Make A Donation And Help Keep This Information Available

DON'T BE HAMMERED BY YOUR DEBT

DON'T BE HAMMERED BY YOUR DEBT

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT - FDCPA:

15 United States Code § 1692, et. seq. is the codification of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. It is a law that was passed by Congress in response to the actions of a small minority of disreputable and unethical debt collectors. On its face, it purports to be a law designed to protect the individual consumer. However, as with all things which are birthed from Capital Hill, it is in fact the product of high powered lobbyists. Those lobbyists made sure that the FDCPA was stripped of any and all teeth and what was left is merely an illusion. Unfortunately, most consumers who get into debt trouble are falsely led to believe that the FDCPA is at best a sword to be used against their creditors, and at worst a shield to protect them from their creditors. It is neither; it is an urban legend, an internet myth, a tragic illusion that the FDCPA provides any real substantial protection to a consumer.

15 USC § 1692g(a) sets forth the "validation" requirements in collecting a debt. When any debt collector is attempting to collect a debt, whether a collection agency or an attorney such as myself, begins collection activity, we must validate the debt by providing the information set forth in 1692g(a). The information required by the law is (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor; (3) a statement that the debtor has 30 days to dispute the debt or it will be assumed valid. That is all of the information that is required by 1692g(a). No additional information is required by the law. If a debtor disputes the debt within the 30 day period, 15 USC § 1692g(b) provides for the debt to be verified. This simply means that the debt collector must send a written statement to the debtor with the name and address of the original creditor and the amount of the debt. This is all a verification is. The verification does not require the collector to produce original documents evidencing the debt. In fact, the debt can be verified by a simple sworn affidavit.

The one tiny bit of protection provided by the Act is that once the debtor disputes the debt, the debt collector must cease collection activities until he puts the verification in the mail to the debtor. Again, though, the verification required is extremely simple and extremely easy to prepare or obtain. Therefore, this supposed protection turns out to be an extremely brief pause in the debt collection process.

Unfortunately, just as there are unscrupulous and unethical debt collectors, there are unscrupulous and unethical debt advisers. You can find them at any number of over a thousand websites on the internet. Some of these self-proclaimed gurus will for a small fee teach you how to fend off debt collectors using the FDCPA. There are in fact others who will provide this information for free if you are more diligent in your Google searching. They will provide you with form letters guaranteed (they don't ever tell you what you will get if their guaranteed product does not work like they say it does) to stop debt collectors dead in their tracks. Unfortunately, I have begun to receive evermore of these forms letters obtained off the internet. In my mind, this is an absolutely tragedy because these are desperate people who are being given false hope and who are being led down a path which ends in a worse situation and a larger debt. These form letters tell the debt collector that he must furnish information which is not required by the FDCPA and make hollow and even ludicrous threats, such as reporting to the Federal Trade Commission. Rather than strike fear in the heart of the collector, when I receive one of these form letters hot off the internet, I mark the file for what I call internet attention. This simply means that I know I am dealing with a debtor who has no clue what they are doing or what the law actually is and that this will be an easy debt to collect once I locate assets. Because this person has been given false hope by an internet scam artist, I know I will be wasting my time in attempting to reach a reasonable and amicable solution or settlement of the debt and proceed straight to the quickest possible judgment and collection activity.

What the internet scam artists do not tell consumers is that the FDCPA contains a virtual "get out of jail free" card. 15 USC § 1692(k)(c) provides that in order to punish a debt collector for violation to the FDCPA, you must prove that the violations were intentional and that there will be no punishment whatsoever if the debt collector can show that the violation was unintentional and that the debt collector has in place policies and procedures to provide with compliance with the FDCPA. Therefore, I and the collection agencies I represent maintain meticulously policy and procedural manuals regarding what is and what is not a violation of the FDCPA and I require all of my employees to review and sign off on that manual on a regular basis. I am not saying that my office is perfect and that we do not or have not on occasion unintentionally and purely by mistake violated the FDCPA. I am saying that my staff is well educated on the FDCPA and that we do not engage in an intentional pattern and practice of violation and therefore, no court is going to award a debtor damages for a mistaken violation. Now I know you are saying, "Wait a minute, I have seen recent headlines where debt collection agencies have been slammed by the Federal Government for violations of the FDCPA." You are absolutely correct. Those were cases of completely unscrupulous and unethical agencies which deliberately and intentionally and over a long period of time engaged in actions which are directly prohibited by the Act. What the consumer is not told is that those agencies or collectors are punished by the Federal Government by the imposition of large fines or the revocation or collection licenses and that has absolutely no effect on the validity of the consumer's debt. That debt remains outstanding and will simply be sent to another collection agency for collection.

So, if you are a debtor how should you use the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? You can take advantage of the anti-harassment provisions and protection provided by the Act. You can tell the collector not to contact you at work if you so desire. You can tell the collector not to contact you at all if you so desire. However, if you refuse all contact with the collector, you should assume that the debt will be forwarded to a collection attorney for suit. You can request a verification which will delay collection of the debt. You can use that time to raise funds to pay off the debt or to contact the collector and attempt to make some arrangement for satisfaction of the debt. If you are being harassed by a collector, repeated phone calls, threats of criminal prosecution, threats of providing information about your debt to your employer or friends or family, etc., you can and should report those violations to your state licensing commission and you can file a lawsuit. However, as with all lawsuits, you will be at a distinct disadvantage since the collection agency will be represented by an attorney. However, if you are not being harassed or if the collector has not intentionally violated the FDCPA, do not threaten to sue them. You will only draw attention to yourself and to your ignorance of the law. The bottom line is that the FDCPA is more myth, than sword or shield.


Learn everything you need to know to beat a credit card debt lawsuit, forms included! Order your copy of How to Beat a Credit Card Debt Lawsuit with the Secrets of a Real Debt Collection Lawyer at http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/how-to-beat-a-credit-card-debt-lawsuit-with-the-secrets-of-a-real-debt-collection-lawyer/11927258 

18 comments:

Kyle Markley said...

"If a debtor disputes the debt within the 30 day period, 15 USC § 1692g(b) provides for the debt to be verified. This simply means that the debt collector must send a written statement to the debtor with the name and address of the original creditor and the amount of the debt. This is all a verification is."

That seems like an unnatural parsing of 15USC1692g(b). The consumer may dispute the debt, or request the creditor to be identified... but you're saying that it's sufficient to respond with the creditor's identification even in cases of dispute?

Shouldn't the identification be sent in response to a request for identification, and something *different* be sent in response to a dispute?

For the creditor's identification to always be a valid response is not at all the natural reading of the paragraph, which appears to be outlining a common procedure to be followed for two different kinds of customer requests.

Anonymous said...

Consumers:

Please do not believe the contents of this FDCPA "info" posted in this blog. This blog is just another attempt at misinformation by creditors. The FDCPA can be used as a powerful defense, and, at times, an offensive weapon. Contact a consumer lawyer in your local area if you have questions about consumer issues, rather than looking to the opposition (a creditor's lawyer) for answers.

Andrea R. said...

LMAO... yes, please do not believe a lawyer who is directly quoting the FDCPA... trust Mr. Anonymous, because he says so!!!

Anonymous said...

actually this blogger is 100% correct. I work for a collection agency and ive also noticed alot of these so called "validation demand" letters. We simply verify all the info as accurate with the creditor and respond with a letter informing the debtor that the debt has been verified as correct and provides the creditor info. debt collectors are under no obligation to provide anything else. sending such a letter to a debt collector only shows them that you have no idea what your doing.

Stephen said...

One thing about the FDCPA is that if you have attorney representation that the debt collections calls will be stopped. And at that point the collection agency must deal only with the firm that you hired for representation. This is a very major benefit of the FDCPA that most people do not know of. And in case you were wondering what you were hiring the attorney for, it is for the case of arranging a settlement, which will be acceptable by your creditor.

Shatara G said...

I sent a validation letter to a collection agency and started an investigation with the credit bureau's at the same time. I have not received any response from the collection agency, however they have verified with one of the credit bureau's. is this not a violation? if so, what is required of them after such a violation. what recourse do i have?

Shatara G said...

ok, so what if you send the letter requesting validation, and do not receive the minimal information they are supposed to give. then on top of that, they verify with the credit bureau where you have submitted a dispute at the same time you sent the validation letter, when you still have not received anything from them.
what can i do about that? isnt that a violation? if so, what is their punishment?

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that they would have to give proof that the account is the debtors account. If the debtor is disputing that it is not there account the creditor would have to validate by a signature. Anyone could say that you owe anything and you would have no recourse.

Anonymous said...

While Mr. Herrin is correct with regard to debt validation as per FDCPA guidelines, I've found that asking for additional information such as signed agreements, bills of sale, etc. doesn't prove I don't know my rights under the FDCPA. As k yourself this question: If someone sent me a letter claiming I owed x amount, but couldn't prove it, would you pay? In other words, if someone can't provide you with substantial documentation as it specifically pertained to the supposed debt, why would you pay them? I disagree that debt validation is as cut and dried as it has been described.

Anonymous said...

Michael Herrin's post is misleading! Debt verification is DIFFERENT from VALIDATION. The validation process require much more specific information than verification.

gordon said...

Medical,insurance, pofessionals,lawyers practicing greed at Biblical proportions will one day stand before the Creator of time and space and answer the follwing question:

HOW WAS IT YOU GOT RICH OFF THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF MY CHILDREN?

Good question.

Anonymous said...

This lawyer is typical of all debt collection attorneys. They always leave themselves open to a wide variety of causes of action against them in federal courts. Of course, they almost always win in local courts. They almost never fail to get their judgment. But in the process they will always commit grave errors in their pleadings that leaves them totally vulnerable. Many use false and fraudulent affidavits provided them by such companies as TSYS of Georgia and their National Attorney Network. There are other such companies as well who provide fraudulent affidavits often "notarized" by employees who simply buy an official looking seal but never register with the secretary of state which means they are illegally operating under the color of law. Some have come very close to felony convictions for doing that. Some of what this attorney said comes so close to being true that it gives a false appearance of validity to the whole thing. I certainly hope that all debt collectors and attorneys study his words carefully and take them to be the gospel truth. I've already won 164 cases against attorneys and debt collectors with zero loses because they believed as this attorney does. And please keep those false affidavits coming too.

Anonymous said...

Well this is a lawyers side representing a collection agency. Some of it I do agree with, but if you ask for verification and specifically ask for original creditor last activity date (payment or charge) they are inclined to do so, in the state of georgia at least.

Leilani said...

Great work.

Anonymous said...

I don't care who this lawyer is, or who he represents. It's all per the judge in the END! If someone disputes a debt for VALID REASON and requests certain information that is PERTINENT to the DISPUTE OR ANY PORTION THEROF which is exactly what the FDCPA says and the collector doesn't make effort to provide that and blatantly and coldly ignores the DISPUTED PORTION THEREOF and relies only on the rest of the barebones LITERAL verbage of the LAW.....TRUST ME....THE JUDGE WILL consider that in court...not to mention, if the collection agency or firm ignores collection laws for any given state which are statutory and outside the FDCPA..and on top of that they have even a little bit gotten rude or demanding with you on the phone....THEY ARE TOAST in the litigation process! HOW DO I KNOW THIS?!?!?! BECAUSE I have a good friend that is in FDCPA and FCRA law and he sues collection agencies for a living and R A R E L Y L O S E S ;)

Anonymous said...

The system is a mess and I suggest usuing a non-lawyer third party like CPI. They obtain validation and also cease contact bc we all know that collectors often ignore letters from people like us. http://cpinsituteonline.org

Dorothy said...

Dear Site Owner,

I would like to say that your blog is well-written and it contains lots of useful and up-to-date information. We really got interested in your web resource and we would like to cooperate with you. My websites are devoted on various financial themes and the have got amazing traffic and Google Values.

My sites contains loads of useful financial information presented in news and articles that highlight the most much-talked-of issues such as credit cards, debt solutions, financial crisis, ways out of it, and many more. We believe this information can awake interest in your readers and can help you gain more and more traffics well. We would like to do some link exchange with your sites. If you agree then please let me know as per your convenience: dorothy786@gmail.com

We thank in you in advance for your cooperation.

Best regards,

Dorothy Parker

Homestead Services of Florida said...

if a debt collector never registered with the secretary of state which means they are illegally operating in the STATE OF _____ under the “color of state law” would that gives grounds for a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action?

if yes, would you have some case law to back it?

darren34276@hotmail.com