Does anyone have the NEW law for FDCPA?

[qtptute]

I'm specifically looking for 1692 g(d), g(e), g(f), g(g) that went into effect last year.

I need it for a client's complaint.

Thanks in advance.

[Steve-0]

Keep searching. Pehaps try to search for FDCPA in "Titles Only."

I know that I have seen it posted here before.

[nascar]

I have a post somewhere here that has a link to it. I'm looking...

Yes! Here it is... http://www.egrpra.gov/fsr2006.pdf

Pages 39-41 of the Act

[qtptute]

You Rock! Thanks!

[Methuss]

Ya know..after reading the amendments I find that it really didn't change much from a consumer's stance.

All those ammendments do is:

Formally declare 1099s are not initial communications;

Formally declare bad check collection for taxes or citations is not consumer debt subject to the FDCPA; and

Clarify that collectors can collect during the first 30 days as long as the consumer has not requested validation or disputed the debt.

For the first, I don't know who thought a 1099 could be an initial communication but that's just retarded.

For the second, big deal. Taxes and citations were never held to be "consumer debt" under the law in the first place. By extension collecting on a bounced check used to pay such things shouldn't have been covered anyways. I can see the loophole though.

For the last, again, big deal. If the consumer is firing off his DV/dispute letters as soon as the dunning letters arrive, as they should be, then this door is still slammed in the CAs face. The CA is still restricted from collection actions the moment they get the DV/dispute letter fromt he consumer and until they provide proper response.

[qtptute]

Ya know..after reading the amendments I find that it really didn't change much from a consumer's stance.

All those ammendments do is:

Formally declare 1099s are not initial communications;

Formally declare bad check collection for taxes or citations is not consumer debt subject to the FDCPA; and

Clarify that collectors can collect during the first 30 days as long as the consumer has not requested validation or disputed the debt.

For the first, I don't know who thought a 1099 could be an initial communication but that's just retarded.

For the second, big deal. Taxes and citations were never held to be "consumer debt" under the law in the first place. By extension collecting on a bounced check used to pay such things shouldn't have been covered anyways. I can see the loophole though.

For the last, again, big deal. If the consumer is firing off his DV/dispute letters as soon as the dunning letters arrive, as they should be, then this door is still slammed in the CAs face. The CA is still restricted from collection actions the moment they get the DV/dispute letter fromt he consumer and until they provide proper response.

I agree, whole heartedly. The atty I work for wanted it, so I got it. Thanks again NASCAR!