When anyone makes a demand for payment from another party, it is incumbent on that person to produce the evidence to support such demand and not up to the second party to produce evidence that he is not liable for such alleged debt. Otherwise, anyone can create trouble and misery for any person out of mischief, ill-intent or out to make some fast money for himself or even to defame the second party, as proper businesses are adverse to bad publicity.
If the first party claims to represent a third party to collect debt for that third party, then the first party (collector) must produce evidence that he is authorized by the third party to collect a debt for the third party alone because anyone can claim to represent any party in an attempt to defraud the innocent second party.
Thank you so much for contacting me. I would be pleased to provide further thoughts on this matter.
Whoever is writing to collect a debt, whether it's the debt-collector or the creditor, must produce evidence that a debt is outstanding, like an outstanding bill or statement, or a judgment order, because the onus is upon the debt-collector to show what is the subject of claim, instead of making the alleged debtor do the work to find out what is the claim for. It should be sent by certified mail, instead of ordinary mail, to ensure that the alleged debtor would receive it. If the alleged debtor has moved, then the creditor would know of it, rather than take for granted that it has been received.
The worst thing to do is the current practice of giving the alleged 30 days to dispute the claim or else, the claim is deemed to be valid, which is absolutely wrong and places an unfair burden on the alleged debtor while making things easy for the debt-collector or creditor to make money out of innocent victims. If the alleged debtor has gone away, then it would be wrong of the creditor to seek judgment if any order or notice to appear cannot be served. Besides, the onus cannot be placed on the alleged debtor to prove his innocence but the law makes it incumbent on the creditor to prove that the debt is valid.
If a debt-collector is acting on behalf of a creditor, then a copy of such authorization must be furnished together the evidence of debt and the letter of demand or claim from the debt collector. Phone-calls prior to the alleged debtor receiving a proper letter of demand together with the supporting documents must never be allowed, as it would enable crooks to harass the alleged debtor for money, even when such debt does not exist. After sending a proper letter of demand, phone-calls may be made to confirm receipt of said letter and to discuss further steps to resolve the debt if acknowledged or otherwise.
Pasting of notices, etc. by debt-collectors must never be allowed, as it would amount to harassment and again allow crooks to cheat innocent victims. Accounting errors and human failings have often resulted in non-existent debt, that have caused significant grief to innocent victims. Not everyone is sufficiently knowledgeable to defend themselves against frivolous or wrongful claims, so the law must protect the innocent, rather than to serve the interests of service-providers or business owners, since every business must know that risks exist from the time they begin to do business. The law must protect the public from potential crooks and unscrupulous business practices.
The principle in common law is that evidence must always be produced in any attempt to collect a debt, instead of simply demanding for payment and to make matters worse, by veiled threats of further action, etc. Once evidence is provided, the alleged debtor would then know how and what to respond, so that proper resolution can begin, without making the alleged debtor jump through hoops to find out what is going on.
Please let me know if you require further elucidation in this regard.
There is no need for these so-called examiners but there is definitely a need for courageous and dedicated attorneys determined to enforce the laws that the CFPB should pass, laws that protect the ordinary folk, the innocent, those who're unable to protect themselves, even those who may have actually failed to pay their bills because our constitution guarantees the right to our innocence unless proven guilty. We cannot allow expediency to deny us such fundamental rights.
I believe there is such a thing as the Gideon Decision by the Supreme Court that provides for any accused to an adequate defence, so if any debt-collector or creditor for that matter denies the alleged debtor the right to have his day in court or to a proper defence, then the CFPB attorneys should come down hard on such violators. The principle behind any rules promulgated by the CFPB must ensure that no alleged debtor get bullied into paying up or blind-sided by the court into doing so. Sometimes, there are reasons why the outstanding bills are not paid and the consumer should be allowed to confront the creditor to resolve any complaints by the consumer before the bills are paid.
It's a very straight-forward and simple situation actually. All the CFB needs to do is to enact basic regulations that protects the consumer and stipulates very clearly that the burden of proof must be borne by the creditor before any debt-collector can be engaged to pursue such debts. The debt-collector must only be allowed to follow specific guidelines when doing so and the matter should be referred to a small claims court to have both sides plead their case before the court issues a ruling, rather than to allow the claim to be reported to a credit reporting agency that will destroy the credit score or rating of the consumer without his knowledge, which is absolutely wrong.
Only lawful and valid debts, i.e. when a judgment order has been made, should be allowed to be reported to any credit reporting agency, to avoid creditors and debt-collectors from using such agencies to damage the interests of alleged debtors with unfounded or unproven debts.
benitus
1
When anyone makes a demand for payment from another party, it is incumbent on that person to produce the evidence to support such demand and not up to the second party to produce evidence that he is not liable for such alleged debt. Otherwise, anyone can create trouble and misery for any person out of mischief, ill-intent or out to make some fast money for himself or even to defame the second party, as proper businesses are adverse to bad publicity. If the first party claims to represent a third party to collect debt for that third party, then the first party (collector) must produce evidence that he is authorized by the third party to collect a debt for the third party alone because anyone can claim to represent any party in an attempt to defraud the innocent second party.
View this comment in the discussion thread
benitus
2
Thank you so much for contacting me. I would be pleased to provide further thoughts on this matter. Whoever is writing to collect a debt, whether it's the debt-collector or the creditor, must produce evidence that a debt is outstanding, like an outstanding bill or statement, or a judgment order, because the onus is upon the debt-collector to show what is the subject of claim, instead of making the alleged debtor do the work to find out what is the claim for. It should be sent by certified mail, instead of ordinary mail, to ensure that the alleged debtor would receive it. If the alleged debtor has moved, then the creditor would know of it, rather than take for granted that it has been received. The worst thing to do is the current practice of giving the alleged 30 days to dispute the claim or else, the claim is deemed to be valid, which is absolutely wrong and places an unfair burden on the alleged debtor while making things easy for the debt-collector or creditor to make money out of innocent victims. If the alleged debtor has gone away, then it would be wrong of the creditor to seek judgment if any order or notice to appear cannot be served. Besides, the onus cannot be placed on the alleged debtor to prove his innocence but the law makes it incumbent on the creditor to prove that the debt is valid. If a debt-collector is acting on behalf of a creditor, then a copy of such authorization must be furnished together the evidence of debt and the letter of demand or claim from the debt collector. Phone-calls prior to the alleged debtor receiving a proper letter of demand together with the supporting documents must never be allowed, as it would enable crooks to harass the alleged debtor for money, even when such debt does not exist. After sending a proper letter of demand, phone-calls may be made to confirm receipt of said letter and to discuss further steps to resolve the debt if acknowledged or otherwise. Pasting of notices, etc. by debt-collectors must never be allowed, as it would amount to harassment and again allow crooks to cheat innocent victims. Accounting errors and human failings have often resulted in non-existent debt, that have caused significant grief to innocent victims. Not everyone is sufficiently knowledgeable to defend themselves against frivolous or wrongful claims, so the law must protect the innocent, rather than to serve the interests of service-providers or business owners, since every business must know that risks exist from the time they begin to do business. The law must protect the public from potential crooks and unscrupulous business practices. The principle in common law is that evidence must always be produced in any attempt to collect a debt, instead of simply demanding for payment and to make matters worse, by veiled threats of further action, etc. Once evidence is provided, the alleged debtor would then know how and what to respond, so that proper resolution can begin, without making the alleged debtor jump through hoops to find out what is going on. Please let me know if you require further elucidation in this regard.
View this comment in the discussion thread
benitus
3
There is no need for these so-called examiners but there is definitely a need for courageous and dedicated attorneys determined to enforce the laws that the CFPB should pass, laws that protect the ordinary folk, the innocent, those who're unable to protect themselves, even those who may have actually failed to pay their bills because our constitution guarantees the right to our innocence unless proven guilty. We cannot allow expediency to deny us such fundamental rights. I believe there is such a thing as the Gideon Decision by the Supreme Court that provides for any accused to an adequate defence, so if any debt-collector or creditor for that matter denies the alleged debtor the right to have his day in court or to a proper defence, then the CFPB attorneys should come down hard on such violators. The principle behind any rules promulgated by the CFPB must ensure that no alleged debtor get bullied into paying up or blind-sided by the court into doing so. Sometimes, there are reasons why the outstanding bills are not paid and the consumer should be allowed to confront the creditor to resolve any complaints by the consumer before the bills are paid. It's a very straight-forward and simple situation actually. All the CFB needs to do is to enact basic regulations that protects the consumer and stipulates very clearly that the burden of proof must be borne by the creditor before any debt-collector can be engaged to pursue such debts. The debt-collector must only be allowed to follow specific guidelines when doing so and the matter should be referred to a small claims court to have both sides plead their case before the court issues a ruling, rather than to allow the claim to be reported to a credit reporting agency that will destroy the credit score or rating of the consumer without his knowledge, which is absolutely wrong. Only lawful and valid debts, i.e. when a judgment order has been made, should be allowed to be reported to any credit reporting agency, to avoid creditors and debt-collectors from using such agencies to damage the interests of alleged debtors with unfounded or unproven debts.
View this comment in the discussion thread