All: In another thread the topic of bluffing collection agents (using foundations of FDCPA) to achieve credit repair came up, and took some interesting turns. Since that thread was not exclusively related to this topic, and because the issue is consistent with what many of you desire? I felt bringing the subject to itâ??s own thread was appropriate and possibly helpful (weâ??ll see). So here goes, as a continuationâ?¦ (CLICK HERE to read the original thread) Greg: I believe youâ??re misunderstanding the concepts, so forgive the length of my post? Because confusion is understandable yet avoidable by an open and rational mind, which presumably you possess. So consider the root elements and issues in that perceptive while I go into a bit of detail? Foremost, the primary reason (in context with this thread) for a consumer to cite some violation of FDCPA; using it against a collector, is with the motive of credit repair and its related benefits. Perhaps the consumer desires a mortgage, or the ability for some other credit related purchase? Consequently CBR blemishes prevent such. Credit rehabilitation is (or should be) the consumerâ??s [b[objective[/b], not to fight in court and risk an opposing judgment (attorney fees and costs). The method of attacking a reporting party (in this case a collection agent or entity) thus its CRA submission, isnâ??t at issue. How and under what circumstances that attack is engaged, certainly is. If the consumer isnâ??t prepared to actually engage litigation, then the threat is hollow and therefore a bluff! Yet there is much more at stake than preparedness, but also the consumerâ??s goal â?? the objective! Even if the collection agent committed some harmless mistake, and violated FDCPA. It is up to the consumer, NOT collection agent, to engage litigation under FDCPA. I have not stated that a collection agent would/should file suit against a consumer, based on itâ??s own alleged wrong under FDCPA. Although, filing a debt related suit as a result of a consumerâ??s actual/filed FDCPA allegation(s) isnâ??t necessarily â??retaliationâ? (and certainly NOT newsworthy). If the collector has truly done nothing wrong, all s/he need do is take a firm stand and wait for the consumer to file FDCPA based suit. In the interim and after, the collector may continue to pursue other recovery avenues. Some of those could entail engaging a recovery suit (unrelated to alleged FDCPA violation(s), which would pose an additional threat against the consumerâ??s objective. But there could be other threats to that goal equally damaging, depending on the given situation. Proponents of the bluff tactic often proclaim easy victory; seeming as though all one need do is craft letters while huffing loudly enough and voila; collection agent folds, yielding the CBR redress! The danger with this notion, aside from itâ??s over simplicity. Is that while a large percentage of collection agents do fold, equal numbers donâ??t! Determining under what circumstances a collection agent will safely cooperate, requires a degree of skill such hucksters donâ??t possess. Otherwise, itâ??s just a crap-shot, an â??accident waiting to happen!â? I find no fault, whatsoever, in consumers availing themselves to protections under FDCPA (or any other law). Where I find great worry (for consumers), however, is in blindly following the teachings of those who themselves are blind. Some of whom openly proclaim they have little knowledge, as though such were a badge of honor! Yet educated people, doctors and teachers, believe the twaddle! At present the prevailing thought by bluff advocates, is that collection agents would sooner settle than fight. The idea being that due to expense of defense, itâ??s more cost-effective for a collection agent to yield. Not only is this notion inaccurate by its implied guarantee, but the collection industry mood is changing! Many ACA members for example, are now banding together to oppose the bluff strategy. Certainly if a collection agent breaks FDCPA then so be it, they should suffer the penalty! But if only unintentional mistakes are done, and a consumer views these as major hammers? That consumer should think twice about reliance upon flawed notions that bluff is king, and the win is assured! Unquestionably Congress enacted FDCPA to be available within grasp of consumers. Correspondingly, it also has made it clear that one who abuses that privilege should suffer consequences. Therefore, the issue isnâ??t necessarily whose right or wrong. But to what extent the consumer is willing to gamble his/her OBJECTIVE (credit repair and all that entails), by inappropriately pushing the bluff button.
Well, I had some experiences with a certain company, when I was unable to pay a debt (charged off now). I TOLD THEM not to call me at work, they'd call at work 6-7 times a day, AND at home. They didn't take "I dont have money" seriously. I guess they thought I just didn't want to pay. I SENT A LETTER to not call me at work, they called me at work. They threatened to sue me, I called their bluff, & they did it. Long story, but they never got a judgement against me. I ended up having to change jobs, move to a different city & fortunately due to meeting a wonderful man, I changed my name & moved out of state. LOL I wish I would've sued THEM for violating my rights by calling at work. It's been 4 years so I think it's too late, anyway. I didn't know any better then. Anyway, Anthony has a good point, you've got to be careful about bluffing, and not taking THEIR bluffs serious, either. When I contacted the collector about settling this, I asked why they never tried to contact me, and they ACTUALLY told me, it was too little an amount for them to really care about. I guess they wouldn't have made much commission off me.
The end result You're wrong. It would be seen as retaliation, and it's newsworthy. That's why I said it. Know of any cases of it? How are any mistakes by collectors harmless? If they're harmless, why are there laws against them? The collector would have to prove his error was unintentional to prove that there was not intent to violate the law. Most collectors won't admit they erred. More likely, I would think, they'll settle on the courthouse steps and be sure to get a non-(public) disclosure agreement. And, what's harmless to the individual consumer is not the issue. What's at issue is the violation. Did it occur, or not? What's the aggregate damage to competitors if this little mistake is made against every consumer the collector deals with? They may have a competitive advantage-- but only because of their violation. What's the aggregate damage to consumers due to this "harmless" violation? What's the aggregate damage to the other industry players who abide by the law? If the chance that the collector will fold is 50% as you say, the odds are pretty good (given that there seems to be no downside). Are you an expert? What, exactly, are the ACA members doing to oppose the bluff strategy? How is the FDCPA within the grasp of consumers if there aren't any lawyers willing to take a $500 case that will cost them $2000-- and they don't think they can win (if, that is the prevailing thought)(again, the collector would have to prove that he (the collector) is incompetent). How is bluffing gambling credit repair? What-- the collector is going to do something more because of the bluff? CONSUMER: I'm going to sue you. COLLECTOR: For what? CONSUMER: You failed to [violation of the FDCPA]. COLLECTOR: You're bluffing. [later, after hanging up] COLLECTOR: He's bluffing. COLLECTOR'S BOSS: Yeah. The next step is... ------------------------------ What are his next words? You're being vague. What, specifically, will happen?
Re: The end result Interesting "new" thread. I would like to hear a simplified dialogue also. It is funny that Anthony would mention that ACA. How many collection agencies actually belong to the ACA? I have heard that it is not the majority. Also, from what I have read the ACA demands that their members follow higher standards. You can actually threaten an agents membership with the ACA for wrong doing. You can also threaten to sue their bonding agent.. How do agencies benifit from being a part of this association?
I guess we better not bluff.....cause Many of the ACA members are banding together to Oppose our Bluff Strategies!!!!! Just curious Anthony, are you a member of the ACA? Anthony is it your opinion that a CA is not obligated to provide the consumer information s/he has requested in a validation letter, such as a request for some contractual proof that s/he owes the debt and is obligated to pay the CA? Are you saying this is not a violation under FDCPA Laws? When the CA calls the bluff and hauls the consumer into court is this the only time that the CA has to validate the debt, is in front of the judge, not before? Funny thing, I was surfing the web awhile back and happened on a site for Professional Debt Collection agencies offering services to banks, creditors, etc., One company caught my eye, it was touting We bring your "Problem Debts from Red to Black", couldn't help wondering, if they borrowed the phrase from you, or if you borrowed the phrase from them....hmmmmm Anyway it seems quite simple to me, If a consumer asks a CA to Validate the debt beyond information that is so easily obtainable these days (name SS# address etc.) Why the heck don't they just do it? They have it all, (contracts etc.,) so why not send it to the consumer on first request and not worry about any FDCPA violations? Why would the CA keep ignoring a validation letter over and over? tml
Re: The end result Greg: Your comparing apples to oranges a bit, but thatâ??s not necessarily a bad thing for sake of this discussionâ?¦ â??You're wrong. It would be seen as retaliation, and it's newsworthy. That's why I said it. Know of any cases of it?â? Wrong, hmmm? (Iâ??ve been known for that occasionally, but definitely not in this instance.) How can exercising a legal right be construed as retaliatory? Couldnâ??t it also be said that a consumer using FDCPA against a collection agent for harmless error (because such refused a credit repair attempt), is â??retaliation?â? Is that â??newsworthy?â? Clearly not in and of itself, barring any unusual circumstances that make it so. People file suit everyday, and defendants file cross-complaints/counter-claims accordingly. Yet the news doesnâ??t bombarded us with reports of these, because generally such IS NOT newsworthy! So please explain how a collection agent exercising a legal RIGHT can be construed as newsworthy? Do â??YOUâ? know of any such cases, where a collector is reported to have applied retaliation by exercising a legal right? If so please provide the source, preferably online, so that we might discuss them more? If not, well then I suppose itâ??s clear which of us is truly â??wrong.â? â??How are any mistakes by collectors harmless? If they're harmless, why are there laws against them? The collector would have to prove his error was unintentional to prove that there was not intent to violate the law. â? Here youâ??re contradicting yourself, Greg, and essentially answering your own question. By definition a â??harmlessâ? act is one that was done without intent to injury another. FDCPA expressly states that itâ??s aim is not to â??disadvantageâ? a collector whose following the law. If the same inadvertently violates it, the Act expressly absolves such conduct. Kindly show me the section of the Act or cite of related case law, that leads one to believe otherwise? â??Most collectors won't admit they erred. More likely, I would think, they'll settle on the courthouse steps and be sure to get a non-(public) disclosure agreement. â? Yes many that have purposefully breached FDCPA do settle, but generally long before ever approaching a court room. In order to get that far (not having committed deliberate violations) they would have expended a considerable amount of resources, only to back-down by settlement? Hardly! From a collections perspective the time for settlement is before litigation, not at the eleventh hour. But if the collector has only violated by harmless error, FDCPA provides for vindication. â??â?¦what's harmless to the individual consumer is not the issue. What's at issue is the violation. Did it occur, or not? â?¦â? With respect, youâ??re mistaken. In context with this thread a harmless error committed against a single or very limited number of consumers IS at issue. Widespread applications of some unintentional act are no longer harmless; but broadly considered purposeful. This is why the collection industry takes great pains to utilize automated systems that prevent small errors from becoming mass-distributed ones. â??If the chance that the collector will fold is 50% as you say, the odds are pretty good (given that there seems to be no downside).â? Thatâ??s not exactly what I stated, but the sum & substance is correct â?? although not based on any specific study or industry stats, just my own off-the-cuff opinion. Nonetheless my aim could be a bit misleading, so Iâ??m glad you brought it up (thanks). Because in order to understand the percentage of those agents that do fold, perspective is required. The success rate of consumers who achieve a CBR fix, in conjunction with a bluff, is mostly limited to smaller (less significant accounts). I know this based on research here and on other boards, through industry legal contacts, and by what friends in the business tell me. There reaches a point of diminished return, however, when accounts begin to approach litigation levels; such that recovery suit cost-effectiveness is less of an issue. That notwithstanding, I donâ??t consider a 50/50 chance of success â??pretty good oddsâ? without a downside because itâ??s like flipping a coin; with the consumerâ??s objective (mortgage, car, credit cards, business financing, etc.) at stake. Why settle for 50/50 odds when the number can be significantly increased, simply by not using the bluff hammer? From by experience, consumerâ??s gain far more result by not bluffing! Take Lizardking, for example? He never bluffed, but filed action! â??Are you an expert?â? The question is irrelevant. Youâ??ve been posting on this board long enough to have read my posts, and thus gauge my knowledge. You decide. â??What, exactly, are the ACA members doing to oppose the bluff strategy?â? Off limits, Greg. I post here to help consumers gain balance (a degree of objectivity toward achieving their goals), not expose industry happenings so that wacky counter-measures can be attempted. I have an obligation against such to colleagues still active in the business, which I hope you can appreciate. â??How is the FDCPA within the grasp of consumers if there aren't any lawyers willing to take a $500 case that will cost them $2000-- and they don't think they can win (if, that is the prevailing thought)(again, the collector would have to prove that he (the collector) is incompetent).â? I have not stated there werenâ??t any lawyers who would take a meritorious case, for any amount in fee. I did state that like all other attorneys, those specializing in consumer related matters must evaluate the potential case merits; and refuse those that do not warrant representation. The consumer also has the availability under FDCPA to engage small claims, as theyâ??re not limited to filing in Federal court. Any court of competent jurisdiction will suffice. â??How is bluffing gambling credit repair? What-- the collector is going to do something more because of the bluff? â?¦ You're being vague. What, specifically, will happen?â? What may or could happen next depends on the given situation, including factors youâ??ve not specified. So which of us is being vague? It suffices to say, however, that the gamble comes from not knowing whether or not a collector is likely to yield without a fight.
Tml: Because far too many times a repeated validation request is unwarranted, not required to â??proveâ? anything (other than the consumer is stalling or setting up a defense). A debtor knows he or she owes the debt, so whatâ??s the sense in asking for â??documentationâ? to prove it? Itâ??s a waste of time, for both. This is not to say that if a collection attempt isnâ??t legit that a consumer shouldnâ??t request additional material. Only that in order to validate the debt and later verify with a CRA, the collector need only provide whatâ??s required! The overwhelming vast majority do just that.
This sounds just like something a collector would say. WHY do you believe a consumer isn't entitled to documentation of the validity of a debt. Collection accounts are sold from agency to agency multiple times in many cases and most often several of the agencies that have held the account will still report on a consumer's credit profile. Although creditors and collectors will scream to the heavens that it is uncommon, theft of identity, especially for purposes of obtaining fraudulent credit is growing exponentially. The collector SHOULD be required to provide PROOF OF AN ACTUAL DEBT - not some computer printout from their system or a "because ABC Visa says you owe it, and its your SSN etc..."
Re: The end result You asked, "How can exercising a legal right be construed as retaliatory?" Please. You may argue semantics, if you wish. It is retaliatory. Consumer says they're going to sue. Then they don't. Collector uses a higher level of legal action than they otherwise would if the consumer had not threatened legal action. It is retaliatory in, and of itself. The circumstances are, themselves, unusual. Where did I ever say that we are bombarded (a bombastic term)? Yes, people file suits every day, and we are bombarded by news of those actions because it is newsworthy. You asked me to explain how a collection agent exercising a legal RIGHT can be construed as newsworthy. Here's a link to a real news article about a lawsuit regarding a collector. All I had to do was use a search engine with the string "FDCPA case vs." to come up with http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/clomon.html . You'll probably want to discuss the term "newsworthy," or argue that that web site is not part of the news media. I don't. You asked if "I" ("YOU" enclosed in quotation marks for some reason) know of any such cases, where a collector is reported to have applied retaliation by exercising a legal right? Off limits, Anthony (Are you starting to see how this works)? So, let me get this straight: No collector has ever filed suit against a consumer in retaliation for the consumer telling them they were going to sue the collector, then didn't? You said I was contradicting myself and that the definition of a â??harmlessâ? act is one that was done without intent to injury (injure) another. So, if Jane owns a viscious dog, and intends to keep it tied up, but it gets loose and bites Dick, is Jane's action (tying a bad knot) harmless because Jane intended for it not to injure Dick? Dick was harmed. Are you saying that incompetence is always a valid defense? You said, "But if the collector has only violated by harmless error, FDCPA provides for vindication." Since we're splitting hairs, kindly show me the section of the FDCPA that mentions "vindication." If there are non-disclosure agreements, how do you know if they exist, or not? By settling on the courthouse steps, I'm referring to settling anywhere before going into the courthouse to respond to the initial claim to right before the decision. Do you understand? You said, "In context with this thread a harmless error committed against a single or very limited number of consumers IS at issue." No, the context of the thread is bluffing, not bluffing with no violation. You, however, may attempt to change the context. It's your thread. Your "research" sounds, largely, emperical. I think you think you are an expert. I don't think you can bring yourself to name someone here who knows more than you. It was, and remains a relevant, unanswered, question. My decision? You are not. "I post here to help consumers gain balance (a degree of objectivity toward achieving their goals), not expose industry happenings so that wacky counter-measures can be attempted." I think you post here to show off your expertise and to add to the hype of your mysterious (and non-existent-- unless you call one page for each existence) network of web sites. I searched your name on an engine and only came up with two hits-- both on message boards. So, I think your web sites are bluffs. You said, "The consumer also has the availability under FDCPA to engage small claims, as theyâ??re not limited to filing in Federal court. Any court of competent jurisdiction will suffice." What happens when the defendant decides that they want to move the case to civil court and has to respond to the request for summary judgement? Will he know what to do? You said, "What may or could happen next depends on the given situation, including factors youâ??ve not specified." Then, you asked, "So which of us is being vague?" You are being vague. Humor me with a scenario. I gave you a conversation between the collector and his boss to finish, but you didn't. Please show the consumers how wacky counter-measures will meet with the collectors' counter counter-measures and blow up in the consumer's face. You're no stranger to imagination and voluminous postings. Give us an illustration of bluffing and how it will backfire. I didn't start the thread, you did. Humor us. Lay off this kind of garbage: "... confusion is understandable yet avoidable by an open and rational mind."
Re: The end result Yes, Greg, think Iâ??ll do just thatâ?¦ For some reason I mistakenly thought you qualified.
Re: The end result Anthony, what does the CA rely on to determine which validation request is unwarranted? If the CA has the proof the consumer requested why not just send it and be done with it? Your opinion seems to be that it is more cost effective for the CA to ignore the validation request. How so? Do you feel it is more cost effective for the CA to continue collection efforts, ie. all the time and resources expended for additional letters, phone calls, perhaps litigation, than to just send the requested proof of the debt? What in your mind is acceptable "Additional Material" that the CA should provide the consumer? I have read several web site's of Attorney's who work for various creditors/collection agencies. They list for their clients all the steps and information that they need to obtain and retain from the consumer from the start so in the event of a default, proof of the debt will be no problem. They advocate time to close the barn door is before the horse is out! Is it possible that I am the only consumer out there who has two different CA's trying to collect on the exact same debt? What Anthony do you think would be "acceptable material" for them to send me as proof that each of them is entitled to collect this debt from me? It seems that if resources are spent to keep adequate records, less would be needed to fight for collection of defaulted debts. ie., enclosed please find a copy of your signed contract, please forward payment or face the consequences! Is it your opinion that creditors and CA's are not responsible for sloppy record keeping and therefore, are entitled to collect money bc a computer print-out with the consumer's information on it says it is owed? What constitutes "Acceptable Material" in your mind Anthony? tml
Re: The end result Your not answering simple yes-or-no questions tells me all I need to know. Tap dancing.
Re: The end result Yes, I think one of the major problems is the way information is being sold repeatedly, even after a debt is paid. And the situations like the EMCC fiasco over the X.com accounts. They bought a block of receivables and are treating it like defaulted accounts, when that is not what it is. I don't have any collectors after me, but I get emails all the time from people who paid the original debt once, and are being dunned now by one or more collection agencies who refuse to respond to the letters they are sent, or who respond with a copy or pritnout of the original bill.
Re: The end result Collection Agencies are con-artist who intiminate with bluffing and size. You see it in the movies as well as in the real world. When one shows up at your door to repo an item,it is always a over size panda trying to be a gorilla.It's never a female who shows up to confront you. It's all in the name of intimination.I have called their bluff on several occassions. I say when one comes to your door to repo your Sears fence and he has a crew there with him,move your car out the driveway ,let them back the truck in, then park behind them in the drive way with no way out for them, then go back to the supervisor that came to your door and ask him to produce a court order for the repo and when he cannot produce it, then he WILL NOT REMOVE one link out of the fence and he has no escape and then go in dial your local sheriffs office and have a car sent out and file a harrassment complaint. No court order no removing from property.SAme thing with furniature companies,or rental centers -if you coming to repo,better have a court order and the sheriffs office cannot force you to return because it is a civil matter. Right or wrong Anthony? I rest my case on this issue. As far as collection agencies callin house: i say play them til you get name and a phone number just so if you should have a problem and then turn on them and read them your right and when they start bluffing you,you laugh and remind them that THEY called YOU. The consumer has much more rights than they realize it. It's just not readily available in layman terms. '
