Welcome gmt512. RegulationRoom provides an environment where people can learn about important agency proposals and discuss them in ways that help the agency make a better decision. CFPB needs to know not only what the problems are, but what the solutions should be and why.
Everyone who comments on the site is expected to remain civil and respectful. We respectfully ask that you stop using all capitals in your replies, as this is akin to shouting online.
With that said, thank you for sharing your story. What do you think of the proposal to require a "reasonable" investigation after a dispute? Would requiring “reasonable” investigations be the best rule for consumers or should specific actions be spelled out?
I agree that of course an ideal situation would be for consumers not to pay. But let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I was proposing some viable method that would result in an ability of a consumer to have a hearing. Hearings cost money and ultimately the collector would be assessed.
Why can't we bring back the olden days? I have been a "victim" of debt collectors run amok for over 35 years. Back in the day, a debt was assigned to one collector who would pursue me relentlessly for a debt that belonged to someone else.
Nowadays with the robo-dialers the collection call is assigned to the "next available operator." Why not just go back to the days when only one collector was responsible for making the contact?
Hi gmt512. The story you shared sounds very frustrating. CFPB has a complaint submission process that may be helpful to you. You can file a complaint and learn more about that process, here.
Your point is understandable; however the statement you referred to is known as the mini-Miranda. This statement is a requirement in a debt collector's initial communication (and in some states every communication). Typically, the validation verbiage is included in a sheet of it's own with several other disclosures a debt collector is required to provide. As far as law being slanted against the consumer, I would disagree. The laws surrounding contacting consumers and the information required to be given is quite stringent, the problem is the channels which are directly regulated by the law are outdated. The primary law that regulates a debt collector was written in the 70's and did not directly define that is thrown around all too often, harassment (among others). Because of this, if a debt collector sends a letter and makes a phone call, he may very well be held accountable in a court of law for "harassment". Most collectors settle out of court as defending a suit as frivolous as the one described above would cost much more than settling with a consumer.
Hi gmt512. To clarify, RegulationRoom is not the agency. Instead, RegulationRoom is a project designed and operated by the Cornell eRulemaking Initiative and hosted by the Legal Information Institute (see About for more information on the project.) CFPB is currently at a fact-finding stage and is looking to gather information about how it may want to structure new rules. CFPB is looking for comments on whether creating a new rule is a good idea and if so how that new rule should work.
It's important to understand that a Validation Notice (sent within 5 days pursuant to 1692g) is NOT a validation of debt. It's a NOTICE of your right to validation, if you choose to invoke it. I do agree that there should be additional regulation around this issue. But part of the problem is the way the statute is written. Most collectors cite 1692g verbatim to avoid liability for misleading consumers. But it's kind of a big convoluted sentence that the average person can't understand. I'd like to see a plain language amendment to that section of the FDCPA, which I will discuss further in the appropriate thread.
Moderator
1
Welcome gmt512. RegulationRoom provides an environment where people can learn about important agency proposals and discuss them in ways that help the agency make a better decision. CFPB needs to know not only what the problems are, but what the solutions should be and why. Everyone who comments on the site is expected to remain civil and respectful. We respectfully ask that you stop using all capitals in your replies, as this is akin to shouting online. With that said, thank you for sharing your story. What do you think of the proposal to require a "reasonable" investigation after a dispute? Would requiring “reasonable” investigations be the best rule for consumers or should specific actions be spelled out?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
2
Thank you for your comment, gmt512. What kinds of consumer actions should be included in the definition of dispute to clearly show what qualifies?
View this comment in the discussion thread
TaxGuy
3
I agree that of course an ideal situation would be for consumers not to pay. But let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I was proposing some viable method that would result in an ability of a consumer to have a hearing. Hearings cost money and ultimately the collector would be assessed.
View this comment in the discussion thread
cathysceebs
4
Why can't we bring back the olden days? I have been a "victim" of debt collectors run amok for over 35 years. Back in the day, a debt was assigned to one collector who would pursue me relentlessly for a debt that belonged to someone else. Nowadays with the robo-dialers the collection call is assigned to the "next available operator." Why not just go back to the days when only one collector was responsible for making the contact?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
5
Hi gmt512. The story you shared sounds very frustrating. CFPB has a complaint submission process that may be helpful to you. You can file a complaint and learn more about that process, here.
View this comment in the discussion thread
DLin
6
Your point is understandable; however the statement you referred to is known as the mini-Miranda. This statement is a requirement in a debt collector's initial communication (and in some states every communication). Typically, the validation verbiage is included in a sheet of it's own with several other disclosures a debt collector is required to provide. As far as law being slanted against the consumer, I would disagree. The laws surrounding contacting consumers and the information required to be given is quite stringent, the problem is the channels which are directly regulated by the law are outdated. The primary law that regulates a debt collector was written in the 70's and did not directly define that is thrown around all too often, harassment (among others). Because of this, if a debt collector sends a letter and makes a phone call, he may very well be held accountable in a court of law for "harassment". Most collectors settle out of court as defending a suit as frivolous as the one described above would cost much more than settling with a consumer.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
7
Hi gmt512. To clarify, RegulationRoom is not the agency. Instead, RegulationRoom is a project designed and operated by the Cornell eRulemaking Initiative and hosted by the Legal Information Institute (see About for more information on the project.) CFPB is currently at a fact-finding stage and is looking to gather information about how it may want to structure new rules. CFPB is looking for comments on whether creating a new rule is a good idea and if so how that new rule should work.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
8It's important to understand that a Validation Notice (sent within 5 days pursuant to 1692g) is NOT a validation of debt. It's a NOTICE of your right to validation, if you choose to invoke it. I do agree that there should be additional regulation around this issue. But part of the problem is the way the statute is written. Most collectors cite 1692g verbatim to avoid liability for misleading consumers. But it's kind of a big convoluted sentence that the average person can't understand. I'd like to see a plain language amendment to that section of the FDCPA, which I will discuss further in the appropriate thread.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Lori
9
Agree. Laws are in place now, but there is no enforcement by the regulators.
View this comment in the discussion thread