What changes would you like to see in the collection agencies?

well that is the 64,000.00 question.you see my answer is aimed at bottomfeeders and the overseas scams.not the legit collectors.first i would make the FDCPA fines larger.1,000.00 per action is not enough as these places call this the"cost of doing business"make it more costly like 5,000.00 per action minimum.then i would have a uniform rule as to the law regarding recording calls.sorry,but people should be able to record some of the outrageous threats and use them in court.last thing is i would make validation for a JDB harder as in actually having a signature of the person,and make it a requirement to provide a license number when asked.legit lenders as well as collectors have their licenses on their websites and recite it easliy.anyway those are a few things i would do.

I would have the collection agency send all detailed information explaining the debt in question. The exact amount, the dates, what it entails, who is the collection agency acting on behalf of. The agency could send copies of all bills. When calling the collection agency on this bill, please have the representative be more polite and understanding.

I would like the agencies to verify that they are garnishing non-exempt money from checking accounts BEFORE garnishing. I would like them to notify the person being garnished in writing at least a week before they actually garnish their bank account. My exempt income and my son's exempt income has been garnished from our joint checking account. They need to make sure they are collecting only from the person who has had the judgement filed against them and not from a person who did not have a judgement filed against them.

This well-intentioned question is as flawed as its industry subject. The chronic lawbreaking high volume collectors we have come to know and not love have no substantial motivation to make changes, except those which further punish consumers. The FTC or Lori Swanson can file showboating lawsuits against them every other week, but the debt machine is not slowed for long. Collectors are part of a conveyor belt for the slow and frequently wrongful transfer of wealth which begins with the lenders and ends in the courtroom, rigged at every stage against the interest of a healthy mid-class economy.

But let's indulge the fantasy of this question and begin a thought experiment with this premise: The entire concept of "asset recovery" has been distorted by robber barons financing their McMansions off the steamrolling of the injured and jobless. The only approach which might permanently stop the abuse is to take away their prize.

1] Outlaw all for-profit collections, both first and third party. No more commissioned reps, no more caffiene-juiced barking trainers, no more scribbling profit targets on whiteboards, no more warm backpats for badgering strangers into tears. Everyone is paid decently whether or not someone sends a settlement check. Police this non-profit practice closely to avoid its perversion, as in the "Dove Foundation" scam.

2] Stop hiring drug abusers, sex offenders, and unreformed prisoners. Start hiring degreed financial counselors and people who can quote consumer protection laws in their sleep. Task personnel to find creative solutions which consider the solvency of the debtor as important as the balance sheet of a creditor. Put them on the front lines, don't just send a weepy lip servcing form letter about "unfortunate circumstances". Replace the target of pure profit at any cost with a goal of helping people resolve their problems .... the thing agencies like to claim on their slapped-up websites but currently avoid doing.

3] Restrict the sale and transfer of debt accounts to a number proportional to the personnel count of a given agency. Bundles of a thousand are not going to be fairly evaluated, but blindly processed in mechanical fashion. See that there is no excuse for a collections rep not to have personally reviewed and evaluated a case in a careful manner. Do not begin the calls before a reasonable effort is made to clarify title chain and obtain correct contact data.

4] Following from this more careful and admittedly laborious case management approach, there must be an end to repeated and annoying "block party" and "office party" skip tracing calls. Strike the FDCPA language permitting a collector to keep harping on the same phone numbers until she gets an answer she likes. Over the duration of collection efforts on a single account, restrict collectors to a maximum of two live or prerecorded contacts to each third party phone number. Restrict them to a pool of five total such third parties. Forbid them to cause any phone to ring more than three times daily.

5] Break the cozy bonds between collectors and the state courts they now practically own. Require agencies to examine creditor debt claims against a high standard of proof AND against the alleged debtors' particular circumstances. Make litigation a very last resort, pursued only when all the facts are straight and a solvent consumer is willfully evasive. When an alleged debtor has elected private arbitration, make any subsequent litigation grounds for immediate dismissal with prejudice. Make it illegal to order or force a defendant to file arbitration against himself for the sole purpose of retaining the right to arbitrate.

6] Let's for once and all bury any crap about debt being shameful. It's a business problem, one shared by millions of citizens and the Fortune 500 roster alike. Take away the conflict between "meaningful disclosure" and privacy in the FDCPA. Require all collection and skiptracing contacts to any person in print or voice to give a valid business name and state plainly their purpose is "debt collection". No "personal business", no "important matter", no more vague code terms. Require all collector phone calls to display a meaningful Caller ID tag. Frankly, both sides of that phone line need to buck up and treat the debt problem like grownups.

7] What follows from #6 is a major tradeoff for the loss of (largely illusory) privacy, that mere discussion of debt can no longer entrap a consumer. Honestly giving one's name, confirming a Social Security number, discussion of a debt account, exploration of settlement terms -- none of these things are to be construed as admitting to any part of a debt claim or an excuse to reset the Statute of Limitations clock. Only a payment made provably by the alleged debtor directly to the original creditor or one of its assigns can establish admission and/or reset SoL.

These ideas would tend to require changes in regulation and in the attitudes of everyone from the hassled consumer to the corporate-friendly judge. Indeed, I could be here several more pages suggesting amendments to FCRA, FDCPA, and TCPA. Strictly speaking, these are not changes which could be practically made within the collections industry, perhaps not made at all. They are presented mainly to drill a few new probe holes in an often mystifying issue.