The Debt Collection Debt Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Pub. L. 95-109; 91 Stat. 874, codified as 15 USC × 1692 -1692p, approved on September 20, 1977 (and subsequently amended) is a consumer protection amendment, establishes legal protection from ruthless debt collection practices to the Consumer Credit Protection Act, as the Title VIII of the Act. The purpose of this law is: to eliminate abusive practices in the collection of consumer debt, to promote fair debt collection, and to provide consumers with a way to dispute and obtain validation of debt information to ensure the accuracy of information. The law creates guidelines in which debt collectors can do business, define the rights of consumers involved with debt collectors, and establish penalties and remedies for violation of the Act. Sometimes used in conjunction with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Video Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
People and entities are covered by FDCPA
FDCPA broadly defines debt collectors as "anyone who uses inter-state trade medias or letters in any business whose sole purpose is any debt collection, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debt owed or falls "While the FDCPA generally only applies to third party debt collectors - not internal collectors to" original creditors "- some countries, such as California, have the same state consumer protection laws that reflect FDCPA, and arranging the original creditor. In addition, some federal courts have ruled that a debt collector is not a "creditor" but rather as a "debt collector" under the FDCPA in which debt collectors buy unsuccessful debts from the original creditor for the purpose of debt collection. Definition and coverage have changed over time. FDCPA itself contains many exceptions to the definition of "debt collectors," particularly after October 13, 2006, part of the 2006 Financial Services Rules Assistance Act. Lawyers, initially explicitly exempt from the definition of debt collectors, have been included (to the extent that they meet the definition) since 1986.
The FDCPA definition of "consumer" and "debt" specifically limits the range of actions to private, family or household transactions. Accordingly, the debt held by a business (or by an individual for a business purpose) is not subject to FDCPA.
In the case of federal taxes Smith v. United States , the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit states that the taxpayer: "... the petition for the Fair Debt Collection Act is entirely selfless, as the law expressly excludes' any US officer or employee... as far as the collection or attempts to collect the debt is in the execution of its official duties 'from the definition of' debt collector'.15 USC section 1692a (6) (C). "In 1998, however, Congress changed the Internal Revenue Code by adding a new section 6304 , "Fair Tax Collection Practices," which refers to and includes certain rules that are similar to some provisions of the Fair Debt Billing Act of Practice.
In Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. The Supreme Court excludes billing companies that buy consumer debt from FDCPA when unanimously declares that a company can collect purchased debt for its own account without triggering a "debt collector" definition under the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act.
Maps Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Prohibited behavior
The law prohibits some types of "rough and deceptive" behavior when trying to collect debts, including the following:
- Clock for phone contacts : contacting consumers by phone outside 8:00 am to 9:00 pm. local time. In addition, if certain hours are not convenient for consumers during the time allowed (those who work at night and sleep during the day) they may not be contacted during that time.
- Failure to stop communication on request : communicate with consumers in any way (other than litigation) upon receipt of a written notice that says consumers do not want further communication or deny to pay for the alleged debt, with certain exceptions, including advising that the collection effort is discontinued or that the collector intends to file a lawsuit or seek other remedies if permitted
- Causing the phone to ring or involve anyone in a repeated or continuous phone conversation : with the intention of harassing, abusing or harassing anyone in the number being called.
- Communicate with consumers at their workplace after being notified that this is unacceptable or prohibited by the employer
- Contacts consumers known to be represented by lawyers
- Communicate with the consumer after a request for validation has been made : communicate with the consumer or collection efforts made by the debt collector after receipt of a written request from the consumer for verification of the debt made within the 30-day validation period (or for the name and address of the original creditor on debt) and before the debt collector sends to the requested verification consumer or the name of the original creditor and the address
- Misrepresentation or fraud : either misrepresents debt or uses fraud to take on debt, including a statement of a debt collector that he or she is a lawyer or law enforcement officer
- Publish the consumer's name or address in the list of "bad debts"
- Search for an unjustifiable amount , which will include any quantity requests that are not permitted under the applicable contract or as governed by applicable law
- Dangerous or threatening threatening or threatening action that is not allowed or not really contemplated
- Crude or obscene language is used in debt-related communications
- Communication with third parties : discloses or discusses the nature of debt with third parties (other than husband or consumer lawyer) (Billing agencies are allowed to contact neighbors or co-workers but only for get location information, bad agents often disrupt debtors with "block party" or "office party" where they contact some neighbors or colleagues tell them that they should contact the debtor for urgent problems.)/li>
- Contact with embarrassing media , such as communicating with consumers about debt by postcard, or using any language or symbol, other than the address of debt collectors, on every envelope when communicating with consumers by mail or via telegram, except that the debt collector may use his business name if the name does not indicate that he/she is in the debt collection business
- Report false information on consumer credit reports or threaten to do so in the collection process
Requires action
The law requires debt collectors to do the following (among other requirements):
- Identify themselves and let consumers know , in each communication, that communication comes from a debt collector, and in the initial communication that any information obtained will be used to influence the collection of debt
- Provide the name and address of the original creditor (the company from which the debt was originally paid) upon a written consumer request made within 30 days of receipt §1692g notice;
- Inform consumers about their right to dispute debt (Section 809) , partly or wholly, with a debt collector. The 30 day "Ã,§1692g" notice is required to be sent by the debt collector within five days of the initial communication with the consumer, although in 2006 the definition of "initial communication" was changed to exclude "formal plea in action" for the purpose of triggering notice §1692g, complicate the issue where the debt collector is a lawyer or law firm. Consumer receipts for this notification start the clock running on a 30-day right to demand verification of debt from debt collectors.
- Provide debt verification If the consumer submits a written dispute or request for verification within 30 days of receiving the §1692g notice, then the debt collector must send the requested verification information to the customer or stop the collection effort altogether. Such a strict dispute should also be reported by the creditor to the credit bureau that reports the debt. Verification must include a minimum amount payable and the name and address of the original creditor.
- file a lawsuit in the right place If the debt collector chooses to file a lawsuit, it may be just where the consumer lives or signs the contract Note, however, that this does not prevent the debt collector from which are prosecuted elsewhere for violating the Act, such as when a consumer moves out of the premises and a letter demands payment to be forwarded to a new address, even if the debt collector is unaware of such changes at the residence.
FDCPA Enforcement
The Federal Trade Commission initially has the authority to administratively enforce the FDCPA using its powers under the Federal Trade Commission Act. However, under the overall reform of the Dodd-Frank Act 2010, the FDCPA is upheld mainly by the Consumer Finance Bureau of Consumers.
Consumers who have been plaintiffs may also file a personal suit in state or federal court to collect indemnity (attorney's fees, legal fees, and trial fees) from third party debt collectors. FDCPA is a strict accountability law, which means that consumers do not have to prove the actual damage to claim legal damages of up to $ 1,000 plus reasonable attorney fees if the debt collector is found to have violated FDCPA. However, the collector may escape punishment if it indicates that the violation (or offense) is unintentional and the result of a "bonafide error" that occurs even though the procedure is designed to avoid errors occurring.
Or, if the consumer loses a lawsuit and the court decides that the consumer filed the case in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court can then provide the attorney's fees to the debt collector.
Criticism of FDCPA
By consumer group
Some consumer groups argue that FDCPA does not go far enough, and does not provide adequate prevention against unscrupulous collection agencies. Consumer groups have complained that the maximum legal damage contained in the original 1977 version of the law does not follow inflation; $ 1,000 in 1977 dollars worth $ 4038 today.
By credit industry
In contrast, many in the credit industry and some courts have taken the position that FDCPA is often used to file indiscriminate lawsuits and seek redress for minor technical infractions and, at times, severely hampers their ability to collect legitimate debt. Given the strict nature of the FDCPA's responsibilities, the collection industry and insurance companies that provide responsibility for them have repeatedly lobbied Congress to loosen legal provisions to reduce their civil exposure to these "hyper-technical" offenses.
The receivables management industry has also raised concerns that the FDCPA contains contradictions that often lead to obligations on the part of collection agencies in civil cases, especially when dealing with technologies that do not exist when the law is written. For example, FDCPA requires a collection agency to identify itself as such in communications with consumers. At the same time, collection agencies can not disclose consumer debt to others. These two requirements are contradictory when a collector leaves a message on an answering machine or a voicemail system. If the collector identifies itself and his or her company, a third party may hear the message, resulting in a third party disclosure violation. Case law has dealt with this issue but has not solved it yet.
Regulatory Body & amp; FDCPA
For its part, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) produces an annual report to Congress on its findings with respect to FDCPA enforcement activities. This report details consumer complaints to the FTC regarding alleged violations of FDCPA debt collectors. The 2013 report shows that the FTC receives 125,136 consumer complaints about third party debt collectors in 2012, which is a decrease from 144,451 received in 2011. The FTC receives more complaints about debt collectors than about other specific industries, although the number of complaints represents a small percentage of overall amount of contact by debt collector with consumer.
The FTC has the authority to issue a formal opinion on the behavior of debt collectors under the FDCPA, but the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act transfer authority to the creation of rules to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) effective between 21 January 2011 and 21 July 2011. The FTC will retain the FDCPA enforcement authority, but the CFPB will take over the function of the FTC advisory opinion. Trust in good faith with the official opinion of the FTC is a second legal defense under FDCPA. However, the FTC rarely uses its authority to issue advisory opinions. Prior to 2000, the FTC did not issue advisory opinion on FDCPA, the FCC only issued these four opinions until 2009.
See also
- Consumer protection
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Consumer Credit Protection Act
- Debt buyers
References
External links
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Federal Trade Commission
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Congressional Research Service
- National Consumer Advocate Association
- FDCPA FTC Web page
- CFDB 2015 FDCPA report
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments