Three Costly Mistakes Debt Collectors Should Avoid in 2013
Here’s something we all know: 2013 will be unlike any other year in the history of debt collection in the United States. It is known. The most obvious reason is that the largest ARM companies in the country will be subject to federal examination for the first time ever. And that should probably be enough.
But there’s more.
In their latest episode of ARM industry legal podcast, The Debt Collection Drill, attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss specific ways debt collectors can take to avoid costly mistakes in 2013. In addition to preparing for CFPB supervision (read Rossman’s article on that here), Rossman and Poncin talk about the appropriate way to accept checks by phone (hint: many companies may be doing it incorrectly) and little known licensing issues causing class action headaches.
Listen to the 12-minute podcast below:
(if you can’t see the player, listen to the podcast at http://traffic.libsyn.com/thedrill/TDCD_ep22.mp3)
Editor’s Note: The editorial team of insideARM.com (so basically Michael Klozotsky, Patrick Lunsford, and Mike Bevel) would like to thank John and Moss & Barnett for their holiday gift. The three of us will either be forming a quasi-religious cult or a hip-hop group based on the items — we haven’t decided yet. Happy Holidays!
Washington State already has a statute that theoretically could deny a collection agency or out-of-state collection agency license for a past violation of the FDCPA within the last 2 years if such judgment is against the owner, officer, director, or managing employee of an applicant or licensee. See, RCW 19.16.120(4)(h) and 18.235.020(3).
The application form does ask about civil court judgments against these people and is a reason for consumers to personally name them in an FDCPA suit and/or sue for a violation of RCW 19.16.250.
WAC 308-29-050, however, does not require licensee reporting of FDCPA judgments — only the filing of FDCPA actions on behalf of three or more persons such as class actions — and, given the department’s current position of not taking discipline on properly disclosed judgments arising out of violations of RCW 19.16.250 beyond placing them in the licensee’s file, it is unlikely that they would deny or terminate a license for this reason alone.
Disclaimer: This is provided simply for informational purposes and is.not legal advice.