- Important: All passwords were reset on 06/15/11. Old passwords will no longer work. Click here to retrieve your password.
- Subscribe to Our Free Dewsletter
We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
A Consumer Win
When Debt Collectors are Bullies
Anyone who’s ever been hassled by debt collectors calling incessantly to collect a debt, especially one that’s not even owed, will be glad to learn that the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, a consumer protection agency, have been working together to rein in some of the worst debt buyers. In United States v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, a suit brought in the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Florida, in Tampa, the defendants have agreed to a settlement which imposes a fine of $2.5 million and a number of changes in their business practices.
Asset specializes in purchasing old consumer debts from other companies, and then holding and collecting on these debts over a long period of time. According to the complaint, as of Sept. 30, 2010, Asset held more than 34 million individual accounts with an original value of more than $42 billion, making it one of the nation’s largest debt buyers and a market leader.
The Department of Justice, according to Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, hopes that this settlement will help set the standard for appropriate behavior by other players in an industry that’s really only taken off in the last ten years. Since the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act hasn’t been updated in about three decades, it’s likely that the newly organized Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be looking at how to strengthen the law.
In the mean time, perhaps the most important part is a requirement that debt collectors notify consumers in writing of their intent to provide information to credit rating agencies, so consumers can challenge any errors at the outset, instead of discovering them when they need to take out a loan.
According to the complaint, many of the debts Asset purchased are outside of the statute of limitations and consumers have no enforceable legal obligation to pay that debt. In some states, consumers can reset the statute of limitations if they promise to pay the debt or make a partial payment on the debt. Asset is alleged to have collected on this so-called “zombie” debt without informing consumers that these debts were not legally enforceable, or that in making a partial payment or promise to pay, they may have unwittingly breathed life back into these debts.
This is an important point, but perhaps not entirely clear. What it means is that when time has run out on collecting a debt and the collector can no longer bring a suit in court, if a person makes a payment in response to a request, he can inadvertently start the clock running again. And, since the statutes of limitation vary in the different states (the limit can be anywhere from 3 to 10 years), consumers need to inform themselves. The information is quite readily available, including on this web site. In the settlement, Asset agrees not to take advantage of this restart provision and not penalize people making a good faith effort to pay their debts.
The settlement also requires other changes to Asset’s business practices that create safeguards for consumers. For example, the company must conduct a reasonable investigation into the legitimacy of a debt when it becomes aware of a consumer dispute or if the company who sold a debt to Asset provided unreliable information about the original debt. The company can no longer consider undelivered mail to constitute notice that information about a consumer is being reported to a credit reporting agency or repeatedly contact third parties in a way that violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
If $2.5 million seems like a paltry amount, I guess we have to content ourselves with the fact that it is really hard to put a company in jail. It hardly seems fair, especially on a day when we learn that Georgia is routinely putting parents in prison for failing to pay child support. 845 in the month of October alone.
- Photo licensed by LikeTheDew.com on 123RF Stock Photo.
Worthy of Comment
Also on the Dew
Will the Republicans nominate Chris Christie for president in 2016? Not if my reading of historical forces is correct. Christie’s landslide re-election victory in New Jersey should tell Republicans that they have a better chance of winning power with candidates who can reach out beyond the Republican base than with those whose extremism alienates Independents and Democrats. But Christie has run afoul of the base’s adamant insistence on “purity” in adhering to the party line. Even as he tacks to the right on issues like universal background checks for purchases of guns, the base is unlikely to forget how this New Jersey governor, with his s Read on →
Last week Americans saw heavy media coverage of the death 50 years ago of President John F. Kennedy. I couldn't help but compare the aftermath and funeral of JFK with that of Abraham Lincoln, both victims of assassins. One reason this came to mind is because I had just finished a year-long project -- reading Carl Sandburg's six volume biography of Lincoln. (Altogether, it was about 2,400 pages, and that in small type. I gave myself a year to read it, and as a reward, could read a shorter book when I finished each volume.) Sandburg's massive biography is a great read, Read on →
I looked over and the strange fact that Pamela Kheto was driving seemed perfectly normal, even though my sole contact with her in the last ten years was a brief meeting in a parking lot where she tried to recruit me for some kind of power-grab at her church. When I looked to the front I saw we were on rough terrain. I felt the bottom scraping on large boulders, finally hitting something huge that threatened to completely tie us up, the edge of a cliff actually, but our momentum carried us up and over, teetering on the edge a Read on →
Way back in 1988, I sat across from Strom Thurmond in his Capitol Hill office in Washington, D.C., and listened as he explained his opposition to federal anti-lynching laws and any other federal encroachment on states’ rights during his long career. “I felt it was dangerous to shift it all to Washington,” the then-85-year-old U.S. senator and former Dixiecrat presidential candidate from South Carolina told me. “Lynching was nothing but murder. All states had laws against murder. … I’ve never had any feelings against minorities.” Never mind that Thurmond, who died at 101 in 2003, led the Dixiecrat revolt out of the Democratic Par Read on →