Comment by Robert G. Andrews II on January 18, 2011 at 12:00pm

I am sure the CRA's will review closely but I think it may come down to the type of debt the agency is trying to collect.  Most of the debt a consumer accumulates is a clear extension of credit.  There is a portion of debt that falls into the "grey" area though.

Comment by Quinton Carlson on January 18, 2011 at 12:05pm

More likely there will be a requirement for indemnity, and bonding. So they are protected and can pass the buck so to speak. I doubt they will make do much to hinder there already slowing money stream.

Comment by Jeremy Mapes on January 22, 2011 at 2:37am

It does sound like it'll be limited to items like fines, citations, and other events where there was not an extension of credit.  But I just wonder if there will be issues with medical type debt or other debt where it was a necessity situation, where the consumer may have not directly borrowed but did ultimately use services that resulted in debt.

Comment by Jeremy Mapes on January 22, 2011 at 1:52pm

Of course, and we always hope that is the only line drawn...  But we see many other lines get drawn in the process of collections, such as whether or not a debt was part of an agreement or whether it was a involuntary, like being picked up by an ambulance.  A fine being assessed is a similar matter.  In at least one state (MI) the fine is assessed at the time the complaint is given and they can take you drivers license as collateral until you pay the court and then they'll return it through the mail.  So they actually have secured loans, basically.  I'm just saying the lines get a little blurry because there are government entities that consider a fine a "loan" until paid.  I think this decision can make things a little more blurry as well.  I absolutly hope not but look how some circuit judge turned "Foti" into a three-ring circus as it was directly in opposition to FDCPA.  Then you have the FTC give advisement on the TCPA and the courts say they have no jurisdiction even though they clearly control the ARM industry...

 

I thing many of us in the industry are a little battle weary at this point...

Comment by Michael Duke on January 23, 2011 at 2:16pm

A little off-topic, but having been in auto finance for 20 years, I can attest that one of the bains of my working life is impound/tow yards, how they dispose of vehicles, the exorbitant fees, the number of bad apples making fraudulent sales/transactions, and more. Many do things right, send their notices expeditiously, charge fair fees, and run their business with efficiency and at least some amount of controls. Unfortunately, the number who do not is rather staggering, and there is a LOT of money in this business, most of it cash, and where there is cash, there is corruption. When a parking space on a dirt lot with a chain-link fence costs twice as much as a hotel room down the street, which includes free breakfast and secure parking....well, there is something wrong with the system.

Comment by Jeremy Mapes on January 23, 2011 at 5:13pm

Michael, that reminds me of an auto dealership I once knew who was given away "free oil changes for life" with the sale of a new car from their dealership.  They said they financed it with their "slush fund".  I thought they were rather reputable and had been around for decades.  Later I came to find that their "slush" fund was the excess money made off the sale of repo'd cars...  Legally, any fees over the amount owed on the car, at auction, was to be sent to party the car was repo'd from.  This never happened and the former borrower were not sophisiticated enough to check on the outcome of the auctions and look for the difference to be sent.  Law enforcement never followed this either because no one knew to file a complaint. 

Comment