Jump to content

Radio show about Collections


kbjmM
 Share

Recommended Posts

well let's put it like this. From my personal experiences....Those who are "hiding" are the ones who do not have any intention to pay their debts, and usually have more than a few accounts in collections. and they are generally pretty high balances. Very rarely do I ever see someone who has actually hit hard times and has a legit reason for not paying the debt "hiding" those are the people who want to fix their credit and want to do the right thing.

I worked for a very large bank, and I can tell you that there are many people out there that get legitimately sick, go on disability which long term is usually 50% of your pay and cannot afford their bills.

A second scenerio is my situation that my marriage ends in divorce, Spouse goes to court for Spousal support / Alimony, the judge awards support in large amount, now you went from 2 incomes to 1 and actually 60% of 1 income in my case. I appealed and by the time the appeal hearing actually occurred it was 8 months later, now all of the accounts you could not pay are charged off and in collections. After the appeal, my income went up to 75% of normal but far short of 2 incomes. By the time the divorce is over and the alimony payments stop, now you are at the time there are not any Original creditors were sold off to JDB's. My attitude is Fxxx Them, they dont deserve the money since they paid pennies for the debt add high fees and interest and the OC has already littered your Credit report.

I had perfect credit prior to the divorce my TU score was 783. It tore me apart not being able to pay my bills in addition to depression, the fear of the unknown in regards to the divorce proceedings, legal bills that had to be paid or everything is on hold thus more money out of pocket for alimony.

The point is there are a lot of people out there like me who do not talk about it. They do not discuss thier problems at all. There are the people that live on the edge and scam everything they can when they can, but most people are decent and have values and want to do the right thing, but do to unforseen circumstances they cannot do the right thing. It is human nature to run when you are scared, it is a natural human reaction, people who run and dont want to confront their problems do not mean they are bad people, they are just afraid of the unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

While I don’t mean to beat up on you here – I think it needs to be understood that most of the difficulties you describe are of your own making.

As long as people use debt to support their lifestyle; don’t save money for purchases, don’t’ have a 3-6 month emergency fund, don’t save for retirement and don’t have the proper kind/amount of insurance; they will always be severely and adversely affected by such things as a job loss, the death of a spouse and/or divorce, and all the other negative things that can impact any of us at any time.

No question, a divorce is a terrible turn of events and can have severe emotional and financial consequences but how sever those financial consequences are depend a great deal of how we’ve handled our financial life before the divorce.

That is not the fault of our creditors; original or subsequent (JDBs).

There is no reason why creditors should care about our personal situations nor is it reasonable for us to expect them to care – when we borrow money, those companies expect to be paid back; period.

Likewise, the collection agencies they hire to try and collect when consumers don’t pay shouldn’t be expected to “care” either. That is not in any way to support how most CAs run roughshod over Federal law and abuse consumers, however.

Of course, not every negative life event can be (financially) prepared for but a lot of the negative financial consequences we experience are either of our own making or at least significantly exacerbated by our own choices.

This concept of "personal" debt and renting our lifestyles rather than actually owning them is of fairly recent origin and we've done it to ourselves (helped along by the never-ending marketing campaigns of those who sell "debt" as the answer to everything).

I suppose what I’m saying is that a lot of our anger toward creditors/CAs is often misplaced…a lot of it should be directed at ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my take on the whole mess. First of all, I don't like the fox in the henhouse just to see how the chickens are cared for. In other words, you are in the enemy camp and it does not smell right to anyone.

Secondly, I don't care how nice or mean or persistent, or compassionate you are. I have already decided what I will and will not do with my finances. Nothing you can say or no way you can say it that will change that.

In my opinion under no circumstance do I EVER EVER feel like I owe ANYONE except the original creditor a single dime.CAs are buying something that should not be for sale.

I would pay an OC triple the amount before I would pay a CA 1/3 the amount.

Lastly, there are two groups of people and you cannot make one in to the other. There are those that will pay and want to pay, and those that won't pay and don't want to pay. Making one in to the other is like turning an apple to an orange.

Nothing positive can come from you being here unless of course you want to start sharing all the weaknesses and loopholes on your industry, but that would be old news here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...In my opinion under no circumstance do I EVER EVER feel like I owe ANYONE except the original creditor a single dime.CAs are buying something that should not be for sale.

I would pay an OC triple the amount before I would pay a CA 1/3 the amount.

Actually, when it comes to matters of debt we are generally talking about contracts which means that the only thing that matters is what the law (and eventually a judge/jury) says - your opinions about "who" is owed, while perhaps understandable, are irrelevant.

Also, perhaps you were just in a hurry and didn't choose appropriate terminology but you seem to be misunderstanding what a "CA" is and the differences in relationship between a Collection Agent and a Junk Debt Buyer - while the lines can become blurred at times, they are generally not one and the same and using the terms interchangeably only further confuses those who don't understand the difference between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kbjm,

They are only convincing everyone that you aren't all that serious.

I don't see how anyone can take a collection job as serious.

I worked next door to a CA some time ago (too bad I never asked them the inside info). They were nice people outside of work, but on the job was like a Jekyll and Hyde. Never serious though, always speaking badly of those in an unfortunate situation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, when it comes to matters of debt we are generally talking about contracts which means that the only thing that matters is what the law (and eventually a judge/jury) says - your opinions about "who" is owed, while perhaps understandable, are irrelevant.

Also, perhaps you were just in a hurry and didn't choose appropriate terminology but you seem to be misunderstanding what a "CA" is and the differences in relationship between a Collection Agent and a Junk Debt Buyer - while the lines can become blurred at times, they are generally not one and the same and using the terms interchangeably only further confuses those who don't understand the difference between the two.

I was in a rush, but the sentiment remains. If the money I pay is NOT going to go to the OC, it is NOT going to leave my hand. Period. Threaten, sue, harrass, whatever. I will never pay anyone except the OC and that is where the check will be sent. If it comes back, I will assume I no longer owe. Call it ignorant or whatever you want. I am the one working for my money and I am the one that decides where it goes. A judge can TELL me differently, but ultimately, it is my choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in a rush, but the sentiment remains. If the money I pay is NOT going to go to the OC, it is NOT going to leave my hand. Period. Threaten, sue, harrass, whatever. I will never pay anyone except the OC and that is where the check will be sent. If it comes back, I will assume I no longer owe. Call it ignorant or whatever you want. I am the one working for my money and I am the one that decides where it goes. A judge can TELL me differently, but ultimately, it is my choice.

Ok, yes...it's ignorant.

The law says otherwise and the court system has the power to force you to comply regardless of your feelings about it.

I understand, and agree to an extent, with your sentiment but just blindly saying "you won't pay" is a foolish position to take.

To be even more blunt (which is difficult for me), cries of "I'll only pay the OC" fail to impress me very much because I can't help but think that if paying the OC was that important to a consumer, they either would have paid on time in the first place or at least before the debt got so old that it got sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be even more blunt (which is difficult for me), cries of "I'll only pay the OC" fail to impress me very much because I can't help but think that if paying the OC was that important to a consumer, they either would have paid on time in the first place or at least before the debt got so old that it got sold.

Your anti-consumer side is in full blossom today. Consider the scenario where the consumer falls upon hard financial times. Creditors never hesitate to make sure we know how they're there to help us ... just let us know if you can't pay on time ... we have special programs to assist you in getting back on track, etc. ... None of that exists. When you actually do call them, they'll tell you, "sorry, we can't help you." And, as a reward for trying to work with them, they slam you with the highest interest rate allowed by law and start piling on fees at a rate quicker than the expanding national debt. Never forget the axiom that makes the financial world go-round; it's more important to screw the consumer than to recover the money.

Once the creditor adds enough fees to double or triple your balance, they send it off to a CA. When you ask the OC if you can work out a plan with them, they tell you, "No you can't - it's already in collections." Finally, they'll decide it's good business to sell the debt to a JDB for 2 cents on the dollar. Because, it's more important to screw the consumer than to recover the money.

I saw a newsclip the other morning about a woman whose $190,000 house virtually lost half it's value overnight. She had gotten sucked into an ARM and could not get the refi that she was told would be so easy to get when she bought her house. When she approached the bank with a short-sale deal for $110,000, the bank refused. Instead, they foreclosed on her and sold the house for $40,000 and sued her for the balance. She didn't realize that it's more important to screw the consumer than to recover the money.

Now, why would they do this? The answer is simple. The short sale shows up as loss of $80,000. The auction nets the bank $40,000 in cash and the judgment for the $150,000 deficiency can be tucked in the to balance sheet as an asset. It makes the numbers look better. And, it's more important to screw the consumer than to recover the money.

Congress could shut down the entire debt buying industry in a single day with a mandatory first-right-of-refusal clause relating to the sale of delinquent debt. Any creditor wishing to sell a delinquent charged-off debt for 2 or 3 cents on the dollar must first make the same offer to the consumer/debtor. If the debtor passes on the offer, the creditor can sell. If the creditor accepts, he can buy out the debt for the same 2-3% the JDB would have paid. It shouldn't matter to the creditor who buys the debt, as long as they get paid. But, we'll never see anything close to this. Why? Because it's more important to screw the consumer than to recover the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your anti-consumer side is in full blossom today....

I don't consider consumers being held accountable for their financial decisions as "anti-consumer"; that position isn't "anti" or "pro" anything. <:)

Businesses are in business to sell products and and make a profit...that's it. It's not their purpose or their role to "help" consumers when consumers fall on hard times...it's the consumer's responsibly to make wise choices about how they spend their money and what they obligate themselves for.

Calling my position "anti-consumer" seems to imply a viewpoint that it's the creditor's fault if the consumer chooses to make foolish financial decisions or encumber themselves with debt service that they can meet only if life stays perfect - I simply don't agree. Life is never perfect and it's the consumer's responsibility, not the creditor's, to make wise choices and do all they can to prepare for life's inevitable imperfections.

--------------------

Saying that JDBs uniformly pay 2 cents on the dollar is an oversimplification counselor (to be) and you know that...the price they pay for junk debts is appropriate because of the amount of risk they take of never seeing 5 cents on the dollar from those notes.

Most companies already don't do their own collections because they have neither the time or the expertise to do so...chasing consumers who don't pay isn't what they went into business for...giving the consumer right of first refusal would be an administrative nightmare for a company to handle and ultimately raise the cost for all of us, including those of us who pay cash.

Let's not forget...the consumer willingly and voluntarily put themselves into debt; either directly by their conscious decisions or indirectly by how they've handled their financial lives in general (such as not having an emergency fund)...no one held a gun to their head and made them charge something on a CC or take out a mortgage...what justification is there for letting them have a do-over???

We don't need legislative solutions - we need people to stop living beyond their means and yes, that includes the lady who got sucked into an ARM...anybody who takes out an ARM when 15 and 30 year rates were at historic, even all-time lows deserves to reap the consequences of their choice...a second grader should be able to figure out that when rates are at historic lows, they are probably going to go up; not down.

I would agree that the bank was stupid for not taking the short-sale but in the end, I think it will be the bank that is harmed most by that decision.

Also, I agree that it's unfortunate that her house has lost half its value but you know what, my house has lost value too...I swear that some people think there is some God-given or constitutionally guaranteed right to always have their houses go up in value - houses sometimes go down in value; buying a house is NEVER without risk.

While that decrease in value is no fun, my house, and I bet that lady's too, is just as livable and useful as it was before the value dropped. xheadscratchx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congress could shut down the entire debt buying industry in a single day with a mandatory first-right-of-refusal clause relating to the sale of delinquent debt. Any creditor wishing to sell a delinquent charged-off debt for 2 or 3 cents on the dollar must first make the same offer to the consumer/debtor. If the debtor passes on the offer, the creditor can sell. If the creditor accepts, he can buy out the debt for the same 2-3% the JDB would have paid. It shouldn't matter to the creditor who buys the debt, as long as they get paid. But, we'll never see anything close to this. Why? Because it's more important to screw the consumer than to recover the money.

This is the consumer side of me saying this(nothing to do with my job...forget you even know what I do) Nascar I absolutely agree with you!! That would be fabulous, but I think you hit the nail right on the head. Our country is so consumed by greed and money that nearly everyone has forgotten about person behind the money/debt. I doubt the laws will ever change, and just like the next guy I hate them too. JDB's have friends in high places that make a lot of people a lot of money. Is it wrong & corrupt. YES but sadly enough MOST Congressmen/Senators I would dare say are corrupt enough to look the other way & do nothing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's the consumer's responsibly to make wise choices about how they spend their money and what they obligate themselves for.

For the sake of discussion, how different is the credit industry's advertising campaign and the tobacco industry's advertising campaign when they both spend/spent millions of dollars trying to convince consumers to purchase products which ultimately prove to be harmful, both physically and financially.

The tobacco industry was held liable for their practices. Should the credit card industry be held to the same standard? Are their practices ultimately as dangerous to consumers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sake of discussion, how different is the credit industry's advertising campaign and the tobacco industry's advertising campaign when they both spend/spent millions of dollars trying to convince consumers to purchase products which ultimately prove to be harmful, both physically and financially.

The tobacco industry was held liable for their practices. Should the credit card industry be held to the same standard? Are their practices ultimately as dangerous to consumers?

I would say that dying from cancer is a bit more problematic than going broke - of course, I've never been dead but I have been broke and while being broke is not fun, I still think I'd rather be broke than dead so I don't know that I'd put the two issues in the same camp so to speak.

Nevertheless, per my recollection, tobacco companies were shown to have been purposely manipulating the nicotine content of their cigarettes, and denying they were doing so, for the sole purpose of making their product more addictive...were it not for that; I would say that the consumer should have born 100% of the consequence for their choice to smoke.

That is even more true today - any consumer who chooses to smoke cigarettes now does so with full knowledge of the consequences.

Unlike the tobacco companies, what credit card issuers do is done in plain view (even if the font is tiny). Most consumers simply don't bother to read what they are obligating themselves to (or don't care/don't worry about) but that is the consumer's fault, not the credit card company's.

It's true that nothing is more heavily advertised in our society today than debt but other then "volume", I see nothing more manipulative about Visa's advertising than I do with "Smiling Bob" or the "Geico Gecko" (frankly I'm beginning to think that Smiling Bob is catching up as far as volume goes!). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sake of discussion, how different is the credit industry's advertising campaign and the tobacco industry's advertising campaign when they both spend/spent millions of dollars trying to convince consumers to purchase products which ultimately prove to be harmful, both physically and financially.

The tobacco industry was held liable for their practices. Should the credit card industry be held to the same standard? Are their practices ultimately as dangerous to consumers?

Many people died of lung cancer. How many were dunned to death?

There is a big difference between "annoying" and "dangerous"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, yes...it's ignorant.

The law says otherwise and the court system has the power to force you to comply regardless of your feelings about it.

I understand, and agree to an extent, with your sentiment but just blindly saying "you won't pay" is a foolish position to take.

To be even more blunt (which is difficult for me), cries of "I'll only pay the OC" fail to impress me very much because I can't help but think that if paying the OC was that important to a consumer, they either would have paid on time in the first place or at least before the debt got so old that it got sold.

It was not my intent or desire to impress, or even try to impress. Opinions cannot be wrong, so I don't fault you for yours. When you don't have the story, you can't pass judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not my intent or desire to impress, or even try to impress. Opinions cannot be wrong, so I don't fault you for yours. When you don't have the story, you can't pass judgement.

The fact that each person is entitled to his/her opinion doesn't mean their opinion can't be wrong - if the opinion is based on a faulty premise or incomplete data or a lack of understanding they can most certainly be wrong (as one will find out if they act based on their wrong opinion).

I don't know what makes you (apparently) think I don't have a "story"? Perhaps you feel that one must currently be in financial difficulty to have a worthy story???

In any case, don't discount my position simply because you think "'my story" isn't as sad as yours might be.

In any case, matters of law are matters of law...you can "feel" any way you want about who you'll pay and when but feelings won't protect you from a wage garnishment or a lien against your home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people died of lung cancer. How many were dunned to death?

Both you and Robert missed the point of my question. I simply asked Robert to consider why two advertising campaigns, both designed to sell potentially harmful products, are viewed so differently when a consumer suffers negatively from the use of that product. Both advertising campaigns were/are designed to lure consumers into using a product which, when used excessively, can be harmful in one way or another.

Society has now decided that it's the fault of the tobacco companies when someone acquires a smoking related illness because those companies enticed the consumer into using an inherently dangerous product, even though it was a conscious choice on the part of the consumer to use that product. The same could be said for many other advertising campaigns as alcohol or fast food, for example. We now blame the businesses which market those products when a consumer is "damaged" through their use. In my opinion nothing is more ridiculous than stuffing yourself full of BigMacs, then suing McDonald's for selling them.

It is my position in this discussion that credit is marketed to consumers in much the same fashion as the foregoing products, yet, according to Robert, it is ALWAYS the fault of the consumer if he damages his financial health through misuse of credit. Is it because, as IFR suggests, we can't eat or breath credit? It is because we have more of a moral obligation to ourselves and others to stay out of debt than to care for our personal health? Perhaps it's because tobacco, for instance, can be physiologically addictive while credit may be only psychologically addicive. When answering this question, don't forget that crack cocaine is generally only psychologically addictive, and not physiologically addictive.

From a young age, we're told that we must have and use credit to get what we want or need. Unemployed college kids are bombarded with offers of credit designed specifically to get them hooked on credit early. You can't buy anything from Sears or JCPenney without being asked to apply a credit card. E-Z financing here, there and everywhere.

Back to my question. Why is it OK to place blame for certain irresponsible decisions directly upon the consumer, when other irresponsible decisions are evidently beyond the ability of the consumer to avoid making and as such, blame must be placed upon the companies which market those products?

It is still your position that consumers are ALWAYS completely to blame when they misuse or lose control of their finances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PART ONE:

Both you and Robert missed the point of my question. I simply asked Robert to consider why two advertising campaigns, both designed to sell potentially harmful products, are viewed so differently when a consumer suffers negatively from the use of that product. Both advertising campaigns were/are designed to lure consumers into using a product which, when used excessively, can be harmful in one way or another.

Society has now decided that it's the fault of the tobacco companies when someone acquires a smoking related illness because those companies enticed the consumer into using an inherently dangerous product, even though it was a conscious choice on the part of the consumer to use that product. The same could be said for many other advertising campaigns as alcohol or fast food, for example.

I didn't miss the point of your question; I simply don't agree with your premise.

ALL advertising campaigns regardless of what product is being advertised are designed to lure (I'd say manipulate) consumers into using the product. It is also true that many, many of those products, perhaps even the majority, would be "hazardous" to the consumer's health (physical and/or financial) if used to extremes.

Two aspirin can be very helpful now and then; try taking 30 a day for a few years and you won't have a functioning stomach or kidneys - is that the fault of the Bayer Corporation???

With respect, nascar, it's you, I think that are intentionally missing the distinction between tobacco and debt; one is physically addictive and one is not...one was purposely manipulated to be even more addictive than naturally occurring (manipulation that was covered up and lied about) meaning it is not just a matter of a consumer's choice...also remember that most of the consumers for whom compensation was deemed appropriate started smoking long before most of tobacco's harmful affects were known/publicized...tobacco is still addictive today but no one can claim they don't know about its potentially harmful affects.

…We now blame the businesses which market those products when a consumer is "damaged" through their use. In my opinion nothing is more ridiculous than stuffing yourself full of BigMacs, then suing McDonald's for selling them.

It is my position in this discussion that credit is marketed to consumers in much the same fashion as the foregoing products, yet, according to Robert, it is ALWAYS the fault of the consumer if he damages his financial health through misuse of credit.

Blaming McDonald’s for one’s weight problem (which can certainly be life threatening) is no more ridiculous than blaming a creditor for offering consumer debt when the consumer misuses it. I find blaming either to be ridiculous.

Is it because, as IFR suggests, we can't eat or breath credit? It is because we have more of a moral obligation to ourselves and others to stay out of debt than to care for our personal health? Perhaps it's because tobacco, for instance, can be physiologically addictive while credit may be only psychologically addicive. When answering this question, don't forget that crack cocaine is generally only psychologically addictive, and not physiologically addictive.

Our society seems to want to call everything “addictive” and wants to make no distinction between physical addiction and psychological addiction – I’m neither a physician or a psychologist but my reading over the years would tend to indicate that among professionals, they know that there is a significant distinction…it is only laypeople who seem to want to ignore that distinction and use the word “addiction” for every bad behavior (and if addiction doesn’t apply then it’s a “syndrome”).

Moral obligations are not the real issue here – the issue is, when we misuse credit/run into “financial difficulty”; do we blame the creditor who allowed us to use credit or do we blame ourselves for making use of it?

I say the latter; apparently you would say the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PART TWO:

From a young age, we're told that we must have and use credit to get what we want or need. Unemployed college kids are bombarded with offers of credit designed specifically to get them hooked on credit early. You can't buy anything from Sears or JCPenney without being asked to apply a credit card. E-Z financing here, there and everywhere.

All true of course and understand that I find the tactics abhorrent – I simply don’t agree that the tactics relieve people of making wise decisions.

Back to my question. Why is it OK to place blame for certain irresponsible decisions directly upon the consumer, when other irresponsible decisions are evidently beyond the ability of the consumer to avoid making and as such, blame must be placed upon the companies which market those products?

I think I’ve answered that question – you simply don’t like/agree with the answer.

It is still your position that consumers are ALWAYS completely to blame when they misuse or lose control of their finances?

I don’t believe I ever used the word “completely” as if to imply that in every situation and in every subject everybody/everything else is blameless but yes, it is my position that consumers are always responsible for the choices they make.

If your position is correct…if consumers who avail themselves of credit are not responsible for their decisions because of “advertising” or because credit is “psychological addictive” then explain to me why any consumer at any time should ever pay a creditor for anything?

The above is not a silly question…why should I charge groceries or gasoline or a trip to Las Vegas and then have to actually pay for any of it if I’m psychologically addicted to the use of credit because of manipulative advertising or because my misguided parents didn’t teach me about how to properly handle debt (probably because they too were psychologically manipulated)???

Looking at it another way; if the advertising of consumer credit/debit is so manipulative and/or the use of credit/debit is so addictive that consumers should not be held accountable for their actions in using it then wouldn't the proper course of action be an outright ban on all consumer debt? No credit cards, no auto loans, no mortgage loans no personal credit of any kind...wouldn't that be appropriate given your position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without exception?

I've already explained my "exception" with regards to tobacco...what more do you want?

If you want some more exceptions; here are a couple...

1. Show me a case where a consumer was the victim of fraud and yes, that would be an exception.

2. Show me where a creditor breached a contract and yes, that would be an exception.

However, a consumer being stupid...taking on debt they know they can't afford payments on or can only afford payments if life is perfect...NO that isn't an exception regardless of how much advertising they've seen.

How about answering my question now...

…if consumers who avail themselves of credit are not responsible for their decisions because of “advertising” or because credit is “psychological addictive” then explain to me why any consumer at any time should ever pay a creditor for anything?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW!!! What have I been missing. This is a good discussion. Let me add my pennies worth on a couple items. Above all, remember I'm over 62.

Regarding smoking, I started at the age of 12. Why, you ask? Because it was the thing to do. Some would say "to fit in", while others would have other reasons. True, there were no warnings in the packages then. But, in the end, whose fault was it? The answer is easy. It was my fault. When Kenny Cooper offered me my first smoke, I could have said "no thanks", but, I didn't. When entering our house, mom would smell the smoke and ask me. I would always blame the others. Just a couple days before my birthday, I suffered a massive heart attack to where they had to use the paddles. My youngest son had to witness this. They did not think I would survive. On my 51st birthday, instead of celebrating, I spent the day having open heart surgery, which was a double bypass and ballooning. Yes, there were other contributing factors to cause this, but, smoking did play a part. We've heard over the years that the tobacco companies are to blame for not warning us of the dangers, including that Nicotine was addictive. Today, this must be disclosed. No argument there. BUT, again, who is to blame? The answer is the same, ME. I had more chances than one can imagine in stopping. For example, I had lain for 6 days in a Hospital in Japan without a smoke, mainly due to my left arm mangled, and, in a cast, and my right lower arm bandaged. I woke up one morning to find my neighbor had his smokes laying on his table. I asked the "Doc" if he would light one and hold it so I could have a smoke. I had my own package within an hour, and, here we go again. Who is to blame?

Regarding credit, it is absolute that the consumer is the primary cause. Though a creditor may be wrong in offering such elaborate "packages", not taking the proper steps to assure the loan would fit the consumer, it is still the consumer who "signs on the dotted line". They were not forced. No one told them they "had to sign". It is just a simple, as others have said, type of greed. Poor decisions and bad planning are also to blame.

As to collections of delinquent debt. I am one who feels that the situation should be considered prior to other "activity" to assure payment. If it is obvious the consumer is trying to "run", then, most definitely, do what the law allows, no more, no less. At the same time, if the delinquency is due to a medical disaster, and the Doctor will not allow the consumer to return to work for a set amount of time, then, the creditors should respect this and work for an amicable resolve by working with, not against, by threats, collectors, etc. To include, when my wife had medical problems in the early 90's, her Doctor would not let her return to work. Most of our creditors stepped up. But, this Doctor's own office began the threats. When we went for a followup visit, we asked why. The Doctor left the room for a few. Upon his return, he told us he wrote off the total balance due, and apologized for the actions of his office. We found he had fired his manager over this. I took this a step further. Being a veteran receiving treatment at a VA Hospital, I asked 14 Doctors if they knew what was going on in their offices. Understand that this particular VA Hospital contracts to Doctors who have thier own private practice. Only one Doctor actually knew the amount of his AR's. A total of 4 actually spent time with their manager. The rest relied solely on their manager. And they wonder why?

For those who do not remember, it was charges for my surgery that brought me to this site in the beginning. The end result was that the offices were negligent in how they processed the claims to my insurances. Yes, it is more detailed, but, this will cover it.

And, lastly, as I've said before, here recently, that until the ACA moves beyond being only a glorified fraternity, and cites, fines, and assists in closing the "bad", the consumer will forever be shafted by the CA/JDB/Atty. I am not against the collection of delinquent debt, I am only against how it is collected. This was written in Spears (different verbiage, but, you get the drift), and I fully agree with that decision as it is true today, tomorrow, and forever. If the OP wants us to believe her claim, then, prove it to us by going public beyond a local radio station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about answering my question now...

Originally Posted by Robert_Nashville viewpost.gif

…explain to me why any consumer at any time should ever pay a creditor for anything?

Losses incurred as a result of the extension of credit is part of the cost of doing business. I personally don't care whether anyone ever pays them or not. Pay if you want. Don't pay if you don't want to. I won't pass judgment in either case. But, I probably wouldn't lend you any money either, so please don't ask.

When creditors are held to the same moral standard as consumer debtors, I might have some sympathy for the credit industry. When the saying "creditor beware" is heard as often "buyer beware," I'll have some sympathy for the credit industry. Until then .... I really don't care.

Show me a case where a consumer was the victim of fraud and yes, that would be an exception
Since the consumer very seldom gets what he was bargaining for, I would say that most credit card agreements solicitations are based upon fraudulent misrepresenation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Losses incurred as a result of the extension of credit is part of the cost of doing business. I personally don't care whether anyone ever pays them or not. Pay if you want. Don't pay if you don't want to. I won't pass judgment in either case. But, I probably wouldn't lend you any money either, so please don't ask.

When creditors are held to the same moral standard as consumer debtors, I might have some sympathy for the credit industry. When the saying "creditor beware" is heard as often "buyer beware," I'll have some sympathy for the credit industry. Until then .... I really don't care.

Since the consumer very seldom gets what he was bargaining for, I would say that most credit card agreements solicitations are based upon fraudulent misrepresenation.

This isn't a matter or "morals"; it's a matter of law - how can you not see that? Frankly, I'm a bit stunned that someone who will one day take an oath to uphold the law seems to have such little regard for it when it comes to consumer credit.

The consumer generally gets exactly what he bargained for; it's just that after the fact they decide they don't like the bargain any longer.

Anybody who does pay their bills should very much care whether people pay their bills or not because when they don't, everyone who does pay their bills have to pay more...ultimately, businesses never absorb risks or expenses, or taxes; they are always passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices; either that or the business stops being in business.

I guess we can close down CIC - if no one should ever have to pay their debts then no one really needs information about how to handle collection agencies. All they have to do is tell they them they don't have to pay because they don't feel like it

and after that they can just ignore the phone calls, letters, summonses, judgments, liens, garnishments, etc., right? :dunno2:

I'm going to try that on my mortgage company...instead of making my payment tomorrow I'll just tell them I don't feel like paying anymore and that they need to just give me clear title and then go away...yeah...I bet that will work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.