H.R. 4101 exempts debt collectors from liability when leaving voice messages

[pipeguy]

H. R. 4101  U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)

H.R. 4101 - exempts debt collectors from liability when leaving voice messages.

To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt a debt collector from liability when leaving certain voice mail messages for a consumer with respect to a debt as long as the debt collector follows regulations prescribed by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection on the appropriate manner in which to leave such a message, and for other purposes.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4101ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr4101ih.pdf

　

[RobertEG]

That proposed legislation was just introduced on Feb 28th, and has not even reached the subcommittee hearing stage.  It is about as virgin as proposed legislation could be.

I would give no concern until it at least reaches committee hearings.

I have read the introduced bill, and it really establishes nothing.  Its approach is to leave the establishment of any criteria soley to the federal rulemaking process.

Even if enacted, it would only comprise a shell authorizing rulemaking, and thus challenge should any rulemaking provisions violate any of the current requirements of the FDCPA.

It looks like politics to appease his constituency.

[pipeguy]

What I find interesting is that the author of this bill is a co-author of the signature  Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) answerable to the Federal Reserve, not congress. Franks has announced that he will retire as of the end of his current term which means there are no personal or political repercussions. This new "Franks" bill H.N. 4101 transfers powers away from the FDCPA and to the CFPB. Whereas the CFPB has already announced they are looking to supervise not only large banks but the debt collection business, why is there any need to transfer any consumer rights away from the FDCPA?

I doubt that H.N. 4101 has much of a chance of being passed as a stand alone bill, but this type of single purpose "law" tends to get rolled into larger unrelated bills (like a budget provision) as political favors. Is there really a need to weaken any consumer protection or right in the FDCPA by transferring an item here or an item there to a new federal agency with no specific oversight provisions as of yet?

There is talk in the debt collection business, with support from some consumer groups and even some political backing for revisions of the 30 year old FDCPA (see Bartmann Ethical Debt Collection Practices Act (SB1430) Oklahoma State Senate). Also Google Bill Bartmann's collection business, he's far from the white knight of consumer's rights. The Debt Collection industry has their own idea of reform (wish list) which includes additional consumer protections such as well defined validation and verification standards including proper media (documentation) of claimed debt. The trade off for the extra documentation is a federal national 7 year Statute Of Limitations.

Do I believe that the FDCPA should be updated and revised after 30 years? Yes, but we should be very careful in what we ask for considering how well its' consumer protections have held up over the last 30 years using our "out dated" FDPCA.

[RobertEG]

Perchance it might make a job in the new Bureau for a retired congressman?

[pipeguy]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Perchance it might make a job in the new Bureau for a retired congressman?

---

+1 

Ha ! Now that I had not thought of 

[RobertEG]

I concur that the FDCPA is a dinosaur, long in need of revision and clarification of many areas, most prominent of which is the ongoing lack of specifity in what constitutes adequate debt verification.  Congress, for whatever reason, leaves the FDCPA in a sad state of ambiguity and outdated in many areas, such as how cell phones, texting, and answering machiines fit into the "communication with the consumer" language of the statute.

Not only is the FDCPA antiquated, it specifically prevents the very agency that it charges with administrative enforcement, namely the FTC, from proposing or enacting any rulemaking to keep into current.  While many federal statutes specifically authorize federal agency rulemaking to keep statutes up to date, the FDCPA curiously includes the following prohibition at section 814(d):

"Neither the Commission nor any agency referred to in subsection (b) may promulgate trade regulations rules or other regulations with respect to the collection of debts by debt collectors as defined in this title."

Having been stripped by the statute itself from using the normal enforcement process of issuing regulations, it is no wonder that the FTC has thrown up its hands, and takes no action on individual consumer complaints with regard to violations of the FDCPA.  They even discontinued their prior practice of issuing non-binding advisory opinions years ago.

So, while I do have concerns over this particular area of rulemaking (i.e., apparently broadening debt collector ability to use answering machines), I do, nonetheless, see this as a potential first chip in the ice of efforts to put some regulatory muscle into the FDCPA.

But why not hack at the BIG blocks if ice, such as the debt validation shamble?