If a debt is to be sold, the owner of the debt should be required to send an itemized statement to the debtor. The statement should have a large-type header, something like, "[NAME OF CREDITOR] IS SELLING THIS DEBT TO [NAME OF DEBT BUYER]."
This would give the debtor another chance to pay in the simplest way, before getting tangled up in idiot phone calls, and it would help the debtor identify the debt.
If a debt is to be turned over to a collection agency, the owner of the debt should be required to send a fully itemized statement to the debtor. The statement should have a large-type header, something like, "[NAME OF CREDITOR] IS TURNING THIS DEBT OVER TO [NAME], A DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY."
This would give the debtor another chance to pay in the simplest way, before getting tangled up in idiot phone calls, and it would help the debtor identify the debt.
The debt owner already has the itemized bill; it would be just a matter of copying it again and sending it.
Also (because I don't know if this is covered later in the discussion questions), there should be a requirement that the original creditor make a true, good-faith effort to contact the debtor. I've dealt with those who do this, and those who don't. Some will send you a bill, and then when they get no answer, call you and check the address, which is often wrong. Some, it seems, hardly wait for the ink to dry on their first bill before they turn it over to collection.
My experience is only with medical bills. The debt collectors seem only to know (a) what hospital and (b) how much. When you've been doing the hokey-pokey from emergency room to nursing home and back again over a period of months, that information is not much help.
What's really needed is an itemized bill that's a lot clearer than the "statement of benefits" we get now. Something as clear as: "You were in X hospital on this date. You had this test and that test. They cost a gazillion dollars, but we bargained them down to $17.48. Please pay this amount."
Wow, I didn't even know we had those rights--except for the one about the workplace, they're all news to me. So I've no experience, but my guess would be that the debt collectors would rather not receive this information.
I think probably the benefits of giving debt collectors and buyers access to these documents would NOT worth the costs unless the documents have to be included with the validation notice. If the debt collectors were anxious to be sure they had the right debtor, sure, great. But I don't think they are. The actual guy on the phone is only anxious to get the money; he doesn't really care where it comes from or whether the debt is legal. Giving him the information, without giving it to the debtor, probably wouldn't be much good.
And maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe these companies are strict about making sure the debt is collected from the right person.
Naaah....
The main problem with privacy is that we use the SS# for everything, so everything can be connected. That's been a bad idea since they started using it as a taxpayer i.d. It probably prevents a little fraud, but it's not worth it. We have, in effect, made it illegal to be untraceable--not a good thing for victims of domestic abuse, among others.
No robo-calls or automated dialing systems should be allowed for any profit-making or solicitation purpose. Period. You can call me if a tornado is coming, but if you want money, you have to use a person. And I don't see why I should pay for the call.
I generally prefer e-mail to telephone communication, but you can't be sure the e-mail has reached the person. I would suggest a notice that says, "If you don't acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, we'll start phoning you."
You know, my only experience is with medical debts, but with those, we have NOT been notified several times, or sometimes, even one time. No one seems to care if the address is right (and when you're dealing with an old person, the billing address is often not the same as the physical address); sometimes the bill seems to go to what they claim is a collection agency even before the insurance company finishes with it. We are perfectly happy to pay our bills, but our contract is with the provider, and that's who we pay, not a collection agency.
All? It's just not so. Maybe retailers do; I have no experience with them. But medical billers are consistently mistaken, careless, and just plain wrong. One medical facility called my daughter-in-law's cell phone about a bill for my mother! (They had her number as, I think, the fourth emergency number.) And this was a GOOD place, that actually tried and finally managed to get in touch with me. I was very pleased with their billing department, compared to others we had dealt with.
I see what you mean, but that tiny percentage suffers incredible annoyance and harassment. Should they pay what they don't owe, merely to get out from under? All we've ever asked for is an itemized bill from the original creditor, but the collectors act as if that's too much. And they say--and probably believe--that we've received other bills, but we haven't. We've lived in the same place for 30 years--how awful it must be for people who move a lot.
The most important would be not to call at work. That's really the most important to the collectors, too, because a person out of work isn't likely to pay.
Bonita Kale
1
If a debt is to be sold, the owner of the debt should be required to send an itemized statement to the debtor. The statement should have a large-type header, something like, "[NAME OF CREDITOR] IS SELLING THIS DEBT TO [NAME OF DEBT BUYER]." This would give the debtor another chance to pay in the simplest way, before getting tangled up in idiot phone calls, and it would help the debtor identify the debt.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bonita Kale
2
If a debt is to be turned over to a collection agency, the owner of the debt should be required to send a fully itemized statement to the debtor. The statement should have a large-type header, something like, "[NAME OF CREDITOR] IS TURNING THIS DEBT OVER TO [NAME], A DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY." This would give the debtor another chance to pay in the simplest way, before getting tangled up in idiot phone calls, and it would help the debtor identify the debt. The debt owner already has the itemized bill; it would be just a matter of copying it again and sending it. Also (because I don't know if this is covered later in the discussion questions), there should be a requirement that the original creditor make a true, good-faith effort to contact the debtor. I've dealt with those who do this, and those who don't. Some will send you a bill, and then when they get no answer, call you and check the address, which is often wrong. Some, it seems, hardly wait for the ink to dry on their first bill before they turn it over to collection.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bonita Kale
3
My experience is only with medical bills. The debt collectors seem only to know (a) what hospital and (b) how much. When you've been doing the hokey-pokey from emergency room to nursing home and back again over a period of months, that information is not much help. What's really needed is an itemized bill that's a lot clearer than the "statement of benefits" we get now. Something as clear as: "You were in X hospital on this date. You had this test and that test. They cost a gazillion dollars, but we bargained them down to $17.48. Please pay this amount."
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bonita Kale
4
Wow, I didn't even know we had those rights--except for the one about the workplace, they're all news to me. So I've no experience, but my guess would be that the debt collectors would rather not receive this information.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bonita Kale
5
I think probably the benefits of giving debt collectors and buyers access to these documents would NOT worth the costs unless the documents have to be included with the validation notice. If the debt collectors were anxious to be sure they had the right debtor, sure, great. But I don't think they are. The actual guy on the phone is only anxious to get the money; he doesn't really care where it comes from or whether the debt is legal. Giving him the information, without giving it to the debtor, probably wouldn't be much good. And maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe these companies are strict about making sure the debt is collected from the right person. Naaah....
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bonita Kale
6
The main problem with privacy is that we use the SS# for everything, so everything can be connected. That's been a bad idea since they started using it as a taxpayer i.d. It probably prevents a little fraud, but it's not worth it. We have, in effect, made it illegal to be untraceable--not a good thing for victims of domestic abuse, among others.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bonita Kale
7
No robo-calls or automated dialing systems should be allowed for any profit-making or solicitation purpose. Period. You can call me if a tornado is coming, but if you want money, you have to use a person. And I don't see why I should pay for the call.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bonita Kale
8
I generally prefer e-mail to telephone communication, but you can't be sure the e-mail has reached the person. I would suggest a notice that says, "If you don't acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, we'll start phoning you."
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bonita Kale
9
You know, my only experience is with medical debts, but with those, we have NOT been notified several times, or sometimes, even one time. No one seems to care if the address is right (and when you're dealing with an old person, the billing address is often not the same as the physical address); sometimes the bill seems to go to what they claim is a collection agency even before the insurance company finishes with it. We are perfectly happy to pay our bills, but our contract is with the provider, and that's who we pay, not a collection agency.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bonita Kale
10
All? It's just not so. Maybe retailers do; I have no experience with them. But medical billers are consistently mistaken, careless, and just plain wrong. One medical facility called my daughter-in-law's cell phone about a bill for my mother! (They had her number as, I think, the fourth emergency number.) And this was a GOOD place, that actually tried and finally managed to get in touch with me. I was very pleased with their billing department, compared to others we had dealt with.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bonita Kale
11
I see what you mean, but that tiny percentage suffers incredible annoyance and harassment. Should they pay what they don't owe, merely to get out from under? All we've ever asked for is an itemized bill from the original creditor, but the collectors act as if that's too much. And they say--and probably believe--that we've received other bills, but we haven't. We've lived in the same place for 30 years--how awful it must be for people who move a lot.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bonita Kale
12
Yep, that's right. Isn't the point supposed to be to collect the debt?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Bonita Kale
13
The most important would be not to call at work. That's really the most important to the collectors, too, because a person out of work isn't likely to pay.
View this comment in the discussion thread