Section 807(11) of the FDCPA requires a debt collector to make a specific disclosure in all "communications" under the FDCPA. This disclosure is commonly known as the Mini-Miranda and requires agencies to disclose a communication is from a debt collector. In the past, it was generally a standard practice of the collection industry to omit the Mini-Miranda notice from voice mail messages left on a consumer's answering machine. Collectors feared such a disclosure left on a consumer's voice mail could constitute a violation of Section 805(b) of the FDCPA, the section of the Act that forbids disclosing the existence of a debt to a third party. Instead, a debt collector's message would generally consist of a simple request for a call back, such as, "Good day, we are calling from ABC Financia...
While the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") addressed the concerns of millions of Americans regarding their health care, the drafters failed to consider a major issue with regard to debt collection. The Act's privacy provisions create a conflict with the debt-validation requirement of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Specifically, if third parties such as debt-collection agencies are involved in the debt-collection process, patient-debtors cannot receive validation for their medical debts under the current law without sacrificing their privacy to such an agency. This Note offers several alternatives to ameliorate or eradicate the problem, thereby maximizing both patient privacy and consumer protection. Congress should address this ...
...The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U. S. C. §1692 et seq., imposes civil liabi...
Telecommunication methods have also witnessed a dramatic evolution since the 1970s. Technologies such as e-mail, voicemail, cellular telephony, texting and more were either not commonplace or not conceived at the time, and therefore the FDCPA does not address many of today's most common means of communication. The FTC recognizes this glaring deficiency in the act. Put all these changes together and it's not surprising the FTC believes the FDCPA needs considerable reform. The conclusions reached by the FTC cover the following topics: * Amending information provided in the validation notice: Debt collectors should provide better information to consumers explaining their rights under the FDCPA in the validation notice, including: (1) the name of the original creditor; (2) itemization of (a...
At the beginning of the 109th Congress, which commenced in January 2005, FDCPA reform was not on ACA's legislative priority list. Efforts in the 108th Congress, in which Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) introduced an FDCPA reform bill, H.R. 3066, at ACA's request, produced mixed results. ACA was able to generate nearly 50 bipartisan cosponsors for H.R. 3066, a bill promoting clarification and common sense reforms, many based on the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) annual reports to Congress. Flash forward nearly two years: At press time, ACA is awaiting word for the date the president will sign our long-desired FDCPA reforms into law. Past efforts to acquaint members of Congress with the third-party debt collection industry, ACA International and the FDCPA paid off when the opportunity arose...
Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from seven Federal agencies to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) as of July 21, 2011. The Bureau is in the process of republishing the regulations implementing those laws with technical and conforming changes to reflect the transfer of authority and certain other changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act. In light of the transfer of the Federal Trade Commission's (Commission's) rulemaking authority for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) to the Bureau, the Bureau is publishing for public comment an interim final rule establishing a new Regulation F (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act). This in...
Under the FDCPA, a consumer is afforded 30 days from receiving the validation notice to request verification if submitted in writing. If a consumer submits such a request, the debt collector is required to cease collection activity until proper verification is provided to the consumer. If a collector is unable to obtain proper verification, the debt collector must cease all collection activities. Sample Letters 1, 2, 5, 10 and 1 1 may be helpful when drafting letters in response to these instances, depending on the consumer's specific situation. If a collector is unable to verify the accuracy of the reported information, the collector must delete or accurately update the report. Sample Letters 6 and 1 1 may be helpful when drafting letters in response to such instances. In some cases, a...
The steps necessary for attorneys to avoid liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., (the "FDCPA") just increased, thanks to a recent Second Circuit decision in Goldman v. Cohen, 445 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2006). In Goldman, the court held that the filing of a complaint in a state court collection matter is an "initial communication" within the meaning of the FDCPA. The court rejected both of Cohen's arguments and affirmed the ruling of the district court. The court concluded that Congress never intended for debt collectors to be able to avoid the validation notice requirements of the FDCPA by choosing to litigate a matter. Until the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue or until Congress amends the FDCPA, all attorneys should take the extra step ...
Amendments to the FDCPA (3pp) Revised 1 1/15/06 2051 Disputes: Duties of Debt Collectors under the FDCPA and FCRA (5pp) Revised 3/26/09 3014 GLBA Notices and the FDCPA: Possible FDCPA Violations (3pp) Revised 12/14/09 3027
A law firm is liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for sending a letter to a debtor on behalf of a mortgage company that misrepresented the debtor's legal obligations - that the firm made a bona fide error is no defense, the U.S Supreme Court has ruled. A law firm representing a mortgage company sought to foreclose on a home. It sent a letter to the debtor that said the debt would be considered valid unless the debtor disputed the claim in writing, even though the Fair Debt Act does not require a written dispute.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
crew energy | slot machines | Leor Energy | Hour Hold | Amf Support Surfaces, Inc | Groupe socio-culturel | formulario matematica | banconote mondiali | Meillonnas
