A Conversation with the CFPB

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS
Joann Needleman, Maurice & Needleman

Joann Needleman,
Maurice & Needleman

Earlier this month, DBA International held its 17th Annual Conference in Las Vegas. Registrants were provided with a wealth of content including numerous courses that qualified for the DBA Certification Program. Several courses also fell into an “attorney track,” which focused on areas of defense litigation for debt buyers.

One of the highlights of the conference was a conversation with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Incoming DBA President Bryan Faliero moderated an informal panel discussion with three key division leaders: Tom Pahl, managing counsel for Regulations; Scott Pluta, assistant director for the Office of Consumer Response; and Larry DeMille-Wagman, acting director of Collection Supervision.

Wagman, in discussing what drives the Bureau’s examinations, stated the Bureau looks at risk posed to consumers, which is often a function of a debt collector’s size. Therefore, the larger the player, the more likely it will be subject to a CFPB exam. Complaints are another factor identified by Wagman as a basis for both examinations and enforcement actions. He added that the Bureau looks to its data (such as its complaint portal) for patterns of abusive or wrongful conduct.

Information obtained from state agents is another source of information Wagman identified. Finally, and probably most interesting, Wagman noted that what is reported in the “popular press” also plays into the CFPB’s targeting decisions. Wagman’s comments suggest that media like the New York Times or the Huffington Post may play a critical role in the CFPB’s workings.

In discussing the Bureau’s examinations of debt collectors, Wagman emphasized that the examination process was not a “gotcha approach.” During the examination process, the Bureau will identify its areas of concern and encourages an open dialog with the examination target. This dialog is one of the reasons that enforcement attorneys are no longer present during the examination process, Wagman added. As far as the timing of examinations, Wagman would only say that larger market participants should “act as if you are going to be examined for the next two years.”

Scott Pluta provided an update on the CFPB’s complaint portal, noting that to date 33,000 complaints have been received which deal exclusively with debt collection. Since the portal went live in July 2013, this translates to a little more than 5,000 complaints per month. One third of those complaints go directly to the entity that is the subject of the complaint, while one third go to the FTC because the target cannot be identified. The rest get circulated within CFPB for a more “high touch” review. Pluta stated that one goal of the complaint portal is to push market share to the right actors.

Pluta also noted that while the complaint process aides the CFPB in identifying trends and themes, the complaints had been consistent with those received by the FTC for the past several years.

Finally, Tom Pahl discussed the recent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Pahl suggested it may take some time before proposed rules are announced, perhaps not until 2015. The vast amount of responses already received in response to the ANPR must be reviewed by the bureau and it will perform a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act prior to publishing proposed FDCPA rules.

My take-away from the discussion is that a top-to-bottom evaluation of the debt collection industry is well on its way and no one is immune. The working of bureau’s examination process and complaint portal still lack transparency. The ANPR is an important step in establishing clear and concise rules to ensure that the playing field is level for all participants (consumers, debt collectors and debt buyers). Compliance management systems will need to be constantly evaluated and re-evaluated until the rules of the game are well established.

This post originally appeared on the Consumer Financial Services Blog, run by ARM defense firm Maurice & Needleman.

 

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in CFPB, Collection Law Firms, Collection Laws and Regulations, Debt Buying, Debt Collection, FDCPA, Featured Post, Opinion .

×
Subscribe to our email newsletters

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

  • avatar Raymond says:

    I see the small and mid size agencies(including debt buyers) gradually going away. Very few, if any, have the financial access like the larger agencies and debt buyers. Large banks will and have already begun reducing or eliminating selling accounts and the market share of business is getting smaller. The CFPB is failing to recognize that one shoe doesn’t fit all because they lack any experience in credit and collection, plus the committees they created for consumer and collection balance has already fell off the cliff. Has anyone seen any published comments of any of these committees? While protecting consumers is important and has been as far as debt collection companies, in my opinion, the CFPB is loosing sight of costs. Looking at one sided negative news reported is a danger to all. When was the last article by any media outlet commented about debt collection agencies contribution to the market place or community they have offices?

  • avatar John Smith says:

    I have been in the collection industry for 46 years. During this time I have personally known individuals that had never been contacted by a collection agency (but assumed we were bad guys) and those that had rather frequent dealings with collectors (they too thought of us as bad guys).

    The overwhelming distinction between the two was a very simple trait … those that had no collector contact were honest. If they had a financial crisis the sought to work it out directly with the creditor well before any collection intervention was even remotely contemplated.

    Those that have an ongoing relationship with collectors and collection law firms were dishonest. Remember, I am well aware there are extenuating circumstances and human error involved etc. but do honest people have a propensity to be involved in strange circumstances or continually subjected to errors that necessitate the need for collector contact?

    Today the acronyms are legion. You have the FDCPA, FTC, CFPB, TCPA, FCRA and a host of others that spend billions of dollars each year defending the rights of the consumer to be unaccountable for their actions, dishonest and a drag on the economic life blood of our economy. Then we ask why has our country abandoned its desire to be the best, the brightest and the strongest? Is it no wonder when our own government condones … no wrong word, I should say fosters mediocrity and duplicity.

    We need to even the scales and forge a course that is straight and true or forever abandon our heritage.

Leave a Reply