I think Tomcat addressed this well. They are “innocent until proven guilty” to a certain extent.
Here it is again, ready…
Most debtors, in my experience, are scumbags.
Some of them are not. Very few, but they do exist. Sauron’s wife is an example. Since there is no way to tell who is who the safe bet is to treat them all like scum. Unless as I have already said, there is a way to tell the difference, like having no contact information on the account, or there is only one bill that is past due on an otherwise good credit report. As a collector, I would use telltale signs like this to notice a “non-scumbag” account and treat them differently.
A bankruptcy attorney or Consumer Credit Counil Rep could go the other way and assume that all the debtors are “innocent” of being scumbags. It is only reasonable to assume that a collector would not. They aren’t paid to be nice to debtors.
My last hypothetical by the way, was pretty good. If we can’t agree that hypothetical Bob is a scumbag, then we won’t ever see eye to eye with someone like lezlers. She was stupid, but not nearly as stupid as hypothetical Bob. Bob was an outragous example of stupity causing someone to be a scumbag. It couln’t be clearer to me that he was a scumbag, but still many disagree with the characterization. My critics in this thread said he wasn’t a scumbag to them, because he didn’t have the money to pay. I think this showed clearly that it’s the definition of scumbag that we will never all agree on.
I think it’s obvious to any reasonable person that if someone spends money that they can’t pay back then they are a scumbag.
You’re requirements of a scumbag is someone who has the money to pay, but does not.
But, since we won’t ever reach agreement on this point, I think we are at an impasse. Of course, I am right, and you are wrong.
**
I didnt sue, I let the FTC take care the scumbags
**
Well, if the collector called specifically to talk to the secretary, its illegal. If the collector called to talk to the debtor, and the secretary answers, I would imagine that would be legal. In your case, you are calling specifically to talk to a third party, knowing that the debtor doesnt live there. So your a scumbag criminal
Yep, you probably wouldnt be convicted, that just proves your a tricky criminal, but the intent was there to mislead, and if youadmited to that in court you would be convicted, so again, your a scumbag.
This is the essence of my disagreement with you. I was raised to always give a person the benefit of the doubt until you know otherwise. As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, it’s possible a person can get into a problematic credit situation through a simple error in judgement. That doesn’t make them scum; it makes them human.
As I said earlier, Bob isn’t a scumbag until he intentionally avoids his responsibility. You seem to feel he’s a scumbag the moment he comes up with his plan, flawed though it may be. That’s the rub.
If you wanted to intentionally call the secretary to say, get the address of the place of employement to send a letter there for the debtor, where is the law being broken?
It’s good that you have an imagination. Having an active fantasy life is healthy. But, WTF does you imagining legalities have to do with anything? You are just making stuff up now.
How about skiptracing, jackass?
Quick explination for the folks: Skiptracing basically means “looking for debtors”. But, most commonly it is the practice of creditors calling other creditors to get information on a debtor. If a collector sees a charged off American Express Card on the credit report they call up AmEx and see if they have a newer phone number or address of the debtor to attempt to contact them.
According you your home-grown legal advice here every major company in America that skiptraces is breaking the law every day. They are calling a third party with no attempt to contact the debtor. The skiptrace departments at companies like American Express, Fleet, Chase Manhattan, and Sears are all filled with full time employees devoted to breaking the law. :rolleyes:
You just don’t have any idea what the fuck you are talking about.
My intent is not to mislead. When leaving a nearby message my intent is to get the debtor to call. I don’t care what the neighbor thinks. I would be breaking the law by saying I am a collector. I would be breaking the law by saying I am an old friend. I would just be overly polite and say neither, and let them think whatever they want.
On this we disagree. Making errors in judgement that results in having thousands of dollars in credit card debt that goes unpaid for six months straight is the behavior of a scumbag.
I will concede that if someone intentionally engages in behavior that results in having thousands of dollars in credit card debt that goes unpaid for six months straight is the behavior of an even greater scumbag.
But, the fact that the first group of people get in these situations as a result of errors in judgment does not get them off the hook with me.
In my scenario, Bob never avoids responsiblility intentionally. He is unresponsible as a result of stupidity. The scenario ends with Bob not having the money to pay. He would pay if he could, but he has no money.
We are talking in circles now, the impasse we are at is clear. I am content to agree to disagree with you on what exactly a scumbag is.
No, you’ve completely (and once again) missed the point that bdgr was making. His/her post was specifically in relation to calls that you admitted making to third parties for the simple purpose of passing on a message to the debtor. You admitted knowing where said debtor was living and what his or her phone number was; the only purpose of your “nearby messages,” as far as i can tell, was to have someone else do your legwork for you because the debtor was either not home or would not take your calls.
This is totally different to skiptracing which, as you say in your post, involves attempting to get “a newer phone number or address of the debtor to attempt to contact them.” In your case, you already knew where the debtor was so finding his/her location was not an issue. If i can refer you back to the post you made on the first page of this thread:
This implies that you know exactly where the debtor is, and are just trying to get around the fact that s/he doesn’t want to speak to you.
You criticized bdgr for giving “home-grown legal advice,” but you have yet to show us how and where the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act allows the sort of techniques that you used as a debt collector. If you want to take a stab at it, here is the text of the Act.
**
You have been shown a cite already as to what the law says. If you are too dense to understand it, why should I post it again. If you are calling to get an address, for someone you ligitimately dont know that address for, that is allowed. If it is to intimidate the person, as you so aragantly bragged about nearby messages, it is not allowed.
**
Its a figure of speach. It means that as far as I can tell, that is what the law says. IANAL, but it seems pretty obvious to me and every other thinking person here who has read the act.
**
No, jackass, as I said before, and as the law says, you can contact a thrid party to get an address. Put away that strawman, its not fooling anyone.
**
Maybe, but I know a hell of a lot more than you, have shown it with legitimate cites, and I didnt even do this for a living.
You see, when you post something like this on a message board, we can scroll back and see what you posted…Like This
**
In this case, you were calling someone not to get information on their address, but to get them to deliver a message. That is illegal. Then, you deliberately phrasing it in such a way as to make it sound like you were a friend of the debtor, that is also illegal, because it is deceptive. You could, if you really needed that address, and had a legitimate need to contact a third party, just keep a professional tone, and only give the name of your company if asked. that would satisfy the law, but you didnt, so your a scumbag.
**
See here, you admit to crimianl intent, saying that you fully intend to harass the debtor with the number you got. Harrasement is illegal. So your a scumbag.
Your just digging yourself deeper in a hole here, debasser, you have shown your callousness to other peoples misfortune, your ignorance of the law, your lack of empathy and morality, and your crimial nature. I think maybe you should start looking at what ever childhood traumas might have brought you to this sad state of being. Its never too late to mend your ways, and become a productive, caring member of society. Someone, who actually benifits those around them and society as a whole. I understand your frustration. I am quite sure, given your personallity here, that people you know personally dodge your calls, so when those you were paid to call do it, you take out all that anger on them, instead of looking inward at why nobody wants to talk to poor debasser.
The quote of mine that you just posted addresses this! Do you not even read my posts when you are quoting them?
You say:
When in fact I specifically state that the collector can not have a good phone number for the debtor to attmempt a nearby. And, it’s not way back on page one or anything, it’s right there in the quote you just took from me!
Take another look:
I want a retraction on this.
Also, skiptracing would be just as illegal as neaby messages using the logic that bdgr said. You are contacting a third party, without intentions of speaking to the debtor. That was his/her criteria.
NO, it wouldnt, because you are trying to find out where they live. That is legal. Calling just to leave messages with the nieghbor so that the debtor will think you are destroying their reputation is not legal. by your own admission, that is what you were trying to do.
I’ll consider a retraction if you can explain to me how it is possible that the debt collector would be able to know not only the addresses, but also the phone numbers, of “everyone on the street that my debtor lived on” (your words, not mine), without knowing the address and/or phone number of the debtor.
You’ve already admitted that you know which street the debtor lives on. Surely, with all the skip-tracing technology that collection companies are allowed to use, you could get the debtors address and phone number?
And, even if the only information that you had was the name of the street, i still see nothing in the Act (which you still don’t seem to have bothered to read) that allows you to use the debtor’s neighbours as your own personal messaging service.
All you would be able to do, if i have read the Act correctly, is call a neighbour or neighbours and ask: Do you have any information you can give me regarding the address and/or phone number of Mr. Scumbag Debtor.
And if those people told you to go fuck yourself, they would be doing us all a public service.
I’ll remind you again that Section 804 of the Act, which deals with contacting third parties, is entitled Acquistion of Location Information, not Use of Third Parties as Messengers.
The law regarding third party contact just uses the very open to interpretation in connection with the collection of any debt wording. As I have said before, it is not the wording of the law that matters. It’s how an actual court interpreted the law to mean. You will see pro gun and anti gun people debate all day long about the meaning of the second ammendment. And that is spelled out in much more black and white than the FDCPA.
The FDCPA was cited to this thread before you showed up. You are an armchair lawyer, but you don’t seem to understand how the law works. Just because you are reading the law doesn’t mean that your interpretations of it are absolute and correct. I have been unable to find a case specifically dealing with nearby messages one way or the other. You haven’t posted one either. I have already conceded that it’s possible you are correct on this. However, I still maintain that this is unlikely due to the widespread acceptance of the practice at agencies that are afraid of breaking the law.
I said right there that I wasn’t lying or violating the law. Those two quotes do not contradict eachother. I stayed on the fringe of the law, but never broke it.
Having a nice tone to the voice is not enough to be in violation of the law. Putting the person in a situation where they might think you are a friend of the debtor is not the same as telling them that you are a friend of the debtor.
Got me with this one! I mis-spoke. And I retract that comment. I meant to say “fully intend to call the debtor with the number”. Of course, most debtors I am sure would happily classify any phone calls at all as “harrassment”. I am sure this is what I was thinking when I posted that way back on page one.
Cute. So, your an armchair psycologist as well. Considering you haven’t taken the time to learn the correct spelling of my name, I am sure that your analysis of me is very studied. :rolleyes:
If you were reading my posts you may have noticed the multiple times that I have repeated I don’t work in collections anymore. Haven’t in years. It got me some cash while I was in college. That’s it. I personally think that telemarketing or certain types of salespeople are a much more despicable proffession than collecting. They prey on the innocent. The vast majority of debtors that I collected from were scumbags. This says nothing about my morality or capabliity of empathy. I guess all my friends must be assholes, too :rolleyes: . They used to get a kick out of hearing my collections stories.
You claim I said something which I specifically said the exact opposite of. You even quoted me where I was saying it. This couldn’t be more clear.
I never said anthing about not knowing the address. I said there could be no way of contacting a debtor by phone. I don’t know where you came up with the address part.
Any public library has criss cross directories that can be used to look up phone numbers by address. You can do it online at whitepages.com.
There is no way to get an unlisted phone number. Instead of just admitting your mistake you assume there is some magic database that a collector can get unlisted phone numbers from. No such thing exists.
Since Debaser would have no way of knowing what the charges were for, there is no difference. Even if he could access the charge history, why is it better or worse to run up $5k in calls to stroke lines versus running up $5K in debt on champagne and caviar? Both are indulgent, unnecessary purchases. What’s the difference between charging up the card on stroke lines and charging it up on payments for the sports car? Be specific.
As for how one “innocently” wracks up that kind of debt, I did it by making such selfish purchases as cash advances so that I could pay my rent for a few months after I lost my job and couldn’t get another one. I also wasted credit on such luxuries as food. And I committed the unpardonable sin of using the card to make the minimum payment on the card (through another cash advance) so I could try to keep it together for a few more weeks or a few more days in hopes that something would change.
Debaser
Maybe you should care more strongly, seeing as how these creditors are leading innocent young college kids down the garden path to scumbagitude. And speaking only for myself I have no problem at all with companies as a matter of policy refraining from offering credit to people with no money.
**
Well, the FTC, the federal agency whose job it is to enforce the act, agree with me, at least they did when I filed a acomplaint about a nearby message, which I posted about earlier. So, they dont know what their talking about? Unlikely.
**
Ah, but you did violate the law.
seee, right here:
**
See, it doesnt say ya hafta lie, just be misleading or deceptive. You dont have to outright lie to the, just mislead them. And from your post, your intent was to make them think you were a friend, so it is even more deceptive.
**
Well, ya got me there, Debbie…I dont give a rats ass how to spell your name.
**
Never said you did Debbie, I’m sure the debt collectors could only take so much of your shit.
**
No, but your posts here have. They have said volumes of you morality and empathy…or lack there of. Your not a scumbag for being a collector, your a scumbag for all the other reasons that have been pointed out here.
Are these real freinds or the made up kind? Because I cant see anyone with anykind of self respect hanging around someone with your attitude. Cept other scumbags maybe.
It’s true, you never said you didn’t know the address. That’s my mistake. But what i was doing was giving you the benefit of the doubt, because if you didn’t know the address then it might be acceptable to call the neighbours to find out where the person lived. Once you have the address, then you know the debtor’s location, which is the only thing the Act allows you to contact third parties for.
But nowhere in the Act does it guarantee a debt collector the right to speak to the debtor by telephone. If you know the person’s address, but cannot get the phone number, there are other ways of making contact, such as a letter or maybe even a personal visit (if the Act allows such thing).
I will repeat AGAIN that Section 804 is designed simply to allow the collector to ascertain the LOCATION of the debtor. The fact that the debtor doesn’t want you to have their phone number does not entitle you to violate the Act by calling their neighbours for the purpose of leaving messages.
And i will say again that this is simply the way i read the Act, but you, Debaser have not yet said anything to convince me that my interpretation is incorrect. You have barely even tried to give your interpretation of what the Act actually says; all you have done is trot out the excuse that it must be legal because the companies that you worked for did it all the time. Hardly a convincing argument, given the experiences of others on this thread regarding the ethics of debt collectors.
As an addendum to mhendo’s post, I’ll reiterate a couple of things from my OP:
Investigator Coleman claimed to have seven years’ experience in the collections industry.
Despite that assertion regarding his experience, Investigator Coleman:
a) deliberately misled me about the nature of his call in the voicemail he left (“I’m filing papers against you tomorrow,” leading me to believe I was being sued);
b) neglected to inform me that he worked for a collections agency, as required by the FDCPA.
Makes me think that debt collectors (even those with seven years’ experience, as opposed to those who do the job as a way to earn money in college) might not have as firm a grasp of the law as they think they do.
Phone company drone checking back in. Of course there are ways to get unlisted phone numbers. Some of them are legal and some are not. Some are ethical and some are not. But it is possible and in fact can be quite easy.
That’s really the key issue. You don’t need to empathize with them, but you should treat them professionnally, which means neutrally. Thinking : “I’m going to call another scumbag” isn’t neutral, nor professionnal. It’s just judgemental and makes you appear as a crusader engaged in a holy war against “scumbags”. If you think you shouldn’t care about their issues, you shouldn’t care about them being possibly (or even probably) scumbags, either. It just shouldn’t matter to you and you should do your job without making assumptions and being judgemental.
The safe bet is to treat them all like individuals you know nothing about.
I agree that this seems to be the case. You don’t need to keep shouting it. I am not arguing against your interpretation because I am in agreement with it.
I haven’t said or implied that nearby messages would be used for debtors that don’t want to be contacted. If a debtor says “don’t ever contact me again” when a collector calls (or anything to that effect) then the collector simply can’t contact them anymore.
Actually, I think that the collector can request that they get this statement in writing, but this point is moot for me because every place I ever worked would err on the side of caution and cease all communications with just a verbal notifcation.
I’ve admitted as soon as this legality of nearby messages issue came up that it is an interesting point which may have merit. Also, I have stated that I personally think nearby’s should be illegal. I am not arguing that strongly about this nearby stuff being legal because I don’t feel that strongly about it. shrug
The agencies I worked for all did this as a matter of policy. It was done openly and documented. I was taught to do this by every mentor in collections that I had.
Laws are broken in collections by shady collectors all the time, but it’s not done with notes documenting the illegalites on the account.
Well, I am sure that Mr. Coleman didn’t notate this illegal behavior on the account. I would also think it unlikely that Mr. Coleman works for a large agency that openly encourages this behavior and breaks these laws as a matter of policy.
I know you guys aren’t impressed with my logic that because even at the management level, collections agencies are using nearby messages as a matter of policy believing them to be legal, they must in fact be legal. I have looked for a cite of a case where this was specifically allowed. I can’t find one. Also we haven’t seen a case specifically citing an agency being punished for leaving nearby’s, so there isn’t definitive proof of them being illegal.
I agree with your reading of the FDCPA seeming to make them illegal.
But, as I have said, things aren’t always clear with the law. The first ammendment is pretty clear that free speech is protected. Yet, courts have decided that you cannot yell “FIRE” in a theater. Campaign finance reform and flag burning are more examples of a very simple law being debated as to it’s meaning. The FDCPA is no different. Actually it’s much more complex. Some crafty collections lawyer may have come up with an argument that makes nearby messages legal in front of some judge.
