Moss & Barnett, John Rossman, and Mike Poncin are pleased to present the audio blog series, The Debt Collection Drill. John and Mike provide sage tips and ongoing intelligence for debt professionals. In the blog archive, you can review detailed tactics on emerging issues in the credit industry and their analysis and solutions to the challenges the collection industry faces daily. John and Mike invite your readership and comments.
Legally Deleting a Credit Bureau Tradeline
In the latest episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast series, Moss & Barnett attorneys Aylix Jensen, Michael Etmund and John Rossman provide specific guidance on the circumstances in which a collection agency may legally delete all information previously furnished to a credit reporting agency, also known as a tradeline deletion.
Does Your Collection Agency Name Violate Regulation F?
Regulation F contemplates debt collectors communicating with consumers using a scripted “limited content” voicemail message which contains the business name of the debt collector, but “does not indicate that the debt collector is in the debt collection business.” While consumer advocates agree that this limited content message will be extremely beneficial to consumers, debt collectors must proceed cautiously with implementation to ensure full compliance with all requirements of the limited content message contained within Regulation F.
In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman, Sarah Doerr and Brad Armstrong provide practical guidance for implementation of the Regulation F limited content message and the attorneys also examine the legal restrictions regarding the use of certain words in a collection agency name.
Landmark Victory! Debt Collector Did Not Deceive Debtor Who Refused to Give Name
A debt collector must verify the identity of a communication
recipient to ensure a right-party contact while also avoiding a disclosure
about the existence of the debt to a third-party. Thus, a debt collector
must, when asked, provide meaningful information about the purpose of
a telephone call to a third-party – even when the third-party refuses to
identify herself – without disclosing that the call is an attempt to collect
In the latest episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss &
Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin are joined by attorney
Aylix Jensen who elaborates on her recent, complete victory in Federal
Court establishing that a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by
stating it was a “financial services company” calling regarding a
“personal business matter” to an unidentified individual – the Plaintiff –
who the Court identified as the correct “customer for the account.”
Pandemic Causes Historic Debt Collection Law Changes
In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys discuss the recent, historic changes to the laws restricting debt collection and how agencies can comply.
CFPB Proposes Debt Collection Rule that Congress Rejected
The CFPB’s proposed debt collection rules envision a much-needed update and modernization to many provisions in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. However, the CFPB’s proposed rules include a limit of the number of debt collection calls that may be made per week without regard to the REJECTION of call frequency limits by Congress. Because our Congress considered and dismissed call frequency limits for debt collectors, the CFPB cannot implement such limits through rulemaking.
In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, attorneys Mike Poncin and John Rossman re-enact (from official Congressional transcripts) portions of the April 4, 1977 debates in the United States House of Representatives regarding the FDCPA and specifically a then-proposed weekly limit on debt collection calls. Members of Congress raised specific and detailed objections on the record about the Constitutionality of the call frequency limit proposal at that time and also concerns about false claims.
Common Sense Prevails! Seventh Circuit Affirms Consumer was not Harmed by Letter and Dismisses FDCPA case
Debt collectors defending against hyper-technical FDCPA lawsuits by consumer attorneys commonly ask the same question: “How could the consumer possibly have been harmed by this supposed violation of the FDCPA?” The question is especially poignant when the purported FDCPA violation arises from a collection letter the consumer never read or from the language in the collection letter upon which the consumer never intended to rely. Does the concept of “no harm, no foul” apply to the FDCPA?
In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss the recent ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Casillas matter dismissing an alleged hyper-technical FDCPA letter violation. They also discuss the recent ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal regarding interest and share thoughts on the CFPB’s proposed debt collection rules.
The company I work listened to this today and will continue to listen to these as they come out