I don't know if technology allows collectors to distinguish land lines from cell phones. It is fair for collectors to use info provided on the application for credit. Collectors should be allowed to assume that the mailing address of record is an accurate indication of the debtor's time zone. Creditors periodically request updates of contact info in some cases; this would be a good idea for all to do.
Mailing address should take priority for determining time zone unless the debtor advises otherwise. As mentioned previously, people with cell phones may move from one locale to another without changing their area code.
In theory this seems like a reasonable policy, but how can collectors know where a debtor is if they are calling his or her cell phone? Knowingly calling third parties should be prohibited across the board. It is no one else's business what goes on between creditors and their debtors. Calls to a person's boss or family can cause further financial and domestic problems, neither of which will help with getting the debt paid.
Debtors should be able to leave a message for a specific debtor, the name of their company and request a call-back at a specified number. When a consumer returns this type of call, the collector or debtor should be required to give them the mini-Miranda warning. There is no need for collectors to leave messages revealing the nature of their calls. The Health Information Privacy and Portability Act prohibits disclosure of protected information to unauthorized parties and the same should apply to debt collectors.
Calling a debtor at work is counter-intuitive; if collectors are continuously calling someone at work, other employees may report it to the debtor's supervisor. Most companies have established rules about receiving or making personal calls from company or cell phones during an employee's working hours. If a collector or creditor calls a debtor on his/her cell phone and is informed that the debtor is at work, the call should be terminated. No calls to employers should be allowed as this jeopardizes the debtor's job. How does that help in debt collection? It doesn't.
Most landlines and cell phones have caller ID technology ; if the number comes up showing a toll-free number or an unknown caller, many consumers will let such calls go to voice mail. Voice mail messages need to be discreet. No one needs their kids hearing messages from debt collectors. Anyone returning a call regarding a voice mail message should be informed by a live customer service rep of the mini Miranda warning. This should be done only after the person returning the call to the collector verifies his or her identity as the debtor.
Blocking caller ID information is disingenuous to say the least. Most consumers won't respond to blocked numbers or ID's anyway. Collectors should be required to identify themselves and to provide caller ID information that identifies them. Most people who cannot pay their bills are aware of the problem, so being reminded under false pretenses is more of an annoyance than a solution to the problem.
I'm with Massachusetts on this one. Repetitive and robo-calls are annoying and not productive. Another fact about robo-calls is that their messages often start in the middle, or maybe this is done on purpose. When it has happened to me, I just hang up. Policies regulating the number of contacts made within a specific time period should include all modes of technology.
Consumers should not incur additional costs for cell phone calls, texting or voice messaging in relation to collections. The more costs assessed to a debtor, the less money they have to pay their creditors. Debt collectors and creditors should be required to stop all modes of communication to a device that the debtor indicates does not provide free communications whether calls or texts.
I am not a lawyer, but I have noticed that credit card agreements often contain statements advising consumers that if suit is brought, it will occur in a specified jurisdiction or "as provided for by law." At the point where collectors start suing consumers is where many consumers say enough and hire a bankruptcy attorney. That does everyone a lot of good, right? The only winner in that situation is the bankruptcy attorney.
There should be a monetary "floor" required before debt collectors can pursue uncollected debts in court. The idea that corporations that already charge puninshing interest rates and fees can clog the court systems trying to collect a few hundred bucks from someone who is unemployed, ill, or otherwise unable to pay is counter-productive. There should be a minimum amount of consumer debt owed before creditors can sue debtors. Another issue with using state and local courts to settle debt collection suits is that it burdens jurisdictions already heavily burdened with cases and strapped for cash.
I can't comment on any of this, but it would seem appropriate for Federal law to establish a framework of requirements for states to meet. This would level the playing field for debtors and creditors in all states. and would provide an equal basis for states to proceed with adding or amending their own laws affecting debt collection lawsuits.
Consumers should be made aware of sale or transfer of their debts. From whom to whom along with effective dates and contact info for the creditor and the new owner of the debt.
Notifying consumers of the sale of their debts and related details would help consumers with identifying who is contacting them about a debt; there are robo calls about lowering your credit card interest rate and such that are solicitations. Consumers have a right to know who they are dealing with in relation to their financial affairs.
Consumers should be aware of who is handling collection procedures. The seller of any consumer debt should be required to notify the debtor of which debt owed to which creditor, is being sold by xyz organization to 123 debt collector. The effective date of the debt sale and contact info for the new collector should be included.
I believe the original consumer applicant on an account has the right to know if an authorized user is delinquent on her or his payments as it affects the original applicant's credit standing. As for telling authorized card holders about the original account holder's default, I would say this is not a good idea. Many parents provide their kids with a credit card, but would not want the credit card company contacting their kids about the parents' debt.
Consumer owing the debt should be contacted about any third party offer to pay their debt. Anyone paying debt for someone else should be required to provide their identity to the creditor and debtor.
This kind of thing is likely determined by family court law in the jurisdiction where the debtor lives. Community property law, divorce or separation agreements and issues of domestic violence laws all come into play in these kinds of circumstances.
bonzarel
1
I don't know if technology allows collectors to distinguish land lines from cell phones. It is fair for collectors to use info provided on the application for credit. Collectors should be allowed to assume that the mailing address of record is an accurate indication of the debtor's time zone. Creditors periodically request updates of contact info in some cases; this would be a good idea for all to do. Mailing address should take priority for determining time zone unless the debtor advises otherwise. As mentioned previously, people with cell phones may move from one locale to another without changing their area code.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
2
In theory this seems like a reasonable policy, but how can collectors know where a debtor is if they are calling his or her cell phone? Knowingly calling third parties should be prohibited across the board. It is no one else's business what goes on between creditors and their debtors. Calls to a person's boss or family can cause further financial and domestic problems, neither of which will help with getting the debt paid.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
3
Debtors should be able to leave a message for a specific debtor, the name of their company and request a call-back at a specified number. When a consumer returns this type of call, the collector or debtor should be required to give them the mini-Miranda warning. There is no need for collectors to leave messages revealing the nature of their calls. The Health Information Privacy and Portability Act prohibits disclosure of protected information to unauthorized parties and the same should apply to debt collectors.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
4
Calling a debtor at work is counter-intuitive; if collectors are continuously calling someone at work, other employees may report it to the debtor's supervisor. Most companies have established rules about receiving or making personal calls from company or cell phones during an employee's working hours. If a collector or creditor calls a debtor on his/her cell phone and is informed that the debtor is at work, the call should be terminated. No calls to employers should be allowed as this jeopardizes the debtor's job. How does that help in debt collection? It doesn't.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
5
Most landlines and cell phones have caller ID technology ; if the number comes up showing a toll-free number or an unknown caller, many consumers will let such calls go to voice mail. Voice mail messages need to be discreet. No one needs their kids hearing messages from debt collectors. Anyone returning a call regarding a voice mail message should be informed by a live customer service rep of the mini Miranda warning. This should be done only after the person returning the call to the collector verifies his or her identity as the debtor.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
6
Blocking caller ID information is disingenuous to say the least. Most consumers won't respond to blocked numbers or ID's anyway. Collectors should be required to identify themselves and to provide caller ID information that identifies them. Most people who cannot pay their bills are aware of the problem, so being reminded under false pretenses is more of an annoyance than a solution to the problem.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
7
I'm with Massachusetts on this one. Repetitive and robo-calls are annoying and not productive. Another fact about robo-calls is that their messages often start in the middle, or maybe this is done on purpose. When it has happened to me, I just hang up. Policies regulating the number of contacts made within a specific time period should include all modes of technology.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
8
Consumers should not incur additional costs for cell phone calls, texting or voice messaging in relation to collections. The more costs assessed to a debtor, the less money they have to pay their creditors. Debt collectors and creditors should be required to stop all modes of communication to a device that the debtor indicates does not provide free communications whether calls or texts.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
9
I am not a lawyer, but I have noticed that credit card agreements often contain statements advising consumers that if suit is brought, it will occur in a specified jurisdiction or "as provided for by law." At the point where collectors start suing consumers is where many consumers say enough and hire a bankruptcy attorney. That does everyone a lot of good, right? The only winner in that situation is the bankruptcy attorney.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
10
There should be a monetary "floor" required before debt collectors can pursue uncollected debts in court. The idea that corporations that already charge puninshing interest rates and fees can clog the court systems trying to collect a few hundred bucks from someone who is unemployed, ill, or otherwise unable to pay is counter-productive. There should be a minimum amount of consumer debt owed before creditors can sue debtors. Another issue with using state and local courts to settle debt collection suits is that it burdens jurisdictions already heavily burdened with cases and strapped for cash.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
11
I can't comment on any of this, but it would seem appropriate for Federal law to establish a framework of requirements for states to meet. This would level the playing field for debtors and creditors in all states. and would provide an equal basis for states to proceed with adding or amending their own laws affecting debt collection lawsuits.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
12
Consumers should be made aware of sale or transfer of their debts. From whom to whom along with effective dates and contact info for the creditor and the new owner of the debt.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
13
Notifying consumers of the sale of their debts and related details would help consumers with identifying who is contacting them about a debt; there are robo calls about lowering your credit card interest rate and such that are solicitations. Consumers have a right to know who they are dealing with in relation to their financial affairs.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
14
Consumers should be aware of who is handling collection procedures. The seller of any consumer debt should be required to notify the debtor of which debt owed to which creditor, is being sold by xyz organization to 123 debt collector. The effective date of the debt sale and contact info for the new collector should be included.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
15
I believe the original consumer applicant on an account has the right to know if an authorized user is delinquent on her or his payments as it affects the original applicant's credit standing. As for telling authorized card holders about the original account holder's default, I would say this is not a good idea. Many parents provide their kids with a credit card, but would not want the credit card company contacting their kids about the parents' debt.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
16
Consumer owing the debt should be contacted about any third party offer to pay their debt. Anyone paying debt for someone else should be required to provide their identity to the creditor and debtor.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
17
This kind of thing is likely determined by family court law in the jurisdiction where the debtor lives. Community property law, divorce or separation agreements and issues of domestic violence laws all come into play in these kinds of circumstances.
View this comment in the discussion thread