Paper Launches Investigative Series on Debt Collection
A newspaper in Ohio on Sunday and Monday published the first two pieces in an investigative series on consumer credit reporting. But so far, the series – called “Credit Scars” – has been focused more on the debt collection industry.
The Columbus Dispatch, the largest newspaper in Ohio’s capital, launched their series Sunday with an article titled “Debt deception.” The piece focused mainly on debt collectors and their use of consumer credit reporting to compel payment.
The article does make a distinction between legitimate debt collection efforts and those taken by bad actors in the ARM space. The piece begins:
Rogue debt collectors are chasing Americans for debts they paid long ago or never owed, and they are threatening consumers with ruined credit reputations if they don’t pay.
But the Dispatch also uses consumer complaint volumes against debt collection agencies to paint a picture of widespread abuse in the ARM industry when it comes to credit reporting.
The “Credit Scars” series is actually a retread of a four-part series that ran in May 2012. The original articles were almost exclusively focused on credit reporting issues and looked to the impact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) would have in their regulation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
The second article, published Monday, looks at the legal debt collection channel. Titled, “Law, courts involved in prolonging agony of debt,” the story covers the oft-traveled grounds of default debt collection judgments and the impact those orders have on consumers over a long period of time.
The article notes that many ARM industry associations, like ACA International and DBA International, are calling for clarification of federal and state laws that create a difficult environment for both legitimate collectors and consumers.
“We need to balance around consumer protection and collectors who need to do their job,” ACA spokesman Mark Schiffman told the paper. “But we’re governed by this patchwork quilt.”
Formal recommendations made by the FTC after their investigation of the legal collection industry were noted as a possible first step in dealing with debt judgments and credit reporting.
It is amazing that it’s always the ‘industry’ and never the consumer. What would be nice would be to see a proactive series of reporting concerning the consumers informed preperation and mindset when contemplating entering into debt instead of the typical reactive style of todays media.
“But we’re governed by this patchwork quilt.”
“It does not seem unfair to require that one who deliberately goes perilously close to an area of proscribed conduct shall take the risk that he may cross the line.” See, FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 393, 85 S. Ct. (That’s United States Supreme Court) 1035, 13 L.Ed. 2D 904 (1965).
Show me one section of the FDCPA that requires a debt collector to communicate with a debtor or one section that gives a debt collector a right to contact consumers. It’s allowed under the FDCPA but not required or any special right given.
You want to voluntarily put yourself in a position where you have to deal with a strict liability statute and the back lash that comes with years of abuse before everybody and their dog had the internet, knock yourself out, but don’t cry when you know the risks going in.
There is an easy solution. Why don’t you just sue consumers and actually have a case that will win if you do sue, and stop trying to bully and bluff. Go on the world poker tour if you want to try and bully and bluff, or keep getting your tail handed to you in court and the court of public opinion. It does not matter how much you cry about these news stories. They are not going anywhere anytime soon, cry away.
Same Typical BS. Every industry out there has bad apples. Problem is even if we do things the right way, many of these debtors are, to be blunt, are liars. They file complaints with AG’s, FTC and whoever will indulge them in the hopes of deflecting the attention from the debt to the agency. In many cases the number of cases relative to the number of accounts or contacts an agency makes is irrelavent to the regulatory body. We had 33 complaints in a 36 month period where we had made over 23 MILLION contacts. We were put through the paces, spent large dollars to make our case and one day I get the one page letter that, to paraphrase said, Our investigation has been completed and no action will be taken. $25K and countless hours of my time and others, and I get a nice one sentence letter……..I am convinced, that there are those out there in decision making position, who will not be happy until they completely gut the industry and work toward ELIMINATING DEBT COLLECTIONS altogether. Very sad……it is just another chapter in the decline of American values and responsibility. There are more rights going to the debtor than to the people who are owed the money.
There is a big effort to make this problem seem bigger than it really is. When an industry is in compliance 98% of the time is there realy a problem here. We already have laws on the books to deal with cheaters and scammers….enforce those laws and leave the ones who do things right and within the scope of the law alone.
As long as there are deadbeat consumers the problem will never go away. Todd-Bean everyone know you are a very unhappy consumer but I think in the agreement from the OC that when you sign on the dotted line you give the OC the right to sell your information and transfer your debt. Now Todd-Bean sense you are unhappy and a very upset troll why don’t you sue the credit bureaus for selling your information to data brokers?