Re: Re: Understand the Collection Process As I said im my other post and in a post a long time ago, when I first posted this series, the entire series is based on my years (many of them) as a Collector, a CCCS Credit Counselor, a CCCS Branch manager and on the debtor side of credit. Basicly, these posts are based on my own first hand experiences, not hear-say. As with anything else on the internet, you are free to take it or leave it as you see fit. But before you go, how about pointing out an inaccuracy?
Re: Re: Understand the Collection Process Ditto: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=369214#post369214 Sassy
Re: Re: Understand the Collection Process Sassy, if that's what you consider an "inaccuracy" then you really don't get the reason for the posts nor do you know anything about me. I deliberately did not put "violation" in my posts because I was showing how the CA thinks and works. There are plenty of other posts here (mine included) that point out the violations. Heck, besides Lizardking I am one of the more MILITANT and LITIGOUS posters on these boards. At this very second I have suits pending against Sears and 2 out of the 3 credit bureaus. These posts are a peek into the mind of the adversary. They are not to excuse any illegal behaviour (and besides, a lot of whet you put "violation" on is NOT a violation. The CA can and does use veiled statements that on their face are NOT violations and lets the debtor's mind wander into its own little purgatory. The CA just provided the roadmap. If you are in AZ I would like to meet with you so you can see for yourself that I am NOT an apologist for the CA's and in fact are in may respects their worst nightmare. I live in Tucson.
Re: Re: Understand the Collection Process Nope, I don't consider these inaccuracies, I consider them your observation and experience in working in the collection industry. Every one of them do skirt and side-step the FDCPA provisions and a combination would confirm for any debtor the violation. I don't consider you an apologist, this isn't however how legitimate collection agencies operate or should operate and your post doesn't indicate that -- it leads you to believe that it is ok and standard operating procedure as well as acceptable business practices. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Understand the Collection Process You are absolutely wrong, and you can take that from someone who has been there, done that and has the T-shirt to prove it. This is EXACTLY how legitimate CA's work. They skirt the law just enough not to actually violate it, and I was showing how. The ILLEGITIMATE one just don't care about the law and violate it at will. What I point out IS SOP within the CA industry. Get to know the enemy and you can defeat him. That's the reason and philosophy behind these posts.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Understand the Collection Process Sorry to tell ya, Flying, but I hope you got more than a t-shirt. THAT is the problem, legitimizing the actions of CA's whose intent is to side-step the FDCPA and for which consumers have recourse. You don't mention that recourse NOR the existance of any nor how the 2 relate in any of your editorials. For instance, you say: You can consider the CA as just an extension of the Original Creditorâ??s (OC) 90-day desk. They will do the same thing, say the same things, make the same threats. It is not uncommon for a Lender to send a debt from CA to CA, especially if the first CA couldnâ??t collect. No, a CA is not an extension of an OC, they have different responsibilites and requirements. In some states OC's are bound by the FDCPA as well. They cannot do the same things nor make the same threats -- they can't even be misleading. A lender can be help responsible for the actions of its CA's. CA's can't side-step a validation requirement by passing it on and on to another CA. Yeah yeah, I know it happens all the time, and this is why, THEY think it is ok and that there is no recourse, just like you do!!!!!! You don't mention that once something is charged-off there is NO benefit to a consumer to pay it. You don't mention that CA's are required to report the commencement of delinquency date and have furnishing and requirements they have to meet, in addition to the FDCPA. You don't mention ANY of the things they are required to do or not do, you only make ok what they THINK they can do by not mentioning the rest. You don't mention that consumers don't HAVE to speak to CA's nor that they have to obey a cease and desist. You don't mention what actions occur or more importantly DON'T occur when a validation request is made -- which is NOTHING, none of the above. You don't mention that to report and collect, it IS required. You make it read like CA's go on about their happy way oblivious to the requirements of their occupation. They should do NONE of those things if not having the minimum information required or the ability to get it. You said: Once the account has been charged off to P&L, it is most likely to be sent to a Collection Agency (CA). The CA must, by law, send you a letter saying that the account has been placed with them, that you have the right to validation of the debt, tat anything you say will be used for collection purposes and more. See the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act page for complete information on this â??mini-Mirandaâ? (named after the Miranda Warnings police are required to give when making an arrest.) That's just plain not true yet you don't address CA's that DON'T do it even when they are supposed to, which is after the first phone call, and that isn't the mini-miranda nor a fair summary of what the mini-miranda is and says. You don't say that CA's are required to convey that in every communication, the lesser version, including all the threatening phone calls. You don't mention that junk debt buyers don't BUY the documentation that goes with them, the documentation that is required to be able to collect, nor is it likely available to them -- nor do you mention that they buy legally unenforceable debts or alleged debts. I guess that's the difference between me and you, I think consumers shouldn't have to figure out these things the hard way, you make it all ok and allowable by the very things you exclude. Get to know the enemy and defeat him, if that is your purpose, you would include interjections at every paragraph saying why that isn't fair and honest dealing, why it matters to a consumer as far as reporting goes, why it matters to a collector as far as their ability to collect goes and what provisions the CA has to be acting within -- the regulations that bind THEM, what THEY are required to do and not do in their CHOSEN occupation. What they THINK is ok is addressed on this very board a hundred or so times a day. And what first turned me off to your every post and that underlies EACH of your continuing and related editorial threads is that you said validation was a stall attempt -- NEVER did you say that it was a consumer RIGHT nor that it was REQUIRED as part of the collection gig. CCCS is nothing but a consumer rip-off, so that t-shirt doesn't count for anything either. IF CA's ever FOLLOWED the rules that bind them, including what is required for collecting and what is required for furnishing information to CRA's, this board would have no purpose. They REFUSE to play by the rules and that is why this board exists, or one of them, showing people they DO have rights, that ISN'T acceptable collection and there ARE rules and regulations. You are saying it is ok and not a violation or a series of violations all while NEVER mentioning what IS required of collectors, and that is bull! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Understand the Collection Process No, a CA is not an extension of an OC, they have different responsibilites and requirements. The only difference vetween an OC and a CA is the CA is bound by FDCPA and the OC is bound by FCBA (Fair Credit Billing Act). My post, however, was NOT a treatise on the FDCPA implications of every paragraph because, if it were it would be a BOOK, and not postable here.[/i] In my web site that will be brought out, but not in these articles. What is in these articles is general in nature and suitable in all 50 states. You better re-read FDCPA. It doesn't apply to OC's - they can be as misleading as they want. they can outright lie without running afoul of any law. Once again, you better re-read FDCPA. That is true in california and New York City. I am not aware of anywhere else in the country where that is true. Actually, they can. That is a loophole in FDCPA. Once CA #1 recieves a Validation request, it is incumbent on CA#1 to either prove it, drop it or be sued. CA#1 can send it back to the OC who can then send it to CA#2, who is NOT bound by the Val letter sent to CA#1. If I believed there was no recourse, then why did Sherman Acquisitions and Arrow Financial BOTH pay me $1000??? I sued them both. Beacuse I wasn't discussing that aspect of the transaction. Actually, I did mention it in a round-about way. I did say that the CA will resist payment for deletion. None of these articles was discussing FDCPA at all, so this is not surprising. I was discussing the PSYCHOLOGY of the CA and Creditor Collection Departments. Once again, I was not discussing FDCPA at all. Yes, I was discussing what they THIKNK. taht's the Psychology aspect, a topic that, except for my posts, has not been mentioned here that I can see. Nor did I mention any other aspect of FDCPA. In a round about way I did mention that consumers don't have to talk with collectors if they choose not to (the section about not staying on the phone more than 3 minutes unless real progress was being made) Nor did I discuss any other aspect of FDCPA compliance. Many of them do. I don't get into what they should do at all. Only into how they think. As I said before, these essays are to be inserted in a web site still under construction. There will be an appriopriate link to the FDCPA Mini-Miranda. I don't discuss any aspects of FDCPA. It's off-topic. What documentation Junk debt buyers have is the one aspect of collections I have no first-hand experience with. That phenomena came about after I left the field. Since I have no first-hand experience, I said nothing about it. I do not, I just presume (and rightly so) that the consumer will read more in this board than my one post. But not HOW they THINK and what THEIR motiovations and hot-buttons are. The statement that validation was a "stall attempt" came from a CA on www.collectionindustry.com. I NEVER said I felt validation was a stall attempt. Your opinion of CCCS. I can tell you first hand that it is not; at least not the office I ran. Finally something we agree on. Like I said repeatedly, none of these articles was intended to be a treatise on FDCPA. They are a treatise on Collector Mentality. Nothing more, nothing less. I have been called many things in mylife, but pro-creditor is not one of them. Sassy [/QUOTE]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Understand the Collection Process OK, you win, the posts are useless. I have requested Credit Net Admin to delete all 3 threads. Steve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Understand the Collection Process Are you kidding, Flying??????? I really can't get over the egos on this board lately. I'm starting to believe it's not a discussion board at all, it's for platforming. Don't put words on my keyboard please, just as I never said "pro-creditor" NOR did I ever say "useless." I don't need to be right, I only care about the quality of the information -- it is your website, your postings and your threads. Why don't you care as well? If you can't back up what you say, why would you post it on what is supposed to be a discussion board. That has always been a strength of this site versus depending on other's interpretations because they so so and with nothing to confirm or as a source. AND more importantly, why can't anyone discuss anything anymore??????? Share, brain boggle, interpret, grow off each other, refine things, think of new things, invent old things. It is stagnating and disappointing. If people don't want comments, why don't you put that with your post -- don't comment. Leave your threads, Flying, I'll make a note that you aren't capable or willing to have a discussion and will read them as FYI only, maybe. I won't respond to your posts from this point on, just as I don't respond to others that have this same ego problem, unless you happen to be giving out inaccurate information. Don't change your posts because of me though nor ask for them to be deleted. I highly dislike and am passionately opposed to censorship. I am only 1 person out of thousands. You're not the first and not alone either -- it will be read-along before much longer. And, I am guessing THAT is the desired direction as much as it goes on, maybe I'm just disillusioned. Sassy
I actually read the original post, not the quotes. It speaks for itself; it isn't a complete explanation of every legal right a consumer has, nor was it intended to be, nor does it claim to be. BTW, in the process of trying to discredit the post by opposing everything within it, Sassy ran into a contradiction. After accusing Flyingifr of being an apologist for the CA's, Sassy then accused Flyingifr of questioning their integrity. A "legit" CA doesn't see validation as merely a delaying tactic, etc. Too much idealization of legal rights, as if they enforce themselves. Too much idealization of "legit" CA's, as if they obey the law for its own sake. Too little realism about the economic incentives and practical considerations involved in the Collection Process. I think Sassy's lengthy critique, while it had its own value, missed the most important points.
Re: Re: Understand the Collection Process I'm guessing you weren't wanting to know about the inaccuracies after all, eh? I pointed them out, you then decided this thread was useless and should be deleted. Then RichGuy decides it is an attempt instead to discredit your entire posting and this is somehow about consumer rights. Factual inaccuracies, statuatory provisions and requirements, state laws, and unfair and deceptive business practices. Factual, confirmable, verifiable -- click click AND, waiting for those quotes, RichGuy. Sassy
Sassy, Your "quote within a quote within a quote" technique so far defies cutting and pasting, at least by me. Whether you intend to or not, by constantly shifting the grounds of discussion you have made this thread excessively lengthy and complex.
"The FDCPA doesn't apply to consumers, it applies to 3rd party collectors..." A ridiculous argument. It is intended to restrain 3rd party collectors as they attempt to collect from...consumers. Legal restrictions on collectors are legal rights for consumers.
You can cut and paste quotes. You must though be referring to something in my first response to Flying, not the links, the next one, there's NO quotes there, I only used italics. You don't even need to cut and past the quotes, just copy where I said what you accused me of right off the screen and paste it. Of course the problem is, it ISN'T there because it DIDN'T happen, so there is NOTHING to cut and paste. I've not shifted a thing. He asked for the inaccuracies, I posted them -- you've both ignored that, one decided that it made the thread useless, you decided I was attempting to discredit. Sassy
Show me, RichGuy, a provision or reference from the FDCPA itself please, where it applies to a consumer at all, it does not apply to me or you -- it applies to 3rd party collectors and sometimes OC's. Sassy
"I didn't quote the original post but once..." "I didn't address the specifics of the post..." Are these seriously intended as DEFENSES of your criticism of Flyingifr? If you have to defend yourself that way, then why are your posts included in this thread at all, and what on earth does Flyingifr have to answer for, if not his/her post?
