Consumers need to be pro-active in everything they do. If an individual had the capability to take on a debt then they should have the capability to resolve the debt. Every credit union I know goes the extra mile to help their members achieve financial success.
From a creditor's standpoint, I generally agree with this comment. I think a good validation notice could answer a lot of the consumer's question. I think the author of the above note had some very well reasoned thoughts. I wouldn't go so far as to add that an itemized statement must be provided, particularly if one might not be available (perhaps because of record retention rules or because one simply may not exist), but providing information as to the type of account, brand name of the original creditor issuing the account, the account number, the date of last pay, and the name of the party from whom the debt may have been purchased would help. Providing documentation at the get go seems rather unneccessary and costly, particularly if the wording of the letter allows the consumer to readily identify the account, and the disclosures allow the consumer to request documentation for validation.
Larry S, your quote..."A plaintiff in a lawsuit cannot be placed in a situation where it is rewarding to sue with insufficient cause and minimal risk" is a very powerful statement and one that I entirely agree with. It is this scenario that emboldens debt collectors to hire riff raff service companies who will lie about doing a legal service or sub service, and apparently get away with it. I have been victimized by two false subservices. I think both were done by the same service company.
Thank you for your comments LarryS. CFPB’s objective is to protect consumers, yet not impose undue or unnecessary burdens on the industry. CFPB doesn’t have legal authority over absolutely every aspect of debt collection and rules about collection litigation are a complicated mix of state law and federal law. But as CFPB moves to the next stage (coming up with specific proposals for new rules), it will be carefully considering what you and other commenters say here.
I do not communicate with anyone I owe money to by phone. I want a written trail. It's too easy for them to say I agreed to something or to give me misleading information by phone. I want it IN THE MAIL.
The burden of proof should be on the creditor. If you make the debtor responsible for following up with a request, it gives the creditor an opportunity to say they never received anything from the debtor... If they had to send the documents to start with, there would not be any question.
Aaron Racicot
1
Consumers need to be pro-active in everything they do. If an individual had the capability to take on a debt then they should have the capability to resolve the debt. Every credit union I know goes the extra mile to help their members achieve financial success.
View this comment in the discussion thread
MER
2From a creditor's standpoint, I generally agree with this comment. I think a good validation notice could answer a lot of the consumer's question. I think the author of the above note had some very well reasoned thoughts. I wouldn't go so far as to add that an itemized statement must be provided, particularly if one might not be available (perhaps because of record retention rules or because one simply may not exist), but providing information as to the type of account, brand name of the original creditor issuing the account, the account number, the date of last pay, and the name of the party from whom the debt may have been purchased would help. Providing documentation at the get go seems rather unneccessary and costly, particularly if the wording of the letter allows the consumer to readily identify the account, and the disclosures allow the consumer to request documentation for validation.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
3
Larry S, your quote..."A plaintiff in a lawsuit cannot be placed in a situation where it is rewarding to sue with insufficient cause and minimal risk" is a very powerful statement and one that I entirely agree with. It is this scenario that emboldens debt collectors to hire riff raff service companies who will lie about doing a legal service or sub service, and apparently get away with it. I have been victimized by two false subservices. I think both were done by the same service company.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
4
Thank you for your comments LarryS. CFPB’s objective is to protect consumers, yet not impose undue or unnecessary burdens on the industry. CFPB doesn’t have legal authority over absolutely every aspect of debt collection and rules about collection litigation are a complicated mix of state law and federal law. But as CFPB moves to the next stage (coming up with specific proposals for new rules), it will be carefully considering what you and other commenters say here.
View this comment in the discussion thread
JClark53
5
I do not communicate with anyone I owe money to by phone. I want a written trail. It's too easy for them to say I agreed to something or to give me misleading information by phone. I want it IN THE MAIL.
View this comment in the discussion thread
JClark53
6
The burden of proof should be on the creditor. If you make the debtor responsible for following up with a request, it gives the creditor an opportunity to say they never received anything from the debtor... If they had to send the documents to start with, there would not be any question.
View this comment in the discussion thread