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.
Thank you for mentioning this issue. Could you elaborate on any experiences you have had with such consumer representatives, and perhaps how you have proceeded in the face of an appointed non-attorney?
Thank you for noting that concern. CFPB mentions putting together a separate "summary of rights" to accompany validation notices. Would this option, accompanied by clear notice that the notice is from CFPB rather than the attorney debt collector, be a good alternative?
Thank you for your comment. Do you have any suggestions as to what the correct balance between privacy and disclosure may be in order to identify the debt to the debtor in a safe way?
Hello, RickJack, and welcome to RegulationRoom. Other commentors have been worried about protecting debtors, who oftentimes are not sophisticated parties who would raise such an affirmative defense without representation, which they often cannot afford. Do you have any suggestions on how to strike a proper balance between respecting existing regimes, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and providing a baseline of protection to debtors who might not otherwise protect themselves?
stopwithspoofedcallerID
1
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
Moderator
2
Thank you for mentioning this issue. Could you elaborate on any experiences you have had with such consumer representatives, and perhaps how you have proceeded in the face of an appointed non-attorney?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
3
Thank you for noting that concern. CFPB mentions putting together a separate "summary of rights" to accompany validation notices. Would this option, accompanied by clear notice that the notice is from CFPB rather than the attorney debt collector, be a good alternative?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
4
Thank you for your comment. Do you have any suggestions as to what the correct balance between privacy and disclosure may be in order to identify the debt to the debtor in a safe way?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
5
Hello, RickJack, and welcome to RegulationRoom. Other commentors have been worried about protecting debtors, who oftentimes are not sophisticated parties who would raise such an affirmative defense without representation, which they often cannot afford. Do you have any suggestions on how to strike a proper balance between respecting existing regimes, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and providing a baseline of protection to debtors who might not otherwise protect themselves?
View this comment in the discussion thread