Comment from Anonymous on March 4, 2009 at 12:56PM EST

I suspect based on the FTC hearing commentaries/discussions/position papers of trade associations as well as consumer advocates, the collection industry may have allowed anecdotes that supported specific proposals or interests far beyond a comprehensive uniformity and thus the industry will be deprived of certainty and clean body of regulation.

Comment from Chris Baggett GoLiveSMS on March 4, 2009 at 12:57PM EST

I think if we can have them eliminate the presumption that there will be a charge for cell phones, we will be OK. With Free To End User now available the consumer isn't charged. And text messaging is light years ahead in conversions.

Comment from Anonymous on March 4, 2009 at 1:08PM EST

Could not agree more. It is certainly timely and appropriate for review and adjustments; BUT central to the concept is the simple fact that the debt is actually the responsibility of the individual - hiding is not a consumer protection right! Responsible ARM practices, firm and swift punishment for rouge practices is essential to the integrity of proper business. If the government continues to use consumer protection (?) as a tool to evade responsibility the government is simply wrong. Cell phone restrictions are an excellent example: yes it may cost a couple of minutes on someone's plan with Verizon, etc., but it can be proactively taken care of by the individual making contact and arrangements with the creditor. oops, there I go again bringing up individual responsibility....

Comment from MAJ on March 4, 2009 at 1:19PM EST

"I suspect based on the FTC hearing commentaries/discussions/position papers of trade associations as well as consumer advocates, the collection industry may have allowed anecdotes that supported specific proposals or interests far beyond a comprehensive uniformity and thus the industry will be deprived of certainty and clean body of regulation"

What???????

Comment from Anonymous on March 4, 2009 at 5:07PM EST

I would like to see the ACA take a substantially more proactive position and towards reforms. We really missed a chance to be involved with the recent reforms regarding credit card billing practices. As collectors, debt buyers, etc., we should welcome necessary reforms and even encourage them... but we should be pushing for concessions in exchange. Increase the statutory penalty for FDCPA violations... but impose some limit on attorneys' fees. The current system allows attorneys to behave in a manner akin to extortion. Some attorneys have taken to demanding payment without even disclosing the alleged infraction. We can pay their demand or we can find out what the basis of the claim is... after they file suit. It seems like the consumer attorneys work to agressivelty pursuade lawmakers and public opinion... while we only wait to see what the consequences on our industry will be. For example, there has been a lot of demand for changes in the way billing statements, credit card agreements (etc) are published. Great; make it a requirement to place a disclosure stating "IF YOU MISS EVEN ONE PAYMENT WE MAY INCREASE YOUR INTEREST RATE TO 30%", in bold lettering on every statement, pre-approved credit card offer signature page, agreement, etc. In exchange, there would then be a rebutable presumption the debtor was fully aware of and agreed to such an interest rate. Meaning, the debtor would have to prove they never received the media containing the disclosures in order to challenge the interest rate (rather than the creditor prooving he/she did receive it). There are many areas of improvement we could work on together, instead of allowing the almost emotionally hysterical consumer attorneys rule the day. We need to speak up too. We can only gain more credibility as an industry by participating in the process and we can only loose more ground by letting these changes occur without us.

Comment from Anonymous on March 4, 2009 at 8:59PM EST

The FDCPA does not go far enough. When a claim is made that a consumer owes a debt, proof of debt had better be in hand. Too often, these collection efforts are based upon incorrect data, credit becomes damaged through reporting such claims and the burden is placed upon the alleged debtor. The FDCPA should be modified to allow statutory treble amounts against such fictitious claims, at the barest of minimum. Attempts to collect through the courts on stale debt should carry a minimum 10 grand penalty on first offense.

A house cleaning is in order for this industry.

Comment from Public Srvc Msg on March 4, 2009 at 11:02PM EST

I agree with Anonymous and the others. Something not addressed is the "Credit Counseling and Settlement" organizations that are also manipulating the law and the consumers. On the other hand, the FDCPA is not going to affect the economy, every layoff across the country is affecting the economic structure. Each person laid-off has a family or dependants; dependants can be directly related, or in the form of those the individual did business with, including the small business owner, the local grocery, convenience, services and the landlord that was relying on income from the rent they cannot pay, the other stores they will not shop, the credit they cannot pay. Unemployment was extended, but the amount of the benefit was not increased. Then there is the contract labor that cannot collect unemployment. FTC needs to evaluate what the corporations are doing to re-employ america, or we won't have any funds or resources to concern ourselves with debt collection. It's great they lay-off to stabilize the company, their income and the profit, but they are also laying off all the paying customers. Collectors do need to do their job, legally, and those that do not, should not be in the business, but it should not be at the expense of the entire industry, or become a unnecssary restriction upon the entire industry.

Comment from tommytoons on March 5, 2009 at 3:27AM EST

Now let me see, we need to call consumers on their cell phones which causes the consumers who already are in debt, to be billed for a call we are trying to make to get them to pay a past due balance? On this one, I agree with the FTC! Why victimize the consumers again who are already victims??

Comment from Uncl Lar on March 5, 2009 at 10:20AM EST

Is tommytoons a collector??? Why are debtors "victims"? They are debtors for a reason. I have less than zero concern over why they are debtors, they are debtors. Once you get your arms around that concept, I guarantee if you are a contingent collector your personal income will most definately rise.

Comment from tommytoons on March 5, 2009 at 1:21PM EST

Yes Uncl Lar, I'm an experienced Collector and yes I do believe debtors are victims, either because of their inability to have their own economic house in order due to their stupidity or greed, or because they were forced into debt because of medical bills that they incurred because they did not have insurance thru no fault of their own.

Collectors who have "no concern over why they are debtors", need to examine their humanity and realize that type of mentality damages our industry and goes to the heart why there is a need for the FDCPA!

By the way Uncl Lar, this is not meant as a personal attack on you, but a convinction I have when I deal with folks who owe a debt.

Comment from Rodney Meeks, CCS on March 13, 2009 at 5:57PM EST

I listened to Peggy Twohig, of the FTC give an update on their report to Congress. She kept saying over and over again that they lack the data to make sound decisions. The best thing we can do as an industry is provide the FTC and Congress with meaningful data. We know that not every inquiring regarding debt collectors to the FTC is an actual complaint. Consumer attorneys are already having a hay day advertising on TV and showing consumers how to avoid paying their bills. We receive cease and desist letters daily with request for validation. And these are from folks who were already on a payment plan and acknowledged their debt. Remember, recent surveys show that the majority of Americans are failing in financial literacy. It's time for our government to start educating and stop enabling.

Comment from Angelica on June 16, 2009 at 12:13PM EST

I beleive that 90% of the debt collection companies are just doing their job and acting in accordance with the existing laws. It's the 10% of rougue collection companies that give everyone else a bad name and justify the change in laws.

Even in my own family, my teenager started receiving calls from one of the "watch list" disreputable agencies while we were on vacation on her wireless. A second message arrived within the hour, referencing a specific original creditor, account number, and dollar amount (which should not have happened on a voice message system).

I called the original creditor to confirm our acounts (hubby and me) were ok. They were completely mystified after their investigation because not only could they find any record of past due accounts in our name, they stated the company was misrepresenting themselves and using the bank's name fraudulently. The bank is investigating because they do not do business with this collection agency.

Despite notice several times in writing and by phone the agency had the wrong number, my 15 year old daughter kept receiving automated recorded calls, line seizures, and hang up calls throughout the school day totaling in excess of 900 minutes in a 30 day period.

It took a letter from my personal attorney to convince the firm they had the wrong number, discontinue calls, and seek reimbursement for the bill associated with the phone.

I also agree that the $1,000 fines are not a deterrent when dealing with the disreputable. They chalk it up to part of their cost of doing business.