bored7one4

DV or dispute with bureau new collections that just reported on my credit report?

Recommended Posts

I guarantee you that very few of the consumers in that 90% requested validation.  A consumer who requests validation realizes to some extent that he has rights.  As a result, he would not simply ignore a lawsuit.

You would be surprised.  Fact is in almost all cases they owe the debt and they know they owe the debt.  Last statistics I read, the default judgment rate was about 95% on all lawsuits filed.  Of the 5% that actually go to court or file an answer about 80 % of those are settled out or a stipulated judgment occurs with the consumer agreeing to pay the account in lieu of the judgment being entered.  If they default the judgment then enters and post-judgment proceedings start.

 

That remaining 20% (of the 5%, so in actuality about 1% of all lawsuits filed) go to trial.  Of the literally hundreds of trials I have been involved in, we have lost maybe a dozen or so.  Mostly this is because I don't sue people that don't actually owe their debts and I don't sue people unless I can prove our case.  Even if the validation is lacking a bit, you can still depose the defendant.  They will have to testify under oath if they owe the debt or not.

 

There are very very few people that get sued for debts they do not owe.  Are their CAs that have done this?  Yes.  And they have been smacked down hard, and rightfully so.  Multi-million dollar fines and closing their doors in some cases are a good start. I honestly wish it would happen more often.

 

Many consumers who request validation do so specifically as a stall tactic or because someone they know told them to do so as they CA won't be able to validate the debt and they can get out of paying it.  After they are actually served with a summons and complaint, they realize the game is up and the CA or law firm is serious about getting their client's money back.  So they throw in the towel.  I have no problem providing validation.  I have no problem trying to work out a mutually acceptable arrangement or settlement on an account.  I also have no problem litigating against consumers who refuse to pay their bills when they have the ability to do so.  It's not personal, it's simply business.  I have a job to do for my clients.  And at the end of the day, the consumer owes the bill.  Why should they NOT have to pay it back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should they NOT have to pay it back?

 

The issue is not "why should they NOT have to pay it back," the issue is "why should they have to pay it to YOU."

 

If you are who you claim, you know as well as I do that in the vast majority of transactions, debt buyers purchase little more than "evidence" of a consumer's indebtedness at some point in the past. You purchase that information with no warranty and without recourse. As anyone involved in the industry well knows, this information is often wrong. You know it is often wrong. Nevertheless, you purchase this "evidence" then proceed to fabricate whatever other facts are missing in order to "convince" an often all-too-willing court that you're entitled to recover 2X, 3X, sometimes 5X what the consumer actually owes, if he "owes" anything at all. 

 

Now, you come here to "advise" consumers that their "best" course of action is to forego invoking what meager protections congress has deigned to afford them and instead, simply acquiesce to the demands of criminals and charlatans? How typical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  You seriously could not be more wrong about the collections industry or the people that work in it.  Where do you get your 99% figures other than out of thin air?  Do you have personal experience working in the industry?  Do you have statistics from ARM or the ACA that support any of your assumptions?

 

 

 

My statistics are based on my personal experience in dealing with the collections business.  I'll admit I ran into a bad time a few years back...our company went under, because our major client declared BK 11 and left us holding $250k in worthless invoices.  I tried to keep paying the people that worked for us until they found other work by taking on personal debt.  Of course it all came tumbling down on us and I got to hear from some of the major players in your "industry" for the 9 months it took me to realize I had no choice but to BK 7.  Not a single collector was caring and compassionate...they all had a "pay up, you dead beat" attitude...and given the fact that when I was stupid enough to return their calls, I was told "that person no longer works here, but I can help you", I conclude the turnover rate is quite high.  This is further reinforced by the number of members we have on this board who admit to having worked as collectors...and now find themselves on the other side of the fence.

 

Since ARM and ACA are collector organizaions (supported by paying members) I would expect their numbers to be somewhat skewed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my days on the dark side, I recall overhearing  a couple of collectors who had determined that, out of the 25 or so collectors on the floor at the time (small outfit), that around half of them had spent at least one year as a guest of the state (either county jail or state prison). These are the same caring, compassionate individuals with whom the receivables industry deems worthy to be entrusted with our most personal information.

 

This article, in my opinion, accurately represents typical collection outfit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is not "why should they NOT have to pay it back," the issue is "why should they have to pay it to YOU."

 

If you are who you claim, you know as well as I do that in the vast majority of transactions, debt buyers purchase little more than "evidence" of a consumer's indebtedness at some point in the past. You purchase that information with no warranty and without recourse. As anyone involved in the industry well knows, this information is often wrong. You know it is often wrong. Nevertheless, you purchase this "evidence" then proceed to fabricate whatever other facts are missing in order to "convince" an often all-too-willing court that you're entitled to recover 2X, 3X, sometimes 5X what the consumer actually owes, if he "owes" anything at all. 

 

Now, you come here to "advise" consumers that their "best" course of action is to forego invoking what meager protections congress has deigned to afford them and instead, simply acquiesce to the demands of criminals and charlatans? How typical.

Wow.  Simply incorrect.

 

I have been involved in debt buying for years and the information we purchase is NOT wrong.  They are based directly off of the charge off statement of that the consumer received as well. In fact there are cross-indemnification clauses in these contracts to protect both parties as well as warranties and measures for recourse..  And if I purchase a debt of your, then legally you DO owe it to me.  Just like if your mortgage is sold from one company to another.  What you are saying here is simply not true..  At least from my experience with the companies I have worked with and for.  You do NOT have the right to only work with the OC.  In fact, once they sell the debt, they have absolutely no rights to it and can not negotiate on the debt with you.  They have zero legal standing at that point.

 

I also didn't advise anyone to acquiesce to anyone.  I even said they they have every right to request validation of their debt.  I said they should communicate with the CA to get it resolved.

 

And your assumption is that all CAs and Law firms are charlatans and criminals.  That should tell everyone where you stand and that you are not even remotely objective.  Why do you automatically assume the CA is the bad guy in this situation?  They aren't the ones who forced you to borrow money.  They aren't the ones who forced you into default either.  Long story short, they didn't put you in this situation.  You did.  Your mentality is simply "kill the messenger".

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my days on the dark side, I recall overhearing  a couple of collectors who had determined that, out of the 25 or so collectors on the floor at the time (small outfit), that around half of them had spent at least one year as a guest of the state (either county jail or state prison). These are the same caring, compassionate individuals with whom the receivables industry deems worthy to be entrusted with our most personal information.

 

This article, in my opinion, accurately represents typical collection outfit.

You must have worked at a shitty place.  We do background and drug testing and will not hire a convicted felon.  I've seen shops like the ones you mention.  They should be shut down permanently.  My average employee has 12 years in the business. Over on third of them have college degrees.None of them have criminal convictions for anything worse than a DUI.  You can continue to lump all collectors in with the vast minority of thugs you see on Nightline or 20/20, or you can realize that for most people this is a profession.

 

 

743 collectors out of 42,437.  Less than 2% is not "typical" .It's the exception to the rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My statistics are based on my personal experience in dealing with the collections business.  I'll admit I ran into a bad time a few years back...our company went under, because our major client declared BK 11 and left us holding $250k in worthless invoices.  I tried to keep paying the people that worked for us until they found other work by taking on personal debt.  Of course it all came tumbling down on us and I got to hear from some of the major players in your "industry" for the 9 months it took me to realize I had no choice but to BK 7.  Not a single collector was caring and compassionate...they all had a "pay up, you dead beat" attitude...and given the fact that when I was stupid enough to return their calls, I was told "that person no longer works here, but I can help you", I conclude the turnover rate is quite high.  This is further reinforced by the number of members we have on this board who admit to having worked as collectors...and now find themselves on the other side of the fence.

 

Since ARM and ACA are collector organizaions (supported by paying members) I would expect their numbers to be somewhat skewed.

You have to understand though, I'm not saying they should be caring and compassionate, just professional.  They are not customer service and you are not their customer.  Their customer is who you owe money to.  That's why I said that they are put in a naturally adversarial position every time they pick up the telephone.  You don't want to hear from them in the first place.  Their job is to protect their client's interests, your job is to protect your own.  If both sides act reasonable and in good faith, both can meet their objectives.

 

FWIW, I've been on the other end of this business.  When I was younger I ran up over $30,000 in debt. I got on the phone and worked things out with my creditors and the CAs that were handling the accounts and paid it all back.  It took a few years, but I got it done and learned a lot about how to better handle my finances due to my mistakes.  And they were MY mistakes.  MY lack of planning.  Bad things happen to good people every day.  They lose their job or their income drops etc etc.  Planning and saving for that is what keeps people from ever having to talk to me.  Instead this country has a culture of "I gotta have it now".  Instant gratification and "keeping up with the Jones's" are two major factors in the amount of delinquent debt in this country.  Medical debt.....different story.  I won't work medical accounts.  There is a significat difference between someone who got ill or injured and someone who voluntarily ran up debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my estimation what the JDB/CAs are doing is called 'Profiteering' and should be regulated and limited by law.  Congress hasn't figured that out yet.  You are buying debt at 10% of value then adding your fees and interest to the total debt and crying 'foul' when someone stands up to you and says, NO MORE!  We the debtor have to defend ourselves from the likes of your fellow dishonest parasites, I'm not including you since you claim to be such a benevolent humanitarian.  We still have to pay a portion of the debt with a 1099C.  Then have to monitor our courts/bank accounts/wages/assets or whatever when they finally have sucked the life blood from the debtor and decided to give up and sell the debt at a profit to another JDB/CA so the process can start all over again.  I can't believe that you would question a DV  or C&D in such a flippant manner, every day we read about another scam going around targeting seniors and the general public with fraudulent claims and fictitious or non-existent documentation and expect us to roll-over, play dead and cough up our money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Most of us don't have a problem with settling with creditors.  However, considering the fact that some banks such as BofA, Chase, and Citigroup are under investigation by a number of states for their foreclosure practices including the robosigning of affidavits, it makes one unwilling to settle with them.

 

If you were specifically talking about one of those mortgages that you are referencing, I would agree that you have a point.  However if you ran up a credit card debt that you know you owe, you are simply justifying your actions, or lack thereof.

 

It's the JDBs with whom we have the real problems.   You know the players.  Midland, Asset Acceptance, NCO Group to name a few.  We're supposed to play nice with JDBs who have been the subject of investigations and fined for their debt collection pracitces?   We're supposed to simply trust them?

 

I'm not saying that at all.  If you have a legitimate concern that the balance they claim is owed is incorrect, then by all means, dispute the debt.  That's not what is being advised here though.

 

And for the record, almost all of the disputes that I see come back to one central theme....."They charged me way too much in interest, I already paid back most of what I borrowed".  However, consumers agreed to that interest rate when they borrowed the money.  Why should they think that when it's time to pay it back, they can change the terms and conditions of the contract?  I will waive a ton of interest on accounts to facilitate settling the debt, but again, that is a courtesy.  The consumer agreed to and owes that interest.

 

There are exceptions.  There are some actual predatory lenders out there.  Pay day loans and internet loans with APRs over 300-400%.  Ridiculous.  Luckily many states such as New York are outlawing these practices.  And they should.

 

But if you take out a loan for $20,000 at 19% interest, that's on you.  You should pay it back as agreed.  You knew the rate when you took the money.

 

 

And I'm not Jared.  Nor do I know him. He's a debt settlement guy.  While it looks like his platform is different than most of them, and actually makes more sense, I think the vast majority of those companies need to have their doors closed.  They do consumers a great disservice.  They send a C&D, tell the CA that they will pay 30% as a settlement take it or leave it and get the consumer sued.  They also run off with consumers money from their trust accounts.

 

They also don't do anything that a consumer can not do for themselves.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my estimation what the JDB/CAs are doing is called 'Profiteering' and should be regulated and limited by law.  Congress hasn't figured that out yet.  You are buying debt at 10% of value then adding your fees and interest to the total debt and crying 'foul' when someone stands up to you and says, NO MORE!  We the debtor have to defend ourselves from the likes of your fellow dishonest parasites, I'm not including you since you claim to be such a benevolent humanitarian.  We still have to pay a portion of the debt with a 1099C.  Then have to monitor our courts/bank accounts/wages/assets or whatever when they finally have sucked the life blood from the debtor and decided to give up and sell the debt at a profit to another JDB/CA so the process can start all over again.  I can't believe that you would question a DV  or C&D in such a flippant manner, every day we read about another scam going around targeting seniors and the general public with fraudulent claims and fictitious or non-existent documentation and expect us to roll-over, play dead and cough up our money.

Companies, all of them including whatever company you work for, are in business to make a profit. We don't add any fees or interest to an account that was not agreed to by the consumer when they borrowed the money.  In fact we don't add any "fees" at all unless the account goes to litigation.  If you have a problem with having to pay taxes on savings from a settlement, that has nothing to do with the ARM industry.  Your beef there is with the IRS. I'm questioning sending these documents (especially a C&D) because it hurts the consumer, not helps them.  They are WAY more likely to get sued by doing so.  That doesn't help their situation.

 

The CAs and JDBs that are partaking in the practices you mention will not survive much longer.  The CFPB, in conjunction with State AGs and the FTC are going after them with a vengeance right now.  I for one am glad of that.  They have no business in my industry.  Current estimates are that over half of the collection agencies that exist today will be out of business within a year due to changes coming down the pipeline.  The ones who continue to cut corners and do it wrong will be the first to go.  Others, who can not afford to update their technology to remain compliant with new regulations and guidelines will be right behind them.

 

But collections isn't going anywhere.  It's a "necessary evil" for lack of a better term.  People fail to realize that the credit card you have with an interest rate of 9.99% would be significantly higher if it wasn't for this industry.  They fail to realize that part of our stagnant economy is due to many many lenders tightening up their guidelines and not lending to people with less than perfect credit.  We are a credit based economy and if the banks will not lend because they will have no recourse to collect, the economy will go in the crapper very quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal information is out there, it is available to any off shore customer service rep or any $10/hr student, former resident of the state and is being sold by my credit card issuer to data banks and anyone who will pay the fee.  You have to protect yourself from identity theft, fraud, the internet scammers, people pretending to be your grandson who is in jail or exiled Nigerian diplomats with millions.  The internet has become a haven for anyone who has larceny as a motive and some who don't.   I  don't trust anyone.  I worked for a large government agency in computer security in my former position and know first hand how much data is available and how easy it is to get.  I'm retired now and have divested myself of all the necessary trappings that Madison Ave said I needed.    So you are going to have to put up or shut up with the threats.  Don't expect me to believe you are on the up and up with just a phone call or doctored letter claiming I owe you X amount of dollars, I don't believe anyone.  I also could care less whether you think I am a deadbeat and have no scruples about avoiding my responsibilities, that's your opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were specifically talking about one of those mortgages that you are referencing, I would agree that you have a point.  However if you ran up a credit card debt that you know you owe, you are simply justifying your actions, or lack thereof.

 

In other words, a bank will robosign affidavits for foreclosure proceedings but not for credit card collection lawsuits?  

 

 

I'm not saying that at all.  If you have a legitimate concern that the balance they claim is owed is incorrect, then by all means, dispute the debt.  That's not what is being advised here though.

 

It's not always about the amount being claimed.   Last year, a poster reported that in response to his DV request to a JDB, the JDB provided the name of the original creditor.  However, the name provided as the original creditor was the name of the previous JDB.

 

It is not uncommon for a consumer to request validation, receive no response, and for the CA/JDB to continue collection efforts either through letters, phone calls, or credit reporting.   An FDCPA violation has been known to result in an amicable resolution along the lines of "we won't sue you, if you don't sue us."

 

 

I have been involved in debt buying for years and the information we purchase is NOT wrong.

 

 

Chase, BofA, and other major banks are under investigation by the OCC for their debt collection practices in regard to credit card debt including their provisions of shoddy documentation. The California AG has filed suit against Chase.

 

 

We do background and drug testing and will not hire a convicted felon.  I've seen shops like the ones you mention.  They should be shut down permanently.  My average employee has 12 years in the business. Over on third of them have college degrees.None of them have criminal convictions for anything worse than a DUI.

 

And, of course, you also make sure that every employee who signs an affidavit has read every word and each statement is the absolute truth.  Not one employee would ever sign an affidavit without reading it or without actually having reviewed all of the records pertaining to the account. 

 

 

 

 

 You do NOT have the right to only work with the OC.  In fact, once they sell the debt, they have absolutely no rights to it and can not negotiate on the debt with you.  They have zero legal standing at that point.

 

 

Where did anyone claim otherwise?  We continually inform consumers that an OC no longer has anything to do with an account once it's been sold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you trying to follow along, please note that in Jared_Straus's last post on 7/11 (supposedly from OK), he said he'd be back in a couple of days.  Then on 7/12,  Professional Collector pops up (from CO) singing essentially the same tune, but claiming not to know Jared.  Their IP addresses are diifferent, and their profiles show different emails...but they do seem to know the same lyrics.

 

Must be just a coincidence, huh?

 

Why would a CA turned debt fixer pose as a  CA to repudiate exercising a debtors rights under the law?  Which business model are "they" trying to bolster?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you trying to follow along, please note that in Jared_Straus's last post on 7/11 (supposedly from OK), he said he'd be back in a couple of days.  Then on 7/12,  Professional Collector pops up (from CO) singing essentially the same tune, but claiming not to know Jared.  Their IP addresses are diifferent, and their profiles show different emails...but they do seem to know the same lyrics.

 

Must be just a coincidence, huh?

 

Why would a CA turned debt fixer pose as a  CA to repudiate exercising a debtors rights under the law?  Which business model are "they" trying to bolster?

 

Must also  be a coincidence that both posters write the same very wordy replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  You seriously could not be more wrong about the collections industry or the people that work in it.  Where do you get your 99% figures other than out of thin air?  Do you have personal experience working in the industry?  Do you have statistics from ARM or the ACA that support any of your assumptions?

 

Statistics from your trade association? Are you serious?  Try this instead:

 

A New York Times story compared the recent spate of debt collection "robo-lawsuits" with the "robo-signing" mess in the mortgage industry and quoted Brooklyn Civil Court Judge Noach Dear as saying, "Roughly 90% of the credit card lawsuits are flawed and can't prove the person owes the debt." Dear says he sees as many as 100 of these cases a day.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been involved in debt buying for years and the information we purchase is NOT wrong.  They are based directly off of the charge off statement of that the consumer received as well. In fact there are cross-indemnification clauses in these contracts to protect both parties as well as warranties and measures for recourse..

 

http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-buying-topics/debt-buying/big-banks-facing-investigation-over-debt-collection-account-information-reuters/

 

You're the only bottom feeder who doesn't purchase wrong information; is that what you're saying?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maryland's appeals court declares reform is necessary for debt collectors in that state:

 

The chief judge of Maryland's District Court, where almost all these cases are filed, believes reform is urgently needed. Judge Ben C. Clyburn said small-claims courts sign off on more than 200,000 judgments in contract cases each year. Probably two-thirds, he said, are debt-collection matters.

Clyburn said some debt-buying companies have treated the courts as an extension of their collections offices, counting on the fact that unsophisticated consumers won't stand up for themselves and judges — hearing no defense — will sign off on claims without realizing they're deficient.

"They're just playing the odds," Clyburn said. When Marylanders do contest the lawsuits, he said, "generally these debt collectors have dismissed the cases because they know if they go to trial, then they can't provide the necessary evidence of their claim."

When debt buyers purchase defaulted accounts from credit-card firms and other creditors, they pay a cut-rate price for what usually amounts to "only minimal information regarding each debt and debtor," the Maryland Court of Appeals' rules committee concluded.

They then swear in affidavits that the information is accurate, though they frequently don't pay to acquire documents — such as signed agreements or a list of purchases — to verify the details in the databases they have purchased, the attorney general's office said

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal information is out there, it is available to any off shore customer service rep or any $10/hr student, former resident of the state and is being sold by my credit card issuer to data banks and anyone who will pay the fee.  You have to protect yourself from identity theft, fraud, the internet scammers, people pretending to be your grandson who is in jail or exiled Nigerian diplomats with millions.  The internet has become a haven for anyone who has larceny as a motive and some who don't.   I  don't trust anyone.  I worked for a large government agency in computer security in my former position and know first hand how much data is available and how easy it is to get.  I'm retired now and have divested myself of all the necessary trappings that Madison Ave said I needed.    So you are going to have to put up or shut up with the threats.  Don't expect me to believe you are on the up and up with just a phone call or doctored letter claiming I owe you X amount of dollars, I don't believe anyone.  I also could care less whether you think I am a deadbeat and have no scruples about avoiding my responsibilities, that's your opinion.

I never called you anything of the sort.  Or even insinuated it.  And you know well and good if you owe a debt or not.  And a simple call to the OC can verify who is handling the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, a bank will robosign affidavits for foreclosure proceedings but not for credit card collection lawsuits?  

 

I'm sure some of them have.  However we include the chargeoff statement and original application when we file suit. 

 

It's not always about the amount being claimed.   Last year, a poster reported that in response to his DV request to a JDB, the JDB provided the name of the original creditor.  However, the name provided as the original creditor was the name of the previous JDB.

 

I'm sure that happens occasionally, but anecdotal evidence about on case is not the same thing as it being a widespread problem.

 

It is not uncommon for a consumer to request validation, receive no response, and for the CA/JDB to continue collection efforts either through letters, phone calls, or credit reporting.   An FDCPA violation has been known to result in an amicable resolution along the lines of "we won't sue you, if you don't sue us."

 

If they violate the law, you SHOULD take them to task.  You won't get any argument out of me on that score.

 

 

 

Chase, BofA, and other major banks are under investigation by the OCC for their debt collection practices in regard to credit card debt including their provisions of shoddy documentation. The California AG has filed suit against Chase.

 

And hasn't won that case yet.  There has been no law passed regarding what documentation has to accompany an account.  I for one, would be happy if that changed.  It's hard to file suit against someone for doing something that at this point is not against the law though.  However, beign the AG, they can pretty much do what they want to do.

 

And, of course, you also make sure that every employee who signs an affidavit has read every word and each statement is the absolute truth.  Not one employee would ever sign an affidavit without reading it or without actually having reviewed all of the records pertaining to the account. 

 

My employees do not sign anything.  The only individuals in my organization that are allowed to sign anything, including a settlement letter, are my Attorneys, and they do read every word before they do so.  The license to practice law depends on that.  Sometimes it's actually frustrating when I can't get them to put a rush on a request for exactly this reason, but being correct is better than being fast.

 

 

Where did anyone claim otherwise?  We continually inform consumers that an OC no longer has anything to do with an account once it's been sold.

 

There are posts in this thread stating not to speak with a CA, and only the OC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you trying to follow along, please note that in Jared_Straus's last post on 7/11 (supposedly from OK), he said he'd be back in a couple of days.  Then on 7/12,  Professional Collector pops up (from CO) singing essentially the same tune, but claiming not to know Jared.  Their IP addresses are diifferent, and their profiles show different emails...but they do seem to know the same lyrics.

 

Must be just a coincidence, huh?

 

Why would a CA turned debt fixer pose as a  CA to repudiate exercising a debtors rights under the law?  Which business model are "they" trying to bolster?

You can believe what you want to believe.  You're misinformed about many things reading your posts in this thread.  This is just one more.  No biggie.  I'm not here to change your mind.  I came here simply to offer a view form the other side of the aisle.  You can take it or leave it as you see fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More about the collection industry:

 

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/u-s-vows-to-battle-abusive-debt-collectors/

 

 

Another NY Times article stating NY state judges denounced  abusive debt collection practices, including charging excessive interest.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/nyregion/08debt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

 

WSJ article about the "death collectors."

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204224604577030043890121710.html?mod=ITP_pageone_0#project%3DWSJPDF%26s%3Ddocid%253D111202221758-780b14d090c24cc9bfa62a98145f5607%257Cfile%253Ddd_trainingmanual1202%26articleTabs%3Darticle

 

A Fox Business report about debt collectors:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/11/14/debtors-to-collectors-show-proof-debt-is-really-owed/

 

Debt collection abuse in Chicago

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-06-08/news/0806080066_1_debt-collectors-court-papers-pushing

 

CNN report on debt collection:http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/06/pf/debt-collection/index.html

 

And this is from just about an hour's worth of Internet research.

again, anecdotal incidents of getting the wrong person.  You seem to actually think this is something other than a tiny percentage of lawsuits.  It isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow.  You seriously could not be more wrong about the collections industry or the people that work in it.  Where do you get your 99% figures other than out of thin air?  Do you have personal experience working in the industry?  Do you have statistics from ARM or the ACA that support any of your assumptions?

 

Statistics from your trade association? Are you serious?  Try this instead:

 

A New York Times story compared the recent spate of debt collection "robo-lawsuits" with the "robo-signing" mess in the mortgage industry and quoted Brooklyn Civil Court Judge Noach Dear as saying, "Roughly 90% of the credit card lawsuits are flawed and can't prove the person owes the debt." Dear says he sees as many as 100 of these cases a day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One person's opinion.  I'm sure you have heard of activist judges before.  I would like to see what proof he has to back up such a ludicrous statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lack of Proof in Debt Buyer Cases, Article from Journal of Business and Technology Law

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1875727

Again, we provide validation in discovery.  We don't sue on just an affidavit.  Are their outfits that do?  Yes, and hopefully they will called to task for it.  Aside from it being the right way to handle the situation, it will eliminate a lot of the competition out there. :)

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