Tired of Collection Agency Tactics, Debt-Ridden Consumers Sue Back

[Purveyor]

Consumers Take Bill Collectors to Court Earning the Label 'Credit Terrorists'

By DALIA FAHMY
Feb. 5, 2010

Americans with overdue debts usually face a daunting parade of punishments. First come the threatening letters. Then the relentless phone calls. And often, if debts remain unpaid, consumers end up in court, sued by collectors who hope that a favorable judgment will allow them to garnish wages or seize assets.
We'll help you avoid collection agencies demanding billions in old payments.

Fed up with what they call harassing tactics, a growing number of debtors are now suing debt collectors first. Arming themselves with consumer protection laws outlined in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or FDCPA, they go after collection agencies for a wide range of violations, such as automated phone calls, which are illegal, that give debt collectors a bad reputation.

"The decline of the economy is causing bill collectors to become more and more aggressive, and people are getting more desperate," says Steve Katz, a former debt collector who now runs a chat board called Debtorboard for aggrieved consumers. He points out that consumers who have lost their livelihoods often have little choice but to fight off debts in court.

There were 8,347 consumer lawsuits filed against collection agencies in 2009, a 55 percent increase over 2008 and double the number filed in 2007, according to the FDCPA Case Listing Service, an organization that tracks lawsuits.

Some consumers are first-time plaintiffs, who suddenly find themselves unable to pay debts and feel wronged by aggressive collectors. Others, usually with debts worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, sue repeatedly in the hope that favorable judgments will get collectors off their backs. Debt collectors sometimes refer to these consumers as "credit terrorists."

MORE...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/PersonalFinance/tired-collection-agency-tactics-indebted-consumers-retaliate/story?id=9729783

[Juche]

1. Wonderful

Educate yourself about your rights, and find out who to contact when those rights are abused. It is one of the few thing insurance companies, debt collectors, etc. really understand.

A call or email to the state attorney general can work wonders.

[leftstreet]

2. K&R

[hobbit709]

3. Here's a good site for info and stuff

http://www.budhibbs.com/

[truedelphi]

4. K & R. Makes for very interesting reading. n/t

[Lance_Boyle]

5. Look, if they break the laws in pursuing debtors that's bad, and they should be held to account.

But the responses here make it look like DU supports anyone escaping any debt obligation at any time for any (or no) reason other than "hey, screw those people who loaned me money!" If you have debts, you need to pay them. It's someone's job to remind you of that - those someones are debt collectors. Pay off your damned debts like you agreed to in the first place and you won't find them so horrific.

[truebrit71]

6. And you if can't pay off your damned debts because you lost your damned job, then what?

What happens if your damned interest rate gets jacked into the stratosphere simply because the cc companies can?

What happens if you have to go to the damned hospital and your damned insurance doesn't cover all of your damned bills?

Your compassion is overwhelming...

[Lance_Boyle]

7. Then you need to file for bankruptcy - that's what you do when you can't pay your debts.

Villifying debt collectors is fun and all, but they are only doing their jobs. People who take on debts need to repay them. If people become unable to repay their debts, they need to seek the available remedy - bankruptcy. But they should not be under the illusion that they somehow get to keep all the stuff they acquired with money they can no longer afford to repay. That's not fair to anyone.

[truebrit71]

8. Sorry but fuck that..

...and fuck your remedy...and fuck your lack of compassion...

That's not "fair"...neither is losing one's job, or having a loved need expensive medical care..

The vast majority of the people that get the calls from these scumbags are folks that have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, and yet you parrot the right-wing talking points that everyone should pay what they owe, and if they get harrassed because they can't pay it back that's just too bad..

I have had to deal with debt collectors in the past and there's not a single one of them that doesn't deserve to end up face-down in a ditch...

[Lance_Boyle]

10. So living up to agreements you've made is now 'right wing' somehow?

Fuck that noise and the entire "I deserve something for nothing" mentality that spawned it.

I want stats on your "vast majority" claim. I think you're spouting bullshit.

Bottom line - you take on debts, you've agreed to repay them. Can't do that? You give up what you got with the borrowed money. This is not rocket surgery.

[truebrit71]

12. You obviously have reading comprehension issues..

..go ahead and point our where I said "I deserve something for nothing"...

And no, having zero compassion on folks who fall on hard times IS a right-wing talking point...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

You can apologize anytime you'd like, but I highly doubt you will...

[Lance_Boyle]

16. You are advocating that people with debts should not feel obligated to repay them.

Otherwise, why the animosity towards collectors of legitimate debt?

I'll not respond to your flaming, but please do point out anything I've said here that is worthy of an apology to anyone - my argument is solely that people who take on debt should feel an obligation to repay it. You disagree, apparently. I think that makes me pretty much in agreement with the way the world works, and you pretty much a disappointed utopian. Get used to the disappointment.

[truebrit71]

21. I am? Again with the reading comprehension problem..

..nowhere have I advocated that position either...

The phrase "I think you're spouting bullshit" deserves an apology when I included a link showing that I was not, in fact, spouting bullshit.

I have never argued that people that assume debt should simply walk away from it, that is YOUR argument by suggesting filing for B/K, i AM arguing that by the time the bottom-feeding scumbags at collection agencies get called in it is fairly fucking obvious that someone has fallen on hard times and they need a but more compassion than 'too fucking bad - give me my fucking money'...

Utopian? Hardly, I'm a Liberal. Look it up. You obviously don't comprehend that concept either...

[Lance_Boyle]

26. So now it is illiberal to believe that people should satisfy their debts?

What's the next trick in your bag? To call me a pedophile for believing that what is borrowed should be repaid? How about you just call me a nazi like the other poster here did and get the godwin thing over with?

What, in plain English, do you see as the problem with holding people responsible for debts they've freely undertaken?

[truebrit71]

37. I'm still waiting for the apology...

..but judging by the tone of your other posts in this thread that seems highly unlikely as you don't make mistakes do you? You ALWAYS pay your bills, on time, you have never been behind in payments because you lost your job, or your wages got slashed, and you see no reason that people that do fall on hard times should receive any compassion whatsoever, because they shouldn't have borrowed the money in the first place, because they should have KNOWN that at some point in the future they might lose their job, or have a medical emergency that takes them over the financial cliff..

I'm sorry, but for someone that accused me of living in a utopian world, it sure seems to me that it is actually they other way around...

[Dr.Phool]

34. You're the asshole with the reading comprehension problem.

Credit Card companies jack up interest rates to 30% on customers who've never been late on a payment, but their model says that they might. And that interest rate hike, just happens to put the minimum payment beyond their means.

The insurance company decides not to pay for a procedure, that they pre-approved, in error. You not only have to pay the bill, but,you pay full price, not the "network negotiated" lower price the insurance company would have paid.

Plus, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, makes it almost impossible to shed bills, especially credit card bills, for 6 years, as they bleed you dry for more. Bankruptcy is not really an option anymore.

Then the assholes keep harassing the wrong people. I still get calls from collection agencies looking for the former owner of my house's daughter. And they moved 7 years ago. And I got a new pre-paid cell phone a couple of months ago, with a new number. It wasn't two days, they called that number looking for her.

Just doing their job? I'd like to do a job on some of them.

[glitch]

9. "all the stuff they aquired" like that surgery they had. Most bankruptcies are from medical.nt

[Lance_Boyle]

11. Obviously you cannot give back a surgery.

But you can give back a car, or a house, or a big-screen TV, a swimming pool, etc. The bottom line is that people who take on debts agree to repay their debts. If they become incapable of repaying, then the lender needs some recourse. Otherwise you just establish a system of "take what you will and fuck the guy you took it from." That's not right.

[izquierdista]

13. Doing their jobs....

Said just like a Nazi at Nuremburg.

[truebrit71]

14. No shit, right?

..

[izquierdista]

42. It's odd who uses that phrase

"Just doing my job." It's never plumbers fixing a backed up toilet, nursing home workers changing diapers, greasy mechanics, slaughter house workers covered in blood, or anyone with a truly dirty, nasty job that pays crap wages. No, it always said by writers of traffic tickets, repo men, sheriffs doing evictions, voices at the other end of the line denying health insurance coverage, who usually get better wages and benefits for keeping the unwashed away from their fascist bosses.

[Lance_Boyle]

17. I see - so now attempting to collect on a legitimate debt is, what? Genocide?

A crime against humanity?

I think your hyperbole may have gotten the best of you. I don't feel compelled to try to top it.

[laughingliberal]

39. Using illegal tactics to collect a debt is...well...illegal...nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

15. Baloney

The "contracts" get changed unilaterally, and then there's no agreement in a legal sense anymore. And "pre-agreeing" to a blank check isn't legal either. If creditors think that's ok, us debtors do not.

I say, fight back - in court, if necessary. Courts aren't so pleased with creditors' contempt for legal principles either, so debtors are treated better than you'd think.

If creditors were always right, they'd always win in court - which they DON'T.

And better than bankruptcy is stonewalling them until the Statute of Limitations runs out. You'd think that would be hard, but it isn't. Look up your state's SOL. And if sued, always defend. NEVER just let a default judgment be entered against you. Defend it yourself if need be, that way, you lose nothing by trying.

It has worked for me. Repeatedly. If you can research, you can defend yourself.

My debts are now not only "time-barred" as it's called, they're also unreportable - that takes 7 years. But time flies when you're poor.

[Lance_Boyle]

20. Courts have the authority to review contracts - yes.

I don't think we are in disagreement here. People should live up to the promises they make - whichever side of the contract they are on. If there is disagreement in interpretation of the contract between signatories, courts are empowered to resolve it. No problem there. A court should be able to tell if one party alters a contract unilaterally, as you suggest is happening, and remedy the situation.

What I see here is a bunch of people arguing that once you agree to receive a benefit in exchange for future payment, you can forego the future payment part of it as long as the other party to the contract is a big mean company. I think this attitude is fraught with danger. Not to mention immaturity, irresponsibility, and basic stupidity.

[Scout]

25. my credit cards, and my debt on them, were sold to different banks

who then changed the agreement *I* had made with the original card company ... you have no recourse except to pay off the debt instantly or accept the new terms. if you can't pay off the debt instantly (if i could, why would i have used credit?) you are basically fucked.

and when they jack your interest rate so high, you can no longer afford the monthly payment, then what?

[Lance_Boyle]

27. You agreed to allow them to change the terms at will

it's in the contract you signed.

Myself, I'd call that a bad contract, and would not agree to it. But then I'm in the habit of understanding contracts I sign, and intending to uphold them. Clearly that makes me a minority here.

[Scout]

30. i agreed to allow them to sell my loan to another institution?

where?

you are clearly "something" alright :eyes:

[Lance_Boyle]

32. Yep - read your contract. This time. n/t

[LanternWaste]

19. I perceive the responses more as...

"But the responses here make it look like DU supports anyone escaping any debt obligation..."

I perceive the responses more as treating the debt collection agencies with the same amount of fairness, equanimity and civility as they themselves treat the debtors... :shrug:

[truebrit71]

22. ..Nah..that's too straight forward...

... ;-)

[Lance_Boyle]

23. How would you suggest that debt collectors improve their

fairness, equanimity and civility (beyond assuring that their collection methods are legal)? They are out to make sure that debts are repaid. Period. It is stunningly obvious from this thread that some people here feel that their debts need never be repaid if they decide they no longer want to repay them, for whatever reason. Enforcing contracts should not a dirty business, unless you're doing business with dishonest actors. I'd classify anyone who feels that legally-contracted debts need not be repaid as a dishonest actor. Don't agree to it if you don't intend to uphold it. Is that so hard, or so wrong?

BTW - obliged for the civility lacking in the above responses. :toast:

[truebrit71]

24. ROFL!!! Now who is living in Utopia??!!

We should pity the poor scumbag, lying deceitful, harrassing debt-collectors? :shrug:

What planet are you on mate?

[Lance_Boyle]

31. Why pity them?

They are doing their jobs. They are attempting to collect on debts rightfully owed. If the debt was owed to you, would you not want it collected?

I think I dealt with the lying and harassing part when I said that their actions, so long as they are withing the bounds of the law, are a proper means toward a previously-agreed-upon end... repayment of legitimate debt.

[Scout]

33. NO ONE on this thread said that...

"It is stunningly obvious from this thread that some people here feel that their debts need never be repaid if they decide they no longer want to repay them, for whatever reason."

[Lance_Boyle]

36. People who have debt collectors after them are people who have not repaid their debts.

I figured that much was obvious. :shrug:

[laughingliberal]

43. If they are using methods that are legal the interaction is fair and civil

Any of the rest of that crap they pull is, generally, illegal.

Most people did not take on the debt with the intent of not paying it. Generally, circumstances have changed. One thing I am sure to let them know is that those who work with me will be paid before those who use the gestapo tactics on me.

[LanternWaste]

44. I have no suggestions to make the collection agencies more effective

"How would you suggest that debt collectors improve their...?"

I have no suggestions to make the collection agencies more effective. I imagine they have individuals on the payroll to do that.


"It is stunningly obvious from this thread that some people here feel that their debts need never be repaid..."

That would merely be your perception of the responses, not mine. Granted, I do allow much more room for interpretation and inference on my part, but then again, I'm not as clever as most people. To me, the only obvious inference I'm comfortable making from this particular thread is that many people are upset with the practices rather than the agendas of the collection agencies.




"I'd classify anyone who feels that legally-contracted debts need not be repaid as a dishonest actor..."

Due to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, I imagine those being classified as "dishonest actors" would be for the most part, the very institutions we're talking about.

[laughingliberal]

40. Exactly! nt

[laughingliberal]

29. Turnabout fair play. The lenders change the rules and terms at will and buy off our legislators to

pass the laws that favor them. Kind of surprising really there are any laws left under which the consumer can protect themselves.

It's only called class warfare when we fight back.

[laughingliberal]

35. "if they break the laws in pursuing debtors...they should be held to account..."

That's exactly what the article is about.

[Lance_Boyle]

38. And that is all well and good.

I agree with enforcing the law, as well as enforcing contracts. ;-)

[laughingliberal]

41. Very well and good!

I have never dealt with one collection agent in all my life who did not try some sort of illegal maneuver on me. Years ago, I was very young and I had been in the hospital and without a paycheck for a couple of weeks. A collector called and threatened me if I didn't send him the full amount that day. I knew no better so I sent the last of the money I had for a week to him. I went days without food. An older friend then told me I didn't have to do that, that what he had said was illegal. After that I learned. Now, I let them start their illegal crap and then I stop and tell them I've decided to record the call. After an acceptable pause I say, "I'm notifying you this call is recorded. Now, to recap, you have stated I must send the full amount and you will not accept a good faith payment towards the balance." I get one of 2 responses to that. 1) No, I did not say that. To which I then say, "I must have misunderstood. Explain your position again." 2) Click.

It's almost fun, now.

[DemoTex]

18. "Some consumers are first-time plaintiffs .."

And it stands to reason (in this equal-opportunity-failed-economy) that some of the harassed debtors are very savy attorneys. Collection agencies will have to follow the letter of the law, or end up being sued by pissed-off junkyard dogs.

Repomen: check six.

[laughingliberal]

28. "Debt collectors sometimes refer to these consumers as "credit terrorists.""

Hee hee. Pot meet kettle.