morrow

Dateline NBC tonight!! Investigating collection agencies!!

Recommended Posts

Saw a preview for tonights Dateline NBC, Chris Hansen goes undercover to investigate some of the tactics used by collection agencies to get people to pay up.

Looked pretty interesting. Collection agents were talking about how they get sued all the time but they make so much money they dont care. They talk about how they break rules all the time too.

Im definitly going to watch it! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
That ought to be really interesting to watch. There are so many managers and owners of collection agencies that claim that their outfits do absolutely nothing illegal but what their employees do is totally opposite.

Pffft, they all do whatever they can in order to make a profit. Some of them might be ethical, but in that line of business and in all honesty the majority of people (not everyone) you have to deal with daily creates a very bad atmosphere for everyone involved.

Does anyone know if this special will be available online anywhere!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't see it, but my very good friend worked in collections right out of college for a major bank. His specialty? Zapping social security funds on the date of deposit. You see when you have a bank account at x bank and you owe x bank money elsewhere you agree to cross-collateralize. So he used this as justification to blank people's SS checks on the morning of deposit. He knew that it was less than legal, but it allowed him to hit his monthly bonus quotas...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only saw snippets of it so I didn't see the whole thing. But from what I saw I thought it was a rip off and a complete waste of time. If that is the kind of people they got doing collections now, then they sound like a bunch of wimps.

Back during the boom times, when there were fewer collections going on, collectors I knew had some real cojones instead of trying to sound all formal and official. They would call people [EXPLETIVE DELETED] face, [EXPLETIVE DELETED], [EXPLETIVE DELETED], [EXPLETIVE DELETED], [EXPLETIVE DELETED], and a few other things.

One collector I knew loved to talk to young women because he would have them break down and cry on the phone. That same collector often told people that since he knew their residential address that he was going to kick down their front door and kick their [EXPLETIVE DELETED] if they didn't pay up.

This one private investigator that worked down the hallway from the place I used to work at years ago, he had some really innovative techniques because his expertise was taking to the parents of debtors. He had these people all freaked out about what he said what was going to happen to their adult children.

Yeah, I thought it was pretty lame for the debt collector to be asking if their were any guns in the house so when they get served for four felony warrants. I didn't think a technique like that would even work (at least not years ago) because so many people already know that there isn't such a thing as a debtors prison.

Overall, I was really disappointed because Chris Hansen always brings up some good stuff. I just thought that these collectors were really lame. Not like the people I used to know years ago. However, I didn't see the who episode but it didn't look like these collectors had some big cojones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the tape capture of the collector threatening rape was plenty graphic for me.

All in all it was a summarized version of the movie "Maxed Out".

However, I have to give Chris Hanson kudos on getting the ACA baggy eyed apologist on camera saying how sweet and innocent the debt colllection industry is, with some "minor problems", and then shows her the footage of the Buffalo, NY collector that is not a member of her Association.

She had to eat a pile of steaming crap on it. That was worth the watch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched it.

I was a bit in shock when one collector, as a previous poster had mentioned, threatened rape. That was outrageous. :shock:

For the most part, alot of the collection agencies were impersonating law enforcement, claiming to issue warrants, threatening to "pick up" the alleged debtor, and even claiming to work for the military.

Sad thing about this is that the majority of people out there fall for these tactics.

In true Chris Hanson fashion, I hope to see more of these segments and follow ups with the dirtbags. :?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My last post was deleted for so-called personal attack, if it is a personal attack to request someone not praise an entire industry for bashing women and having "cojones," and simply asking any forum member to implement spell-check, than I was unaware of the meaning of attack.

I did not intend to attack anyone, I merely requested that there be a little class and objective respect shown along with some literary thought and consideration/grammatical attention.

I have been on the forum daily for months now and have always thanked everyone, showed respect, and spread reputation, as well as learned a lot from the forum; if a forum member is offended due directly to a post made by a moderator, why is that forum members post deleted and he is belittled with a "deduction of points?" I am not asking to prove a point, I am sincerely curious.

Also, what would be the suggested course of action to take if I or any other forum member is offended by a post? I would like to know so I can follow the rules.

PS: Please show some intellectual honesty and don't delete this post, and answer my honest questions in detail; if you look at my history it is painfully obvious that I am here for the right reasons, which is why I am curious exactly what qualified for a points deduction (I'm not sure what that is) and a post-deletion? Seems like there is not a balance of open and honest opinion, I didn't make accusations or use anything resembling profanity, I was very clear and used candor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually disappointed in the show.

I felt that there was so much more that could have been said pertaining to rights. They did mention that your rights are spelled out in some cases, but failed to make any further comments.

Like the one lady who was being harrassed on a debt 10 years old that she had paid. Legally, the JDB (because they did mention that it was owned by a JDB) had absolutely no recourse. She could have told them to take a flying leap, and Dateline should have spelled that out.

They also should have mentioned that the credit crisis is much more than people spending too much. Alot of people, like my husband, have gone to great lengths to get to zero debt. And now, he's screwed because he has no credit history, except his paid off and closed accounts.

They forget that the credit market holds us hostage with things like mortgages. Very few people can afford to purchase a house outright, even if they would be able to make payments and keep it up. Without that credit score, they can't get a mortgage. Its a catch-22.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't bad - at least it exposed the fraudulent "I'm a cop - pay up or I'll arrest you." routine.

http://geeks.pirillo.com/forum/topics/debt-collection-fraud-dateline

Thanks for the link, I'm going to check it out. I had no idea collectors could be so menacing, all I ever did in my line of work was explain there would be late fees if they did not bring their account current, but I never dealt with any account over 7 months past due/written off to an agency or law firm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, what would be the suggested course of action to take if I or any other forum member is offended by a post? I would like to know so I can follow the rules.

There's a little Triangle with an exclamation point in the center at the top right of every post. If you hit it, you can fill out a form to report that post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not intend to attack anyone, I merely requested that there be a little class and objective respect shown along with some literary thought and consideration/grammatical attention.

If you want to continue to discuss this, and it appears you do, then let me be clear that calling into question someone's educational background or claiming that they must not have gotten past 4th grade, simply because of a misspelled word or two is a personal attack.

I don't care how long you have been around or what you think you have contributed - insults of that type are not permitted. Is that clear enough for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to continue to discuss this, and it appears you do, then let me be clear that calling into question someone's educational background or claiming that they must not have gotten past 4th grade, simply because of a misspelled word or two is a personal attack.

I don't care how long you have been around or what you think you have contributed - insults of that type are not permitted. Is that clear enough for you.

Crystal Clear, I will no longer pay enough attention to the content or construction of a person's post to elicit a reaction and response on this forum. This will be my last post concerning this pedantic issue at hand, because I am above such things and refuse to engage in meaningless internet abrasive arguments, especially when I hold a forum in high-regard such as CIC and the vast majority of their members time/talent; and no I do not wish to 'continue' to talk about it, I simple made one single respectful and thoughtful retort in order to state my case and make a sincere plead to know what the correct coarse of action should be if someone takes a viewpoint that blatantly contradicts any level moral judgment. Perhaps it was I that was not being clear. I do not wish to be on the losing end of a moderator-rich perpetuated disagreement, I simply do not conduct my own life offering applause to professionals who demean and disrespect women.

You have my word if any such disagreements should happen in the unforeseen future I will make my case in a very succinct and objective manner, and will not call out anyone's education based on the content of their post and ideas within.

Link to post
Share on other sites

His specialty? Zapping social security funds on the date of deposit. You see when you have a bank account at x bank and you owe x bank money elsewhere you agree to cross-collateralize. So he used this as justification to blank people's SS checks on the morning of deposit.

Not always. You can sometimes have this clause, often called a "right to offset" deposited funds, stricken from the loan agreement. Of course, to do that, you'd have to: both a. know to look for this clause and b. delay the processing of your loan. I've seen it done successfully, but it increases the underwriting qualifications of the loan.

They also should have mentioned that the credit crisis is much more than people spending too much. Alot of people, like my husband, have gone to great lengths to get to zero debt. And now, he's screwed because he has no credit history, except his paid off and closed accounts.

Screwed? Please.. There is a poster here who would consider this the ideal situation!

If you want to continue to discuss this, and it appears you do, then let me be clear that calling into question someone's educational background or claiming that they must not have gotten past 4th grade, simply because of a misspelled word or two is a personal attack.

I simple made one single respectful and thoughtful retort in order to state my case and make a sincere plead to know what the correct coarse of action should be

misspelled word or two? [no offense intended; couldn't help it...]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Crystal Clear, I will no longer pay enough attention to the content or construction of a person's post to elicit a reaction and response on this forum. This will be my last post concerning this pedantic issue at hand, because I am above such things and refuse to engage in meaningless internet abrasive arguments, especially when I hold a forum in high-regard such as CIC and the vast majority of their members time/talent; and no I do not wish to 'continue' to talk about it, I simple made one single respectful and thoughtful retort in order to state my case and make a sincere plead to know what the correct coarse of action should be if someone takes a viewpoint that blatantly contradicts any level moral judgment. Perhaps it was I that was not being clear. I do not wish to be on the losing end of a moderator-rich perpetuated disagreement, I simply do not conduct my own life offering applause to professionals who demean and disrespect women.

You have my word if any such disagreements should happen in the unforeseen future I will make my case in a very succinct and objective manner, and will not call out anyone's education based on the content of their post and ideas within.

that would be course of action. xdancex:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

that would be course of action.

Hasn’t that already been covered above? Do you write your own material? ;)

Funny how I am punished and threatened with suspension from the forum and mocked for making repeat posts when I only made one reaction post and one explanation post, and everyone else can do/say as they please without consequence. Seems fair to me :)

Believe me, getting the right word spelled wrong should be worthy of a trophy in light of what other posts contain, but as I already stated I will not entertain this subject anymore. I made my original point which was very comprehensible and articulate, and the intended member heard me loud and clear enough to have another moderator give me an infraction (still not sure what that is) in stead of explaining/translating his distasteful post or contacting me himself.

Of coarse I would like to course through the forum and simply enjoy getting credit tips as long as the Credit INFO Center doesn't condone "info" from an approved moderator that praises violent collectors for their unlawful practices. Course, Coarse, Course...

I am unsubscribing to this thread in order to move on from the pitiable shallowness of it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.