debts are not competent and rely on software and letter services to fulfill their collection obligations.


Input: First, I have learned there is a significant legal difference between 1) identify theft, 2) mistaken identity (see contract law Furthermore, that these three words need to be separated, clarified and their legal handling completely examined. There is almost zero legal remedy for wrong person found. More information would NOT have helped. The lawyer had plenty information but he did not validate any of it after he found my address. The clerk told me these lawyers and their agents are " just going through the phone book/internet " hauling people with the same first and last name into court thinking they will eventually find the debtor. A complete waste of court resources, an enormous expense to the innocent citizen, and the unlawful detainment and threatening of an innocent citizen and their assets. The debtor, it has since been discovered has left the county. The lawyer could have easily validated his information using online public property records from both the Clerk of courts and the County Clerk and found out the middle initial was not a match along with over 7 other pieces of identifying information that were not a match. The lawyer did not even do the simplest checking. I filed with the IARDC and nothing happened.

First, I have learned there is a significant legal difference between 1) identify theft, 2) mistaken identity (see contract law

The lawyer had plenty information

but he did not validate any of it after he found my address.

The clerk told me these lawyers and their agents are " just going through the phone book/internet " hauling people with the same first and last name into court thinking they will eventually find the debtor.

The debtor, it has since been discovered has left the county.

The lawyer did not even do the simplest checking.

I filed with the IARDC

and nothing happened.

Furthermore, that these three words need to be separated, clarified and their legal handling completely examined.

There is almost zero legal remedy for wrong person found.

More information would NOT have helped.

A complete waste of court resources, an enormous expense to the innocent citizen, and the unlawful detainment and threatening of an innocent citizen and their assets.

The lawyer could have easily validated his information using online public property records from both the Clerk of courts and the County Clerk and found out the middle initial was not a match along with over 7 other pieces of identifying information that were not a match.

More information would NOT have helped.

There is almost zero legal remedy for wrong person found.


Input: I would suggest a review of the language already published in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy BR 3001 (effective date 12/1/2012) relating to documentation. Based upon my participation with the Rule and numerous comments/hearings, I believe some time can be eliminated without re-inventing a different set of standards. Bankruptcy involves collection and involves consumers including attorneys on both sides as well. I recommend another examination of the " validation " notice language and the litany of interpretations of the language.

I would suggest a review of the language already published in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy BR 3001 (effective date 12/1/2012) relating to documentation.

I recommend another examination of the " validation " notice language and the litany of interpretations of the language.

Based upon my participation with the Rule and numerous comments/hearings, I believe some time can be eliminated without re-inventing a different set of standards.

Bankruptcy involves collection and involves consumers including attorneys on both sides as well.

I would suggest a review of the language already published in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy BR 3001 (effective date 12/1/2012) relating to documentation.

Based upon my participation with the Rule and numerous comments/hearings, I believe some time can be eliminated without re-inventing a different set of standards.


Input: I would suggest a visit to the Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3001 (effective 12/1/2012) and comments made during the proposed period, plus the hearing presentation statements published and are available. The Rule already addresses documentation issues. I again see that attaching all of the proposed documentation to the validation notice is not productive for the consumer or the sender. I do believe additional documentation as to chain of title be available if a consumer is being sued in Court.

I would suggest a visit to the Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3001 (effective 12/1/2012) and comments made during the proposed period, plus the hearing presentation statements published and are available.

The Rule already addresses documentation issues.

I again see that attaching all of the proposed documentation to the validation notice is not productive for the consumer or the sender.

I do believe additional documentation as to chain of title be available if a consumer is being sued in Court.

I would suggest a visit to the Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3001 (effective 12/1/2012) and comments made during the proposed period, plus the hearing presentation statements published and are available.

The Rule already addresses documentation issues.


Input: As a creditor collecting my own debt, I assert that by the time I move to litgation, I' ve exhausted all other forms of collection. I' ve talked to, emailed, and snail mailed the debtor. I' ve tried to negotiate a payment plan or settlement offer all to no avail. Litigation is our last attempt. Once we are litigation, we present our best case and let the debtor present their defense. My experience is that debtors don' t participate in their defense out of either fear or lack of knowledge about the legal process. But the burden of educating the debtor shouldn' t be put on the creditor' s shoulders. If debtor' s prefer to ignore the issue, then a default judgment is justified. There should be consequences to the inaction of the debtor.

As a creditor collecting my own debt, I assert that by the time I move to litgation, I' ve exhausted all other forms of collection.

I' ve talked to, emailed, and snail mailed the debtor.

I' ve tried to negotiate a payment plan or settlement offer all to no avail.

Litigation is our last attempt.

Once we are litigation, we present our best case and let the debtor present their defense.

My experience is that debtors don' t participate in their defense out of either fear or lack of knowledge about the legal process.

But the burden of educating the debtor shouldn' t be put on the creditor' s shoulders.

There should be consequences to the inaction of the debtor.

If debtor' s prefer to ignore the issue, then a default judgment is justified.

Litigation is our last attempt.

As a creditor collecting my own debt, I assert that by the time I move to litgation, I' ve exhausted all other forms of collection.

If debtor' s prefer to ignore the issue, then a default judgment is justified.

There should be consequences to the inaction of the debtor.


Input: Debt collectors continuously resell the debt to other debt collectors who start the clock all over again. Then that debt collector resells the debt and the 3rd debt collector restarts the clock again, and so on. The burden of proof is put on the consumer to prove it is an old debt. The credit reporting agencies don' t automatically remove old debts nor do they check to see if a newly reported debt is in fact a 9 year old debt that has been resold numerous times. The credit agencies (CRA) are more of a problem for consumers than the debt collectors. The CRAs are paid by the credit card companies and the credit card companies have bigger profits when they can charge higher rates based on poor credit scores. So there is inherently a huge conflict of interest here. If the CRAs can keep our credit scores down the card companies can make more money and don' t mind paying the CRAs a piece of the action. Seems like unspoken collusion to me.

Debt collectors continuously resell the debt to other debt collectors who start the clock all over again.

Then that debt collector resells the debt

and the 3rd debt collector restarts the clock again, and so on.

The credit reporting agencies don' t automatically remove old debts

nor do they check to see if a newly reported debt is in fact a 9 year old debt that has been resold numerous times.

The CRAs are paid by the credit card companies

and the credit card companies have bigger profits when they can charge higher rates based on poor credit scores.

The burden of proof is put on the consumer to prove it is an old debt.

The credit agencies (CRA) are more of a problem for consumers than the debt collectors.

So there is inherently a huge conflict of interest here.

If the CRAs can keep our credit scores down the card companies can make more money and don' t mind paying the CRAs a piece of the action.

Seems like unspoken collusion to me.

The burden of proof is put on the consumer to prove it is an old debt.

The credit reporting agencies don' t automatically remove old debts

The burden of proof is put on the consumer to prove it is an old debt.

nor do they check to see if a newly reported debt is in fact a 9 year old debt that has been resold numerous times.

The credit agencies (CRA) are more of a problem for consumers than the debt collectors.

The burden of proof is put on the consumer to prove it is an old debt.

So there is inherently a huge conflict of interest here.

The CRAs are paid by the credit card companies

So there is inherently a huge conflict of interest here.

and the credit card companies have bigger profits when they can charge higher rates based on poor credit scores.


Input: I do not believe that it is " just " to allow a third party to buy a past due debt and sue for the entire balance, plus attorney fees, court costs, and other fees associated with " mediators or arbitrators ". I believe that a third party debt buyer should be limited as to how much they can sue for above their initial investment. Too many times the original creditor is a publically traded company and the loss has already been taken by the share holders. Then some debt buyer buys a portfolio of un-performing debt and pays a dime on a dollar for it. Sends all of it to a " law office " to collect 100% or more of the original alleged obligation. The debt buyer should not be able to sue for 900% of their investment. They should be limited to a percentage of true damage. I know of no other civil process where this would be considered ethical.

I do not believe that it is " just " to allow a third party to buy a past due debt and sue for the entire balance, plus attorney fees, court costs, and other fees associated with " mediators or arbitrators ".

I know of no other civil process where this would be considered ethical.

I believe that a third party debt buyer should be limited as to how much they can sue for above their initial investment.

The debt buyer should not be able to sue for 900% of their investment.

They should be limited to a percentage of true damage.

Too many times the original creditor is a publically traded company

and the loss has already been taken by the share holders.

Then some debt buyer buys a portfolio of un-performing debt and pays a dime on a dollar for it.

Sends all of it to a " law office " to collect 100% or more of the original alleged obligation.

I believe that a third party debt buyer should be limited as to how much they can sue for above their initial investment.

I do not believe that it is " just " to allow a third party to buy a past due debt and sue for the entire balance, plus attorney fees, court costs, and other fees associated with " mediators or arbitrators ".

The debt buyer should not be able to sue for 900% of their investment.

I know of no other civil process where this would be considered ethical.

They should be limited to a percentage of true damage.

I know of no other civil process where this would be considered ethical.


Input: In most states all that a debt collection law office needs to provide is a complaint. The average consumer has no idea what the difference is between a balance and a sum. they do not know how to calculate the interest and certainly do not know what is " legal " pursuant to state or Federal Credit Card Act limitations. The name of the Plaintiff may not even be recognizable to them. They just know that they owed some money and fell behind on bills. More times than not, they do not respond at all.

In most states all that a debt collection law office needs to provide is a complaint.

The average consumer has no idea what the difference is between a balance and a sum.

they do not know how to calculate the interest and certainly do not know what is " legal " pursuant to state or Federal Credit Card Act limitations.

They just know that they owed some money and fell behind on bills.

The name of the Plaintiff may not even be recognizable to them.

More times than not, they do not respond at all.


Input: If the consumer claims identity theft then the Debt collectors should be required to prove otherwise. The CRAs should be forbidden to report any debt that has been disputed as Identity theft unless they can provide court admissible proof that it is a valid debt. The CRAs should be held more accountable and heavily fined for reporting erroneous information. Their fines should be paid directly to the consumer for the countless hours they spend trying to fix their credit reports. The CRAs should be required to send a letter to the consumer' s insurance companies, mortgage companies, and anyone else that charged the consumer a higher rate based on their erroneous credit score and find out how much their error costs the consumer. The sum of those added costs should be paid by the CRAs directly to the consumer in addition to the fines. The burden of proof should fall on the CRAs and the debt collectors, not the consumer.

If the consumer claims identity theft then the Debt collectors should be required to prove otherwise.

The CRAs should be forbidden to report any debt that has been disputed as Identity theft unless they can provide court admissible proof that it is a valid debt.

The CRAs should be held more accountable and heavily fined for reporting erroneous information.

Their fines should be paid directly to the consumer for the countless hours they spend trying to fix their credit reports.

The CRAs should be required to send a letter to the consumer' s insurance companies, mortgage companies, and anyone else that charged the consumer a higher rate based on their erroneous credit score and find out how much their error costs the consumer.

The sum of those added costs should be paid by the CRAs directly to the consumer in addition to the fines.

The burden of proof should fall on the CRAs and the debt collectors, not the consumer.


Input: I have been contacted about a collection agency that stated that an old prescription charge was unpaid. The total was like $1500. When I asked for proof, I received a piece of paper that had three numbers on it that added up to $1500. Nothing more. Literally. When a consumer asks for proof, they should at the very least receive a fully itemized listing of what it is is being collecting upon. (e. g. a detailed statement of account, or the un-paid invoice (s). Additionally, consumers should receive documentation as to why they are legally responsible. (E. g. an agreement that they signed. I realize that for businesses that traffic in unpaid consumer debt this is going to be a huge burden as this information has long been lost. Too bad. At the very least, this should be the standard for any debts incurred after a certain date.

I have been contacted about a collection agency that stated that an old prescription charge was unpaid.

The total was like $1500.

When I asked for proof, I received a piece of paper that had three numbers on it that added up to $1500.

Nothing more.

Literally.

When a consumer asks for proof, they should at the very least receive a fully itemized listing of what it is is being collecting upon. (e. g. a detailed statement of account, or the un-paid invoice (s).

Additionally, consumers should receive documentation as to why they are legally responsible. (E. g. an agreement that they signed.

At the very least, this should be the standard for any debts incurred after a certain date.

I realize that for businesses that traffic in unpaid consumer debt this is going to be a huge burden

as this information has long been lost.

Too bad.

When a consumer asks for proof, they should at the very least receive a fully itemized listing of what it is is being collecting upon. (e. g. a detailed statement of account, or the un-paid invoice (s).

I have been contacted about a collection agency that stated that an old prescription charge was unpaid.

When a consumer asks for proof, they should at the very least receive a fully itemized listing of what it is is being collecting upon. (e. g. a detailed statement of account, or the un-paid invoice (s).

The total was like $1500.

When a consumer asks for proof, they should at the very least receive a fully itemized listing of what it is is being collecting upon. (e. g. a detailed statement of account, or the un-paid invoice (s).

When I asked for proof, I received a piece of paper that had three numbers on it that added up to $1500.

When a consumer asks for proof, they should at the very least receive a fully itemized listing of what it is is being collecting upon. (e. g. a detailed statement of account, or the un-paid invoice (s).

Nothing more.

When a consumer asks for proof, they should at the very least receive a fully itemized listing of what it is is being collecting upon. (e. g. a detailed statement of account, or the un-paid invoice (s).

Literally.

I realize that for businesses that traffic in unpaid consumer debt this is going to be a huge burden

as this information has long been lost.


Input: Agree with RBell. Delinquent borrowers already almost always know they' re delinquent so further notices are not productive. When notices are provided they should include the name of the original account holder and the full account number to establish a connection between any tier debt collector and the original account holder.

Agree with RBell.

Delinquent borrowers already almost always know they' re delinquent

so further notices are not productive.

When notices are provided they should include the name of the original account holder and the full account number to establish a connection between any tier debt collector and the original account holder.

Agree with RBell.

Delinquent borrowers already almost always know they' re delinquent

so further notices are not productive.

Delinquent borrowers already almost always know they' re delinquent


Input: Debt collectors should not be permitted to harass a debtor' s ex-spouse by repeatedly calling the ex-spouse. Debt collectors are known to use the old phone number of the debtor that now belongs to the ex-spouse exclusively. Even though the ex-spouse tells the collector to remove her phone number from the collector' s records, the collector does not, and then repeatedly calls her trying to get to the debtor. Collectors must be required to remove her phone number from their records at her first request and not be permitted to call her again. Otherwise, she has no recourse to get the harassment to stop.

Debt collectors should not be permitted to harass a debtor' s ex-spouse by repeatedly calling the ex-spouse.

Collectors must be required to remove her phone number from their records at her first request and not be permitted to call her again.

Debt collectors are known to use the old phone number of the debtor that now belongs to the ex-spouse exclusively.

Even though the ex-spouse tells the collector to remove her phone number from the collector' s records, the collector does not,

and then repeatedly calls her trying to get to the debtor.

Otherwise, she has no recourse to get the harassment to stop.

Debt collectors should not be permitted to harass a debtor' s ex-spouse by repeatedly calling the ex-spouse.

Debt collectors are known to use the old phone number of the debtor that now belongs to the ex-spouse exclusively.

Debt collectors should not be permitted to harass a debtor' s ex-spouse by repeatedly calling the ex-spouse.

Even though the ex-spouse tells the collector to remove her phone number from the collector' s records, the collector does not,

Debt collectors should not be permitted to harass a debtor' s ex-spouse by repeatedly calling the ex-spouse.

and then repeatedly calls her trying to get to the debtor.

Collectors must be required to remove her phone number from their records at her first request and not be permitted to call her again.

Debt collectors should not be permitted to harass a debtor' s ex-spouse by repeatedly calling the ex-spouse.

Collectors must be required to remove her phone number from their records at her first request and not be permitted to call her again.

Otherwise, she has no recourse to get the harassment to stop.


Input: Why should, an agency have to mail a letter to the consumer who requested not to be called? They most likely won' t read it

Why should, an agency have to mail a letter to the consumer who requested not to be called?

They most likely won' t read it

Why should, an agency have to mail a letter to the consumer who requested not to be called?

They most likely won' t read it


Input: I don' t think the consumer should have the options as to when and how they are called. Most collection agency' s today would remove a consumers phone number hen asked.

I don' t think the consumer should have the options as to when and how they are called.

Most collection agency' s today would remove a consumers phone number hen asked.

I don' t think the consumer should have the options as to when and how they are called.

Most collection agency' s today would remove a consumers phone number hen asked.


Input: banks can simply add this provision to their Loan Sale Agreements. All buyers executing a Loan Sale Agreement containing such a provision would be contractually obligated to refrain from litigating or threatening litigation. some current buyer would refuse to purchase with such a provision and other current buyers would expect a price discount because they woudl not be able to sue. In both instances, any inventory not acquired by current buyers would be quicly snapped up by other purchasors who would be willing to comply with these contractual provisions. Such a resolution would obviate the necessity of legislation or regulation as the matter woudl have been taken care of under the contract between a willing seller and a willing buyer. there would be no constitutional question regarding the restricting of law suits nor would there be any delay in implementation. All that would be required is the cooperation of the selling banks which could be induced readily with some Safe-Harbor language for banks that follow this protocol.

banks can simply add this provision to their Loan Sale Agreements.

All buyers executing a Loan Sale Agreement containing such a provision would be contractually obligated to refrain from litigating or threatening litigation.

some current buyer would refuse to purchase with such a provision

and other current buyers would expect a price discount

because they woudl not be able to sue.

In both instances, any inventory not acquired by current buyers would be quicly snapped up by other purchasors who would be willing to comply with these contractual provisions.

Such a resolution would obviate the necessity of legislation or regulation

as the matter woudl have been taken care of under the contract between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

there would be no constitutional question regarding the restricting of law suits

nor would there be any delay in implementation.

All that would be required is the cooperation of the selling banks

which could be induced readily with some Safe-Harbor language for banks that follow this protocol.

and other current buyers would expect a price discount

because they woudl not be able to sue.

Such a resolution would obviate the necessity of legislation or regulation

as the matter woudl have been taken care of under the contract between a willing seller and a willing buyer.


Input: I think it should be illegal or miss leading for a agency to change its caller id. You could easily look up a relatives number and use that. There should be a rule regarding a change in caller id.

I think it should be illegal or miss leading for a agency to change its caller id.

There should be a rule regarding a change in caller id.

You could easily look up a relatives number and use that.


Input: I don' t think it matters whether a collector used a alias or not. It' s just a name. If it is used constantly

I don' t think it matters whether a collector used a alias or not.

It' s just a name. If it is used constantly

I don' t think it matters whether a collector used a alias or not.

It' s just a name. If it is used constantly


Input: I don' t know if technology allows collectors to distinguish land lines from cell phones. It is fair for collectors to use info provided on the application for credit. Collectors should be allowed to assume that the mailing address of record is an accurate indication of the debtor' s time zone. Creditors periodically request updates of contact info in some cases; this would be a good idea for all to do. Mailing address should take priority for determining time zone unless the debtor advises otherwise. As mentioned previously, people with cell phones may move from one locale to another without changing their area code.

I don' t know if technology allows collectors to distinguish land lines from cell phones.

Creditors periodically request updates of contact info in some cases;

As mentioned previously, people with cell phones may move from one locale to another without changing their area code.

It is fair for collectors to use info provided on the application for credit.

this would be a good idea for all to do.

Collectors should be allowed to assume that the mailing address of record is an accurate indication of the debtor' s time zone.

Mailing address should take priority for determining time zone unless the debtor advises otherwise.

Mailing address should take priority for determining time zone unless the debtor advises otherwise.

As mentioned previously, people with cell phones may move from one locale to another without changing their area code.


Input: A debt collector did not litigate a credit card debt, but summarily garnished our joint checking account. It was two weeks later that notification was received from the debt collector. This occurred September-October 2012. Debt Collectors must provide advance notice of their intent to garnish a checking account. It took several weeks including an Order from the Judge to release the funds, only after the Debt Collector took all of a tax refund.

A debt collector did not litigate a credit card debt, but summarily garnished our joint checking account.

It was two weeks later that notification was received from the debt collector.

This occurred September-October 2012.

It took several weeks including an Order from the Judge to release the funds, only after the Debt Collector took all of a tax refund.

Debt Collectors must provide advance notice of their intent to garnish a checking account.

Debt Collectors must provide advance notice of their intent to garnish a checking account.

A debt collector did not litigate a credit card debt, but summarily garnished our joint checking account.

Debt Collectors must provide advance notice of their intent to garnish a checking account.

It was two weeks later that notification was received from the debt collector.

Debt Collectors must provide advance notice of their intent to garnish a checking account.

This occurred September-October 2012.


Input: In theory this seems like a reasonable policy, but how can collectors know where a debtor is if they are calling his or her cell phone? Knowingly calling third parties should be prohibited across the board. It is no one else' s business what goes on between creditors and their debtors. Calls to a person' s boss or family can cause further financial and domestic problems, neither of which will help with getting the debt paid.

In theory this seems like a reasonable policy,

but how can collectors know where a debtor is if they are calling his or her cell phone?

It is no one else' s business what goes on between creditors and their debtors.

Calls to a person' s boss or family can cause further financial and domestic problems,

neither of which will help with getting the debt paid.

Knowingly calling third parties should be prohibited across the board.

Knowingly calling third parties should be prohibited across the board.

It is no one else' s business what goes on between creditors and their debtors.

Knowingly calling third parties should be prohibited across the board.

Calls to a person' s boss or family can cause further financial and domestic problems,

Knowingly calling third parties should be prohibited across the board.

neither of which will help with getting the debt paid.

It is no one else' s business what goes on between creditors and their debtors.

Calls to a person' s boss or family can cause further financial and domestic problems,

It is no one else' s business what goes on between creditors and their debtors.

neither of which will help with getting the debt paid.


Input: As a consumer I should receive a notice or some type of warning that the debt will be turned over to a collector. And when there are a change in debt collectors, the consumer should be notified.

As a consumer I should receive a notice or some type of warning that the debt will be turned over to a collector.

And when there are a change in debt collectors, the consumer should be notified.


Input: Debtors should be able to leave a message for a specific debtor, the name of their company and request a call-back at a specified number. When a consumer returns this type of call, the collector or debtor should be required to give them the mini-Miranda warning. There is no need for collectors to leave messages revealing the nature of their calls. The Health Information Privacy and Portability Act prohibits disclosure of protected information to unauthorized parties and the same should apply to debt collectors.

Debtors should be able to leave a message for a specific debtor, the name of their company and request a call-back at a specified number.

When a consumer returns this type of call, the collector or debtor should be required to give them the mini-Miranda warning.

and the same should apply to debt collectors.

There is no need for collectors to leave messages revealing the nature of their calls.

The Health Information Privacy and Portability Act prohibits disclosure of protected information to unauthorized parties

There is no need for collectors to leave messages revealing the nature of their calls.

The Health Information Privacy and Portability Act prohibits disclosure of protected information to unauthorized parties


Input: Calling a debtor at work is counter-intuitive; if collectors are continuously calling someone at work, other employees may report it to the debtor' s supervisor. Most companies have established rules about receiving or making personal calls from company or cell phones during an employee' s working hours. If a collector or creditor calls a debtor on his/her cell phone and is informed that the debtor is at work, the call should be terminated. No calls to employers should be allowed as this jeopardizes the debtor' s job. How does that help in debt collection? It doesn' t.

Calling a debtor at work is counter-intuitive;

if collectors are continuously calling someone at work, other employees may report it to the debtor' s supervisor.

as this jeopardizes the debtor' s job.

How does that help in debt collection? It doesn' t.

Most companies have established rules about receiving or making personal calls from company or cell phones during an employee' s working hours.

If a collector or creditor calls a debtor on his/her cell phone and is informed that the debtor is at work, the call should be terminated.

No calls to employers should be allowed

Calling a debtor at work is counter-intuitive;

if collectors are continuously calling someone at work, other employees may report it to the debtor' s supervisor.

if collectors are continuously calling someone at work, other employees may report it to the debtor' s supervisor.

Most companies have established rules about receiving or making personal calls from company or cell phones during an employee' s working hours.

If a collector or creditor calls a debtor on his/her cell phone and is informed that the debtor is at work, the call should be terminated.

Most companies have established rules about receiving or making personal calls from company or cell phones during an employee' s working hours.

No calls to employers should be allowed

as this jeopardizes the debtor' s job.


Input: Blocking caller ID information is disingenuous to say the least. Most consumers won' t respond to blocked numbers or ID' s anyway. Collectors should be required to identify themselves and to provide caller ID information that identifies them. Most people who cannot pay their bills are aware of the problem, so being reminded under false pretenses is more of an annoyance than a solution to the problem.

Blocking caller ID information is disingenuous to say the least.

Most consumers won' t respond to blocked numbers or ID' s anyway.

so being reminded under false pretenses is more of an annoyance than a solution to the problem.

Collectors should be required to identify themselves and to provide caller ID information that identifies them.

Most people who cannot pay their bills are aware of the problem,

Blocking caller ID information is disingenuous to say the least.

Most consumers won' t respond to blocked numbers or ID' s anyway.

Collectors should be required to identify themselves and to provide caller ID information that identifies them.

Blocking caller ID information is disingenuous to say the least.

Collectors should be required to identify themselves and to provide caller ID information that identifies them.

so being reminded under false pretenses is more of an annoyance than a solution to the problem.

so being reminded under false pretenses is more of an annoyance than a solution to the problem.

Most people who cannot pay their bills are aware of the problem,


Input: Consumers should not incur additional costs for cell phone calls, texting or voice messaging in relation to collections. The more costs assessed to a debtor, the less money they have to pay their creditors. Debt collectors and creditors should be required to stop all modes of communication to a device that the debtor indicates does not provide free communications whether calls or texts.

Consumers should not incur additional costs for cell phone calls, texting or voice messaging in relation to collections.

Debt collectors and creditors should be required to stop all modes of communication to a device that the debtor indicates does not provide free communications whether calls or texts.

The more costs assessed to a debtor, the less money they have to pay their creditors.

Consumers should not incur additional costs for cell phone calls, texting or voice messaging in relation to collections.

The more costs assessed to a debtor, the less money they have to pay their creditors.

Debt collectors and creditors should be required to stop all modes of communication to a device that the debtor indicates does not provide free communications whether calls or texts.

Consumers should not incur additional costs for cell phone calls, texting or voice messaging in relation to collections.


Input: There should be a monetary " floor " required before debt collectors can pursue uncollected debts in court. The idea that corporations that already charge puninshing interest rates and fees can clog the court systems trying to collect a few hundred bucks from someone who is unemployed, ill, or otherwise unable to pay is counter-productive. There should be a minimum amount of consumer debt owed before creditors can sue debtors. Another issue with using state and local courts to settle debt collection suits is that it burdens jurisdictions already heavily burdened with cases and strapped for cash.

There should be a monetary " floor " required before debt collectors can pursue uncollected debts in court.

There should be a minimum amount of consumer debt owed before creditors can sue debtors.

The idea that corporations that already charge puninshing interest rates and fees can clog the court systems trying to collect a few hundred bucks from someone who is unemployed, ill, or otherwise unable to pay is counter-productive.

Another issue with using state and local courts to settle debt collection suits is that it burdens jurisdictions already heavily burdened with cases and strapped for cash.

There should be a monetary " floor " required before debt collectors can pursue uncollected debts in court.

The idea that corporations that already charge puninshing interest rates and fees can clog the court systems trying to collect a few hundred bucks from someone who is unemployed, ill, or otherwise unable to pay is counter-productive.

There should be a monetary " floor " required before debt collectors can pursue uncollected debts in court.

Another issue with using state and local courts to settle debt collection suits is that it burdens jurisdictions already heavily burdened with cases and strapped for cash.

There should be a minimum amount of consumer debt owed before creditors can sue debtors.

The idea that corporations that already charge puninshing interest rates and fees can clog the court systems trying to collect a few hundred bucks from someone who is unemployed, ill, or otherwise unable to pay is counter-productive.

There should be a minimum amount of consumer debt owed before creditors can sue debtors.

Another issue with using state and local courts to settle debt collection suits is that it burdens jurisdictions already heavily burdened with cases and strapped for cash.


Input: Identity Theft Tops List for 13th Consecutive Year in Report of National Consumer Complaints __URL__

Identity Theft Tops List for 13th Consecutive Year in Report of National Consumer Complaints

Identity Theft Tops List for 13th Consecutive Year in Report of National Consumer Complaints


Input: Consumers should be made aware of sale or transfer of their debts. From whom to whom along with effective dates and contact info for the creditor and the new owner of the debt.

Consumers should be made aware of sale or transfer of their debts.

From whom to whom along with effective dates and contact info for the creditor and the new owner of the debt.


Input: Notifying consumers of the sale of their debts and related details would help consumers with identifying who is contacting them about a debt; there are robo calls about lowering your credit card interest rate and such that are solicitations. Consumers have a right to know who they are dealing with in relation to their financial affairs.

Notifying consumers of the sale of their debts and related details would help consumers with identifying who is contacting them about a debt;

there are robo calls about lowering your credit card interest rate and such that are solicitations.

Consumers have a right to know who they are dealing with in relation to their financial affairs.


Input: Consumers should be aware of who is handling collection procedures. The seller of any consumer debt should be required to notify the debtor of which debt owed to which creditor, is being sold by xyz organization to 123 debt collector. The effective date of the debt sale and contact info for the new collector should be included.

Consumers should be aware of who is handling collection procedures.

The seller of any consumer debt should be required to notify the debtor of which debt owed to which creditor, is being sold by xyz organization to 123 debt collector.

The effective date of the debt sale and contact info for the new collector should be included.

The seller of any consumer debt should be required to notify the debtor of which debt owed to which creditor, is being sold by xyz organization to 123 debt collector.

Consumers should be aware of who is handling collection procedures.


Input: A notice should go out that the debt has been sold because it definitely informs the consumer in how they should go about negotiating repayment of the debt. When the debt is sold, it is sold for significantly less than what is owed, and the lender gets to write it off, and the borrower takes a 7-year negative hit in their credit profile. Sometimes when you are dealing with debt collectors, the " debt collector " is often a wholly-owned subsidiary of the " original " lender, which means they get a tax write-off; you get a hit in your credit; and they still try to collect on the entire amount. If a debt is sold, then it should actually be sold to a third-party, and not a subsidiary of the original lender. And consumers should get full disclosure on who their debt has been " sold " to.

A notice should go out that the debt has been sold

If a debt is sold, then it should actually be sold to a third-party, and not a subsidiary of the original lender.

And consumers should get full disclosure on who their debt has been " sold " to.

because it definitely informs the consumer in how they should go about negotiating repayment of the debt.

When the debt is sold, it is sold for significantly less than what is owed,

and the lender gets to write it off,

and the borrower takes a 7-year negative hit in their credit profile.

Sometimes when you are dealing with debt collectors, the " debt collector " is often a wholly-owned subsidiary of the " original " lender, which means they get a tax write-off; you get a hit in your credit; and they still try to collect on the entire amount.

A notice should go out that the debt has been sold

because it definitely informs the consumer in how they should go about negotiating repayment of the debt.

If a debt is sold, then it should actually be sold to a third-party, and not a subsidiary of the original lender.

Sometimes when you are dealing with debt collectors, the " debt collector " is often a wholly-owned subsidiary of the " original " lender, which means they get a tax write-off; you get a hit in your credit; and they still try to collect on the entire amount.

And consumers should get full disclosure on who their debt has been " sold " to.

Sometimes when you are dealing with debt collectors, the " debt collector " is often a wholly-owned subsidiary of the " original " lender, which means they get a tax write-off; you get a hit in your credit; and they still try to collect on the entire amount.


Input: Consumer owing the debt should be contacted about any third party offer to pay their debt. Anyone paying debt for someone else should be required to provide their identity to the creditor and debtor.

Consumer owing the debt should be contacted about any third party offer to pay their debt.

Anyone paying debt for someone else should be required to provide their identity to the creditor and debtor.


Input: A separate " summary of rights " should be sent to, and made available, to consumers. We are woefully uninformed and misinformed about our rights as consumers; what avenues of negotiation we can pursue; or even who can assist us. Furthermore, there should be some laws on the books on when collectors cannot collect if the original creditor has not made an attempt to collect the debt for an extended period of time, I should not get a collection notice 20 years after the fact.

A separate " summary of rights " should be sent to, and made available, to consumers.

Furthermore, there should be some laws on the books on when collectors cannot collect

if the original creditor has not made an attempt to collect the debt for an extended period of time, I should not get a collection notice 20 years after the fact.

We are woefully uninformed and misinformed about our rights as consumers; what avenues of negotiation we can pursue; or even who can assist us.

A separate " summary of rights " should be sent to, and made available, to consumers.

We are woefully uninformed and misinformed about our rights as consumers; what avenues of negotiation we can pursue; or even who can assist us.


Input: This kind of thing is likely determined by family court law in the jurisdiction where the debtor lives. Community property law, divorce or separation agreements and issues of domestic violence laws all come into play in these kinds of circumstances.

This kind of thing is likely determined by family court law in the jurisdiction where the debtor lives.

Community property law, divorce or separation agreements and issues of domestic violence laws all come into play in these kinds of circumstances.


Input: Some people are concerned that collectors don' t do much more than doublecheck that the amount in the validation notice is what the creditor says the consumer owes. THAT' S ALL THEY DO. They never do anything of substance to actually push back on the creditor' s claims. I' ve had actual documentation that disputes creditor' s claims, and all collectors do is rely on the information given them to by creditors. The CFPB is no better. My experience with them was much the same as dealing with a collector. The CFPB did nothing to verify or investigate the creditor' s claims; they simply took the creditor' s claims as outright facts despite conflicting documentation.

Some people are concerned that collectors don' t do much more than doublecheck that the amount in the validation notice is what the creditor says the consumer owes.

The CFPB is no better.

My experience with them was much the same as dealing with a collector.

THAT' S ALL THEY DO.

They never do anything of substance to actually push back on the creditor' s claims.

I' ve had actual documentation that disputes creditor' s claims, and all collectors do is rely on the information given them to by creditors.

The CFPB did nothing to verify or investigate the creditor' s claims;

they simply took the creditor' s claims as outright facts despite conflicting documentation.

They never do anything of substance to actually push back on the creditor' s claims.

I' ve had actual documentation that disputes creditor' s claims, and all collectors do is rely on the information given them to by creditors.

The CFPB is no better.

My experience with them was much the same as dealing with a collector.

The CFPB is no better.

The CFPB did nothing to verify or investigate the creditor' s claims;

The CFPB is no better.

they simply took the creditor' s claims as outright facts despite conflicting documentation.

My experience with them was much the same as dealing with a collector.

The CFPB did nothing to verify or investigate the creditor' s claims;

My experience with them was much the same as dealing with a collector.

they simply took the creditor' s claims as outright facts despite conflicting documentation.

The CFPB did nothing to verify or investigate the creditor' s claims;

they simply took the creditor' s claims as outright facts despite conflicting documentation.


Input: Just like mortgage servicers are required to send " goodbye letters " (a notification of when loan has been sold) and " hello letters " (a notification of when another company is buying a debt), so also should debt collectors. Also, they should be required to disclose the amount for which they bought the debt... the discounted price. Also, there needs to be full disclosure as to who is buying the debt along with the disclosure of the owners of the debt collection company and the street address of the company so face-to-face meetings can be arranged. Full transparency and full disclosure should be required related to any company trying to collect debt.

Just like mortgage servicers are required to send " goodbye letters " (a notification of when loan has been sold) and " hello letters " (a notification of when another company is buying a debt), so also should debt collectors.

Also, they should be required to disclose the amount for which they bought the debt... the discounted price.

Also, there needs to be full disclosure as to who is buying the debt along with the disclosure of the owners of the debt collection company and the street address of the company

Full transparency and full disclosure should be required related to any company trying to collect debt.

so face-to-face meetings can be arranged.

Also, there needs to be full disclosure as to who is buying the debt along with the disclosure of the owners of the debt collection company and the street address of the company

so face-to-face meetings can be arranged.


Input: I should know if a debt is time-barred, so that I can make an informed decision regarding the debt in question. The information should be in the validation notice. If the debt becomes time-barred after the validation notice is sent, I should be informed of the new status of the debt IMMEDIATELY!

I should know if a debt is time-barred,

The information should be in the validation notice.

If the debt becomes time-barred after the validation notice is sent, I should be informed of the new status of the debt IMMEDIATELY!

so that I can make an informed decision regarding the debt in question.

I should know if a debt is time-barred,

so that I can make an informed decision regarding the debt in question.

The information should be in the validation notice.

I should know if a debt is time-barred,


Input: It has been my experience that practices can vary greatly between various creditors who find it necessary to turn delinquent or defaulted debt over to a collection agnency. In my situation, little or no notification was given. At a minimum, a creditor should give specific information as to date and which company the debt is being assigned or sold to. Getting such a notice would help me understand that there is going to be a change with whom I would be communicating with going forward. The costs and expenses or problems that dad honors are collectors would have been giving those is miniscule compared to the problems cause by not giving notice. I would argue that they would actually save money in the long run like giving such notices. At a minimum, The information that should be clear that in the notice is (1) the date of when the debt would be turned over to collection agency; (2) the name address of the collection constant company to whom the doubt was assigned; and (3) specific formation about the debt collection company and a list of that company' s " best practices ", policies and procedures as to what the consumer can expect. It would be good if there could be a single-point-of-contact for this company as well as the supervisors and owner of the collection company. Collection agencies need to be forced to deal more forthrightly with consumers and be required to deal with greater transparency.

It has been my experience that practices can vary greatly between various creditors who find it necessary to turn delinquent or defaulted debt over to a collection agnency.

In my situation, little or no notification was given.

At a minimum, a creditor should give specific information as to date and which company the debt is being assigned or sold to.

At a minimum, The information that should be clear that in the notice is (1) the date of when the debt would be turned over to collection agency; (2) the name address of the collection constant company to whom the doubt was assigned; and (3) specific formation about the debt collection company and a list of that company' s " best practices ", policies and procedures as to what the consumer can expect.

Collection agencies need to be forced to deal more forthrightly with consumers and be required to deal with greater transparency.

Getting such a notice would help me understand that there is going to be a change with whom I would be communicating with going forward.

The costs and expenses or problems that dad honors are collectors would have been giving those is miniscule compared to the problems cause by not giving notice.

I would argue that they would actually save money in the long run like giving such notices.

It would be good if there could be a single-point-of-contact for this company as well as the supervisors and owner of the collection company.

At a minimum, a creditor should give specific information as to date and which company the debt is being assigned or sold to.

Getting such a notice would help me understand that there is going to be a change with whom I would be communicating with going forward.

At a minimum, a creditor should give specific information as to date and which company the debt is being assigned or sold to.

I would argue that they would actually save money in the long run like giving such notices.

I would argue that they would actually save money in the long run like giving such notices.

The costs and expenses or problems that dad honors are collectors would have been giving those is miniscule compared to the problems cause by not giving notice.


Input: Debt Collection companies get a very unfair debt negotiation advantage against an alleged defaulter when they hire an unscrupulous service company that has lied about giving a proper service or subservice to the alleged debtor' s residence. Judges do not seem to understand that if a service company will fraudulently state in court documents that they served a defaulter or subserved someone at the residence when in fact they did not, that the debt collector can become very arrogant and cocky as to how they negotiate with the alleged defaulter. In a nutshell, if the debt collector' s one sided terms are not met, they will simply hire the service company who will provide service even if it is a false service. Judges rationalize that the mail service is an adequate notification without realizing that what a false service does is embolden the debt collection company to not properly negotiate a debt with an alleged defaulter because they have total control over the service aspect, even if fraudulently obtained. This need to be fixed and false servers need to be fined along with the debt collection companies who hire them and keep hiring them even after they receive complaints of false service.

Debt Collection companies get a very unfair debt negotiation advantage against an alleged defaulter when they hire an unscrupulous service company that has lied about giving a proper service or subservice to the alleged debtor' s residence.

Judges do not seem to understand that if a service company will fraudulently state in court documents that they served a defaulter or subserved someone at the residence when in fact they did not, that the debt collector can become very arrogant and cocky as to how they negotiate with the alleged defaulter.

In a nutshell, if the debt collector' s one sided terms are not met, they will simply hire the service company who will provide service even if it is a false service.

Judges rationalize that the mail service is an adequate notification without realizing that what a false service does is embolden the debt collection company to not properly negotiate a debt with an alleged defaulter because they have total control over the service aspect, even if fraudulently obtained.

This need to be fixed

and false servers need to be fined along with the debt collection companies who hire them and keep hiring them even after they receive complaints of false service.


Input: If I have been falsely served or subserved, (the making up of a person who does not exist to claim a service, or simply stating " Jane Doe " received the service) and the judges don' t care, and the debt collection companies don' t care, I should have the right to file an errors and omissions insurance claim against the debt collection company for false service that resulted in a verdict against me. I have already tried asking for an errors and omissions insurance policy from the debt collection company so that I could file a claim and the debt collection company simply ignored my request. I find this both egregious and outrageous.

If I have been falsely served or subserved, (the making up of a person who does not exist to claim a service, or simply stating " Jane Doe " received the service) and the judges don' t care, and the debt collection companies don' t care, I should have the right to file an errors and omissions insurance claim against the debt collection company for false service that resulted in a verdict against me.

I have already tried asking for an errors and omissions insurance policy from the debt collection company

so that I could file a claim and the debt collection company simply ignored my request.

I find this both egregious and outrageous.

If I have been falsely served or subserved, (the making up of a person who does not exist to claim a service, or simply stating " Jane Doe " received the service) and the judges don' t care, and the debt collection companies don' t care, I should have the right to file an errors and omissions insurance claim against the debt collection company for false service that resulted in a verdict against me.

I have already tried asking for an errors and omissions insurance policy from the debt collection company

I have already tried asking for an errors and omissions insurance policy from the debt collection company

so that I could file a claim and the debt collection company simply ignored my request.


Input: I also find the assertion that INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS don' t put up a legal defense because they are afraid or have a lack of knowledge about the legal system to be outrageous. Strategic Defaulters save part of the money that could have gone to pay down their debts so they can give it to an attorney who may be able to get them a sweet pay off deal. INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS keep trying to make their monthly payments until the monthly accrual of interest rate charges and/or a life changing event forces then into an INVOLUNTARY DEFAULT. INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTS are not recognized by the courts. I had a SPOTLESS payment record for 15 years prior to a life changing event that caused me to become an unpaid CareGiver. If I could have been allowed to start with very small monthly payments to all of my creditors in exchange for having my phone lines left alone, I probably could have started making some income again. Instead, the constant debt collection phone calls forced me to convert my land lines to 20 cent a minute cell phones that I could not even afford to answer. I LOST work and contacts because debt collectors would not accept small monthly payments as a beginning pathway towards paying off my alleged debt. Probably the ongoing interest rate charges on default debt makes it unrealistic for debt collectors to accept small payments. Until alleged defaults are truly frozen so that those who want to pay them off have the best chance to do so, more and more debt will accrue.

I also find the assertion that INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS don' t put up a legal defense because they are afraid or have a lack of knowledge about the legal system to be outrageous.

Strategic Defaulters save part of the money that could have gone to pay down their debts so they can give it to an attorney who may be able to get them a sweet pay off deal.

If I could have been allowed to start with very small monthly payments to all of my creditors in exchange for having my phone lines left alone, I probably could have started making some income again.

Probably the ongoing interest rate charges on default debt makes it unrealistic for debt collectors to accept small payments.

Until alleged defaults are truly frozen so that those who want to pay them off have the best chance to do so, more and more debt will accrue.

INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS keep trying to make their monthly payments until the monthly accrual of interest rate charges and/or a life changing event forces then into an INVOLUNTARY DEFAULT.

INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTS are not recognized by the courts.

I had a SPOTLESS payment record for 15 years prior to a life changing event that caused me to become an unpaid CareGiver.

Instead, the constant debt collection phone calls forced me to convert my land lines to 20 cent a minute cell phones that I could not even afford to answer.

I LOST work and contacts

because debt collectors would not accept small monthly payments as a beginning pathway towards paying off my alleged debt.

I also find the assertion that INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS don' t put up a legal defense because they are afraid or have a lack of knowledge about the legal system to be outrageous.

INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS keep trying to make their monthly payments until the monthly accrual of interest rate charges and/or a life changing event forces then into an INVOLUNTARY DEFAULT.

I also find the assertion that INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS don' t put up a legal defense because they are afraid or have a lack of knowledge about the legal system to be outrageous.

INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTS are not recognized by the courts.

I LOST work and contacts

because debt collectors would not accept small monthly payments as a beginning pathway towards paying off my alleged debt.

because debt collectors would not accept small monthly payments as a beginning pathway towards paying off my alleged debt.

Probably the ongoing interest rate charges on default debt makes it unrealistic for debt collectors to accept small payments.

Until alleged defaults are truly frozen so that those who want to pay them off have the best chance to do so, more and more debt will accrue.

Probably the ongoing interest rate charges on default debt makes it unrealistic for debt collectors to accept small payments.


Input: Possibly the most egregious action of all regarding credit card debt occurred in 2002, suspiciously close to the 911 aftermath. While insurance companies were paying out tens of millions of dollars to building owners who suffered damage because of 911 (which technically they should not have done since this was an act of war which is NOT covered by most insurance plans), the comptroller of the currency was DENYING insurance companies from competing with credit card companies in the credit card debt suspension insurance arena. The result was a credit card debt suspension insurance monopoly for the credit card companies with premiums that were overpriced by a factor of 1000% to 2000% The profit margin was so high for credit card debt suspension insurance that the CFPB actually had to fine the credit card companies OVER 500 MILLION DOLLARS in the summer of 2012 for overly aggressive credit card debt suspension insurance sales and marketing practices. I had warned about overpriced credit card debt suspension insurance back in 2008 with the creation of __URL__ but was never compensated for my efforts. It meant that MOST credit card defaults in the United States over the last 10 to 15 years were based on a fraudulent foundation of obscenely over priced credit card debt suspension insurance that consumers could not afford to keep purchasing. Consumers were literally paying for 5 years worth of credit card debt suspension insurance but only receiving 3-5 months worth of coverage! Most of the times that a judge was declaring a credit card default, they were propping up the overpricing of a monopolistic credit card debt suspension insurance policy that did not fairly give consumers the most obvious way to protect themselves from a default that was caused by life changing event We could literally fix the U. S. economy almost overnight by doing the right thing. First acknowledge credit card debt suspension insurance fraud that the credit card companies have perpetrated on the american people over the past 10 to 15 years and as retribution reduce all consumer credit card debt by approximately 65%. Then raise the monthly minimum payment on the remaining 35% from 2% to 5% so the monthly payment remains roughly the same but consumers feel their debt more easily going forward. The comptroller of the currency tried to get credit card companies to raise their monthly minimum payment requirements from 2% to 4 or 5% back around 2005 but relented when it became obvious too many people would default. By reducing consumer credit card debt by 65% as a form of reparations for debt suspension insurance fraud consumers suddenly have a lot less debt BUT still have to make a similar monthly payments. However MORE of that monthly payment goes towards paying down the actual debt rather than the cesspool known as ever expanding interest rate charges.

Possibly the most egregious action of all regarding credit card debt occurred in 2002, suspiciously close to the 911 aftermath.

(which technically they should not have done

but was never compensated for my efforts.

Most of the times that a judge was declaring a credit card default, they were propping up the overpricing of a monopolistic credit card debt suspension insurance policy that did not fairly give consumers the most obvious way to protect themselves from a default that was caused by life changing event

We could literally fix the U. S. economy almost overnight by doing the right thing.

so the monthly payment remains roughly the same but consumers feel their debt more easily going forward.

While insurance companies were paying out tens of millions of dollars to building owners who suffered damage because of 911

since this was an act of war which is NOT covered by most insurance plans),

the comptroller of the currency was DENYING insurance companies from competing with credit card companies in the credit card debt suspension insurance arena.

The result was a credit card debt suspension insurance monopoly for the credit card companies with premiums that were overpriced by a factor of 1000% to 2000%

The profit margin was so high for credit card debt suspension insurance that the CFPB actually had to fine the credit card companies OVER 500 MILLION DOLLARS in the summer of 2012 for overly aggressive credit card debt suspension insurance sales and marketing practices.

It meant that MOST credit card defaults in the United States over the last 10 to 15 years were based on a fraudulent foundation of obscenely over priced credit card debt suspension insurance that consumers could not afford to keep purchasing.

Consumers were literally paying for 5 years worth of credit card debt suspension insurance but only receiving 3-5 months worth of coverage!

The comptroller of the currency tried to get credit card companies to raise their monthly minimum payment requirements from 2% to 4 or 5% back around 2005 but relented when it became obvious too many people would default.

By reducing consumer credit card debt by 65% as a form of reparations for debt suspension insurance fraud consumers suddenly have a lot less debt BUT still have to make a similar monthly payments.

However MORE of that monthly payment goes towards paying down the actual debt rather than the cesspool known as ever expanding interest rate charges.

I had warned about overpriced credit card debt suspension insurance back in 2008 with the creation of __URL__

First acknowledge credit card debt suspension insurance fraud that the credit card companies have perpetrated on the american people over the past 10 to 15 years

and as retribution reduce all consumer credit card debt by approximately 65%.

Then raise the monthly minimum payment on the remaining 35% from 2% to 5%

(which technically they should not have done

since this was an act of war which is NOT covered by most insurance plans),

The result was a credit card debt suspension insurance monopoly for the credit card companies with premiums that were overpriced by a factor of 1000% to 2000%

the comptroller of the currency was DENYING insurance companies from competing with credit card companies in the credit card debt suspension insurance arena.

Consumers were literally paying for 5 years worth of credit card debt suspension insurance but only receiving 3-5 months worth of coverage!

It meant that MOST credit card defaults in the United States over the last 10 to 15 years were based on a fraudulent foundation of obscenely over priced credit card debt suspension insurance that consumers could not afford to keep purchasing.

Then raise the monthly minimum payment on the remaining 35% from 2% to 5%

so the monthly payment remains roughly the same but consumers feel their debt more easily going forward.