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required to be given is quite stringent, the problem is the channels which are directly regulated by the law are outdated.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.
E-Oscar was created by the credit reporting agencies due to a requirement that is outlined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This process is fully electronic save for the consumer's ability to upload paper correspondence or documents for the debt collector/creditor to review. Additionally, the CFPB has published clarification as to the requirements surrounding a "reasonable investigation" when a dispute is issued, requiring debt collectors/creditors to go one step further. The underlying issue is this system is abused by many individuals who mass submit disputes repeatedly that have no validity. Agencies and creditors are forced to sift through all of those frivolous disputes in order to actually address legitimate disputes.
Keep in mind, a cease and desist letter does not stop a debt collector from attempting to collect a debt, it only stops the debt collector from communicating with the consumer via whatever method the consumer requests the contact to stop. This does not mean a consumer no longer owes a debt. I do agree with the fact that a debt collector must notify the creditor of disputes. As a matter of fact, legitimate debt collectors do this on a regular basis. As a debt collector typically does not own the debt, they're unable to control what a creditor does with that information, all they are currently able to do is implement internal controls that protect the consumer and the agency. In my opinion, a legitimate dispute should be defined as currently, a consumer solely mentioning the word dispute requires action on an account. I believe some sort of requirement should be imposed as to WHY an account is being disputed and some sort of evidence be provided to support the claim.
linalex61, that wouldn't be very efficient. The FCRA does not allow reporting of a debt that is no longer being serviced by a creditor/collector. For example, if your creditor is currently reporting the debt but sells it to a debt collector, your creditor can no longer report on that debt. The buyer can, if he subjects himself to the corresponding federal regulation.
There are requirements for validating a debt to the customer set in the FDCPA. There are investigation requirements in other aspects of federal law when a consumer disputes. A debt cannot simply be created out of thin air. Agencies who engage in this sort of practice are usually stopped relatively quickly and fined quite heavily (as well as subjected to cease and desist and regulatory action). The fact is, while a debt collector is required to maintain certain pieces of information and validate certain pieces of information, the consumer is not required to do anything further than say, "I don't owe this" to make collections stop for a period of time. Just like for debt collectors, the few that do it wrong ruin if for the many that do it right, consumers in my opinion should be required to furnish some sort of support of dispute.
DLin
1
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
DLin
2
E-Oscar was created by the credit reporting agencies due to a requirement that is outlined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This process is fully electronic save for the consumer's ability to upload paper correspondence or documents for the debt collector/creditor to review. Additionally, the CFPB has published clarification as to the requirements surrounding a "reasonable investigation" when a dispute is issued, requiring debt collectors/creditors to go one step further. The underlying issue is this system is abused by many individuals who mass submit disputes repeatedly that have no validity. Agencies and creditors are forced to sift through all of those frivolous disputes in order to actually address legitimate disputes.
View this comment in the discussion thread
DLin
3Keep in mind, a cease and desist letter does not stop a debt collector from attempting to collect a debt, it only stops the debt collector from communicating with the consumer via whatever method the consumer requests the contact to stop. This does not mean a consumer no longer owes a debt. I do agree with the fact that a debt collector must notify the creditor of disputes. As a matter of fact, legitimate debt collectors do this on a regular basis. As a debt collector typically does not own the debt, they're unable to control what a creditor does with that information, all they are currently able to do is implement internal controls that protect the consumer and the agency. In my opinion, a legitimate dispute should be defined as currently, a consumer solely mentioning the word dispute requires action on an account. I believe some sort of requirement should be imposed as to WHY an account is being disputed and some sort of evidence be provided to support the claim.
View this comment in the discussion thread
DLin
4
linalex61, that wouldn't be very efficient. The FCRA does not allow reporting of a debt that is no longer being serviced by a creditor/collector. For example, if your creditor is currently reporting the debt but sells it to a debt collector, your creditor can no longer report on that debt. The buyer can, if he subjects himself to the corresponding federal regulation.
View this comment in the discussion thread
DLin
5
There are requirements for validating a debt to the customer set in the FDCPA. There are investigation requirements in other aspects of federal law when a consumer disputes. A debt cannot simply be created out of thin air. Agencies who engage in this sort of practice are usually stopped relatively quickly and fined quite heavily (as well as subjected to cease and desist and regulatory action). The fact is, while a debt collector is required to maintain certain pieces of information and validate certain pieces of information, the consumer is not required to do anything further than say, "I don't owe this" to make collections stop for a period of time. Just like for debt collectors, the few that do it wrong ruin if for the many that do it right, consumers in my opinion should be required to furnish some sort of support of dispute.
View this comment in the discussion thread