Respond to each classmate question 100 words a piece.
The question they had to answer. (Read and analyze the “Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.” Discuss the actions that violate this act and the penalties associated with those violations.)
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a consumer protection amendment that provides legal protection from abusive debt collection practices. The main objective of The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is to eliminate and control abusive collection practices that were being demonstrated by many creditors prior to 1977. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applies to consumer debt and certain debt collectors (Jennings, 2017).
The consumer debts and debt collectors fall under the Truth and Lending Act where full disclosure is required regarding the credit contract and consumer rights. The consumer debts that fall under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) are debts related to your home, personal, and family purposes. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not apply to an outstanding account with the Internal Revenue or commercial accounts.
Under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), there are some restrictions that must be adhered to by the debt collector. A violation of The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is when a third-party debt collector notifies other parties about the debtor’s debt. This does not apply to the parties spouse or parent as they can be contacted for general inquiries regarding the debt. Another example is a debt collector making harassing calls to the consumer before 8:00 am and after 9:00 pm (Jennings, 2017). Also, certain places like churches and schools are off-limits to debt collectors. Likewise, physical force and abusive language are also prohibited (Jennings, 2017).
When the FDCPA has been violated by a debt collector, the enforcement authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act intervenes by issuing cease-and-desist orders to stop the collection. However, the greatest enforcement can come from the debtors who can prove collectors violations. If so, the debtor can actually sue and collect for actual injuries and mental duress (Jennings, 2017).
In collecting debt, a collector is not allowed to threaten the debtor, use pious language, harass through telephone calls, and publish debtors. The first issue that violates the Fair Debt Collection Act involves engagement in using threats or violence or any criminal ways to injure the debtor physically, their reputation, or the debtor’s assets. Next is the use of pious or indecent language intended to abuse the listener or reader (Jennings, 2017; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, n.d.). The third conduct is the engagement in continuous telephone conversations to bother, harass, or insult a debtor. The fourth action that violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is publication of a list of customers who supposedly decline paying debts save for consumer reporting agencies or individuals meeting the obligations of section 1681a (f) or 1681b (3) of this title (Federal Trade Commission, 2016). The above-mentioned action when presented to court results in a strong punitive lawsuit against defendants.
The bureau of consumer financial protection (CFPB) takes strong measures against individuals or organizations that violate the fair debt collection act. For instance, in March 2015, CFPB filed a complaint against seven debt collection companies and six independent debt collectors. The defendants were accused of violating the FDCPA by using harassment to collect a debt from consumers. In August 2019, the verdict was passed, the defendants were banned from the industry and ordered $663,710 as compensation (Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 2020). Additionally, in 2019 two FDCPA matters were solved by the bureau. These matters resulted in the defendant paying a compensation fee of roughly $50 million as compensation to consumers and $11.2 million in civil money penalties (Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 2020). Debt collection should, therefore, be done integrity to avoid corrective action from the court or bureau, which might be costly.