Numerous recent FDCPA lawsuits challenge the ability of debt collectors to assess interest to accounts. These cases focus on a number of factors including whether collection letters need to disclose the accrual of interest and also interest on purchased accounts. Most recently, a California Court held that interest could only be assessed in certain circumstances after a judgment had been entered.

In this recent episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin tackle the intricate issues involved with collection agencies assessing interest and provide an assessment of strategies to comply with the law.

The CFPB recently began a more aggressive approach to the debt industry, bypassing the larger market participant examination process and issuing Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) to a number of debt collectors directed at specific complaints and alleged practices. In a special episode of the Debt Collection Drill, John Rossman hosts special guest, attorney Mark Peterson. Mr. Peterson is a shareholder with Moss & Barnett, P.A. and has experience in assisting members of the debt industry in responding to CIDs. During the podcast, Mr. Rossman and Mr. Peterson explain the CID process, what a company should expect when a CID is received-including the cost of defending and the difficulties with a CFPB hearing.

In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill, attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss specific tactics to avoid issues involving CFPB complaints, leaving messages and concerns regarding the TCPA.

Most FDCPA lawsuits are resolved without a Court ruling on the merits.  Further, debt collectors win a surprising number of these out-of-Court resolutions, obtaining dismissals of the cases without paying anything to settle.  In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill, Attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss specific strategies debt collectors use to prevail without going to Court including public records investigations of the Plaintiff, negotiations with opposing counsel and examining the actions of the Plaintiff during the debt collection process.  If your agency has begrudgingly paid to settle a questionable FDCPA case in the past year, this is an episode you will not want to miss.

Most consumers advocates and collectors agree that the validation language contained in the FDCP A is stilted and obscure. However, the validation notice is a foundational document of the debt collection process. Two recent Court of Appeals cases examined questions about the wording of specific validation notices and have caused concern for collectors about the language used. Attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin examine these recent rulings in the latest episode of the Debt Collection Drill and provide tips and language to use for validation notices.

Two substantial debt collector victories in FDCPA cases at the end of 2013 – both of which were won by Moss & Barnett attorneys – may set the tone for many lawsuits in 2014, especially as they relate to the "least sophisticated consumer" standard.  In both cases, Courts rejected claims by the consumers and found that the collection agency had acted within the scope of the law.  Attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss these recent cases and the impact they will have on every collection agency during their most recent episode of the Debt Collection Drill.  

Debt collectors will long remember 2013 as a watershed year for the regulation of our industry. The CFPB issued its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking while continuing on-site examinations of debt collector larger market participants, enforcement actions and publishing data from its complaint portal. The FTC issued a record fine against a debt collector and joined the CFPB in several important amicus briefs submitted in pending FDCPA cases. Numerous States also tightened regulation on the debt industry. All of this regulation of the debt industry is apparently aimed at aiding consumers. However, a recent study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia empirically established that stricter debt laws actually harm consumers by reducing their access to credit.

In this episode of The Debt Collection Drill attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss this Federal Reserve Bank study from May 2013 and its impact on future regulation of the debt industry. A link to the study is below.

http://www.phil.frb.org/research-and-data/publications/working-papers/2013/wp13-38.pdf

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is moving forward with plans to overhaul the FDCPA, focusing specifically on debt documentation, call frequency and modernizing the law to account for technology changes since the FDCPA was enacted in 1977. In this episode of The Debt Collection Drill, attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss the CFPB’s recent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and identify three areas of potential change for the industry.

Creditors seeking to reduce collection costs often ask collection agencies for "precollect" efforts at a discount from normal contingent fee rates.  Some collection agencies provide lettering services – with all calls and payments directed to the creditor – at a flat rate per letter or account.  Unfortunately, the FDCPA prohibits such flat fee arrangements in some circumstances.  Further, consumer attorneys are aggressively pursuing FDCPA lawsuits against debt collectors and their clients for precollect "flat-rating," which often drives a wedge because the debt collector and its client.

In the latest episode of The Debt Collection Drill, attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss the recent surge in precollect "flat-rating" cases against collectors and creditors and also reveal some strategies for avoiding these claims.

With the CFPB scheduled to commence exercise of its rule making authority later this year, many collection industry experts were surprised by a joint amicus brief filed by the FTC and the CFPB stating that ". . . in some circumstances, 'a debt collector may seek voluntary payment of a time-barred debt' without violating the FDCPA, even if the communication is silent as to the statute of limitations."  Click here to read the full amicus brief by the FTC and the CFPB:

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201309_cfpb_agency-brief_12-cv-04057.pdf

Consent orders earlier this year by the FTC regarding credit card surcharges (convenience fees) and voice mail messaging indicate an willingness by Federal regulators to allow these practices, but provide little guidance for the industry. 

Attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin examine the recent rulings the CFPB and FTC – and the possibly implications of CFPB rulemaking – in the latest episode of The Debt Collection Drill.