# Ah, the joys of bill collectors (long) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 4, 2002, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441 "2002-12-04T15:10:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/121 "2002-12-16T18:19:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > **And why do these scenarios relieve the debtor of their obligation to pay the bill?** If you would go back and read my previous posts, you would see that i have **never even once** said that the debtors do not have an obligation to pay their bill. I have, in fact, stipulated on numerous occasions that they do indeed owe the money and that the creditor has every right to seek restitution. You are very conveniently clouding the key issue here, which is your **attitude** to debtors. The point i was trying to make, which you seem wilfully to have overlooked, is that the almost infinite number of possible circumstances that might apply to debtors means that your generalizations are absurd and meaningless. > [@](#): > > **I never said they were out to screw creditor companies.** Maybe you didn’t use those words exactly, but from your attitude to debtors i think it’s reasonable to infer that you attribute to them some sort of malice or nefarious intent in their financial dealings. > [@](#): > > **I haven’t worked in collections in a long time. I think you are mis-interpreting the importance I place on this issue. I felt like venting a little steam (ok, maybe a lot) at scumbag debtors.** If you were just venting at scumbag debtors that would be fine. If, for example, you told a tale of a particular debtor who had screwed you by being a scumbag, i would have no problem and would more than likely sympathize with your situation. But you are not simply ranting at particular scumbag debtors, or even a specific group of scumbag debtors; you are making sweeping statements regarding debtors about whom you know very little in terms of their personal circumstances. > [@](#): > > \*\*I believe that **lezlers** has…It seems to me that she takes great issue with collectors insisting that the balance in full be paid. > \*\* Well, it seems to me that **lezlers** had a problem with your attitude to debtors rather than the issue of whether or not credit companies had a right to demand payment in full. When she asked “How the fuck is someone supposed to pay back money they physically don’t have?” i think that was a fairly valid practical question. It was not questioning the collector’s right to ask for the money, only pointing out that you can ask all you want, but if the person doesn’t have it, then they don’t have it. > [@](#): > > You’re right about the credit report being only a partial picture of what’s going on. But, it’s all the collector has. I know it’s all the collector has, and i never said that i expected the collector to know everything about every debtor. But, now that you’ve admitted that it’s “all the collector has,” why is it so hard to believe that many hundreds or thousands of the debtors that you spoke to in your job might have fallen into financial difficulty due to circumstances beyond their control? Circumstances that would not show up in a credit report. And even in cases where the circumstances were not beyond their control, why is it so hard for you to admit simply that they showed poor judgement, rather than labelling them scumbags. > [@](#): > > **You admit to being stupid. You spent money you didn’t have. You acted like a scumbag. You help prove my hypothesis.** And here we have the crux of the matter. You equate falling into debt through errors in judgement or through failing to anticipate long-term problems on one hand, with being a scumbag on the other. Well, that’s a moral position that you have every right to take, but don’t act so surprised that some other people find it shallow, unreflective, intolerant, and indicative of stunted intellectual ability. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/122 "2002-12-16T18:27:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > You admit to being stupid. You spent money you didn’t have. You acted like a scumbag. You help prove my hypothesis. Truly frightening in its moronic simplicity. Understand, **Debaser** , that I’m not saying there are people out there who willfully and knowingly cheat the system. I agree that these people are scumbags. But your attitude, your willingness to lump all debtors into a single category, is chilling in its oversimplification. There is more to heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/123 "2002-12-16T20:51:10Z")
Well, I guess we would need to define what a “scumbag” is to continue the debate. It seems that everyone agrees that one who deliberately runs up a debt without intending to pay is a scumbag. I agree. The rest of you seem to agree. Anther category would be people who are innocently caught up in a situation that is entirely not the fault of their own. This would include victems of identity theft, people with no contact information on the account (they dont’ know about the debt), and people with sudden medical emergencies. I agree that these people are not a scumbag. I am sure the rest of you feel the same way. Where we seem to part paths is on the people in the middle. (The vast majority of people, IMO). These debtors have some story, such as **lezlers** that justifies the non payed debt. These cases are people who didn’t intentionally not pay. (This would be the definition of scumbag to many here, it seems). But their own careless actions causes the situation to happen. (My definition of scumbag). This really is an issue of personal responisbility. **lezlers** coult have not foolishly paid her boyfriends bills. She could have cancelled her cards as soon as she started falling behind. She could have found another job before quitting hers. She didn’t have bad intentions, but her situation was mainly her own doing. Nothing in her story justifies her not paying her bills for six months or declaring bankrupcy. BTW, **lezlers** , I have not enjoyed using your personal story as ammo for my arguments. I asked for it back on page two of the thread with nothing but good intentions. However, after you confronted me directly on not responding to it, I felt I had to address it. All along, I have felt it’s a good argument for my side, but was reluctant to attack it at first. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/124 "2002-12-16T21:11:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > It seems that everyone agrees that one who deliberately runs up a debt without intending to pay is a scumbag. I agree. The rest of you seem to agree … > > Where we seem to part paths is on the people in the middle. (The vast majority of people, IMO). These debtors have some story, such as **lezlers** that justifies the non payed debt. These cases are people who didn’t intentionally not pay. (This would be the definition of scumbag to many here, it seems). But their own careless actions causes the situation to happen. (My definition of scumbag). I think you need to work on your definitions a little. You’ve got three wildly varying scenarios here, and you label the person in each “scumbag.” I would also dispute your assertion that “many here” agree with you on your “scumbag” comment for those in scenario #2 ( **lezlers** ’ situation). Seems to me most here are _disagreeing_ with your characterization of her (and others in that situation) as “scumbags.” ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/125 "2002-12-16T21:44:55Z")
Sorry to be unclear, but yes, of couse that was what I am saying. I meant the phrase “intentionally not pay” to equate “scumbag” for many posters. Let me clarify my three types: **Type 1:** Deliberately runs up debt w/o intention to pay. I and most others agree this one is a scumbag. **Type 2:** People in situations outside of their control. This would include victems of identity theft, people with no contact information on the account (they dont’ know about the debt), and people with sudden medical emergencies. I and most others seem to agree that this person is _not_ a scumbag. **Type 3:** These debtors have some story, such as lezlers that justifies the non payed debt. These cases are people who didn’t intentionally not pay. But their own careless actions causes the situation to happen. Most debtors fall into this category. Because they didn’t have bad intentions going in, most posters seem to think that they are not scumbags and collectors are jerks for hassling them. I believe that because they are at fault for the situation that they are in that they can be classified as scumbags. Both of us are correct, it’s just that we have differen’t criteria as to what constitutes a “scumbag”. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/126 "2002-12-16T22:01:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > Because they didn’t have bad intentions going in, most posters seem to think that they are not scumbags and collectors are jerks for hassling them. I believe that because they are at fault for the situation that they are in that they can be classified as scumbags. Both of us are correct, it’s just that we have differen’t criteria as to what constitutes a “scumbag”. Many people find themselves responsible for a situation that was not of their making. In those cases, those of us who have reached adult status will accept the responsibility with as much grace as possible and fulfill “their” obligations as best they can. That’s not a “scumbag,” that’s a grownup. And that’s exactly what **lezlers** did, if you’ll notice. Semi-related matter: My wife found herself in much the same situation as **lezlers** – her first husband used her credit cards without her knowledge as their divorce was being finalized. She found out about thousands of dollars in debt at almost the same time her divorce was complete. She had no legal recourse against her ex, so she began paying on the bills. Six years later, we’re STILL trying to pay off one of the cards. Now, the accounts in question never went into collections, but they could have done so easily. So who’s the scumbag – my wife, for accepting her responsibility in the matter (after all, they _were_ her cards) and doing her best to pay the bills, or the guy who ran up the bills in the first place? I’m not saying a bill collector is a jerk for attempting to collect a debt (whether or not that debt is valid). I’m saying a bill collector can be a jerk in the method(s) they use. As further proof, I will remind you that I’ve dealt with three bill collectors over this stupid AT&T matter of mine. Two of the bill collectors, while aggressive, weren’t jerks – they were attempting to do a job, and I was able to deal with them as humans. Investigator Coleman was the only one of the three that riled me to the point of investigating the law in these matters and finding several instances of his violating said law. He certainly qualifies as a “scumbag” in my opinion. And yet you do not see me saying “All bill collectors are scumbags.” ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/127 "2002-12-16T22:02:17Z")
I can’t resist taking some more shots at **lezlers**. You really are a fucking whining idiot. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lezlers \* > Wow, so being stupid and naaive makes one a scumbag? That must mean that most teenaged girls are scumbags. Victims of con-artists are scumbags. If teenage girls rack up credit card debt that they cannot pay off they yes, they are scumbags. Even if the reason they do so is naivete rather than ill-intentions. > [@](#): > > Fuck you and the holier-than-thou horse you rode in on. > > I’m praying very hard for your financial demise. Apparently, so are a lot of other people on this thread. I think you are the one who’s morals need examining far more than myself. I have not wished injury upon you simply because you disagree with my definition of ‘scumbag’. > [@](#): > > Oh, and by the way. When boyfriend was purchasing stuff on card, he was employed. So was I. The balances climbed BEFORE he lost his job, you idiot. Work on your reading comprehension So, you were spending more than you could afford well before you quit your job. Well, that sure absolves you of any responsablity for your situation. :rolleyes: So, lets recap: You were spending more than you had when you did work. You had a thief for a boyfriend. After he was fired you paid for his bills, racking up even more debt that you couldn’t pay. You quit your job w/o having another one lined up. Nothing is your fault, or your responsiblility. You are a scumbag. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/128 "2002-12-16T22:07:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sauron \* > So who’s the scumbag – my wife, for accepting her responsibility in the matter (after all, they _were_ her cards) and doing her best to pay the bills, or the guy who ran up the bills in the first place? The guy running up the bills of course. Your wife would fall into my category #2. I would try to help her if I were still a collector and her account came to my desk. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying a bill collector is a jerk for attempting to collect a debt (whether or not that debt is valid). I’m saying a bill collector can be a jerk in the method(s) they use. Yep, they sure can. Just like Mr. Coleman was a jerk. I chastised him back on page one. I don’t think all collectors are perfect. > [@](#): > > And yet you do not see me saying “All bill collectors are scumbags.” You talked to three collectors, of which two were nice. I have talked to tens of thousands of debtors. _Most_ of them in my experience are scumbags. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/129 "2002-12-16T22:18:20Z")
Just curious – why is **lezlers** a scumbag, and yet my wife is not? (If anyone ever tells my wife I posed this question, I will hurt you.) ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/130 "2002-12-16T22:21:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*Nearby messages are legal. If you suggested a law making them illegal I would probably be all for it. But, as long as it’s allowed, it is only reasonable to expect the collectors to take advantage of it. Lets not forget: It’s the debtors who owe the money to the collectors. They deserve to be inconvenienced and embarrassed. \*\* NO, they are not legal. > [@](#): > > _from the fair debt collection practices act_ > (b) COMMUNICATION WITH THIRD PARTIES. Except as provided in section 804, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, **a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt,** with any person other than a consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector. I once had a collection agency fined for doing this very thing. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/131 "2002-12-16T22:26:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\* > Also, most people don’t know that they are helping a collector. I usually phrased it in such a way that they thought I was an old friend of the debtor. \*\* This also is not legal. > [@](#): > > 1. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e] > > A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: > . > . > . > > (10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/132 "2002-12-16T22:33:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*I can’t resist taking some more shots at **lezlers**. You really are a fucking whining idiot. \*\* Hey thanks! This should be fun, since you keep adding bits to my story that aren’t there, and that are blantent lies, which I’ll tell you about. > [@](#): > > I think you are the one who’s morals need examining far more than myself. I have not wished injury upon you simply because you disagree with my definition of ‘scumbag’. No, I wished injury on you because you’ve been calling me a scumbag throughout most of this thread. > [@](#): > > So, you were spending more than you could afford well before you quit your job. Well, that sure absolves you of any responsablity for your situation. :rolleyes: Actually no. If you’d read my story again you’d see that I could afford everything I was spending pre-boyfriend firing. I never spent beyond my means. When half of your combined income disappears, it’s quite easy to find yourself unable to pay many of your bills, since the money that would be going towards said bills is now going towards the half of rent and food that the person earning the other half of the income usually provided. And for the billionth time, **I never said I was absolved of any responsibility, I’m merely taking offense to being called a scumbag.** Idiot. > [@](#): > > So, lets recap: > > You were spending more than you had when you did work. Um, no. Read above. Lord, what color is the sky in your world? > [@](#): > > You had a thief for a boyfriend. I’ll give you that one. Nice to see that in your judgemental universe, you make it sound like that’s my fault, like I met him in prison or some shit, even though I was unaware, and once I became aware of his true nature **I left him** > [@](#): > > After he was fired you paid for his bills, racking up even more debt that you couldn’t pay. How is rent and food more debt? Are you suggesting I starve? You make it seem like I was going on shopping binges every day or something. :rolleyes: His “debt” (rent, food, electricity, phone) was my debt since it was my home as well, Einstein. > [@](#): > > You quit your job w/o having another one lined up. Lord have mercy. **I HAD ANOTHER JOB BEFORE I QUIT MINE YOU FUCKING IDIOT! READ THE STORY AGAIN!** I have **never** quit a job without having another one. See, i’m _responsible_ like that. > [@](#): > > Nothing is your fault, or your responsiblility. > > You are a scumbag. \*\* When did I ever say nothing was my responsibility? I paid back every cent I owed. Plus some that I didn’t (that he did). I owned up to my responsibilites, becoming homeless for a period of time in the process because it was the only way I could get out of the situation. How am I a scumbag again? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/133 "2002-12-16T23:49:20Z")
To **bdgr** : I have a copy of the FDCPA on my computer, and i looked up these sections. They seem to me to be rather ambiguous regarding the issue of nearby messages. It seems to me, looking at Section 804, that the nearby message is legal as long as you only do it once and as long as you don’t let the person being called know that the person you are after is a debtor. What is perhaps more ambiguous is what exactly constitutes “Acquisition of location Information,” and it is here that i am starting to agree with you, and to see **Debaser** as an even bigger piece of shit than i previously thought. The act states, as **bdgr** points out, that you cannot contact thrid parties without consent of the debtor, except as provided for in Section 804. And 804 says that debt collectors, provided that they follow certain rules, can contact persons other than the consumer “for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer.” Now, in the example given by **Debaser** , > [@](#): > > I would pull up the phone records of everyone on the street that my debtor lived on. Then you call the even or odd numbered houses (same side of street) and just plead ignorance. With a little charm, and a lot of acting dumb, you can almost always get them to take a note and leave it on the door or mailbox of the debtor. which indicates that **Debaser** already knew exactly where the debtor lived, and thus was not making contact with the third party to find the debtor’s location (as specified in the Act), but rather to use the third party as an agent (i.e. to deliver a message) for the debt collector. It may be that the Act allows such communication as **Debaser** describes, but i didn’t see any such information there. If anyone can throw more light on this issue, i’d be happy to hear it. Now, **if** the type of nearby messages we are talking about are in fact legal, then the debt collector would be correct not to let the third party know that it was a debt collector on the line. In fact, the collectors are specifically forbidden to mention that the consumer owes a debt, and are only required to identify their employer if specifically requested to do so. Now, back to the issue of **Debaser** , who wrote: > [@](#): > > Anther category would be people who are innocently caught up in a situation that is entirely not the fault of their own. This would include victems of identity theft, people with no contact information on the account (they dont’ know about the debt), and people with sudden medical emergencies. I agree that these people are not a scumbag. I am sure the rest of you feel the same way. And Sauron asked: > [@](#): > > I think you need to work on your definitions a little. You’ve got three wildly varying scenarios here, and you label the person in each “scumbag.” > … > Just curious – why is lezlers a scumbag, and yet my wife is not? Exactly. If you are so willing to call someone a scumbag for simply failing to foresee that they may end up short of money, then why don’t some of these other people fall into your category of scumbag? You put “personal responsibility” at the top of your list; why then, in your formulation, is someone who has a “sudden medical emergency” not a scumbag? Surely, if you were being consistent, you would have to call them irresponsible for not having adequate health insurance in the first place. And what about the people “with no contact information on the account (they dont’ know about the debt)”? Surely they knew that they had contracted a debt, so it should be their responsibility to keep track of it. Similarly with **Sauron** ’s wife - under your definition of personal responsibility, she should not have let her former husband have access to her credit cards because they were in her name alone. Does this make her a scumbag, or just someone caught in an unfortunate situation which she could not reasonably have foreseen? > [@](#): > > I have talked to tens of thousands of debtors. Most of them in my experience are scumbags. Yet you continue to make this assertion wthout knowing the personal circumstances under which most of these people fell behind on their debts. Even if your evaluation of **lezlers** were correct and reasonable (and i don’t belive that to be the case), it cannot serve as a model for those “tens of thousands” of other debtors you have spoken to, because you have made it quite plain in this thread that you were not interested in people’s personal stories, and that you avoided listening to them wherever possible. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/134 "2002-12-16T23:55:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sauron \* > \*\*Just curious – why is **lezlers** a scumbag, and yet my wife is not? > > (If anyone ever tells my wife I posed this question, I will hurt you.) \*\* Hehe. Well, your wife was basically the victim of someone else. What was happening was unknown to her. There isn’t any way that she could avoid not paying those bills. **lezlers** had many “outs”. She originally said: > [@](#): > > Balances begin to climb as she stupidly lets boyfriend purchase things on said card. This was before the boyfriend lost his job. Which she now apparantly is denying. But, as I have already pointed out, her situation was her own doing. ---
**Author:** ![Jurhael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@Jurhael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurhael)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/135 "2002-12-16T23:59:41Z")
Here’s my definition of a “scumbag debtor”: Someone who HAS the money to pay what they owe, but won’t pay. Somone who does NOT have the money to pay for whatever reason, is NOT a scumbag. There’s a huge difference between literally can’t and won’t. Yea, it’s simple, but if Debaser can play it simply, then so can I. :b All the agression in the world won’t get the money if the person simply doesn’t have it. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/136 "2002-12-17T00:00:27Z")
As to the legal issues that **bdgr** brings up. There is a specific piece of legislation that allows nearby messages. I have no idea what, but it does exist. I remember having a copy of it on everyones desk. It had the year passed into law and the Act# permitting nearby messages. Also we would read the law to debtors calling about this that were angry. Most of all, though, I can only assure you that it is legal (or at least was 3-4 years ago) because both of the agencies that I worked for encouraged employees to use this tactic. Management doesn’t want to get sued, and would not telll 50 collectors to go and break the law every day. Unfortunately, I have no idea as to the specifics more than that. It’s been a while, and I don’t often really think about it. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/137 "2002-12-17T00:13:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > \*\*To **bdgr** : > > I have a copy of the FDCPA on my computer, and i looked up these sections. They seem to me to be rather ambiguous regarding the issue of nearby messages. > > It seems to me, looking at Section 804, that the nearby message is legal as long as you only do it once and as long as you don’t let the person being called know that the person you are after is a debtor. > > What is perhaps more ambiguous is what exactly constitutes “Acquisition of location Information,” and it is here that i am starting to agree with you, and to see **Debaser** as an even bigger piece of shit than i previously thought. > > The act states, as **bdgr** points out, that you cannot contact thrid parties without consent of the debtor, except as provided for in Section 804. And 804 says that debt collectors, provided that they follow certain rules, can contact persons other than the consumer “for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer.” > > Now, in the example given by **Debaser** , which indicates that **Debaser** already knew exactly where the debtor lived, and thus was not making contact with the third party to find the debtor’s location (as specified in the Act), but rather to use the third party as an agent (i.e. to deliver a message) for the debt collector. > > It may be that the Act allows such communication as **Debaser** describes, but i didn’t see any such information there. If anyone can throw more light on this issue, i’d be happy to hear it. > \*\* Exactly, if he asked how to get in touch with them, it would be legal, but since he already knew, it wasnt. In my case, I didnt call the bottomfeeder back (I do not deal with collection agencys), I just went to the FTC website and filed a complaint.(you can do it online now). That debt collector is now un-employed. For a really good drop dead letter, here is one from Ben Dovers site: [http://www.bendover.com/adiosbottomfeeder.asp](http://www.bendover.com/adiosbottomfeeder.asp) So, debaser is just another scumbag criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/138 "2002-12-17T00:18:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > > If you are so willing to call someone a scumbag for simply failing to foresee that they may end up short of money, then why don’t some of these other people fall into your category of scumbag? > > And what about the people “with no contact information on the account (they dont’ know about the debt)”? Surely they knew that they had contracted a debt, so it should be their responsibility to keep track of it. I was just trying to list exuses that have validity to them. **lezlers** tale of the evil boyfriend and mean spirited restaraunt industry seems to be whining drivel. She wasn’t unaware of what was going on. She blames everyone else for her fate, when I see no reason why she couln’t have avoided all of this if she just spent less than she did. Where does this justification end? If I am laid off am I entitled to steal the next day? > [@](#): > > Similarly with **Sauron** ’s wife - under your definition of personal responsibility, she should not have let her former husband have access to her credit cards because they were in her name alone. I will try and answer this and **Jurhael** at once… > [@](#): > > - by Jurhael\* > Here’s my definition of a “scumbag debtor”: Someone who HAS the money to pay what they owe, but won’t pay. Somone who does NOT have the money to pay for whatever reason, is NOT a scumbag. This seems to be the definition of many in this thread. Let me ask you all back: At no point are debtors scumbags unless they have the money sitting in the bank and still refuse to pay? Lets say Bob takes out 10 credit cards today with a 10,000 balance on each of them. Bob proceeds to go on a one month shopping spree and rack up $100,000 in debt. Bob’s plan to pay it off: a one dollar scratch ticket at the end of the month. Bob plan to win the lottery and use the winnings to get out of debt. But, alas, Bob doesn’t win. Now Bob simply doesn’t pay any bills. Six months later the accounts are charged off and the collectors start to call. Bob just lets the machine pick it up when they do. He doesn’t intend to pay. After all, he has no money to pay. Using your definition, Bob is not a scumbag under this scenarioo. He doesn’t have the money to pay, so he isn’t a scumbag, right? (Also, Bob really is that stupid. He didn’t have fraudulent intentions from the beginning. He thought he had a “sure thing” way to beat the scratch ticket system). Using my definition, Bob is quite the scumbag. You see, that is where the difference is. To me, a person can be a scumbag without intent. You all seem to think that bad intentions are required for a debtor to be a scumbag. Unless someone is willing to change thier definition of “scumbag” (unlikely) then I think the debate will end on this point. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/139 "2002-12-17T00:44:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*As to the legal issues that **bdgr** brings up. > > There is a specific piece of legislation that allows nearby messages. I have no idea what, but it does exist. \*\* Well, you need to tell that to the FTC, because they say there isnt and they bust people all the time for it. Maybe you were just naive and were lied to by your employer, but by your own definition…Your still a scumbag. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I remember having a copy of it on everyones desk. It had the year passed into law and the Act# permitting nearby messages. Also we would read the law to debtors calling about this that were angry. \*\* Again, according to the feds this is bullshit. I imageine that it was just the part we talked about for finding out locations. As we have already discussed, this is not valid the way you are using it. Also, you using deceptive methods to imply you are a friend of the debtor is also illegal, and also proves you are a scumbag. See my earlier site for this. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Most of all, though, I can only assure you that it is legal (or at least was 3-4 years ago) because both of the agencies that I worked for encouraged employees to use this tactic. Management doesn’t want to get sued, and would not telll 50 collectors to go and break the law every day. \*\* Collection agencys do all kinds of illegal things and count on the public to believe that its perfectly legal. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/140 "2002-12-17T02:47:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > **lezlers** tale of the evil boyfriend and mean spirited restaraunt industry seems to be whining drivel. Cute. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > She wasn’t unaware of what was going on. She blames everyone else for her fate, when I see no reason why she couln’t have avoided all of this if she just spent less than she did. Okay. **This** is what’s driving me crazy about you. What is your definition of a necessary expense and a non-necessary expense? I assure you the **only** things I was paying throughout this time (after the bf was fired) were rent, food, electricity, phone and car payment. That’s it. And sometimes the phone would have to be unpaid so I could make all of rent (it was the least important of all of them IMHO). So, how was I supposed to (as simple as you make it sound) just “spend less”? > [@](#): > > Where does this justification end? If I am laid off am I entitled to steal the next day? When did I say I stole? > [@](#): > > Lets say Bob takes out 10 credit cards today with a 10,000 balance on each of them. Bob proceeds to go on a one month shopping spree and rack up $100,000 in debt. > > Bob’s plan to pay it off: a one dollar scratch ticket at the end of the month. Bob plan to win the lottery and use the winnings to get out of debt. You keep giving this same type of hypothetical situation again and again. This is nowhere \* near\* the kind of situation I was in, or others on this thread are describing and you know it. What the fuck is your problem? Are you **trying** to miss the entire point of this debate, just so you can remain in it? > [@](#): > > But, alas, Bob doesn’t win. Now Bob simply doesn’t pay any bills. Six months later the accounts are charged off and the collectors start to call. Bob just lets the machine pick it up when they do. He doesn’t intend to pay. After all, he has no money to pay. Sigh. I can’t comprehend how you can honestly believe these two scenerios are even in the same _universe_. Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. > [@](#): > > Using my definition, Bob is quite the scumbag. Using **your** definition, anyone who makes a mistake in judgement at any point in their lives is a scumbag. > [@](#): > > You see, that is where the difference is. To me, a person can be a scumbag without intent. You all seem to think that bad intentions are required for a debtor to be a scumbag. Yeah, a lack in judgement made without bad intent is called a _ **mistake** _. I hope you never have children, because they’re going to have a hell of a time trying to please you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441.md?page=8)