Collection Agencies = The Devil and/or Mafia


I was in collections for just under 10,000 dollars when I was about 23 years old.

I can tell you it was one of the worst experiences of my life. They called me first thing in the morning, they called me at work and then they would call me when I got home.

They would verbally abuse me and call me names. I was in tears many times. It only lasted a few weeks and then I had to get my parents to take out a loan for me in order to pay the debt, and then I slowly paid my parents back. I have no idea how extreme this particular collection agent would have become had the debt gone unpaid for 2-3 more weeks.

It was truly awful. Seeing this movie made me remember how brutal it was.


reply

The worst part is that it's not like the credit companies are hard up or something. Like waiting an extra week won't make that big a difference.

Probably the only business more profitable than credit finance companies are oil companies.


>O Stands For Osom (awesome) ~ New York<

reply

You were in tears...? GOOD!

Boo Hoo someone called you names. You made the debt, right?

They achieved their objective - you paid them! You were probably to stupid to negotiate a discount unless they offered it...? Right...? Grow up.

reply

Wow dude (tapalmer99), you kinda blow. Don't you get it? You're angry with the original poster because they incurred a debt and then couldn't pay it back (and now he or she is reliving the horror collectively known as Collection Agencies).

It's not the debtor that's at fault, since he or she never had the funds to cover the debt in the first place. It's the stupid credit card/bank that's to blame for offering a carrot and then attempting to collect the carrot and more in such an aggressive manner.

reply

Jeff,
I hope you're kidding.
If she never had the funds to cover the debt in the 1st place then she never should have taken it out.
This isn't a zero-sum game. Responsibility rests on both parties, but from my point of view, the bulk of it rests on noely noel (or whatever her handle is).

People have to be responsible for their decisions with respects to all matters credit. People today are pathetically irresponsible for their actions. Whether it's some bad parents blaming the teacher for their kid being reprimanded at school, or people blaming others for the credit they took out.

The reason why tapalmer99 and my view is more beneficial is that it will have more of an impact on the people that are entering into these credit arrangments when they haven't the necessary funds.
It appears, and I could be wrong, that you want to coddle them and calm their worries that they could conceivably be in the wrong. Our approach says, "no, you are responsible for your decisions, enter into these arrangments at your own risk.... and because of that responsibility, if you fault, you'll face the consequences".

One solution hopefully solves the problem earlier on (ours) the other continuously plays catch-up.

reply

You should have learned your rights under the FDCPA and your state laws. Chances are this collection agency was violating both and you could have knocked a $1000 or so off the debt, plus they may not have had the documentation needed to prove the debt was yours.

reply

Assuming the collection agency didn't outright buy the bad debt. Then it wouldn't be 3rd party collections, it would be 1st party collections. FDCPA isn't binding to 1st party debt collectors.

reply

That's not true. The FDCPA is binding to anyone trying to collect on a debt owed to someone else or someone who buys a debt that is in default.

Example...

- Credit Card company A is owed a debt and tries to collect from debtor. FDCPA does not apply because it is 1st party collections.

- That same company contracts with a collection agency to collect the debt, then the collection agency is a 3rd party and FDCPA applies.

- Collection agency buys debt from company A and attempts to collect. Since they bought a delinquent debt with the intent of collecting, FDCPA applies.

Also keep in mind that some states have their own version of the FDCPA that DOES apply to 1st parties and usually offer even heavier fines.

reply

I don't believe that's true.
The FDCPA is binding to 3rd party collectors.

The FDCPA is not binding to a 1st party attempting to collectors.
A 1st party collector CAN follow the guidelines of the FDCPA, but they are not bound to adhere to the FDCPA.

From Wiki:

"While the FDCPA generally only applies to third party debt collectors--not internal collectors for an "original creditor" -- some states, such as California, have similar state consumer protection laws which mirror the FDCPA, and regulate original creditors. In addition, courts have generally found debt buyers to be covered by the FDCPA even though they are collecting their own debts."

However, I can find cases where debt buyers were not held up to imposed standards by the FDCPA.
But, it does at least show that original creditors are not bound by the FDCPA. California is different still because that is not the FDCPA, but something set up by Cali at the state level.

reply

The "1st party" is the party who the debtor was originally indebted to. Lots of junk debt buyers have tried to argue that because they own the debt they are the "original creditors" and not subject to the FDCPA, but in every instance I have seen the courts have ruled against them.

Here is the actual text from the law.

"(6) The term "debt collector" means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 808(6), such term also includes any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests. The term does not include --

(A) any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such creditor;

(B) any person while acting as a debt collector for another person, both of whom are related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the person acting as a debt collector does so only for persons to whom it is so related or affiliated and if the principal business of such person is not the collection of debts;

(C) any officer or employee of the United States or any State to the extent that collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official duties;

(D) any person while serving or attempting to serve legal process on any other person in connection with the judicial enforcement of any debt;

(E) any nonprofit organization which, at the request of consumers, performs bona fide consumer credit counseling and assists consumers in the liquidation of their debts by receiving payments from such consumers and distributing such amounts to creditors; and

(F) any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity (i) is incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation or a bona fide escrow arrangement; (ii) concerns a debt which was originated by such person; (iii) concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person; or (iv) concerns a debt obtained by such person as a secured party in a commercial credit transaction involving the creditor."

reply



"That's not true. The FDCPA is binding to anyone trying to collect on a debt owed to someone else or someone who buys a debt that is in default."

Looks like I read this sentence in haste.
I thought you were saying that 1st parties (non debt buyers) were also bound by the FDCPA.

reply

I had to deal with collection agencies once. It sucked, so I got out of that situation as soon as I could. I also have not enjoyed getting pulled over by the police, so I try to drive safely and not draw attention to myself.









Just in case, I have a radar detector, and caller ID.
_______________
A dope trailer is no place for a kitty.

reply

The title of your thread implies a comparison will be made, but I have not seen one in the postings so far, so I'll make it--

Once upon a time in America it was illegal- under usury laws, to charge more than a certain interest rate, about 10% if I remember right. But the credit card companies have bought the US congress, and now it is legal to charge 25% and more- rates that were once charged only by knee breakers in the mafia. But now it's ok? If some one is so much of a risk that the bank can't lend them money at 10% or so, should the bank be lending them money at all? Worse are the payday loan companies and title loan companies (who aren't actually interested in your car title, but your future income). And how proper is it for a credit card company to lower a customer's credit limit, and then charge them a penalty the next month for being over the new limit (Which penalty is often as high as the finance charge)? These things are all possible because our government (in the form of politicians) has sold us (the US citizens) out, for their own short term benefit.

Charging more than 10% or so should be illegal (again as it once was), but then again lawyers should also not be allowed to advertise as once was the law- "are you being denied social security, because you'd rather be a drunk than work?"), and companies should not be allowed to advertise free scooters and diapers ("At No Cost To You, If You're On A Government Program") For that matter does anyone remember the term "false advertising" Half the ads you see and hear (NOT AN ACTUAL STATISTIC-but think about it next time you hear or see a commercial, especially for a car dealership) are made up of lies- granted there is the fine print, but is that in the SPIRIT of the law? You don't hear about anyone in trouble for false advertising anymore, whereas it used to be a familiar phrase.

WTF- we have been sold out by the politicians who run our government. And that's not to say that everyone with massive consumer debt is blameless, but the deck has been stacked against them in recent years in a way that used to be prohibited by law.

And while I have an audience (hopefully) please don't believe it when they say the economy is improving because unemployment claims are going down-- unemployment claims are not necessarily an accurate reflection of the economy. When someone with a crappy minimum wage (or close to it) full time job gets let go, their unemployment check is very low. So low that if they find a minimum wage part time job, it will pay more than their unemployment benefit; as a result they are under employed, yet no longer file for unemployment, allowing the politicians to say that "jobless claims are down, pointing to improvement in the economy"- even though the economy is actually worse.

And while I'm off on tangents, don't believe that illegal aliens "only do the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do." In a capitalist society, supply and demand are the guidelines we live by. If a job doesn't pay enough, be it landscaping, being a busboy, or a housekeeper or a garbageman, then the job goes undone until it does pay enough. If no American wants to cut your grass for $7 an hour, you have to cut it yourself, or pay more money, not hire an illegal to do it. Because of illegals doing the jobs "Americans aren't willing to do", all jobs in America pay a little bit (or a lot) less. But that keeps the rich people happy.

There are so many problems with our country that are created purely by greed and the golden rule-(he who has the gold makes the rules), that unless something changes soon, we'll all be speaking Chinese before long. The only solution is to THROW THE BUMS OUT. It doesn't matter if they are republicans, democrats, or independents, if they've had a term in the Congress, and our lives have not changed for the better, they need to go back to earning and honest living, and give someone else a shot.

They gotta write their own letters

reply