Lobbying for tougher laws against JDB's

[BTO429]

I have been learning the ropes from about lobbying for more veterans rights with a fellow soldier that had to retire due to injuries while in Iraq like myself.

I am now thinking pretty hard about lobbying for more stringent laws to deal with CA's and JDB's.

I think this 1000 dollars per violation is chump change to these companies. Its like the everyday consumer paying a dollar for everyting we may do that is wrong. These companies make millions, some of them, so 1000 bucks and no big deal to them.

I also want to lobby for laws to will require the state's, local, and federal government to enforce these laws a lot more than they do.

Actually I would like to make this junk debt buying illegal. I dont really think it will happen, bt I would love to see it.

I will take Ideas and thoughts from all of you into great consideration and make some proposals. I will not treat any idea or thought you may have lightly, as I want as much info and ideas as I can get.

So, with that said post your ideas and I will discuss in detail what we may be able to take to the law makers.

[swirlgirl]

1. It's not 1,000 per violation. It's 1,000 per action. You only get 1000 regardless of the number of individual violations.

2. Receivables (debts) are considered assets. Businessess (i.e. cc companies) have every right to sell their assets as they see fit.

3. We have the court system to deal with people who violate the law. The govt cannot check every debt to see if a CA responded to a DV request or if a TL was marked "disputed." If anyone feels that their rights have been violated, they can take a walk down to the courthouse.

The thing most people want to forget is that the entire process of dealing with the CAs is 100% avoidable. It's called paying your bills and financial responsibility. Yes, people have medical problems and people lose their jobs. But that's what savings are for. I know not everyone can save a lot of money. But then it becomes even more imperative to not incur any debt. We need to learn how to live within our incomes.

Most debt is not connected to paying rent or buying food. It's car, electronics, clothes, etc. We live in a consumer society and I think we could all learn to be a bit more frugal. People are always amazed when I tell then that I don't have a cell phone or cable TV. I can afford these things, but to me, they are uncessary bills.

I believe having a good credit score is essential, but I try to pay for most things with cash. Having the least amount of debt means lessening the likelihood of default.

[TTigggers]

Although I have to agree with swirlgirl on her points I also believe there should much harsher punishments for the JDB's, CA's and OC's that feel it is ok to break the law and harass people just to make a buck.

If the amount was set per violation as say $5,000 each and heavily enforced they might think before doing what they do.

Response to a DV timely or not should be required to be answered within 30 days or another fine of $5,000 be imposed.

If a CA can't validate the Debt it should be Squashed and deemed un collectable.

Items required to respond to a DV should be specific IE contract, statements, payments etc.

Interest and fees need to be capped so that a $300.00 Debt doesn't turn into a $3,000 Debt on the word of a CA.

When a settlement is accepted on an account that should be the end of that account. The CA should not be allowed to sell the balance to another CA.

These are just a couple of Ideas to start with.

[Amerikaner83]

IF y'all believe it will happen soon, then I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I"ll give you a hell of a deal on!

I hate being cynical about this, but it's just not a priority. The FACTA legislation was the only update since the Seventies, I believe, to the FCRA. I mean, that was 5 years ago, and that was th emost recent! I don't really see any legislative updates. This Congres has more pressing issues to deal with - too many to list here. I mean, the thinking in Congress seems to be "if it doesn't affect ME, then it's not a problem". And I can guarantee you that the credit reports of those in power (judges, legislators, etc) are whitewashed and as Methuss put it "Whitelisted" - free of errors. Credit laws just are not a huge priority in this (or IMO any future) Congressional session.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it as well. But I'm a realist as well - ain't gonna happen that way. The ONLY way it'll happen, IMO, is if we become such a "vocal minority" that they'll HAVE to listen. How are we going to do that? Easy. 1K per action? Ok sue on each and every violation. Rack up the Court's time and energy and actually take scumbag CAs to court, as the defendant. Sure, 1K is not much, but if 100 people took them to court a month, that's 100K. That's when it starts to add up. I know for a fact that they (the CAs) will start to listen when their profits go away (when they get sued, they may need higher insurance as well, which cuts their profits). We need to make case law. We need to make them bleed. They will fight back - of course they well. They have lobbyists in Congress to protect their issues - that's why the FDCPA has not been updated. We need to overcome that.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? no. It pains me to say it, but that's how I see it.

[TTigggers]

IF y'all believe it will happen soon, then I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I"ll give you a hell of a deal on!

I hate being cynical about this, but it's just not a priority. The FACTA legislation was the only update since the Seventies, I believe, to the FCRA. I mean, that was 5 years ago, and that was th emost recent! I don't really see any legislative updates. This Congres has more pressing issues to deal with - too many to list here. I mean, the thinking in Congress seems to be "if it doesn't affect ME, then it's not a problem". And I can guarantee you that the credit reports of those in power (judges, legislators, etc) are whitewashed and as Methuss put it "Whitelisted" - free of errors. Credit laws just are not a huge priority in this (or IMO any future) Congressional session.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it as well. But I'm a realist as well - ain't gonna happen that way. The ONLY way it'll happen, IMO, is if we become such a "vocal minority" that they'll HAVE to listen. How are we going to do that? Easy. 1K per action? Ok sue on each and every violation. Rack up the Court's time and energy and actually take scumbag CAs to court, as the defendant. Sure, 1K is not much, but if 100 people took them to court a month, that's 100K. That's when it starts to add up. I know for a fact that they (the CAs) will start to listen when their profits go away (when they get sued, they may need higher insurance as well, which cuts their profits). We need to make case law. We need to make them bleed. They will fight back - of course they well. They have lobbyists in Congress to protect their issues - that's why the FDCPA has not been updated. We need to overcome that.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? no. It pains me to say it, but that's how I see it.

We can still hope and dream can't we??

[Amerikaner83]

hoping......and prayin'....and wishin......

[Big Time]

Right now, the small percentage of us who actually know what's going on are big fish in a small pond, which is an advantage, but there really does need to be more for the bad guys to lose.

This is why we should also try for FCRA violations, which are per violation, and go after both the CA and the CRA's - who allow inaccurate info to be reported.

If the FDCPA kept up with inflation, what would the amount per violation be?

[TTigggers]

Right now, the small percentage of us who actually know what's going on are big fish in a small pond, which is an advantage, but there really does need to be more for the bad guys to lose.

This is why we should also try for FCRA violations, which are per violation, and go after both the CA and the CRA's - who allow inaccurate info to be reported.

If the FDCPA kept up with inflation, what would the amount per violation be?

I agree we need more of a right of action.

They know it is a pain to file a lawsuit and follow through with it so it doesn't bother them that much.

[LadynRed]

You only get 1000 regardless of the number of individual violations.

And that isn't accurate either. The FDCPA states "UP TO $1000", there is no guarantee you'll get the max, you could just as easily get $10. The way to get more - track and be able to prove ACTUAL DAMAGES - but few people do.

[Fizzle1979]

And that isn't accurate either. The FDCPA states "UP TO $1000", there is no guarantee you'll get the max, you could just as easily get $10. The way to get more - track and be able to prove ACTUAL DAMAGES - but few people do.

Educate me, how do you prove actual damages? I mean wouldn't that involve applying for a home loan, getting denied based on Asset's data it provided to EQ and it was inaccurate and the home loan company telling you that you didn't get approved because of Asset's information?

At least that's how I understand it and I think that is hard to prove.

But I myself haven't wrote my congressman regarding debt collection, but I'm really getting to the point were I want to do it. And I currently have no negative information on my credit report or have any debt collector bothering me. And I live in TX, where we have the TFC that requires the CA to respond in 30 days. I just still see plenty of Texans being mistreated by the CA's.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Educate me, how do you prove actual damages? I mean wouldn't that involve applying for a home loan, getting denied based on Asset's data it provided to EQ and it was inaccurate and the home loan company telling you that you didn't get approved because of Asset's information?

At least that's how I understand it and I think that is hard to prove.

But I myself haven't wrote my congressman regarding debt collection, but I'm really getting to the point were I want to do it. And I currently have no negative information on my credit report or have any debt collector bothering me. And I live in TX, where we have the TFC that requires the CA to respond in 30 days. I just still see plenty of Texans being mistreated by the CA's.

That is certainly one way and yes...it's tough...which is why most people don't bother.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

I am pretty much in agreement with TTigggers and swirlgirl.

That said, I also suspect that should such truly "tough" consumer protection laws ever come into existance, I think there would be a whole lot of complaining going on.

If it became monumentally more difficult and costly to collect on bad debts, I highly suspect it would ultimately reach back to the credit grantors and they would become much more hssitent to grant credit in the first place.

Were that to happen, the complaints from a public and a society drunk on debt would drown would be beyond belief.

The one best way to handle debt collectors and junk debt buyers is to not have bad debts in the first place - were bad debts to disappear (or at least slow to a minor amount); most of those firms would be out of business faster than anyone could imagine - think of all the former CAs and JDBs who would have to go out and find real jobs - McDonalds wouldn't know what to do with them all!!!

[Debt Guy]

When Congress wrote the FDCPA, the purpose of validation was to allow the consumer to determine the identity of the creditor -- sort of a precursor to what we today call identity theft. In those days collection agencies were mostly very small and not computerized and common identity mistakes were not unknown. Those mistakes were relatively easy to clear up in those days.

The explosion of consumer debt and the consequent explosion of defaults of consumer debt has made many consumers strive for tools and ways to delay the day of reckoning if not eliminate it altogether. This morphing of a request for verification into something for which it was never intended creates confusion, uncertainty and unpredictability.

The explosion of consumer debt and all that defaulted debt has also lead to an explosive growth of the collection industry and too much fast and lose behavior. The computerization of all those records is both a blessing and a curse -- sometimes I think more of a curse since errors tend to self perpetuate.

When the FDCPA was written Jimmy Carter was President, Star Wars (the first one) was hot at the movie theater, television came over the air on 3 stations (4 if you counted PBS), gas was 60 cents a gallon provided you did not have to wait in line to buy it, not one person in 1000 could identify Iraq on a map, you could buy a first generation IBM PC with a 12mhz chip and 1mb of memory for about $4000 or so, a VHS tape deck cost $1200 and blank tapes were $25 each. The internet had not been invented and cell phones were incredibly rare and only for the very wealthy -- literally no one expected those technologies to become so common that 2nd graders today have access to both.

The FDCPA could stand some updating. Consumers want and deserve more protection from abuse by debt collections. Creditors want and deserve more effective ways to prevent consumers from dodging debts that are legitimately owed. Those goals are somewhat in conflict and there is a natural tension.

In my perfect world a rewritten FDCPA would:

1. Provide for a maximum judgment of $10,000 per action plus attorney fees. That would create a tremendous incentive for collectors to be on the straight and narrow. Creditors who successfully defend FDCPA actions would automatically be awarded their attorney fees.

2. Creditors responding to a request for verification would be required to produce at minimum some documentation from the OC to evidence the debt (either the original credit app or a statement on the account). Creditors who did not respond to a verification request would be allowed to continue collection activity but limited to written communication unless the debtor initiated a telephonic conversation.

3. All requests for validation would be deemed "timely". Creditors would be allowed a maximum of 90 days to respond.

4. Debtors would not be permitted to issue a cease and desist. Debtors would be permitted to bar creditors from calling at the debtor's place of work and during a 10-hour block to time designated by the debtor as their sleep hours (presumed to be 10pm to 8am unless otherwise specified by the debtor).

5. Creditors would be allowed to call the debtor's cell phone. Creditors would be permitted to speak with the creditor a maximum of 3 times in a 10-day period. Creditors would be permitted to dial a debtor's phone number a maximum of 5 times daily. Creditors would be permitted to leave voice mail/answering machine phone messages without concern for 3rd party disclosure or need for the mini-miranda disclosure.

To me, these changes would clarify and simplify much of the conflict that exists today between creditors and debtors. There is something here for everyone to like and everyone to hate. To me, that is the test of an equitable resolution.

I think it would be impractical for either consumers or collectors to think they will have a free hand to rewrite the Act. Politics does not work that way. Compromise is the pattern.

Those were the suggestions I had for the FTC. Anyone if free to offer suggestions to the FTC. It is unclear that the FTC is actively working on a rewritten proposal for Congress. What is clear is the notion that consumer complaints are out of control. The FTC is pressing the industry to clean up and the unspoken threat is that if things continue as they are then there will more more regulation of some sort.

Everyone should exercise their right to make their views know to the FTC and to their elected representatives.

[BTO429]

Yea, but a lot of the debt that consumers have was created by the lending industry in the form of predatory lending and sub prime mortgages, that , when the consumer signed the papers the lender knew they could have them in default in just a few months to a year. So what about those consumers that are suffering from those type of debt. Now I know if the consumer was not forced to sign the papers, but the lending industry created the sub prime market to what they call help consumers with less than perfect credit. This in turn created those sharks in the water that love noting better than to put a person into foreclosure or charge the consumer fees that barely legal and some illegal.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Yea, but a lot of the debt that consumers have was created by the lending industry in the form of predatory lending and sub prime mortgages, that , when the consumer signed the papers the lender knew they could have them in default in just a few months to a year. So what about those consumers that are suffering from those type of debt. Now I know if the consumer was not forced to sign the papers, but the lending industry created the sub prime market to what they call help consumers with less than perfect credit. This in turn created those sharks in the water that love noting better than to put a person into foreclosure or charge the consumer fees that barely legal and some illegal.

Gunny,

To some extent I agree with you but there is no one group or person at fault for the sub-prime mortugage issue...that aside, we aren't really talking about home mortugages here; that's really in a whole different class of debt.

People are truly their own worst enemy when it comes to debt.

Just browse through some of the threads here and see how many people will complain about hight CC interest rates and late fees and such and concurrently brag about how many stupid credit cards they've been able to get after re-writing their credit history.

If people are going to crawl into a snake pit they had dam well better expect to get bitten.

I agree that we could use better consumer laws with regards to debt collection but short of just outlawing all debt of any kind, there are NO consumer laws that will protect consumers from their own stupidity.

[BTO429]

I under stand where you are coming from Robert and I do agree that a lot of fault does lay with t how consumers handle debt. I my self only have one CC and that is all I want. I do not have a great credit score because I was in the Marines and made good money and always paid cash for everything, I did not have credit cause I did not use credit. The other problem is the fact that while I was on activation I had several bill collectors sue me and now I have judgments.

But, anyway what I am trying to say in this thread is that those of us who have legit complaints ad can show that it is not by any fault of our own that we come home from serving our country for 5 years in a combat zone, only to find that CA are all over us, need more laws to deal with this. We need more laws that are strictly enforced so we dont come home and have no home left to go to and have law suits pending over bills from jdb's. We have our credit ruined by a country that we are protecting. I and other soldiers like me, lost parts of their bodies and still carry the war injuries, only to have nothing but greedy CA's trying to collect for crap little bills. think when a soldier answers the call to duty, and we sometimes have less than 72 hours to report to duty,that this country needs to protect those who protect the country.Have we forgotten what one of the most famous presidents this country ever said about what the country should do for those soldiers? President Lincoln said in one of his most famous speeches and I quote : to care for him who has borne the battle.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Gunny,

Don't take my comments in the wrong way - I appreciate the sacrifice that you and so many have made. I have to say, though, that I can't quite follow what put you in your situation.

I don't understand where the bills that eventually resulted in judgments came from? I mean, you said you mostly paid cash for things and made good money (not that we pay our military anywhere near enough) and your income didn't go away when you were deployed but obviously, you must have had some bills of some kind that you didn't pay for one reason or another, correct?

I guess what I'm saying is that if the bills did exist (were legitimate obligations) and you didn't pay them, for whatever reason, I don't think you can expect laws to protect you from the consequences of that. That aside, while it's been many years since I've had a reason to look at it, I thought the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act protected active military member from lawsuits and such???

I understand that once you are no longer on active duty, the SSCRA would no longer apply but even so and/or even if it never applied, creditors (whether they be original creditors or JDBs) have to follow proper procedures to obtain a judgment and if they don't, those judgments can be overturned.

As I said above, our consumer debt laws could certainly stand improvement but I doubt that improving them will be of much help because I would submit that most people either don't know and/or don't use the laws we already have to protect our rights so having better laws they don't use isn't going to accomplish very much.

[BTO429]

The bills that are in collections that have judgments on them are from m ex running up doctor bills on my son and not paying. In Indiana they usually go after dad for unpaid bills on the child.

I have two judgments for medical bills on my son that are from 2000 and and earlier.

One judgment was where I was in college and had to deploy so the charged me for what the student loans did not pay, it is only for 275 dollars.

One other judgment is for that stupid lawyer that is trying to sue me a couple phone calls I made to her.

I had four liens but two got deleted from tu and eq for being past the 7 year reporting period. The other two were released by the state.

[CarolinaBlueEyes]

I have met with our local congressman and our state senator for the past three years to get the laws changed regarding JDB and arbitrations part of the problem is this is a SLOW process and much of it goes into states rights.. I wish you well I am on the phone with their office in DC quite a bit and they loved my proposal.. I got further then most but so far interest seems minimal