Debt Neutrality Petition's Comments

Consumer Debt Collection Practices (ANPRM) | Closed Rule

Debt Neutrality Petition
1

I have personally witnessed how judges perceive credit card debt cases, and I believe they have strayed too far towards the debt collectors. Judges simply decide whether a default has occurred, and once a judge declares a debtor in default, the adjudicated debtor has no pleading rights. Alleged credit card and student loan defaulters should have the right to declare their default an Involuntary Default and be allowed to pay back the debt with no more penalties, fees or interest rate charges, called Debt Neutrality. Debt Neutrality is making of a debt neutral so that it does not continue to indenture a defaulter in a never ending cycle of ongoing interest rate charges, penalties and fees. Involuntary defaults should allow the debtor to have the debt reset to where it was at the time of the default minus any payments made. As it stands now, Strategic Defaulters are given much better treatment than Involuntary Defaulters, in large part due to Involuntary Defaulters not being able to plead their default as being Involuntary.

Debt Neutrality Petition
2

Debt Collection companies get a very unfair debt negotiation advantage against an alleged defaulter when they hire an unscrupulous service company that has lied about giving a proper service or subservice to the alleged debtor's residence. Judges do not seem to understand that if a service company will fraudulently state in court documents that they served a defaulter or subserved someone at the residence when in fact they did not, that the debt collector can become very arrogant and cocky as to how they negotiate with the alleged defaulter. In a nutshell, if the debt collector's one sided terms are not met, they will simply hire the service company who will provide service even if it is a false service. Judges rationalize that the mail service is an adequate notification without realizing that what a false service does is embolden the debt collection company to not properly negotiate a debt with an alleged defaulter because they have total control over the service aspect, even if fraudulently obtained. This need to be fixed and false servers need to be fined along with the debt collection companies who hire them and keep hiring them even after they receive complaints of false service.

Debt Neutrality Petition
3

If I have been falsely served or subserved, (the making up of a person who does not exist to claim a service, or simply stating "Jane Doe" received the service) and the judges don't care, and the debt collection companies don't care, I should have the right to file an errors and omissions insurance claim against the debt collection company for false service that resulted in a verdict against me. I have already tried asking for an errors and omissions insurance policy from the debt collection company so that I could file a claim and the debt collection company simply ignored my request. I find this both egregious and outrageous.

Debt Neutrality Petition
4

I disagree with the above assessment. As an alleged defaulter I have asked over and over and over again to have the debt set where it was at the time of alleged default and that no more penalties fees or interest rate charges be tacked on, and that I will commit to a monthly autopay. People who INVOLUNTARILY defaulted because of a life changing event in their lives (such as becoming caregivers for their parents) may want to consider all of their defaults together, so if five defaults occurred, the alleged defaulter has to divide whatever money they may be able to apportion every month, by five. Debt collectors refuse to see this as a reasonable solution and only acknowledge their own debt with the alleged defaulter, making it impossible for the alleged defaulter to do the right thing and begin paying back everybody.

Debt Neutrality Petition
5

I also find the assertion that INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS don't put up a legal defense because they are afraid or have a lack of knowledge about the legal system to be outrageous. Strategic Defaulters save part of the money that could have gone to pay down their debts so they can give it to an attorney who may be able to get them a sweet pay off deal. INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS keep trying to make their monthly payments until the monthly accrual of interest rate charges and/or a life changing event forces then into an INVOLUNTARY DEFAULT. INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTS are not recognized by the courts. I had a SPOTLESS payment record for 15 years prior to a life changing event that caused me to become an unpaid CareGiver. If I could have been allowed to start with very small monthly payments to all of my creditors in exchange for having my phone lines left alone, I probably could have started making some income again. Instead, the constant debt collection phone calls forced me to convert my land lines to 20 cent a minute cell phones that I could not even afford to answer. I LOST work and contacts because debt collectors would not accept small monthly payments as a beginning pathway towards paying off my alleged debt. Probably the ongoing interest rate charges on default debt makes it unrealistic for debt collectors to accept small payments. Until alleged defaults are truly frozen so that those who want to pay them off have the best chance to do so, more and more debt will accrue.

Debt Neutrality Petition
6

There is a bait and switch approach towards unsecured credit card debt that I find disconcerting. If an unsecured debt can be converted to a secured debt, than was it ever really an unsecured debt? This seems like bait and switch. A consumer signs up for unsecured line of credit, but then the debt becomes secured by the courts. What motivation does a credit card company have to resolve a default situation if the courts will do the enforcement so easily and so one sidedly for them? The courts and the judges are actually using public tax money to give private business (credit card companies) a free ride when it comes to enforcement. Show me in the original adhesion contract where the credit card company states that their unsecured agreement is in fact more important than any life changing event that may occur in the alleged defaulter's life. Omission of obvious warts in the adhesion contract should not be tolerated by the courts. If I had been properly notified at the time I began acquiring debt that providing life affirming CareGiving services to another human being, aka my parents, was no excuse to default, I would have reconsidered how much debt I accrued. What about victims of hurricanes, floods, identity theft, hit and run, medical emergencies, is it fair that credit card companies HIDE THE FACT that they consider their debt more important? How much less business would credit card companies do if they did not conceal their underbelly at the time the agreement is signed. Who decided that the original agreement could be casually made over the phone or via a mail in signature, but enforcement would then happen in a courtroom? If the credit card companies truly believe that their debt is more important than any other aspect of a debtor's life, LET THEM STATE SO IN BOLD, VIVID FONT just above where a person signs the agreement.

Debt Neutrality Petition
7

Possibly the most egregious action of all regarding credit card debt occurred in 2002, suspiciously close to the 911 aftermath. While insurance companies were paying out tens of millions of dollars to building owners who suffered damage because of 911 (which technically they should not have done since this was an act of war which is NOT covered by most insurance plans), the comptroller of the currency was DENYING insurance companies from competing with credit card companies in the credit card debt suspension insurance arena. The result was a credit card debt suspension insurance monopoly for the credit card companies with premiums that were overpriced by a factor of 1000% to 2000% The profit margin was so high for credit card debt suspension insurance that the CFPB actually had to fine the credit card companies OVER 500 MILLION DOLLARS in the summer of 2012 for overly aggressive credit card debt suspension insurance sales and marketing practices. I had warned about overpriced credit card debt suspension insurance back in 2008 with the creation of www.credit-protector.com but was never compensated for my efforts. So what did 1000% to 2000% overpriced credit card debt suspension premiums do for the consumer? It meant that MOST credit card defaults in the United States over the last 10 to 15 years were based on a fraudulent foundation of obscenely over priced credit card debt suspension insurance that consumers could not afford to keep purchasing. Consumers were literally paying for 5 years worth of credit card debt suspension insurance but only receiving 3-5 months worth of coverage! Most of the times that a judge was declaring a credit card default, they were propping up the overpricing of a monopolistic credit card debt suspension insurance policy that did not fairly give consumers the most obvious way to protect themselves from a default that was caused by life changing event We could literally fix the U.S. economy almost overnight by doing the right thing. First acknowledge credit card debt suspension insurance fraud that the credit card companies have perpetrated on the american people over the past 10 to 15 years and as retribution reduce all consumer credit card debt by approximately 65%. Then raise the monthly minimum payment on the remaining 35% from 2% to 5% so the monthly payment remains roughly the same but consumers feel their debt more easily going forward. The comptroller of the currency tried to get credit card companies to raise their monthly minimum payment requirements from 2% to 4 or 5% back around 2005 but relented when it became obvious too many people would default. By reducing consumer credit card debt by 65% as a form of reparations for debt suspension insurance fraud consumers suddenly have a lot less debt BUT still have to make a similar monthly payments. However MORE of that monthly payment goes towards paying down the actual debt rather than the cesspool known as ever expanding interest rate charges.

Debt Neutrality Petition
9

Compliance 2013 demonstrates the type of arrogance that I have been addressing in my prior comments. The belief that a default is a default by courts along with the practice of REWARDING Strategic Defaulters while sentencing INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS to never ending escalating debt because of the ongoing interest rate charges needs to be addressed. Don't believe me? I have been researching consumer debt for the past few years and Consumer Debt is ON THE RISE GLOBALLY, and that is not a good thing. Canadian finance expert warns about rising consumer debt. I can replace Canada in the title with England, Australia, South Africa, China, Russia, Ireland and on and on and on. The consumer debt escalation is being caused by a ridiculously low 2% monthly minimum payment, the gateway drug to higher and higher debt, and because consumers who have legitimate life Changing events that cause them to default cannot plead INVOLUNTARY DEFAULT in court. Where does it say in the rigged credit card adhesion contract that consumers cannot plead Involuntary Default? We let criminals plead involuntary to many crimes, but not law abiding citizens when it comes to their credit cards and student loans!

Debt Neutrality Petition
11

Yes, one of the biggest scams that consumers get put through is the collection agency saying discussions about the debt have to be made with the parent company, and the parent company saying they cannot talk about the debt because it has been assigned to a debt collection agency, Please FIX THIS.

Debt Neutrality Petition
13

I am concerned that there is some type of rewards system in place that somehow monetizes those who report when a consumer has a potential bad credit scenario. Are there incentives out there to ding consumer's credit? As a conspiracy theory it makes sense since it drives up the cost of a loan.

Debt Neutrality Petition
14

I am concerned that state and federal agencies are contributing to identity theft, big time. In just the past month I had to make an online payment on what I believe was a federal hobbs act violation by the Los Angeles building and Safety department. A day after making the payment or risk losing my home, that same credit card was being used online by thieves. Then a few weeks later another agency asked for bank documents, I supplied them via fax, and they were lost! And on top of that, there really didn't seem to be a big deal made out of the fact that the documents went missing.

Debt Neutrality Petition
15

When I disputed the two years of 30% interest rate charges that Citibank tacked onto a defaulted credit card account of mine, (raising the default debt by OVER 5,000 DOLLARS) the debt collector refused to contact Citibank and said they had no way to lower the amount owed back to what it was at the time of the default. If this is the law, it needs to be changed. I should have been allowed to plead Involuntary Default (I had a perfect credit card payment record for 15 years and only had to default because I became a CareGiver for both of my parents) and simply be allowed to pay down the debt with no more interest rate charges penalties and fees. If you agree, please sign the debt neutrality petitionDebt Neutrality Petition

Debt Neutrality Petition
16

Please go hard after the service industry. They have done a lot to foul up the debt collection process by having their service people FALSE SERVE and FALSE SUBSERVE prospective debt collection alleged defaulters. It's happened to me twice, the first time the process server simply guessed by using the most generic age size, weight and assign a made up name! The second time the servicer simply called the sub server "Jane Doe" and once again made up the most generic cut across as many age, height and race descriptions they could come up with, which meant they could not be more far off. Then when I went to court I just happened to hear another defendant make the claim to the judge that they were never served, that the paper work was left outside the door. Besides the service company lying in court documents about serving someone that was not actually served, which in and of itself should be enough to give the judge some type of latitude to do something to protect the defendants, when a debt collector knows they can get a false service, they have MUCH LESS MOTIVATION to negotiate with the defendant. Judges don't seem to get this aspect of false service. Although the fact that the debt collectors and their hired agents are lying in court documents should be enough, no? I know what I know and I will state unequivocally anywhere that I have twice been false served/subserved.

Debt Neutrality Petition
18

After having a perfect payment history for 15 years, I had to across the board default on six accounts because I became an unpaid caregiver for my parents. However, before I ever defaulted, I contacted each account and explained what was going on. I would also like to note that five of the six accounts were still being paid down until I ran out of savings. I discovered the credit card companies HAVE NO INTAKE for potential defaulters. I consider a potential default division a cost of doing business that credit card companies have eschewed because they have co-opted the courts to do all the work for them for a very nominal fee. Why pay people to track involuntary defaulters who want to continue making much smaller payments until they can create more income when the account can be written off and parceled out to others who in turn clutter our courts up. My goal was simple, keep making monthly miniscule autopay payments on all six accounts in exchange for no harrassing phone calls so that I could concentrate on CareGiving AND modifying my self employment so that I could make something every month. Everyone refused, and the harrassing and MORE IMPORTANTLY REPETITIVE phone calls started. I ended up having to convert my land lines to 6 dollar a month cell phones, and then I rarely used them because I could not afford the 20 cents a minute cost. In essence the credit card companies and debt collectors destroyed the best way I had to regenerate earnings while still being an unpaid CareGiver. And as Marlene so eloquently pointed out, an additional roadblock is the debt collectors ABSOLUTE REFUSAL to put any verbal agreement reached in writing!

Debt Neutrality Petition
19

Once I tell a debt collector I am a unpaid CareGiver and that is why I had to stop making payments, why do they keep calling me? In essence they were telling me to let my parents die if necessary and go get a job. I was repeatedly baited with the comment, "So you are a "refuse to pay". I found this type of conduct outside the lines of common decency. I had a business, I had to give up the business to become an unpaid CareGiver. If I had been shown at the time I apparently agreed to the credit card agreement that there truly were no ifs ands or buts in regards to monthly payments forgiveness on an "unsecured" debt, I would have come up with a different business model that did not require credit card debt. Credit card companies get to present themselves as pro family in their advertising when the exact opposite is true in times of crisis. Ask people who had a dramatic life changing incident occur how the credit card companies treated them. Ask the Colorado flood victims, or the Hurricane Sandy Victims, or the person who was the victim of a hit and run how the credit card companies treated them. These are the same credit card companies that lobbied the comptroller of the currency in 2002 to keep their monopoly on credit card debt suspension insurance and the outrageous overpriced premiums they were charging their customers. One of the best ways consumers had to be responsible regarding their credit card debts was having AFFORDABLE credit card debt suspension insurance. This option was stolen from consumers in 2002 when the comptroller of the currency allowed credit card companies to over charge by 1000% to 2000% on monthly credit card debt suspension insurance premiums. I created a time line document that shows how the financial elite stole fairness from the people in regards to credit card products.My appearance in front of the CFPB in May of 2013 and the research I shared with them.

Debt Neutrality Petition
20

AT & T is notorious for setting up new accounts that don't have an official phone number attached. I was put in the situation of having an 800 number that AT & T customer service reps could not find in their system. I had no way to cancel it! Eventually the false 100 dollar debt went to a debt collector. I respectfully explained that the debt was not valid, in a letter. A few months later I got a letter from a different debt collector. Again I wrote a letter. A few months later another letter over the same faux debt from a third debt collector. Isn't this abuse by either AT & T or the first debt collector for reselling the faux bill after getting my letter?

Debt Neutrality Petition
22

The first entity I will probably take to small claims court and possibly file a complaint with Kamala Harris. The second incident I started sending faxes messages in big bold letters to the same fax where my prior faxes had been lost, asking other workers to look to see if they had taken the papers by accident. I also faxed overnight warning those who might have access to that room that taking fax documents could lead to their arrest. I did this for several days in a row. It was the only way I could think of to apply a much needed enema to those who have established a routine and can't shake free from it. Of course this assumes that they care.

Debt Neutrality Petition
23

A lot of excellent points made by MLegz13. My elderly parents needed help with day to day activities even if they were too proud to say anything. I stopped my award winning video business to be their CareGiver. Once the savings ran out, I had to default after 15 years of having a perfect credit card payment history. The debt collectors were constantly accusing me of being a "refuse to pay" even though I said I acknowledge the debt but had no income at the moment. It is this type of scenario that requires debts be frozen where they were at the time of default and in exchange the debtor agrees to pay off the debt, even if the initial monthly payments are just for a couple of dollars. What this does is free the debtor's phone lines so they can completely focus on moving forward rather than engage in pointless rat a tat with repetitive debt collection callers. It's why I started the Debt Neutrality Petition as well. If you click on the link PLEASE read the comments left by some of the 500 plus people who have signed the petition. Even a debt collector signed the petition, their comment speaks volumes of truth, as did all the others as well.Debt Neutrality Petition.

Debt Neutrality Petition
24

Since states laws have most likely been influenced by wall street banking and financial lobbyists, why is it imperative that all of the states rules be "honored"? Political Gridlock is everywhere, common sense overriding political gridlock, nowhere near as visible.

Debt Neutrality Petition
25

How about allowing arbitrators to not be bound entirely by the law, but also by common sense when it comes credit card defaults? Common sense tells us that if a Colorado flood washes away a community, those in the community are possibly not going to be able to pay their credit card bills for a few months. Common sense tells us that a medical emergency, being the victim of a hit and run accident, destruction of a home, or becoming an unpaid CareGiver for a family member should take precedence over the monthly payment requirement. This is not about debt forgiveness, its about declaring a debt neutral, no more penalties, fees or interest rate charges are applied to the debt, and the debtor agrees to pay off the debt in a reasonable manner, even if it takes 10 years to do so. Please Check out the Debt Neutrality Petition.

Debt Neutrality Petition
26

I disagree. Judges at the local level have become too biased in favor of the debt collectors who appear in their courtrooms. Judges live the very definition of insanity in terms of saying and doing the same thing over and over and over, and expecting the same result. That is not what a courtroom should be about. Judges should be allowed to consider the following evidence in a default case...Did the debtor have an excellent payment history, or not and for how long. Has the debtor paid in interest rate charges an amount that was actually more than the amount still owed. If either or both of these scenarios were true, the judge should have latitude to allow the debt to be paid back with no more interest rate charges, penalties or fees tacked on from the time of the default. A judge should also be able to use the FACT that credit card debt suspension insurance is OVER PRICED by a factor of 1000% to 2000% which is possibly the number one reason there has been an amplified amount of credit card defaults, as a reason to deny ongoing interest rate charges, penalties and fees after the default has occurred.Please sign the Debt Neutrality Petition if you agree with the above comment.

Debt Neutrality Petition
27

I would like to comment On Mr. Bartman's following quote..."their way out can be accomplished by helping them resolve their other obligations; helping them find new/better employment or providing them needed social services. " end quote. I can state from personal experience that when our savings ran out I became eligible for in home support services in which I as an unpaid caregiver could be paid a very modest amount (at minimum wage payment) because I was a caregiver. By being an in home CareGiver, I was saving the state a lot more money than it would cost to pay me a small amount every month via in home support services. I told this to all of my creditors, none of them cared. Then reality hit, my state agency that was supposed to help me obtain in home support services instead cast fear into both me and my parent by stating to me on the phone that whatever they paid me, they would file a lien on the home to get back if I outlived my parent. It turns out this application of the law did not apply to me. However the damage was done. I lost 1.75 years of eligibility and probably enough money to pay all of my vendors, and, I would have never had to prolong the default for more than a couple of months if any of my vendors had cared enough to just help me get through the process of applying for in home support services. But because judges have become so vindictive in their approach to credit card defaulters, judges have allowed the credit card companies to become LAZY at solving their own problems internally. Nobody helps, everybody simply self protects their own interests first and foremost.

Debt Neutrality Petition
28

It is a shame that there is no topic on this site that analyzes the absolute inflexibility that occurs once an INVOLUNTARY DEFAULT has occurred . If I go through a red light, have broken the agreement/law by doing so? What if I looked both way and proceeded through the intersection because there was a truck behind me that was not stopping? Suddenly the parameter of whether the law was broken has to be reconsidered. This RECONSIDERATION is NOT being evaluated for debtors/defaulters. A default is a default no matter what, and that is what is ruining the world's economy, not just the U.S. economy. Why do we allow credit card defaults and student loan defaults to have no mitigating circumstances when if we did allow mitigating circumstances judges would actually have some wiggle room to at the VERY LEAST, suspend the accrual of more and more interest rate charges, penalties, and fees from the time the debt occurred. The CFPB is basically helping to legitimize and reinforce a credit card companies right to sell a SERIOUSLY and PURPOSELY FLAWED PRODUCT that once consumed will lead to a lifetime of debt indenturedness. This is not my opinion, this is fact born out by the justice department's own report that consumer debt levels ONLY GO UP as people age, they NEVER go down. You can read a pre-emptive conclusion about all of these comments being left that basically shows the consumer feedback being given here to be not much more than pablum therapy. Here's the link. WARNING: NOTHING WILL CHANGE REGARDING DEFAULT and a DEBTOR'S RIGHT to DECLARE THEIR DEFAULT an INVOLUNTARY DEFAULT, NOTHING WILL CHANGE in REGARDS to GIVING JUDGES MORE LATITUDE to FREEZE a DEBT WHERE it was at the TIME of the DEFAULT so the DEBTOR CAN EVENTUALLY PAY IT OFF.

Debt Neutrality Petition
31

I would suggest that debtors who INVOLUNTARILY defaulted on a debt don't have the money to hire an attorney, so they don't see the point to going to court without an attorney. Why doesn't the court give access to free legal counsel to debt defaulters the way they do to those who are accused of committing a crime?

Debt Neutrality Petition
33

This is solid foundational advice, however, as I have heard a judge state in court (not to me), "a debt is a debt", and "a default is a default", and, "you probably owe the money". Until INVOLUNTARY defaulters have a way to freeze their debt at the time of the default, with no more interest rate charges, penalties or fees accruing, in my opinion nothing substantive will really change and the global economy creeps closer to the brink. see link. Global Debt Elephant in the Room.

Debt Neutrality Petition
34

This is a reply to Mr. Bartmann's follow up comment, (I could not find a reply button for the follow up comment). I think your idea is an excellent one. My concern is that it might force interest rates even higher. Ideally, there would probably be less overall defaults if consumers, when first getting credit were required to pay at least 5% of the total due each and every month.

Debt Neutrality Petition
35

These are all excellent suggestions but they don't address people who are incapable of paying down the interest bearing debt in a timely manner but could pay it down in a longer manner and if no more interest rate charges were accruing.

Debt Neutrality Petition
37

Reply to Aturk. What other options? Patience is the number one option. Agree to contact the credit card company and have the debt reduced to what it was at the time of default. Agree to even a 5 dollar monthly autopay with the promise that eventually it will be increased. Then report the account in good standing to the credit bureaus as long as those five dollar payments come in.

Debt Neutrality Petition
38

and on that page, how about the following option, I agree to pay down the debt as it stood at the time of the default, not a penny more. I agree to start making at least a _______ payment per month that will over time increase. I understand that if I make those monthly payments the account will be declared in good standing by the credit bureaus.

Debt Neutrality Petition
39

Bonzarel. while I think your idea is a good one, it could open the floodgates to interest rate padding the debt until it reaches one of the "floors" that you are suggesting. 30% interest rate charges, penalties and fees (which in turn also get hit with a 30% interest rate charge), can accelerate even a 500 dollar debt into the thousands in less than 24 months time.

Debt Neutrality Petition
40

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.

Debt Neutrality Petition
42

I have been falsely subserved twice. Both times resulted in verdicts against me. Thank you for taking the time to express your viewpoint, which should carry a LOT OF WEIGHT since you are in it at the ground level. If I had not been falsely subserved, it is possible that the debt collector would have been more humbled and more amenable to my extremely generous offer of agreeing to the pay the debt in full based on what it was at the time of the default, as long as I could start with a very low monthly payment and build it up over time. And as along as I was honoring my word, the debt would no longer be reported negatively on my credit report. But I never got that far because the debt collection companies simply hired someone who would deliver a service, no questions asked as to its legality.

Debt Neutrality Petition
44

Probably won't find any legislation since people who have allegedly defaulted on a debt aren't necessarily going to tell the world, or create a lobby for their cause. Debt Defaults and Debt Collections are a one sided issue in which judges have been constrained to simply determine if a default has occurred, or not. The lawyers primarily work with strategic defaulters because S.D.'s have some source of money or income available to pay both the attorney and a partial portion of the debt. Involuntary Defaulters are left to fend for themselves because they don't have money to pay a lawyer. Debt Neutrality, in which an involuntary defaulter agrees they owe the debt and simply want's to be able to pay it down based on the amount the debt was at the time of the default, with no more penalties, interest rate charges, or fees, even if it takes 10 years to pay off the debt, would possibly alleviate a large amount of unnecessary court cases. And of course, once the very modest initial payments were set up, the account would no longer register as a negative on a debtor's credit score or credit rating. And to safeguard fraud, the debtor would not be able to keep borrowing larger and larger amounts of money until after their defaults were paid in full. It's a very logical solution in my opinion. Judges should be able to use logic to solve the growing backlog of credit card default cases.

Debt Neutrality Petition
45

My Subservice stories. I found an unsealed envelope in my mail box that had court documents in them. I contacted the debt collection company and asked what was going on since I had not been served. They claimed a subservice had already been done to someone at my residence. I explained that was probably not likely because I am a Caregiver and I would have been the only one to answer the door and I did not get any service. I had to pay to file a response and was late by one day, andthen had to challenge the default because of the non service. The judge agreed that there had been no valid subservice based on the fact that the service company used the most generic "guess" they could come up with, a women in her mid 30's to late 40's, around 5 foot 4 inches, weight around 130 pounds to 150 pounds. That is about as generic of a description as one could give, and it was completely wrong. because that person did not exist. They even made up a name of someone I had never heard of and when I googled the name, could not find it anywhere on the internet. The second time a false subservice happened, a very similar description was given as the first time, and the alleged subservice recipient was identified as "Jane Doe". I would like to point how dangerous these lies are on another level. I exclusively have been providing CareGiving services for my parents, no one else has. By lying and introducing these lies into a court document, anytime in the future I could be accused of exposing my parents to a person at our residence who never even existed. I was also somewhat frozen by this level of dishonesty because on the rare occasion when I had to sue someone, I followed the law and had the service performed legally and properly. I just expected the same in return and by not getting it weakens one's ability to respond.

Debt Neutrality Petition
46

If you want to instantly level the playing field, make any credit card debt above and beyond the moment of default, disputable. Disputability of any amount over the amount at the moment of default would instantly get both the credit card companies and the debt collectors working with the consumer on a reasonable plan going forward, no? As it stands now, credit card companies can and usually do jump the interest rate up to as high as 29.9% and may even let the account stay in default as they rack up frequent default points on the debtor. When I gave up my regional emmy award winning video business to become a caregiver for both of my parents, eventually savings ran out and I notified each of my credit card vendors ahead of any default. NONE could offer me anything other than, "pay your bill on time". If instead the credit card companies know that once the default occurs they cannot accrue any more penalties, fees or interest rate charges on the debt, they will bend over backwards to work with the alleged defaulter to get them to pay down the debt. Citibank rate jacked my never late payment 15 year old credit card account by 5,000 dollars. I dispute that amount of excess in lieu of why I had to default, but Citibank does not care, nor does the debt collector. The amount of the debt reverted to what it was at the time of the default, you can bet citibank would be working hard to work with me.

Debt Neutrality Petition
47

The very last sentence, I left out the word "IF" at the beginning of the sentence. Should read..."If the amount of the debt reverted back to what it was at the time of the default, you can bet citibank would be working hard to work with me".

Debt Neutrality Petition
48

In response to the moderator. Just what does "the promise to pay" actually mean? Where in the adhesion contract does it state that the credit card agreement, an allegedly "unsecured" form of debt, takes priority over every single other occurrence that might happen in a person's life? Are the Philippine hurricane victims or even more recent Tornado victims in the midwest who lost their homes and their streets soon to become "defaulters" who are then subject to ongoing penalties, fees and interest rate charges while also having their credit scores damaged? The point of involuntary default is that an event occurred beyond one's control that has prevented them from making monthly payments of the amount they are required to make. Involuntary Default simply means the defaulter promises to pay back what they owed at the time of the default, and nothing more. I would suggest that the "promise to pay" tenet is constitutional violation of cruel and inhuman punishment because credit card companies literally lord over their customers without clearly mentioning their Godlike status at the time of the agreement. The correlation between cigarettes and credit cards are astounding. Isn't it time for a clear warning on credit card products that state the truth? Warning: Your promise to pay your credit card bill on a monthly basis is more important than any natural disaster or personal tragedy that may occur in your life. By allowing credit card companies to not place the warning from above in a viewable context to all sign-ups, they gain monetarily while not revealing a basic contract tenet that should be revealed. Therefore the "promise to pay" has been arranged under a false pretense.

Debt Neutrality Petition
49

I just want to add that I am not advocating getting out of the debt because of a life changing event. I am advocating that the debt be frozen at the amount it was at the time of the involuntary default and then paid back even if it takes ten years.

Debt Neutrality Petition
50

I agree that this is about Financial Literacy, and I'll give a couple of examples at the bottom of this comment. However, this is also about the court's enforcing completely one sided credit card adhesion agreements that don't give the debtor/defaulter, rights of any kind, even in the most humanitarian of situations, thereby calling into question the legality of these one sided credit card adhesion agreements. Lets not forget that it was the comptroller of the currency back in 2002 that prevented the Insurance industry from competing in the credit card debt suspension insurance arena with the credit card companies. This allowed the credit card companies to then have an obscene monopoly on overpriced credit card debt suspension insurance premiums they charged their own customers who otherwise could have carried insurance policies that would have frozen interest rate charges for a certain period of time when a life changing emergency occurred. Financial literacy is in play when it comes to the 2% monthly minimum payment addiction scam perpetrated on first time credit card borrowers. 2% monthly minimum payments are literally no different than a crack dealer giving out a few free hits of crack to get people hooked on their product. A person can be buy a $1,000 top of the line television set and only have a 20 or 25 dollar payment due the next month. That's credit card crack in my opinion. Financial Literacy could be a warning printed in bold letters on every credit card agreement warning how credit cards purposely have low monthly minimum payments to lure one into more and more debt, how credit card companies have no compassion for life changing events, and that credit card companies are overcharging for credit card debt suspension insurance by a factor of up to 2,000%. Put those three warnings on every agreement in bold letters, and two things happen, customers have a better chance of becoming financially literate, and it also is an admission of fraud by the credit card companies for all the prior agreements already in place. So the irony is the credit card companies can't change even if they wanted to. But where is the outside force to come from to make the obvious happen in regards to those three credit card wanrings? Apparently it can't come from the CFPB, which is unfortunate because it turn this ties the courts hands that much more.

Debt Neutrality Petition
51

The "promise to pay" meme has not been fairly vetted in the credit card agreement, that is the issue here for me. Credit Card companies are not required to mention in very visible lettering in the agreement (if its even mentioned at all) that under no circumstances will a bank or credit card company ever suspend a debt. Credit card companies enjoy an unfair perk at the expense of the consumer by not disclosing their most glaring warts at the time the agreement is signed by the customer, and that seems to be a violation of the spirit and purpose of an adhesion contract. Those Capital One commercials with the baby and Jimmy Fallon are false advertising in my opinion since Capital One is not really pro family or pro community. If Capital One was either pro family or pro community, they would either offer a REASONABLY priced debt suspension insurance program, or simply agree that a natural disaster or personal emergency beyond their customer's control is not cause to declare a default or to penalize the customer with ongoing interest rate charges. Apparently the customer does not have the right to suspend a debt under any circumstance unless they declare bankruptcy. If credit card customers don't have the right to suspend a credit card debt under any circumstance, then that should be specifically mentioned and clearly visible in the agreement before the customer signs the agreement. Your comment appears to have attempted to personalize money and I find that controversial. The fed is giving out money at zero percent interest to the banks, yet if a person has a situation beyond their control occur that causes them to need zero percent interest to pay back their UNSECURED debt, somehow that is different??? How can an unsecured debt actually be more secure than a secured debt? I would suggest that narrowing the discussion to "the people's money" obfuscates that the fed gives "free money" to banks and wall street. This free money (zero percent interest) eventually leads to toxic wall street investment schemes and scams that then cause the middle class to lose their existing home equity and 401K wealth while wall street then gets bailed out by the government. The desire for ongoing perpetual economic growth has created a world in which debt has now become the enemy, whereas in the past debt was not the enemy. Reinforcing the old "economic growth by increasing consumer debt" paradigm continues to sink the U.S. further and further into economic chaos because it requires the consumer be saddled with more and more debt and less and less avenues to pay it off. How can the economic growth model suddenly not work anymore? To get a better paying job in society one needs computer skills that create ways to achieve greater economic efficiency, which over time results in the loss of main street blue collar jobs that are not computer based. The people with the money are creating profits via computer jobs and a satellite economy while reducing blue collar jobs, meaning blue collar debts are becoming harder to pay off.

Debt Neutrality Petition
52

I also wanted to add that because debt collectors know they can hire robo service companies to false service, they aren't going to negotiate in good faith. Just as appalling for me was the judge agreeing that the one service I challenged was a false service, but allowing the case to go forward anyways. Sure, people can lie and say they were not served when they were served, but the very day I was in court contesting the service, a person who spoke before me made the comment that they found their service document on their door step when they got home. This means the servicers are lying in court documents, and nobody seems to care. So does rule of law only apply to the consumer? I still want redress on these two cases, and I want to be able to file an errors and omissions claim with both debt collectors insurance company for lying on court documents. And if it is not a law, then isn't it time that debt collection companies carry errors and omissions insurance?

Debt Neutrality Petition
53

Marian makes an excellent point about how Debt Collectors are paid. They try to get as much money upfront as possible. Ironically, if they get too much money upfront, the credit card company might snatch the account back from the debt collector. If the amount is "too low" that the debt collector receives, they are not interested. This goes against many sales principles that it is easier to interact at a later date with a paying customer versus trying to make a big score all at once.

Debt Neutrality Petition
54

After a court verdict in favor of a debt collector, Banks assess a significant fee against a customer when a customer's account is levied by the debt collector , even if there are scant funds in the account on the day the levy is imposed. Explain how assessing a 125 dollar bank levy fee when an account has 50 dollars in it helps resolve the ongoing debt resolution. The Debt collector gets nothing and the customer is hit with a 125 dollar bank levy fee. Is it ethical to levy every last dollar when none of it goes to the debt? Why isn't there a 100 dollar float that is impervious to a bank levy fee and protected from the debt collector's clutches as well? Is it wise to force people to lose their bank accounts based on a credit card default that may have had extenuating reasons beyond the debtor's control? Once again, we get back to the same underpinning, Judges who simply decide on whether a default has occurred without caring why the default occurred are basically rubber stamping minions of a system corrupted by a lack of fairness. People can lose income based on circumstances beyond their control, yet the system doesn't even blanche an eye. A debtor who purposely runs up debt quickly and defaults is treated identically to someone who had a perfect payment history but had to stop working to become a CareGiver for a family member. A debtor who purposely runs up debt quickly and hires a lawyer can strategically default and possibly get a better resolution than an honest person with an impeccable payment history who has lost income because of an event beyond their control. What kind of educated monsters are you for leaving the playing field so uneven, for so long?

Debt Neutrality Petition
55

Merging all types of debt collectors into the same introductory phrase is actually more confusing to the consumer than knowing the actual standing of the debt collector by how they introduce themselves. Maybe it is time to better delineate who it is that is calling. Instead of the most commonly used phrase of "This is a Debt Collector calling"... How about, "This is a Debt Collector calling on behalf of (name of credit card)...", OR, "This is a (name of credit card company) debt collector calling"... Example, "This is a debt collector calling on behalf of a Bank of America debt...", or, if the debt collector is actually employed by Bank of America, "This is a Bank of America Debt Collector calling...". And then there is the nuance of a debt that has or has not been sold to the first debt collector, perhaps whether the debt has been sold should be stated upfront as well. Perhaps "This is a third party debt collector..." should be used for debt that has been sold twice, and so on.

Debt Neutrality Petition
58

Explaining why the repeat phone call abuse happens does not justify it. Apparently there are autodialers that call several consumers at the same time, than hang up on all but the first consumer that answers the phone. The result is a person can get several collection calls and hang ups through out the day, that is just not right.

Debt Neutrality Petition
59

A debt collector phone representative should have over ride capability BEFORE an autodial call is made. Suggestion...The prospective consumer's info comes on the debt collector's phone rep screen FIRST, the most current info at the top of the screen. If it looks like the info is up to date, the debt collector phone rep should be able to intercept the call BEFORE IT IS EVEN MADE.

Debt Neutrality Petition
60

One communication from the debt collector per week is plenty. On top of that, The debt collector's phone rep should have power over the autodialer in the following way. A consumer's number is on the screen, the report log on that number is on the screen, the most current info at the top of the screen. If the debt collector phone rep sees that the very last communication does is already updated (such as waiting on a job interview with a date that is still in the future), then the debt collector phone rep should have the power to prevent the auto dialer from making the call. Not only does this prevent unnecessary hounding of the customer, it also helps prevent abusive reactions from consumers towards the debt collector phone rep because the consumer recalls their last communication and that what was discussed could not have reasonably happened yet.

Debt Neutrality Petition
61

Just like Cable companies may expect their customers to give them a four hour window for service calls, consumers should be allowed to choose a time frame they prefer to be called within. If they never respond within that time frame, then the debt collector could try a different time frame.

Debt Neutrality Petition
62

Yes. I think there is a way to get the debt collectors on board. The CFPB can remind them that debt collection companies may be exposing their own phone reps / employees to unnecessary verbal abuse from customers who have a legitimate justification for being upset because of follow up calls that ignore the updated agreement just reached in the prior call. If the previous communication with the debt collector creates a new timeline for possible repayment, then the debt collector should not step on that timeline by making subsequent calls less than a week later. unless the customers says call back in less than a weeks time. This also gives the debt collection phone rep the ability to say..."It has been a week or longer since our last communication"...Which allows the customer a moment to realize they are not being harassed on a daily basis by the same debt collector. Some consumers have situations in which their income grinds to zero and they may default on more than one account. Imagine 5 debt collectors each calling twice a day. Even one call a week can still equal one call a day if a consumer has five simultaneous defaults, but that is certainly preferable to 2 calls a day from each collection account, which would equal 10 calls a day, every day.

Debt Neutrality Petition
63

Why are all defaults created equal? If Person A owes 30,000 dollars but has actually paid back 30,000 in interest rate charges plus 50,000 in principal payments on long time revolving debt, while Person B owes 30,000 and has paid back 30,000 in principal payments but only 5,000 in interest rate charges, why are the two people treated the same in court if they both default? Why aren't people who paid off significantly more in interest rate charges over the years given no break of any kind if a default occurs? The more one pays in interest rate charges, the more likely they are to one day default and the more profit they have allowed the credit card company to have.

Debt Neutrality Petition
64

GMT512. I agree with you that being in debt is not a crime, however, if a debtor defaults on a debt they basically have no rights if they cannot afford an attorney as one will not be provided for them by the state. (Pro Se can easily become a mess as no one will actually help with the paperwork, even state funded pro se agencies are simply paid to show where to get the right papers, not to fill them out.

Debt Neutrality Petition
65

RHN91362 Because credit card contracts are adhesion contracts, it is up to educated third party observers to make sure the adhesion contract is fair. If a person experiences a dramatic event beyond their control that reduces their income, it seems questionable to not allow the debtor the right to suspend the interest rate charges, penalties and fees until they have regained their income. They are still promising to pay, but since their life has been turned upside down by an event beyond their control, that should have standing in some cases. It just doesn't seem ethical to punish a consumer because their home washes down the river one day, or is burned to the ground by a wild fire, destroyed in an earthquake, and so on. It especially does not seem ethical that the credit card companies are allowed to hide how they will punish a consumer if the consumer's intent was always to make their payments and it took an act of God to prevent that from happening. Insurance policies do not cover acts of war, yet our own government allowed the owner of the twin towers to collect on their insurance policy even though 911 was clearly an act of war. I believe there have been polls that show a majority of americans are upset because the 2008 bailouts did not give them any respite of any kind. The "Promise to Pay" says nothing about making that payment every month above and beyond all other situations and scenarios. I believe judges have misinterpreted Promise to Pay and that lawyers like the way it is set up now so they don't want to challenge the obvious holes in credit card adhesion contracts because it could quash their own future income stream.

Debt Neutrality Petition
66

RHN91362, I have already answered your comment but it still bothers me that "financial literacy" may be the escape clause that the CFPB uses to avoid the real issue. How about rewarding those of us who have tirelessly blogged about exposing the financial traps set up by the credit card companies, especially those of us who did it all on our own dime and time. Credit Cards are THE BIGGEST PROFIT MAKING scheme in the U.S., much bigger than the mortgage industry. And as the CFPB knows, any type of money making machine gets protected through lobbying. That is exactly why the CFPB was able to fine the credit card companies well over 1/2 billion dollars for aggressively marketing the credit-protector Insurance program. When something makes so much money so easily, people just can't help themselves to try and keep expanding the money making venture. I personally warned about the credit card credit protector programs almost FIVE YEARS BEFORE the CFPB made their over half billion in fines. Credit-Protector I created my site on my own time and with no funding, and I think my warning almost five years before should matter. I also don't understand why someone like myself who created my warning so early on, with no funding, can't be compensated on any level simply as a way to energize future generations that if they take the time and show they care for something that matters, they may someday be publicly rewarded/acknowledged. I also created blogs about Chase Bank and their credit card shenanigans back in 2009. Once again, the class action lawyers swooped in and took 25 million dollars in legal fees. I didn't see a dime for my blogging even though my 2009 protest blogs probably helped fuel the justified anger by some consumers who then went on a mission to get a class action lawyer involved. Once again, I got nothing. If Government Consumer Organizations are not willing to acknowledge those who care and show it, the system may never truly improve. Daily-Protest Bloggers Against Chase Bank Parallel Foreclosure Swarm The Banks Wall Street Change I have gone out of my way to offer financial literacy through the exposure of unfair credit card and banking policies for several years now. The tree fell, people heard it, but no one made a sound.

Debt Neutrality Petition
67

Even when the right person is hauled into court, everything From_ill_annoy stated is still true. Defaulters should not be forced to complete the same type of court papers that those accused of crimes are required to fill out and file. Since debt collection is not considered a criminal act, filing papers should be much much easier for the defendant, and, a defendant should be allowed to plead Involuntary Default and get a better result. such as the freezing of all interest rate charges, penalties and fees in exchange for the promise to pay, even if it takes ten years.