Can there be a national repository to report abusive phone calls from debt collectors that masked (fake and “spoof”) their caller ID? I got a brand new phone number a few years ago and it obviously previously belonged to someone who is delinquent on their bills because I get calls everyday from debt collectors looking for the person who had my phone number before me. No matter how many times I tell them they have the wrong number, they don’t care and they just keep calling and they call from spoofed phone numbers. And this is my cell phone, which is against the law for debt collectors to call. The same debt collectors call with faked caller IDs. Here are just some of the phone numbers these debt collectors use:
808-792-8186
462643
858-568-7632
805-322-4584
706-913-1192
808-348-0083
858-345-4076
858-312-7724
908-505-9008
800-633-2677
252-808-7969
571-522-0386
407-712-3093
213-816-2972
804-721-3193
678-781-4530
427307
858-240-4079
I agree. I have been harassed for years (after getting a new cell phone number) from debt collectors calling for someone else. I presume it is the person who had my phone number before me. No matter how many times I tell them that they have the wrong number, they just keep calling over and over.
What are the laws and rules on who can create/own debt collecting companies? It seems that just about anyone can create a debt collection company and if the owners and/or employees have unscrupulous desires, then it seems that privacy is a big concern. Plus, if anyone can create/own debt collection companies, then it doesn't seem to surprise me why so many debt collecting companies break the laws. There should be tighter laws on the formation of debt collection companies and the employees that they can hire.
The problem is that cell phone customers have to pay for the minutes that are used. I have pre paid cell service and debt collectors are calling me all the time looking for someone else who I do not know. This is the problem. Harassment to the cell phone owner and harassment that the cell phone owner must pay for. this is why it will always remain illegal for debt collectors to call cell phones.
No phone calls at work. I agree! Work is for work, not personal debt business. I personally don't get calls at work, but I can see how embarrassing it would be and how quickly the company would probably fire. Then how would the debt collector get their money? No work phone calls period, should be the law.
Innocent until proven guilty is the American Justice System. And the burden of the proof is on the one bringing the suit. Debt collectors need to get their act together before trying to file frivolous lawsuits.
That's the price of being in the business. If debt collectors can't hack it in the real world, then they need to find another business industry to be for their "careers."
That's business. Debt collectors--small, medium, and large--know the cost of doing business. And if they don't know, then they need to find a new "career."
I don't think that the partial SSN should be included. That raises too many privacy concerns. And I'm sure that one day a debt collection company will have a "system malfunction" and will "accidentally" send the full SSN. Plus, what if it is sent the the wrong Ms. Jones. Too many consumers have similar names in the same city. Lastly, many different companies classify a partial SSN as the first 5 digits whereas other stick to the traditional last 4 digits. If a mail thief is lurking, then he might have access to a consumers full SSN.
I think that both an English and Spanish letter should be sent. This already happens with most legal and other important things (like voting and letters from school) in my State. But this should be a fed requirement to always include Spanish.
Actually a dialer does not call back. Your dialer has been purposely setup that way by YOUR IT dept. Would you like to compare notes? I bet you would lose in the knowledge of dialers.
It is against the law to call cell phones. And to send out texts. And no matter how much the debt collection lobbyists try to change the law, it won't work.
People get fired for personal calls at work. I worked at a place where employee phone call was recorded and randomly monitored due to the sensitivity of our work. And every now and then an employee would get caught making/taking a personal phone call and would be fired with no questions asked. Work is not the place for personal business.
Kiko30, do you have anything constructive to say? Or are all of your comments going to be a "consumer" disguised as a debt collector? If that is the case, don't you have some more debtors to illegally harass?
Understood. All i meant was that I know a lot of automated dialers. given the nature of my work. and the comment i replied to was to set the record straight so that everyday consumers (and CFPB) would understand all dialer work. They don't magically redial. The are forced to by the company.
A debt that is paid in full doesn't improve a credit score at all. A debt that is settled for less or paid in full is the exact same. Once the damage is done to a credit score, the damage will remain. The only slight (very small) improvement on a credit score is when a bad debt was a credit card account and had over 100% utilization. Once the utilization goes down below 100% (and that occurs when the credit card debt was either settled for less or paid in full) does the credit score improve only very slightly. But the damage is still done and will take years to recover from. http://www.myfico.com/CreditEducation/ImproveYourScore.aspx
That is not going to work. The burden of proof in the American Justice System is bore by the one who is making the accusations. Some debtors are going to lie and say that a debt is not theirs when it actually is, but that is the nature of the beast with debt collections. Innocent until proven guilty is the rules of the game. Otherwise I, as a debt collector, can accuse anyone of anything owning any amount and extort money from innocent people. Debt collection is about collecting debt, not about making accusations and extortions.
I like the Summary of Rights idea. I think that a validation letter and even an initial communication letter should included of Summary of Rights for State Laws and Fed Laws. This would help two fold: both the debtors/consumers and the debt collecting companies. The debtor/consumers would know their rights and the collectors would then also know the particular rights for the states that they are collecting in. This shouldn't be burdensome at all since the CRA already include Summary of Rights as do employers who check credit.
There should never be a fee for payment. In fact, in about 1/3 of the states have state laws that prohibit any fees/surcharges for payment by credit/debit cards (unless it is a government agency). if a debt collector accepts credit/debit cards for payment, there should not be any fees for payment processing. Nor should there be any fees for payment processing for any other payment method for that matter. debt collection companies should also be able to accept prepaid debit cards for payment as a means of privacy and security for the debtors, rather than access to a bank account.
Being in a court of law and talking to a debt collector on the phone that requires proof that the debt in question is not a valid debt, are two different things. If your intent is to sue, then sue. But requiring proof from anyone you call up and demand that they prove to you (and not a judge) that the debt is not theirs is extortion.
If there already isn't a law or rule at the fed level for when what happens to time barred debts when a debtor leaves the purview of one states SOL and now resides in another states SOL, there needs to be. It should be clear that if a debtor changes states, which SOL should come into play.
I think there should be a fed law that should clearly state that any partial payment might revive the SOL for suit. How consumers get a phone call/letter telling them they have a debt and they just blindly pay it or make partial payments in order to just stop getting the phone calls? Lots. And the debt might not even be theirs, but they pay it anyways thinking that they might have a old debt that they forgot to take care of. The problem with that is, that the debt then is revived, the debt collector sues, and the judge tells the debtor "well, if this wasn't your debt then why did you agree to make partial payments?" Then the judge will make favor in the debt collector for a revived debt that the debtor was not even responsible for in the first place. This scenario happens every day of the week. And the consumer had thought they were doing the right thing, but the debt collector is actually taking advantage.
Actually there should always be more communication about specific things, rather than less. More communication from the Original Creditors that an account will be turned over to a collector and when. And when a debt collector then turns it over or sells to someone else there should be more communication about who. Just like when mortgages are sold to other servicers, the borrowers get letters informing them of who now owns their mortgage and who now to send payment to. This should be standard practice for debt collectors. Explaining to the debtor that they have turned the account to someone else and that all payment and communication should now be directed to the new guy (even if no payments were sent to the first debt collector.) Because there are debtors who can't make payment now but can later, and if they start sending payment to an old debt collector via an old letter they got in the mail, then debtors attempts to actually resolve the debt go by the wayside. More communication about who/what/where/how is necessary.
The name of the agency is the CONSUMER Financial Protection Bureau not the Collector Financial Protection Bureau. The industry have their lobbyists and consumers have the CFPB. The goal is to protect consumers from illegal practices by certain industries and that sometimes means more regulations.
Are you seriously suggesting that debt collectors be able to charge debtors a "communication elimination fee"??! So a debtor tells you to not call them at work anymore so you say "fine, but we will have to charge you a 'do not call at work fee'" or a debtor says "I have hire a lawyer, do not contact me. All contact must go through my lawyer." and you say "fine, but we will have to charge you a 'lawyer communication fee.''' Maybe, I misread what you are trying to say. Would you like to clarify your position?
Agreed. And it should be their real phone number. So that when you miss their phone call and try to call them back, it should go to the real company. And not say something like "the call can not be completed as dialed." I mean, what is the point in that. Some debtors can't get to their phone before it goes to the answering machine and if the collectors don't leave a message, the debtor will try to call back. But then the call can't be completed when you try to call back. So, really what was the point of the call. Many debtors would just assume it was a scam call. Increasing Right Party Contacts should be the goal. And that goal can only be reached if the real phone number is showing up on calller id.
I agree with all of the proposed inconvenient places--especially number 1, 2, and 5. If debtor is in the hospital for themselves or for a loved one, that is the last place someone wants to deal with a bill collector. The same goes with # 2 and #5. I would also add, places (cities) that have recently experienced or are experiencing a natural disaster at the time of the call/mailing. Debtors who just lost their house, for example, due to a natural disaster should not be bother by a debt collector calling them or mailing them about a 5 year old cell phone debt they forgot to pay. There should be a reasonable exemption time (like maybe 45 days) that prohibits a debt collector from calling or mailing a debtor during/after a natural disaster.
I don't like #2 because if they were to start telling consumers to a to a certain website, that opens the door for spammers/hackers to increase virus infections by simply doing the same thing. Just calling every phone number in the phone book and telling the consumer navigate to a certain website and then infect their computer.
I would also add, any places/cities that have been in a state of emergency or any other emergency like an attack or otherwise dangerous/hostile environment like Newtown, Boston, etc. for an reasonable exemption time (like maybe 45 days).
True, spammers/hackers could do this now. I meant more like, if this rule were implemented and became sort of a common identifier: like "Oh, I know what this call is about. Its a debt collector. A debt collector will always tell you to go to a website." Then i worry that spammers/hackers could take advantage of this common identifier and somehow infect computers when an debtor does visit whatever website is left in the message.
They could at least start with address and area code of debtor’s phone number. And I would say that the reach would be at least as far as the local commuting area. So for a city like Boston, there's Boston, Chelsea, and the other surrounding areas. Now, if a debtor from NY traveled to Boston for the marathon, for example, that would be much harder for a collector to have a reasonable expectation of a debtor’s whereabouts. But once a debtor has identified his/herself within the reach of the commuting area of the place of emergency, then perhaps the exemption period should kick in. In a place like Newtown, or Colorado, if a collector has a reasonable belief that a debtor may have been an employee of the school or movie theater (if they can’t identify the debtor being in the local commuting area by address/phone number), then they should also stop collection for the exemption period. So, place of employment, address, phone number, and debtors self-identifying their whereabouts, could be ways that debt collectors could/should have reason to believe the location of a debtor.
I think limitation is good as not to harass. I think it has been generally defined as 3-4 days per day, though I think that is still excessive, and any collector who follows that is clearly trying to harass. Who else would someone call 3-4 times in a day? But, with the example of 1 call per day, I would think that there would also need to be another limitation such as 1 call per day or no more than 4 calls in a week. Otherwise, a collector could call 1 time a day, 7 times a week, 30 times in a month, etc. And personally, in my personal phone calls and in my business phone calls, it can take me more than a day or two to return a message. Customarily, in personal phone calls and business phone calls, if a message is left, the caller will leave a message and wait a couple of days before calling back if the person has yet to return the phone call. This is the way normal phone etiquette works--both in personal phone calls and in business calls. So, why should debt collections be different, why should they break the norms.
If a message is left, 3 things need to happen. 1) the debt collector needs to not block/spoof their caller id; 2) a call back phone number needs to be left in the message and it needs to match the phone number shown on the caller id; and 3) when the debtor calls the call back number, a recording needs to immediately state the mini miranda warning before a connection to a live representative is made.
I disagree. The problem with reputation is really two fold: 1) yes, nobody likes debt collectors just like nobody likes dentists -- this is just the nature of the profession; and 2) the problem is that debt collectors think of their profession as "us versus them" or "them versus us" and this is wrong and is the reason why debt collectors operate in illegal and abusive manners.
Payment processor Visa has general information and the corresponding state statutes about the 10 states that prohibit companies from charging credit/debit card fees located on their website. Here are a couple of links from visa. Texas, which most people would think would be business friendly, is actually really consumer friendly when it comes to these fees, for example. Texas has had a long-standing state law against credit card fees, and just recently this year created a new state law to cover against debit card fees and other stored value cards (like prepaid debit cards).
http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/checkout_fees/
http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/surcharging-faq-by-merchants.pdf
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FI/htm/FI.339.htm
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/HB03068F.htm
And, no, I do not have any knowledge of if debt collectors are charging debtors payment processing fees or not, but if they are--especially in the states that forbid this practice--they should not be allowed to do so. And I further believe that in the remaining states that do not have any laws forbidding credit/debit cards surcharges, that a fed reg/law should forbid debt collectors in all states from doing so.
Yes, I am also concerned with whether or not collectors should identify themselves in a message, or if they should be more general in identifying who they are in a voice message as to not invade the privacy of the debtor for whomever else may share the same answering machine or otherwise may over hear the message. So far, I have purposely remained neutral on this matter because I have yet to form an opinion. I can see both sides of the arguments. I think I lean more to wanting the collectors to be more discrete and general about who is calling, but I still am not sure. The big concern that is more concrete is definitely the phone number caller id, in that it should be the true number of the business and (if a message is left) should also be the call back number.
I think I do kind of like this idea. This designated database/website could also list Summary of Rights for state laws and Fed laws. Then this same website might also be able to be used as a way to report abusive behaviors (or link to the appropriate websites to do so), and other relevant information for consumers regarding consumer debt, credit, and credit reports, and other various useful information that is currently available but is spread across many agency websites. The website could be paid for and maintained by the debt collectors (sort of like how annualcreditreport.com is paid for and maintained by the credit reporting agencies). It could be a way to help bring legitimacy to the debt collection industry by having a way to identify them to separate the legit companies from the bad ones while allowing collectors to operate effectively.
I do not believe that use of social media should be allowed to initiate or to conduct any legal or other sensitive arrangements or communications to and from debt collectors. There are a couple of things that I’ve noticed about social media: social media is a fad, and an outlet. People use social media as an outlet for the narcissistic/public/storybook/memorable moments side of their lives. And recent evidence shows that fewer teens and young adults are using facebook and twitter. And I am most certain that no social media user would like for their private life to become public life by dealing with a debt collector on facebook. Nobody likes to be in debt and have bill collectors chasing them, so why would anybody want to have bill collectors shaming them or otherwise communicating with them on public platforms such as social media – even if these communications are done in private messages. “In writing” to me, means a letter delivered in the mail. I would also accept an interpretation to mean delivered by email but only on official company letterhead documents. And only if first requested by the debtor and not first initiated by the collector. But I can not accept “in writing” to mean messages and communication sent via social media.
I think that E-Sign consent should only be valid for the original creditor. And any and every collector who then gets involved must get the debtor to consent E-Sign with them. The reason is because there are some things that I, as a consumer, am comfortable with dealing online or through email with my original creditors, but there are things that I know I would not feel comfortable dealing with online/email with a debt collector. So E-Sign should not be blanket consent for anyone and everyone.
Text messages, which are illegal and should remain illegal are cost effective for collectors but at the expense of the debtor/alleged debtor and therefore should not be used.
Wow, I am sorry to hear about this situation. This kind of abusive behavior is upsetting to hear as a consumer. They don’t need to "speak" with anyone. You/your daughter are perfectly within your legal rights to ask the phone calls to stop and to communicate by other means. And the collectors who are refusing to honor this request is in violation. Moreover, they should not be contacting you nor they should be contacting you/your daughter 10 times a day. This is clearly excessive and abusive.
I would like to also mention, that although they do have a point about the federal loans can usually be placed into deferment, debt collectors are not fiduciaries and are not acting with nor are capable of providing financial advice that is in the best interest of the consumer/debtor. The collectors will say anything and do anything just to get paid. They should not be allowed to offer advice on what bills to pay and how to pay them. This sort of "advice" can be detrimental to consumers/debtors. Perhaps the CFPB should allow collectors to offer referrals on financial advice, but they should not allow collectors to outright give financial advice.
I believe that this practice in already in place in three major ways. The creditor usually already requires all of their customers to provided updated contact information, Once a consumer moves the address change and other contact information changes are updated on the consumers credit report, and finally, The USPS has records of mail forwarding procedures once a consumer moves.
You raise an issue that has two distinct definitions: "sent" and "received" I don't think that any consumer wishes that they "receive" a notice that wasn't "sent" in the first place. In addition, letters and parcels get lost in the mail all the time. If there is a requirement for a credit/collector to "send" the notices you are referring to, the first place to send them are going to be an address that is on file. If the letters then get returned, then you would know that they are not at the address that is on file. But the letters have to be "sent" in the first place.
Several courts have held—and the [FTC] and the [CFPB] agree—that a collector who sues or threatens suit on a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA. The FDCPA prohibits, among other things, the use of “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” These include making a false representation of “the character, amount, or legal status of any debt,” threatening “to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken,” and “using any false or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201309_cfpb_agency-brief_12-cv-04057.pdf
It is in fact your gross distortion of the law and misunderstanding to claim that SOL are a defensive mechanism to allow a plaintiff "to avoid being disadvantaged" for not filing a lawful suit within a lawful time frame.
I am sure many judges would disagree with you. Courtrooms are not a playground. And judges do not like it when plaintiffs waste their time by filling frivolous lawsuits that do not have proof.
As I frequent many of the consumer credit forums, I will tell you that most consumers do think that a debt can still be brought to court when the receive contact past the SOL. And others I have run into also still get contacted even after the 7 year mark when the debt has finally dropped from their credit report. In fact, just the debt dropping off from the reports that has otherwise been dormant will get an automatic response from debt collectors. It seems they purposely wait for it to drop off and then pounce to instill fear. As in a "gentle" reminder that they are still there. They act like sharks in the water circling their prey. And the consumers bring up questions like "when will this end?" and "I thought the debt wipes out after 7 years, why are they still contacting me?" Something needs to be done about this. SOL are SOL for a reason. Debt collectors should not be able to harass and harass and harass.
A marital spouse is no longer a marital spouse when either martial partner dies. To death do us part. The end is death. A spouse doesn't remarry while still married, but unmarried people will remarry. A divorced spouse or a widowed spouse, may become the spouse of another once remarried. The term spouse, in my opinion, relates to a marriage. Once the marriage is over, the "spouse" is no longer a "spouse."
I have a lot of concerns with emails. Email clients have privacy/security settings that do not allow the sender to know if/when an email has been or was received. The problem is that even with these privacy/security settings, senders are able to get around these settings. This is widely used by spammers and hackers. All of the spam experts all say not to open emails that are spam or potential spam, because the spammers are so good at manipulating and getting around the privacy/security settings and force the recipients email client to inform the sender of when/if an email was opened. Also, I do not like the idea that collectors can insert links in emails. The more unscrupulous collectors and unscrupulous employees can insert links that are harmful to the security of the user’s computers and offensive to the recipients (like pornographic material). Just think about how many collectors still (even after all of the lawsuits) use offensive and abusive language over the telephone, just think about what kind of harm these bad apples would be able to do with emails. I also I do not like the emails because of the ease with which collection companies can sell the email lists to marketers. Many decades ago, one of my neighbors was a debt collector. She would tell me that if they couldn’t get money out of the debtors then we make money off of them by selling your address and personal information to marketing companies. I have huge concerns for allowing collectors from using emails. Any rules that allow collectors to use email should come with deliberate care and attention to the privacy/security, materials and content, and the restriction of selling email lists. I also worry about true and accurate identification of emails. Spammers/hackers are able to manipulate how emails are presented and the name of the email address that they send with. Haven’t you ever gotten a spam email that was sent by “you”? Just like I worry about the phone call numbers being spoofed there should also be rules restricting collectors are manipulating and spoofing their email addresses.
If emails are allowed, they should not be allowed to be sent outside of what is the acceptable time for phone calls. I would like to restrict the time to inside normal business hours for the locale of the debtor, because no business email should ever be sent from the office outside normal business hours. This is basic and normal business etiquette for emails. But a compromise could be made for what is accepted for phone calls. However, I would like to see no emails sent on Sundays. The USPS does not operate on Sundays and neither should emails of a business nature.
A dialer does none of the things to which you refer. A human takes a lists of calls that are deemed restricted to any of the criteria that you listed, and loads that list into the computer software that also holds a lists of all calls to be made. Then the list of restricted calls are "scrubbed" out of the automated dialer. This scrubbing process is akin to a human scratching out a phone number with a pen on a paper list. There are no measurable gains in consumer protection to which you refer. Calls are not recorded through the dialer. Dialers work in unison with the recording software. This recording software records manual phone calls just the same.
I have a problem with the security of email clients from everyday hackers. Remember the recent Yahoo email accounts that were compromised by hackers? This was a huge concern for many of Yahoo’s email users. Imagine the kind of materials and personal information that hackers would have if SSN’s and/or other sensitive and PII that were included in the emails of debt collectors. I further worry about the uptick in fake collection companies that have been capitalizing of the economic down turn and calling people who may have suffered a loss during this down turn. These downturn victims have been turning money over left and right to fake collection companies who were pretending to be collecting on legitimate debts. Now imagine email accounts getting hacked into and the hackers having access to all of the debt collection information at a debtor might have had setting in their inbox, and then comes along a new fake debt collection company…aka..the hackers..who then try to collect on a debt. These sorts of things worry me if use of emails could be used.
I was just watching "CBS This Morning" and they mentioned that FICO is going to be partnering with more financial institutions to allow the financial institutions’ customers to get their FICO score for free. FICO is already offered for free with many financial institutions, but now FICO is aggressively expanding this offer through their "Open Access" program. Link: http://www.fico.com/en/Products/Scoring/Pages/FICO_Score_Open_Access.aspx
I have known about this ever since FICO put out a press release earlier this month. What I found out today on "CBS This Morning" is that Discover is going to allow their cardholders to see their FICO score for free on their monthly billing statement. I don’t think this is appropriate for Discover or any other business to put a consumer’s FICO score on a billing statement or any other materials that can be turned over to debt collectors. Right now, debt collectors do not have access to any consumers FICO score. They do, however, have access to something called a "collection score" which is nothing at all related to FICO or a consumers creditworthiness. This action by Discover is a HUGE privacy concern and the CFPB should not allow creditors or anyone else to have access to a consumer’s FICO score.
To Mods: Not sure where to put my comment, so it ended up here in the Unlawful Collection Practices forum, because this practice by Discover should be unlawful for others (debt collectors, mail thieves, joint account holders, any one else who might have access to a billing statement) to have access to a consumer's FICO score.
I think the 9-8 is a typo. I have seen other typos on this site too, and they provide to FDCPA link that shows it is 8-9, so no big deal. On this topic though, I would like to see the 8-9 changed to 9-8. 8 is too early and 9 is too late at night to get phone calls.
I also don't think that they should be able to call on Sundays. I understand that weekends are probably a good time to call people, but I think that weekend calling should be restricted to less hours (like maybe noon - 5pm) and only on Saturdays. No Sunday phone calls.
Just to add to my comment: These so-called "Blue Laws" that prohibit cars lots being opened on Sundays and liquor being sold on Sundays, requiring the debt collection industry from closing down on Sundays (no calls, no letters, no contact) would not create any undo burden as many other regulated industries (car, liquor, gambling, etc) already abide to such "blue laws" and they operate just fine and make plenty of profits. The debt collection industry should be required to close down completely on Sundays.
I would like to see a rule prohibiting debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates from being able to pull a debtor’s credit report once the debt is officially time-barred and out of SOL. I would also like there to be a rule that specifically distinguishes between a “hard pull” and a “soft pull” credit inquiry. I have been opted out of promotional marketing via the www.optoutprescreen.com website for years. I do not have debt and have never had debt. What I do have is a common name, and so from time to time I will have various debt collectors and debt buyers “soft pulling” my credit reports while they are trying to locate whomever they are trying to locate. This should not be allowed even if the debt is still collectable and within the SOL. No debt collector has a “permissible purpose” to just randomly “soft pull” my credit reports just because I have a common name. As far as being outside the SOL and time-barred debts: no debt collector and debt owners/debt buyers should be allowed to pull someone’s credit report since they can’t legally sue the debtor outside of the SOL. So there is no need to continue pulling someone’s credit report. As far as the “hard pull” “soft pull” is concerned: There needs to be specific language that prohibits any debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates from performing “hard pull” credit report inquiries. The FCRA makes it clear what “permissible purposes” are but it does not specifically state or distinguish between a “hard pull” and a “soft pull” credit inquiry. A “hard pull” is a consumer-initiated request for an extension of credit. Anything other than a consumer-initiated request is a “soft pull.” But time and time again, I have friends, family members, and online forum members, tell me and show me that a debt collector or a debt owner/debt buyer has “hard pulled” their credit report. And some of these times are when the debt is time-barred from being outside the SOL and also from the Credit Reporting Time Period. This is unacceptable. A “hard pull” will decrease a consumers credit score and will be visible for up to 25 months to anyone who does have a legitimate permissible purpose to view that consumer’s credit report i.e. employers and potential employers, creditors, etc. Making a “hard pull” on a debtor’s credit report could be a violation of the FDCPA in the privacy of the debtor. Any debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates should be prohibited from doing “hard pulls” and the CFPB should make it absolutely clear.www.optoutprescreen.com
These so called free-to-end-user alternatives (if allowed to be used) also need to be regulated. There are huge privacy concerns at stake here. My friend started texting me on a free texting app, and then all of a sudden I was begging to be bombarded by SPAM text and SPAM phone calls. I can't be certain that the Free Text App that my friend was using was selling my phone number to other people, but it was a massive coincidence. Why else are these text apps free? How do they make their money (besides a few embedded ads)? Of course these people are selling phone numbers. My privacy is not for sell. Nor is my phone number. The CFPB needs to really think about these so called free-to-end user alternatives and what sort of privacy practices these companies are engaging in, if any.
Just to make my comment clear: I implied that the Free-to-end-user alternatives (if allowed to be used) need to be regulated so that they are not selling phone numbers and compromising the privacy of the consumers. My comment made it appear as though I think that the free texting apps (which allow people to text for free) and the free-to-end-user alternatives are the same thing. They are not. I don't want the free-to-end-user alternatives to behave the same as free texting apps -- selling phone numbers to Spammers.
I have a hard time believing that a debt collection company "treat[s] EVERY dispute the same" (see link: http://regulationroom.org/rules/consumer-debt-collection-practices/discussion/when-consumers-dispute-debt#cid-1090) when debt collectors seem to blatantly disregard a dispute that has the appearance of being "copied directly from the internet." Consumer advocates are trying to educate consumers, debtors, and alleged debtors with information on how to handle debt collectors or how to handle their particular situation. We are try to give them relevant links to FDCPA, FCRA, HIPPA, and various form letters that can help them communicate with debt collectors. There is nothing wrong with form letters. But there is everything wrong with debt collectors disregaring certain letters just because they don't like that it came from a consumer advocate source. Debt collectors operating legally and with nothing to hide should never treat form letters as something to throw in the trash. You seem to be saying that debt collectors will only want to communicate with consumers who are misinformed and don't know what their rights are, rather than communicate with a consumer who knows the laws and the appropriate ways to address a letter of dispute.
This is a fantastic idea. Right now, debt buyers buy debt for an average price of 4 cents on the dollar. Many debts are bought for 2-4 cents on the dollar and many other debts are given away for free. Once the original creditor has made the decision to sell the debt, they should try to contact the debtor one last time to let them have a chance to payoff their debt at a significantly reduced rate. If I were an original creditor, would like to get the most money I could for a debt owed to me. And so if I could get 10 cents on the dollar directly from the debtor, rather than 4 cents on the dollar from a debt buyer, then I would see no reason not to offer a significantly reduced debt settlement rate to the debtor (or as you call it, letting consumers bid on their own debt). Right now, original creditors offer no significant reduced rate to debtor before selling for 4 cents on the dollar. Most creditors barely even offer debtors 10% off the debt as a settlement offer. Sure, a creditor could more quickly offload portfolios to debt buyers by selling them at 4 cents on the dollar. But creditors could also make way more money offering a onetime chance at 10 cents on the dollar (or something really attractive but still more than 4 cents on the dollar). Perhaps the CFPB should make a rule that allows consumers/debtors the chance to receive a onetime offer that is valid for only X amount of days (maybe 45 days) from the date of the letter sent from their creditors of a significantly reduced rate. The offer would only be valid for a short amount of time and would also inform the consumer that, should the consumer not accept the offer, the creditor would then turn it over to a debt buyer. This letter would only be sent if the creditor’s intentions are to sell the debt and not just another attempt to collect. So that this way it gives the consumer one final chance to clear the debt owed and the creditors also have less loss and more profits and would be able to lend to more consumers, give better rates to consumers, and stimulate the economy. Because more money that is changing hands at higher values (10 cents on the dollar vs. 4 cents on the dollar) instead of sitting in the accounts receivable section waiting to be collected (one day, if ever) stimulates the economy. This rule would not negatively impact anything (or anyone) and only positively impacts everyone. One minor impact might be on the debt collection industry possibly receiving less debt in their portfolios that they buy, but this minor impact is offset by the large positive impacts on the economy.
Reply to Dazed and Abused:
This is an awesome suggestion! Your suggestion "I don't think they should be allowed to call ANY number for more than 3 months without successful contact with the debtor" is spot on! And I can't believe that no one else has ever suggested this before. 3 months (or whatever an appropriate time limit is) would reduce the constant harassment that I and many other innocent parties receive. This morning I received an illegal phone call from a collector at 6:17 AM with a spoofed phone number for a person that I have never known and I have told these collectors this several times already. They have the wrong number. And I am tired of this. The CFPB should absolutely implement a rule that forces unsuccessful contact to 3 months.
Although I don’t think that it is necessary for the CFPB to have undercover agents, I do think that the CFPB should create a new class of examiners. Currently the CFPB examiners only do examinations of the financial lenders and nonbank lenders. But since the CFPB is now taking on the collection industry, the CFPB should create a new classification of examiners to do onsite examinations of the debt collection companies. This would not create any harm to the CFPB nor would it impact the CFPB’s budget or operations. The CFPB’s budget is not allocated through congressional legislation – it is allocated through monetary transfers from the Federal Reserve. All the CFPB would need to do is ask for additional transfers from the Federal Reserve to create this new classification of examiners.
These new examiners would help the CFPB monitor the debt collection industry and would help stimulate the economy by adding more jobs. This is a win-win solution.
It is the responsibility of the creditor and debt collectors to report accurate information. Reporting accurate information has nothing to do with "debt collectors who don't report to credit reporting agencies at all." If a debt collector reported accurately that the debt in question has not been paid, but now is, it is the responsibility of that debt collector to report the newly accurate information. As I too have noticed, some debt collectors will not accurately report updated information to the credit bureaus once they are paid.
The ACA's (debt collectors) positions on the CFPB's proposed rules is disgusting!! It is laughable! See for yourself America, here it is: http://www.acainternational.org/files.aspx?p=/images/31323/aca-anpr-comments.pdf
The Permissible hours of 9am - 8 pm is good. I actually would like to see it moved to the other proposed time of 9am - 7pm, but i think 8pm is a fair compromise. Because the current 8am - 9pm really is just way to early/late. I (and many families) are in bed after 8pm and phone afer 8pm really is way too late. I support the 9am - 8pm hours. I further support weekend calling lessened to noon-5pm because people like to sleep in on the weekends and spend time with family. Having a phone call after 5pm really is not necessary as most people will be out and/or entertaining guests at their homes and will not take calls in the afternoon. I further support adherence to blue laws that prohibit consumer contact on Sundays. Sundays really are when most people are spending whatever little time they have left before the workweek with friends and family. I do not conduct business on Sundays. The work week really should be when debt collectors are working on trying to contact consumers.
I would disagree that there is confusion among consumers about SOL which would, as you suggest, require the need for a national SOL. The only time I have personally seen SOL straddle a line is when a consumer moves to another state with a different SOL. The clarity needs to be in these such cases. Because once a debtor moves, both parties claim the SOL where it benefits them for their desired outcome. A national SOL only benefits the debt collectors and not the consumers. The focus should remain on creating, as best as possible, a win-win solution that benefits the debt collectors the consumers. Having a national SOL of 7 years as ACA International wants compromises state laws wherein some states of SOL of 3 years (and otherwise less than 7). A SOL is meant to bring resolve. And in reality, if a debt collector/debt owner can not resolve their clients issues within the already established SOL of each state, then extending the SOL or having a national SOL under which to bring suit does nothing but allow debt collectors to continue to harass consumers. Three years really is more than enough time to sue. Just as criminal defendants are entitled to a quick and speedy trail, so should consumers who may/may not be aware they have an outstanding debt. That is to say: having a national SOL is a guise to prolong resolution rather than a more quick a final resolve in when to bring suit.
stopwithspoofedcallerID
1
Can there be a national repository to report abusive phone calls from debt collectors that masked (fake and “spoof”) their caller ID? I got a brand new phone number a few years ago and it obviously previously belonged to someone who is delinquent on their bills because I get calls everyday from debt collectors looking for the person who had my phone number before me. No matter how many times I tell them they have the wrong number, they don’t care and they just keep calling and they call from spoofed phone numbers. And this is my cell phone, which is against the law for debt collectors to call. The same debt collectors call with faked caller IDs. Here are just some of the phone numbers these debt collectors use: 808-792-8186 462643 858-568-7632 805-322-4584 706-913-1192 808-348-0083 858-345-4076 858-312-7724 908-505-9008 800-633-2677 252-808-7969 571-522-0386 407-712-3093 213-816-2972 804-721-3193 678-781-4530 427307 858-240-4079
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
2
I agree. I have been harassed for years (after getting a new cell phone number) from debt collectors calling for someone else. I presume it is the person who had my phone number before me. No matter how many times I tell them that they have the wrong number, they just keep calling over and over.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
3
What are the laws and rules on who can create/own debt collecting companies? It seems that just about anyone can create a debt collection company and if the owners and/or employees have unscrupulous desires, then it seems that privacy is a big concern. Plus, if anyone can create/own debt collection companies, then it doesn't seem to surprise me why so many debt collecting companies break the laws. There should be tighter laws on the formation of debt collection companies and the employees that they can hire.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
4
The problem is that cell phone customers have to pay for the minutes that are used. I have pre paid cell service and debt collectors are calling me all the time looking for someone else who I do not know. This is the problem. Harassment to the cell phone owner and harassment that the cell phone owner must pay for. this is why it will always remain illegal for debt collectors to call cell phones.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
5
No phone calls at work. I agree! Work is for work, not personal debt business. I personally don't get calls at work, but I can see how embarrassing it would be and how quickly the company would probably fire. Then how would the debt collector get their money? No work phone calls period, should be the law.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
6
Innocent until proven guilty is the American Justice System. And the burden of the proof is on the one bringing the suit. Debt collectors need to get their act together before trying to file frivolous lawsuits.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
7
That's the price of being in the business. If debt collectors can't hack it in the real world, then they need to find another business industry to be for their "careers."
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
8
That's business. Debt collectors--small, medium, and large--know the cost of doing business. And if they don't know, then they need to find a new "career."
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
9
I don't think that the partial SSN should be included. That raises too many privacy concerns. And I'm sure that one day a debt collection company will have a "system malfunction" and will "accidentally" send the full SSN. Plus, what if it is sent the the wrong Ms. Jones. Too many consumers have similar names in the same city. Lastly, many different companies classify a partial SSN as the first 5 digits whereas other stick to the traditional last 4 digits. If a mail thief is lurking, then he might have access to a consumers full SSN.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
10
I think that both an English and Spanish letter should be sent. This already happens with most legal and other important things (like voting and letters from school) in my State. But this should be a fed requirement to always include Spanish.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
11
Texts will not work for consumers. Consumers must pay for texts and this is already against the law will rightly so.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
12
Actually a dialer does not call back. Your dialer has been purposely setup that way by YOUR IT dept. Would you like to compare notes? I bet you would lose in the knowledge of dialers.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
13
It is against the law to call cell phones. And to send out texts. And no matter how much the debt collection lobbyists try to change the law, it won't work.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
14
People get fired for personal calls at work. I worked at a place where employee phone call was recorded and randomly monitored due to the sensitivity of our work. And every now and then an employee would get caught making/taking a personal phone call and would be fired with no questions asked. Work is not the place for personal business.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
15
Kiko30, do you have anything constructive to say? Or are all of your comments going to be a "consumer" disguised as a debt collector? If that is the case, don't you have some more debtors to illegally harass?
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
16
Understood. All i meant was that I know a lot of automated dialers. given the nature of my work. and the comment i replied to was to set the record straight so that everyday consumers (and CFPB) would understand all dialer work. They don't magically redial. The are forced to by the company.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
17
A debt that is paid in full doesn't improve a credit score at all. A debt that is settled for less or paid in full is the exact same. Once the damage is done to a credit score, the damage will remain. The only slight (very small) improvement on a credit score is when a bad debt was a credit card account and had over 100% utilization. Once the utilization goes down below 100% (and that occurs when the credit card debt was either settled for less or paid in full) does the credit score improve only very slightly. But the damage is still done and will take years to recover from. http://www.myfico.com/CreditEducation/ImproveYourScore.aspx
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
18
That is not going to work. The burden of proof in the American Justice System is bore by the one who is making the accusations. Some debtors are going to lie and say that a debt is not theirs when it actually is, but that is the nature of the beast with debt collections. Innocent until proven guilty is the rules of the game. Otherwise I, as a debt collector, can accuse anyone of anything owning any amount and extort money from innocent people. Debt collection is about collecting debt, not about making accusations and extortions.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
19
I like the Summary of Rights idea. I think that a validation letter and even an initial communication letter should included of Summary of Rights for State Laws and Fed Laws. This would help two fold: both the debtors/consumers and the debt collecting companies. The debtor/consumers would know their rights and the collectors would then also know the particular rights for the states that they are collecting in. This shouldn't be burdensome at all since the CRA already include Summary of Rights as do employers who check credit.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
20
There should never be a fee for payment. In fact, in about 1/3 of the states have state laws that prohibit any fees/surcharges for payment by credit/debit cards (unless it is a government agency). if a debt collector accepts credit/debit cards for payment, there should not be any fees for payment processing. Nor should there be any fees for payment processing for any other payment method for that matter. debt collection companies should also be able to accept prepaid debit cards for payment as a means of privacy and security for the debtors, rather than access to a bank account.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
21
Being in a court of law and talking to a debt collector on the phone that requires proof that the debt in question is not a valid debt, are two different things. If your intent is to sue, then sue. But requiring proof from anyone you call up and demand that they prove to you (and not a judge) that the debt is not theirs is extortion.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
22
If there already isn't a law or rule at the fed level for when what happens to time barred debts when a debtor leaves the purview of one states SOL and now resides in another states SOL, there needs to be. It should be clear that if a debtor changes states, which SOL should come into play.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
23
I think there should be a fed law that should clearly state that any partial payment might revive the SOL for suit. How consumers get a phone call/letter telling them they have a debt and they just blindly pay it or make partial payments in order to just stop getting the phone calls? Lots. And the debt might not even be theirs, but they pay it anyways thinking that they might have a old debt that they forgot to take care of. The problem with that is, that the debt then is revived, the debt collector sues, and the judge tells the debtor "well, if this wasn't your debt then why did you agree to make partial payments?" Then the judge will make favor in the debt collector for a revived debt that the debtor was not even responsible for in the first place. This scenario happens every day of the week. And the consumer had thought they were doing the right thing, but the debt collector is actually taking advantage.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
24
Actually there should always be more communication about specific things, rather than less. More communication from the Original Creditors that an account will be turned over to a collector and when. And when a debt collector then turns it over or sells to someone else there should be more communication about who. Just like when mortgages are sold to other servicers, the borrowers get letters informing them of who now owns their mortgage and who now to send payment to. This should be standard practice for debt collectors. Explaining to the debtor that they have turned the account to someone else and that all payment and communication should now be directed to the new guy (even if no payments were sent to the first debt collector.) Because there are debtors who can't make payment now but can later, and if they start sending payment to an old debt collector via an old letter they got in the mail, then debtors attempts to actually resolve the debt go by the wayside. More communication about who/what/where/how is necessary.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
25
The name of the agency is the CONSUMER Financial Protection Bureau not the Collector Financial Protection Bureau. The industry have their lobbyists and consumers have the CFPB. The goal is to protect consumers from illegal practices by certain industries and that sometimes means more regulations.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
26
Actually, calls to your mobile/cell phone are illegal.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
27
Are you seriously suggesting that debt collectors be able to charge debtors a "communication elimination fee"??! So a debtor tells you to not call them at work anymore so you say "fine, but we will have to charge you a 'do not call at work fee'" or a debtor says "I have hire a lawyer, do not contact me. All contact must go through my lawyer." and you say "fine, but we will have to charge you a 'lawyer communication fee.''' Maybe, I misread what you are trying to say. Would you like to clarify your position?
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
28
Maybe not their name. But their phone number should show up on caller id. Their real phone number.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
29
Agreed. And it should be their real phone number. So that when you miss their phone call and try to call them back, it should go to the real company. And not say something like "the call can not be completed as dialed." I mean, what is the point in that. Some debtors can't get to their phone before it goes to the answering machine and if the collectors don't leave a message, the debtor will try to call back. But then the call can't be completed when you try to call back. So, really what was the point of the call. Many debtors would just assume it was a scam call. Increasing Right Party Contacts should be the goal. And that goal can only be reached if the real phone number is showing up on calller id.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
30
I agree with all of the proposed inconvenient places--especially number 1, 2, and 5. If debtor is in the hospital for themselves or for a loved one, that is the last place someone wants to deal with a bill collector. The same goes with # 2 and #5. I would also add, places (cities) that have recently experienced or are experiencing a natural disaster at the time of the call/mailing. Debtors who just lost their house, for example, due to a natural disaster should not be bother by a debt collector calling them or mailing them about a 5 year old cell phone debt they forgot to pay. There should be a reasonable exemption time (like maybe 45 days) that prohibits a debt collector from calling or mailing a debtor during/after a natural disaster.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
31
I don't like #2 because if they were to start telling consumers to a to a certain website, that opens the door for spammers/hackers to increase virus infections by simply doing the same thing. Just calling every phone number in the phone book and telling the consumer navigate to a certain website and then infect their computer.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
32
I would also add, any places/cities that have been in a state of emergency or any other emergency like an attack or otherwise dangerous/hostile environment like Newtown, Boston, etc. for an reasonable exemption time (like maybe 45 days).
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
33
True, spammers/hackers could do this now. I meant more like, if this rule were implemented and became sort of a common identifier: like "Oh, I know what this call is about. Its a debt collector. A debt collector will always tell you to go to a website." Then i worry that spammers/hackers could take advantage of this common identifier and somehow infect computers when an debtor does visit whatever website is left in the message.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
34
They could at least start with address and area code of debtor’s phone number. And I would say that the reach would be at least as far as the local commuting area. So for a city like Boston, there's Boston, Chelsea, and the other surrounding areas. Now, if a debtor from NY traveled to Boston for the marathon, for example, that would be much harder for a collector to have a reasonable expectation of a debtor’s whereabouts. But once a debtor has identified his/herself within the reach of the commuting area of the place of emergency, then perhaps the exemption period should kick in. In a place like Newtown, or Colorado, if a collector has a reasonable belief that a debtor may have been an employee of the school or movie theater (if they can’t identify the debtor being in the local commuting area by address/phone number), then they should also stop collection for the exemption period. So, place of employment, address, phone number, and debtors self-identifying their whereabouts, could be ways that debt collectors could/should have reason to believe the location of a debtor.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
35
I think limitation is good as not to harass. I think it has been generally defined as 3-4 days per day, though I think that is still excessive, and any collector who follows that is clearly trying to harass. Who else would someone call 3-4 times in a day? But, with the example of 1 call per day, I would think that there would also need to be another limitation such as 1 call per day or no more than 4 calls in a week. Otherwise, a collector could call 1 time a day, 7 times a week, 30 times in a month, etc. And personally, in my personal phone calls and in my business phone calls, it can take me more than a day or two to return a message. Customarily, in personal phone calls and business phone calls, if a message is left, the caller will leave a message and wait a couple of days before calling back if the person has yet to return the phone call. This is the way normal phone etiquette works--both in personal phone calls and in business calls. So, why should debt collections be different, why should they break the norms.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
36
If a message is left, 3 things need to happen. 1) the debt collector needs to not block/spoof their caller id; 2) a call back phone number needs to be left in the message and it needs to match the phone number shown on the caller id; and 3) when the debtor calls the call back number, a recording needs to immediately state the mini miranda warning before a connection to a live representative is made.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
37
I disagree. The problem with reputation is really two fold: 1) yes, nobody likes debt collectors just like nobody likes dentists -- this is just the nature of the profession; and 2) the problem is that debt collectors think of their profession as "us versus them" or "them versus us" and this is wrong and is the reason why debt collectors operate in illegal and abusive manners.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
38
Payment processor Visa has general information and the corresponding state statutes about the 10 states that prohibit companies from charging credit/debit card fees located on their website. Here are a couple of links from visa. Texas, which most people would think would be business friendly, is actually really consumer friendly when it comes to these fees, for example. Texas has had a long-standing state law against credit card fees, and just recently this year created a new state law to cover against debit card fees and other stored value cards (like prepaid debit cards). http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/checkout_fees/ http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/surcharging-faq-by-merchants.pdf http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FI/htm/FI.339.htm http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/HB03068F.htm And, no, I do not have any knowledge of if debt collectors are charging debtors payment processing fees or not, but if they are--especially in the states that forbid this practice--they should not be allowed to do so. And I further believe that in the remaining states that do not have any laws forbidding credit/debit cards surcharges, that a fed reg/law should forbid debt collectors in all states from doing so.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
39
Yes, I am also concerned with whether or not collectors should identify themselves in a message, or if they should be more general in identifying who they are in a voice message as to not invade the privacy of the debtor for whomever else may share the same answering machine or otherwise may over hear the message. So far, I have purposely remained neutral on this matter because I have yet to form an opinion. I can see both sides of the arguments. I think I lean more to wanting the collectors to be more discrete and general about who is calling, but I still am not sure. The big concern that is more concrete is definitely the phone number caller id, in that it should be the true number of the business and (if a message is left) should also be the call back number.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
40
I think I do kind of like this idea. This designated database/website could also list Summary of Rights for state laws and Fed laws. Then this same website might also be able to be used as a way to report abusive behaviors (or link to the appropriate websites to do so), and other relevant information for consumers regarding consumer debt, credit, and credit reports, and other various useful information that is currently available but is spread across many agency websites. The website could be paid for and maintained by the debt collectors (sort of like how annualcreditreport.com is paid for and maintained by the credit reporting agencies). It could be a way to help bring legitimacy to the debt collection industry by having a way to identify them to separate the legit companies from the bad ones while allowing collectors to operate effectively.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
41
I do not believe that use of social media should be allowed to initiate or to conduct any legal or other sensitive arrangements or communications to and from debt collectors. There are a couple of things that I’ve noticed about social media: social media is a fad, and an outlet. People use social media as an outlet for the narcissistic/public/storybook/memorable moments side of their lives. And recent evidence shows that fewer teens and young adults are using facebook and twitter. And I am most certain that no social media user would like for their private life to become public life by dealing with a debt collector on facebook. Nobody likes to be in debt and have bill collectors chasing them, so why would anybody want to have bill collectors shaming them or otherwise communicating with them on public platforms such as social media – even if these communications are done in private messages. “In writing” to me, means a letter delivered in the mail. I would also accept an interpretation to mean delivered by email but only on official company letterhead documents. And only if first requested by the debtor and not first initiated by the collector. But I can not accept “in writing” to mean messages and communication sent via social media. I think that E-Sign consent should only be valid for the original creditor. And any and every collector who then gets involved must get the debtor to consent E-Sign with them. The reason is because there are some things that I, as a consumer, am comfortable with dealing online or through email with my original creditors, but there are things that I know I would not feel comfortable dealing with online/email with a debt collector. So E-Sign should not be blanket consent for anyone and everyone.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
42
Text messages, which are illegal and should remain illegal are cost effective for collectors but at the expense of the debtor/alleged debtor and therefore should not be used.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
43
Wow, I am sorry to hear about this situation. This kind of abusive behavior is upsetting to hear as a consumer. They don’t need to "speak" with anyone. You/your daughter are perfectly within your legal rights to ask the phone calls to stop and to communicate by other means. And the collectors who are refusing to honor this request is in violation. Moreover, they should not be contacting you nor they should be contacting you/your daughter 10 times a day. This is clearly excessive and abusive. I would like to also mention, that although they do have a point about the federal loans can usually be placed into deferment, debt collectors are not fiduciaries and are not acting with nor are capable of providing financial advice that is in the best interest of the consumer/debtor. The collectors will say anything and do anything just to get paid. They should not be allowed to offer advice on what bills to pay and how to pay them. This sort of "advice" can be detrimental to consumers/debtors. Perhaps the CFPB should allow collectors to offer referrals on financial advice, but they should not allow collectors to outright give financial advice.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
44
I believe that this practice in already in place in three major ways. The creditor usually already requires all of their customers to provided updated contact information, Once a consumer moves the address change and other contact information changes are updated on the consumers credit report, and finally, The USPS has records of mail forwarding procedures once a consumer moves.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
45
You raise an issue that has two distinct definitions: "sent" and "received" I don't think that any consumer wishes that they "receive" a notice that wasn't "sent" in the first place. In addition, letters and parcels get lost in the mail all the time. If there is a requirement for a credit/collector to "send" the notices you are referring to, the first place to send them are going to be an address that is on file. If the letters then get returned, then you would know that they are not at the address that is on file. But the letters have to be "sent" in the first place.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
46
Several courts have held—and the [FTC] and the [CFPB] agree—that a collector who sues or threatens suit on a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA. The FDCPA prohibits, among other things, the use of “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” These include making a false representation of “the character, amount, or legal status of any debt,” threatening “to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken,” and “using any false or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201309_cfpb_agency-brief_12-cv-04057.pdf It is in fact your gross distortion of the law and misunderstanding to claim that SOL are a defensive mechanism to allow a plaintiff "to avoid being disadvantaged" for not filing a lawful suit within a lawful time frame.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
47
I am sure many judges would disagree with you. Courtrooms are not a playground. And judges do not like it when plaintiffs waste their time by filling frivolous lawsuits that do not have proof.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
48
As I frequent many of the consumer credit forums, I will tell you that most consumers do think that a debt can still be brought to court when the receive contact past the SOL. And others I have run into also still get contacted even after the 7 year mark when the debt has finally dropped from their credit report. In fact, just the debt dropping off from the reports that has otherwise been dormant will get an automatic response from debt collectors. It seems they purposely wait for it to drop off and then pounce to instill fear. As in a "gentle" reminder that they are still there. They act like sharks in the water circling their prey. And the consumers bring up questions like "when will this end?" and "I thought the debt wipes out after 7 years, why are they still contacting me?" Something needs to be done about this. SOL are SOL for a reason. Debt collectors should not be able to harass and harass and harass.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
49
A marital spouse is no longer a marital spouse when either martial partner dies. To death do us part. The end is death. A spouse doesn't remarry while still married, but unmarried people will remarry. A divorced spouse or a widowed spouse, may become the spouse of another once remarried. The term spouse, in my opinion, relates to a marriage. Once the marriage is over, the "spouse" is no longer a "spouse."
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
50
I have a lot of concerns with emails. Email clients have privacy/security settings that do not allow the sender to know if/when an email has been or was received. The problem is that even with these privacy/security settings, senders are able to get around these settings. This is widely used by spammers and hackers. All of the spam experts all say not to open emails that are spam or potential spam, because the spammers are so good at manipulating and getting around the privacy/security settings and force the recipients email client to inform the sender of when/if an email was opened. Also, I do not like the idea that collectors can insert links in emails. The more unscrupulous collectors and unscrupulous employees can insert links that are harmful to the security of the user’s computers and offensive to the recipients (like pornographic material). Just think about how many collectors still (even after all of the lawsuits) use offensive and abusive language over the telephone, just think about what kind of harm these bad apples would be able to do with emails. I also I do not like the emails because of the ease with which collection companies can sell the email lists to marketers. Many decades ago, one of my neighbors was a debt collector. She would tell me that if they couldn’t get money out of the debtors then we make money off of them by selling your address and personal information to marketing companies. I have huge concerns for allowing collectors from using emails. Any rules that allow collectors to use email should come with deliberate care and attention to the privacy/security, materials and content, and the restriction of selling email lists. I also worry about true and accurate identification of emails. Spammers/hackers are able to manipulate how emails are presented and the name of the email address that they send with. Haven’t you ever gotten a spam email that was sent by “you”? Just like I worry about the phone call numbers being spoofed there should also be rules restricting collectors are manipulating and spoofing their email addresses.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
51
If emails are allowed, they should not be allowed to be sent outside of what is the acceptable time for phone calls. I would like to restrict the time to inside normal business hours for the locale of the debtor, because no business email should ever be sent from the office outside normal business hours. This is basic and normal business etiquette for emails. But a compromise could be made for what is accepted for phone calls. However, I would like to see no emails sent on Sundays. The USPS does not operate on Sundays and neither should emails of a business nature.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
52
A dialer does none of the things to which you refer. A human takes a lists of calls that are deemed restricted to any of the criteria that you listed, and loads that list into the computer software that also holds a lists of all calls to be made. Then the list of restricted calls are "scrubbed" out of the automated dialer. This scrubbing process is akin to a human scratching out a phone number with a pen on a paper list. There are no measurable gains in consumer protection to which you refer. Calls are not recorded through the dialer. Dialers work in unison with the recording software. This recording software records manual phone calls just the same.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
53
I have a problem with the security of email clients from everyday hackers. Remember the recent Yahoo email accounts that were compromised by hackers? This was a huge concern for many of Yahoo’s email users. Imagine the kind of materials and personal information that hackers would have if SSN’s and/or other sensitive and PII that were included in the emails of debt collectors. I further worry about the uptick in fake collection companies that have been capitalizing of the economic down turn and calling people who may have suffered a loss during this down turn. These downturn victims have been turning money over left and right to fake collection companies who were pretending to be collecting on legitimate debts. Now imagine email accounts getting hacked into and the hackers having access to all of the debt collection information at a debtor might have had setting in their inbox, and then comes along a new fake debt collection company…aka..the hackers..who then try to collect on a debt. These sorts of things worry me if use of emails could be used.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
54
test post
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
55
I was just watching "CBS This Morning" and they mentioned that FICO is going to be partnering with more financial institutions to allow the financial institutions’ customers to get their FICO score for free. FICO is already offered for free with many financial institutions, but now FICO is aggressively expanding this offer through their "Open Access" program. Link: http://www.fico.com/en/Products/Scoring/Pages/FICO_Score_Open_Access.aspx I have known about this ever since FICO put out a press release earlier this month. What I found out today on "CBS This Morning" is that Discover is going to allow their cardholders to see their FICO score for free on their monthly billing statement. I don’t think this is appropriate for Discover or any other business to put a consumer’s FICO score on a billing statement or any other materials that can be turned over to debt collectors. Right now, debt collectors do not have access to any consumers FICO score. They do, however, have access to something called a "collection score" which is nothing at all related to FICO or a consumers creditworthiness. This action by Discover is a HUGE privacy concern and the CFPB should not allow creditors or anyone else to have access to a consumer’s FICO score. To Mods: Not sure where to put my comment, so it ended up here in the Unlawful Collection Practices forum, because this practice by Discover should be unlawful for others (debt collectors, mail thieves, joint account holders, any one else who might have access to a billing statement) to have access to a consumer's FICO score.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
56
I think the 9-8 is a typo. I have seen other typos on this site too, and they provide to FDCPA link that shows it is 8-9, so no big deal. On this topic though, I would like to see the 8-9 changed to 9-8. 8 is too early and 9 is too late at night to get phone calls.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
57
I also don't think that they should be able to call on Sundays. I understand that weekends are probably a good time to call people, but I think that weekend calling should be restricted to less hours (like maybe noon - 5pm) and only on Saturdays. No Sunday phone calls.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
58
Just to add to my comment: These so-called "Blue Laws" that prohibit cars lots being opened on Sundays and liquor being sold on Sundays, requiring the debt collection industry from closing down on Sundays (no calls, no letters, no contact) would not create any undo burden as many other regulated industries (car, liquor, gambling, etc) already abide to such "blue laws" and they operate just fine and make plenty of profits. The debt collection industry should be required to close down completely on Sundays.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
59
I would like to see a rule prohibiting debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates from being able to pull a debtor’s credit report once the debt is officially time-barred and out of SOL. I would also like there to be a rule that specifically distinguishes between a “hard pull” and a “soft pull” credit inquiry. I have been opted out of promotional marketing via the www.optoutprescreen.com website for years. I do not have debt and have never had debt. What I do have is a common name, and so from time to time I will have various debt collectors and debt buyers “soft pulling” my credit reports while they are trying to locate whomever they are trying to locate. This should not be allowed even if the debt is still collectable and within the SOL. No debt collector has a “permissible purpose” to just randomly “soft pull” my credit reports just because I have a common name. As far as being outside the SOL and time-barred debts: no debt collector and debt owners/debt buyers should be allowed to pull someone’s credit report since they can’t legally sue the debtor outside of the SOL. So there is no need to continue pulling someone’s credit report. As far as the “hard pull” “soft pull” is concerned: There needs to be specific language that prohibits any debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates from performing “hard pull” credit report inquiries. The FCRA makes it clear what “permissible purposes” are but it does not specifically state or distinguish between a “hard pull” and a “soft pull” credit inquiry. A “hard pull” is a consumer-initiated request for an extension of credit. Anything other than a consumer-initiated request is a “soft pull.” But time and time again, I have friends, family members, and online forum members, tell me and show me that a debt collector or a debt owner/debt buyer has “hard pulled” their credit report. And some of these times are when the debt is time-barred from being outside the SOL and also from the Credit Reporting Time Period. This is unacceptable. A “hard pull” will decrease a consumers credit score and will be visible for up to 25 months to anyone who does have a legitimate permissible purpose to view that consumer’s credit report i.e. employers and potential employers, creditors, etc. Making a “hard pull” on a debtor’s credit report could be a violation of the FDCPA in the privacy of the debtor. Any debt collectors, debt owners/debt buyers, and other related affiliates should be prohibited from doing “hard pulls” and the CFPB should make it absolutely clear.www.optoutprescreen.com
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
60
These so called free-to-end-user alternatives (if allowed to be used) also need to be regulated. There are huge privacy concerns at stake here. My friend started texting me on a free texting app, and then all of a sudden I was begging to be bombarded by SPAM text and SPAM phone calls. I can't be certain that the Free Text App that my friend was using was selling my phone number to other people, but it was a massive coincidence. Why else are these text apps free? How do they make their money (besides a few embedded ads)? Of course these people are selling phone numbers. My privacy is not for sell. Nor is my phone number. The CFPB needs to really think about these so called free-to-end user alternatives and what sort of privacy practices these companies are engaging in, if any.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
61
Just to make my comment clear: I implied that the Free-to-end-user alternatives (if allowed to be used) need to be regulated so that they are not selling phone numbers and compromising the privacy of the consumers. My comment made it appear as though I think that the free texting apps (which allow people to text for free) and the free-to-end-user alternatives are the same thing. They are not. I don't want the free-to-end-user alternatives to behave the same as free texting apps -- selling phone numbers to Spammers.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
62
I have a hard time believing that a debt collection company "treat[s] EVERY dispute the same" (see link: http://regulationroom.org/rules/consumer-debt-collection-practices/discussion/when-consumers-dispute-debt#cid-1090) when debt collectors seem to blatantly disregard a dispute that has the appearance of being "copied directly from the internet." Consumer advocates are trying to educate consumers, debtors, and alleged debtors with information on how to handle debt collectors or how to handle their particular situation. We are try to give them relevant links to FDCPA, FCRA, HIPPA, and various form letters that can help them communicate with debt collectors. There is nothing wrong with form letters. But there is everything wrong with debt collectors disregaring certain letters just because they don't like that it came from a consumer advocate source. Debt collectors operating legally and with nothing to hide should never treat form letters as something to throw in the trash. You seem to be saying that debt collectors will only want to communicate with consumers who are misinformed and don't know what their rights are, rather than communicate with a consumer who knows the laws and the appropriate ways to address a letter of dispute.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
63
Thank you for admitting your illegal practices. This is exactly why we need the CFPB regulating debt collectors.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
64
This is a fantastic idea. Right now, debt buyers buy debt for an average price of 4 cents on the dollar. Many debts are bought for 2-4 cents on the dollar and many other debts are given away for free. Once the original creditor has made the decision to sell the debt, they should try to contact the debtor one last time to let them have a chance to payoff their debt at a significantly reduced rate. If I were an original creditor, would like to get the most money I could for a debt owed to me. And so if I could get 10 cents on the dollar directly from the debtor, rather than 4 cents on the dollar from a debt buyer, then I would see no reason not to offer a significantly reduced debt settlement rate to the debtor (or as you call it, letting consumers bid on their own debt). Right now, original creditors offer no significant reduced rate to debtor before selling for 4 cents on the dollar. Most creditors barely even offer debtors 10% off the debt as a settlement offer. Sure, a creditor could more quickly offload portfolios to debt buyers by selling them at 4 cents on the dollar. But creditors could also make way more money offering a onetime chance at 10 cents on the dollar (or something really attractive but still more than 4 cents on the dollar). Perhaps the CFPB should make a rule that allows consumers/debtors the chance to receive a onetime offer that is valid for only X amount of days (maybe 45 days) from the date of the letter sent from their creditors of a significantly reduced rate. The offer would only be valid for a short amount of time and would also inform the consumer that, should the consumer not accept the offer, the creditor would then turn it over to a debt buyer. This letter would only be sent if the creditor’s intentions are to sell the debt and not just another attempt to collect. So that this way it gives the consumer one final chance to clear the debt owed and the creditors also have less loss and more profits and would be able to lend to more consumers, give better rates to consumers, and stimulate the economy. Because more money that is changing hands at higher values (10 cents on the dollar vs. 4 cents on the dollar) instead of sitting in the accounts receivable section waiting to be collected (one day, if ever) stimulates the economy. This rule would not negatively impact anything (or anyone) and only positively impacts everyone. One minor impact might be on the debt collection industry possibly receiving less debt in their portfolios that they buy, but this minor impact is offset by the large positive impacts on the economy.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
65
Reply to Dazed and Abused: This is an awesome suggestion! Your suggestion "I don't think they should be allowed to call ANY number for more than 3 months without successful contact with the debtor" is spot on! And I can't believe that no one else has ever suggested this before. 3 months (or whatever an appropriate time limit is) would reduce the constant harassment that I and many other innocent parties receive. This morning I received an illegal phone call from a collector at 6:17 AM with a spoofed phone number for a person that I have never known and I have told these collectors this several times already. They have the wrong number. And I am tired of this. The CFPB should absolutely implement a rule that forces unsuccessful contact to 3 months.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
66
Although I don’t think that it is necessary for the CFPB to have undercover agents, I do think that the CFPB should create a new class of examiners. Currently the CFPB examiners only do examinations of the financial lenders and nonbank lenders. But since the CFPB is now taking on the collection industry, the CFPB should create a new classification of examiners to do onsite examinations of the debt collection companies. This would not create any harm to the CFPB nor would it impact the CFPB’s budget or operations. The CFPB’s budget is not allocated through congressional legislation – it is allocated through monetary transfers from the Federal Reserve. All the CFPB would need to do is ask for additional transfers from the Federal Reserve to create this new classification of examiners. These new examiners would help the CFPB monitor the debt collection industry and would help stimulate the economy by adding more jobs. This is a win-win solution.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
67
It is the responsibility of the creditor and debt collectors to report accurate information. Reporting accurate information has nothing to do with "debt collectors who don't report to credit reporting agencies at all." If a debt collector reported accurately that the debt in question has not been paid, but now is, it is the responsibility of that debt collector to report the newly accurate information. As I too have noticed, some debt collectors will not accurately report updated information to the credit bureaus once they are paid.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
68
The ACA's (debt collectors) positions on the CFPB's proposed rules is disgusting!! It is laughable! See for yourself America, here it is: http://www.acainternational.org/files.aspx?p=/images/31323/aca-anpr-comments.pdf
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
69
Link: ACA International (aka, Debt Collector Lobbyists)
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
70
The Permissible hours of 9am - 8 pm is good. I actually would like to see it moved to the other proposed time of 9am - 7pm, but i think 8pm is a fair compromise. Because the current 8am - 9pm really is just way to early/late. I (and many families) are in bed after 8pm and phone afer 8pm really is way too late. I support the 9am - 8pm hours. I further support weekend calling lessened to noon-5pm because people like to sleep in on the weekends and spend time with family. Having a phone call after 5pm really is not necessary as most people will be out and/or entertaining guests at their homes and will not take calls in the afternoon. I further support adherence to blue laws that prohibit consumer contact on Sundays. Sundays really are when most people are spending whatever little time they have left before the workweek with friends and family. I do not conduct business on Sundays. The work week really should be when debt collectors are working on trying to contact consumers.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
71
I would disagree that there is confusion among consumers about SOL which would, as you suggest, require the need for a national SOL. The only time I have personally seen SOL straddle a line is when a consumer moves to another state with a different SOL. The clarity needs to be in these such cases. Because once a debtor moves, both parties claim the SOL where it benefits them for their desired outcome. A national SOL only benefits the debt collectors and not the consumers. The focus should remain on creating, as best as possible, a win-win solution that benefits the debt collectors the consumers. Having a national SOL of 7 years as ACA International wants compromises state laws wherein some states of SOL of 3 years (and otherwise less than 7). A SOL is meant to bring resolve. And in reality, if a debt collector/debt owner can not resolve their clients issues within the already established SOL of each state, then extending the SOL or having a national SOL under which to bring suit does nothing but allow debt collectors to continue to harass consumers. Three years really is more than enough time to sue. Just as criminal defendants are entitled to a quick and speedy trail, so should consumers who may/may not be aware they have an outstanding debt. That is to say: having a national SOL is a guise to prolong resolution rather than a more quick a final resolve in when to bring suit.
View this comment in the discussion thread