An Illinois federal district court recently denied a creditor-defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case brought by a consumer who questioned why his debt was being reported twice — as both a tradeline with the original creditor and as a tradeline with a third-party collection agency. The court’s opinion in Kyle Fickel vs. Clearwater Credit Union et al. is a warning about the credit reporting issues that can arise when lenders refer or assign debts to collections.

As background, the plaintiff in Fickel obtained a credit card from the defendant and fell behind on payments — prompting the defendant to refer the debt to a third-party collection agency. Thereafter, the plaintiff obtained a copy of his credit report and noticed the debt was listed twice. The first listing, or “tradeline,” was furnished by the defendant and described the debt as a revolving account in collections with a $10,145 balance. The second tradeline, furnished by a third-party collections agency, described the same debt as an open collections account, for which plaintiff owed over $12,000. The plaintiff submitted written dispute letters to the national credit reporting agencies (CRAs), describing the apparent double reporting:

“I have an account with Clearwater Credit Union with [account number] that I fell behind on. I notice they are reporting the debt on my credit report while Northwest Collectors [separate account number] is also reporting what I think is the same debt but for a different amount.

Who do I owe money to? I’m confused . . . . Why are both accounts reporting on my credit report? Are there interest or collection fees that I’m not aware of? I’ve been trying to repair my credit, this has me puzzled.”

The CRAs forwarded the dispute letters to the defendant along with Automated Consumer Dispute Verification Forms (ACDVs) containing an otherwise generic description of the dispute, save for the word “duplicate.”

During discovery, the defendant produced two corporate witnesses who testified that their standard procedure for investigating disputes was simply to verify that the information in the ACDV matched that in their internal systems. While the witnesses acknowledged that they knew the plaintiff’s dispute related to alleged “duplicate reporting,” their investigation of his dispute did not diverge from their standard procedure.

Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no triable issue of fact showing that its reporting was inaccurate or that its investigation was unreasonable in violation of § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA. The district court disagreed. In a five-page opinion denying summary judgment, the court noted the absence of governing Seventh Circuit authority on the issue of whether double-reporting is a FCRA violation. The court, however, concluded that a factual issue existed as “to whether the double reporting of [the plaintiff’s] debt with [the defendant] left a misleading impression that he had two separate debts, totaling $22,000 instead of a single debt of approximately $10,000.” The court further found that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the defendants’ investigation was reasonable despite knowing the plaintiff’s dispute concerned “duplicate” reporting.

Troutman’s Take:

The reasonableness of the post-dispute investigation was questionable in Fickel where the defendant was on notice regarding the nature of the dispute. This case also raises questions about the defendant’s front-end procedures for ensuring that accounts referred to collections are consistently and accurately reported. Lenders and collections agencies would be well-advised to delineate reporting responsibilities — i.e., who will be reporting the debt, for how long, and under what circumstances — whenever negotiating purchase agreements to mitigate FCRA exposure tied to inconsistent and/or duplicate reporting.

PHOENIX, Ariz. — Superlative RM is proud to announce that they have been named Agency of the Year by Crown Asset Management for the third consecutive year. As a small business, the team has worked hard to build a top-tier technology-driven operation and to reach the highest standards of quality for the consumers they serve on behalf of major reputable clients such as Crown Asset Management (CAM). 

“To have kept this title three years in a row is a milestone and something we do not take lightly. The award represents our commitment to what we call “The Superlative Way!” and our core values: creating a WOW factor with every consumer we contact, do it right from A to Z, and collaborate at every opportunity. Thank you, Crown Asset Management, for partnering with us and naming us your Agency of the Year once again. We are all in this together!” said Jerry Terrill, Founder and President of Superlative RM.

Crown Asset Management (CAM) Award Winners are selected from their reputable network of outsourced collection agencies and law firms. One collection agency and one law firm receive CAM’s highly regarded annual recognition for their business practices and commitment to the integrity of our industry. The awards honor outstanding achievements based on strong compliance metrics, procedural compliance, and overall performance throughout the year. 

“Superlative began its partnership with Crown in 2014 and has continually maintained exceptional compliance and service levels. Their depth of knowledge, industry experience, and quality of service continues to set them apart and provide the basis for additional growth. Superlative RM has achieved the Agency of the Year honor three years in a row. Thank you for your hard work and dedication! We are grateful for the partnership and look forward to continuing to grow together,” said Brian Williams, CEO of Crown Asset Management. 

About Crown Asset Management

Founded in 2004, Crown Asset Management, LLC, is a professional receivables management firm that outsources purchased accounts to a nationwide, proprietary network of collection agencies and law firms. Utilizing a cutting-edge predictive analytical model during pre-purchase portfolio due diligence, the team focuses on achieving appropriate financial returns while ensuring the best possible experience for consumers. Crown Asset Management is an RMAI Certified Receivables Business headquartered in Duluth, GA.

About Superlative RM

Superlative RM is an accounts receivable management company that assists our clients by contacting consumers to resolve outstanding account balances. We are nationally licensed and work diligently to follow all current state and federal guidelines. We bridge the gap between creditors and consumers by innovating user-friendly, digital account resolution options.

March 15 was the deadline for the New York State Department of Financial Services to publish its proposed amendments to its debt collection rule. It didn’t and so they have expired. While the latest version of the proposed amendments has expired, you can bet on DFS releasing an updated version in the coming months.

DFS is certainly aware that the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection proposed to substantially overhaul its debt collection rule last year and did so well after DFS released its first proposal. The two rules don’t always align, and stakeholders raised the issue with both agencies.

On top of that, New York state Sen. Kevin Thomas has introduced legislation to expand the scope of New York’s Consumer Credit Fairness Act to cover all consumer debt, not just the “consumer credit transactions” to which it now applies. If the bill becomes law, it would have made irrelevant certain of  DFS’ proposed amendments.  

We should expect the new DFS proposal to address the several comments it received. And it makes sense that the agency let the proposed rule amendments expire. By doing so it can digest DCWP’s rule (if it publishes one) and incorporate the expansion of the NYCCFA, should Sen. Thomas’ bill become law.

Incorporating a new AI-powered technology can cause apprehension, and understandably so. Unanswered questions about deployment challenges, efficacy, and compliance can be discouraging for collection agencies. But over the years, Voice AI has become easy to deploy, requiring no tech personnel from collection agencies, and can be deployed within a day or a week. With the economic downturn unfolding and intensifying industry consolidation, there is a need for urgent action; now is the time for collection agencies to embrace this cutting-edge technology.

The ARM industry has adopted technology as it evolved; Auto-dialers, IVRs, CRMs, and ERPs, which have solved numerous bottlenecks. But the core challenges remain persistent and debilitating:

• Low account penetration

• Meeting compliance requirements

• Agent attrition and availability

• Cost of collections

None of the present technologies can solve these problems simultaneously, except for Conversational Voice AI. The question then arises–why and how–does conversational Voice AI possess the capabilities to transform collections fundamentally?

• Infinitely Scalable Consumer Conversations: Voice AI solution opens new doors of opportunity for collection companies to connect with the consumer in intelligent, personalized conversations. This means 100% account penetration in a matter of minutes.

• Debt Portfolio Segmentation: Instantly gaining visibility into your entire portfolio with data-supported insights:

  • RPCs and WPCs

  • Consumer dispositions or propensity to pay

  • Disputed debt

  • Attorney representation

  Agents can thus enhance the efficiency of the collection procedure and use their time more efficiently by focusing on customers with a high probability of payment.

• Augmenting Agents: A live collector is only assigned to handle complex calls or requests made by the customer. As a result, a significant number of calls are dealt with by the Voice AI platform, which generates considerable benefits and enables the live collector to concentrate on more critical tasks. Escalated calls are accompanied by conversation summaries, allowing the collector to pick up where they left off. Also, the Voice AI solution has consistent outreach, connecting the right person at the right time and reducing the low-value workload of the agent significantly.

• Cost of Collections: Scalable consumer conversations at a fraction of cost allow the collection agencies to process a significant fraction of their portfolio hitherto left unprocessed because of cost and agent bandwidth constraints.

Is Conversational AI for Everyone?

This technology is suitable for any agency, regardless of its size. Here are some parameters to understand the nature of this technology:

• Ease-of-use: The solution can be managed without involving any team members from the agency, as it is user-friendly and does not require coding.

• Integrations Capabilities: The solution’s versatility allows for easy integration of multiple third-party systems, including payment gateways used by collection agencies, CRMs, and other operational systems, without disrupting normal organizational operations.

• Compliance: The technology helps collection companies improve compliance with Reg F. and all other regulations, primarily because the Voice AI does not deviate from the scripts and provides accurate information to the consumers, minimizing, thus, the probability of litigation. Also, updating the solution for any changes in the regulations is effortless, thus further preventing any possibility of litigation.

Accelerate Recovery with Conversational Voice AI

Several pioneers are reimagining their businesses using Voice AI as the industry sets off on a wave of transformation.

Collection agencies can handle more debt with the same staff, and their improved agent abilities allow them to increase their collection success rate. Additionally, accessing all accounts in just minutes aids in faster debt collection.

Would you like to explore the future of debt collection with Voice AI? – Speak With Our Conversational Voice AI Expert.

[article_ad]

CINCINNATI, OH — Slovin and Associates, a creditor’s rights law firm in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, has a long history of community involvement. Partners Randy Slovin and Brad Council have spent decades in the community helping those in need. This past November, Mr. Council and his wife took a trip to the Olancho region of Honduras where they helped install solar panels at three different remote schools in just a week. 

“It was the most rewarding experience imaginable,” Mr. Council said. “We stayed in Juticalpa and would drive to these remote villages, usually three to four hours away. These regions typically don’t have power and most schools were small one-room schoolhouses where the children of local coffee farmers attend classes. Providing opportunities for furthering children’s education is important to our family and I couldn’t be more proud of the work we did supporting these communities.” 

A Light for All

Mr. Council and his wife took this trip withSonLight Power, a faith based non-profit that specializes in the installation of solar power in remote areas. SonLight, based in Milford, Ohio, has spent many years connecting solar operations with communities across the globe. With over 85 partnerships established, SonLight has installed 510 kilowatts of solar panels in 19 countries. 

To power the Honduras trip, SonLight partnered with the Thousand Hills Cowboy Church of Ethridge, Tennessee and Iglesia Cristiana Vida Abundante in Honduras. 

During Mr. Council’s trip to Honduras, SonLight remained in close contact with the heads of the Olancho region to determine the schools that would receive solar panels. Mr. Council said that the schools equipped would now have solar panels and batteries that could provide them adequate light for nighttime activities and further schooling. With solar power on hand, schools were also provided with multimedia equipment like TVs and DVD players to further students’ education. Each school, in addition to the solar panels and multimedia equipment, also received many boxes of school supplies to help students in every way possible. 

To see more from Mr. Council’s trip, SonLight created a slideshow video of the mission trip. 

About Slovin & Associates, Co., LPA

Slovin & Associates, Co., LPA aims to achieve the highest rating for creditor’s rights law firms in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana by obtaining expeditious and cost-efficient results in a professional and low-maintenance environment for our clients in the fields of collections, commercial and consumer litigation, bankruptcy, leasing and landlord-tenant law, and Fair Debt consulting.

Continuing its (and the White House’s) “junk fees” rhetoric, on March 8, 2023, the CFPB released a new issue of Supervisory Highlights that carries the title “Junk Fees Special Edition.”  The report discusses the Bureau’s examinations involving fees in the areas of deposits, auto servicing, mortgage servicing, payday and small-dollar lending, and student loan servicing that were completed between July 1, 2022 and February 1, 2023.  

The report’s release coincided with a virtual White House event for state legislators on state efforts to address “junk fees.”  According to media reports about the event, White House officials encouraged state lawmakers to take their own actions to address junk fees.  The White House also released a “Guide for States: Cracking Down on Junk Fees to Lower Costs for Consumers” that discusses approaches states have taken to address junk fees through enforcement and legislation.  CFPB Director Chopra, who spoke at the event, is reported to have offered the CFPB as a resource for state junk fees initiatives and indicated that state lawmakers have sought the CFPB’s advice on potential changes to state consumer protection laws.

Key findings by CFPB examiners include:

Deposits

The Bureau cited institutions for unfair acts or practices based on overdraft fees charged on transactions that authorized against a positive balance, but settled against a negative balance (APSN overdraft fees).  Such fees were the subject of a 2022 Circular issued by the Bureau.  APSN overdraft fees can occur when a bank assesses overdraft fees for debit card or ATM transactions where the consumer had a sufficient available balance at the time the bank authorized the transaction, but the account is insufficient at the time of settlement.  Examiners found instances in which unfair APSN overdraft fees were charged using a consumer’s available balance for fee decisioning, as well as when the consumer’s ledger balance was used.  According to the CFPB, consumers could not reasonably avoid the injury irrespective of account-opening disclosures.  The institutions were directed to stop charging APSN overdraft fees and to issue remediation to consumers who were charged such fees.  

The Bureau also issued matters requiring attention to correct problems that occurred when institutions had enacted policies intended to eliminate APSN overdraft fees  but such fees were still charged.  This occurred where institutions attempted to prevent APSN overdraft fees by not assessing overdraft fees on transactions that authorized positive, as long as the initial authorization was still in effect at or shortly before settlement. Some transactions, however, settled outside of this time period.  Examiners found inadequate compliance management systems where institutions failed to maintain records of transactions sufficient to ensure overdraft fees would not be assessed, or failed to use another solution not to charge APSN overdraft fees.

With regard to non-sufficient (NSF) fees, examiners found institutions had engaged in unfair acts or practices based on the assessment of multiple NSF fees when the same transaction was presented multiple times for payment against an insufficient balance in the consumer’s account.  The institutions agreed to cease charging NSF fees for unpaid transactions entirely and were directed to make refunds to consumers.  The Bureau reported that”[v]irtually all institutions that Supervision has engaged with on this issue reported plans to stop charging NSF fees altogether.”

Auto servicing  

Examiners found that servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices by:

• Assessing late fees in excess of the amounts allowed by consumers’ contracts.

• Assessing late fees not allowed by consumers’ contracts where, as a result of acceleration of the loan balance, the consumers’ contractual obligation to make further periodic payments was eliminated and the servicers’’ contractual right to charge late fees on such periodic payments was also eliminated.  Servicers had continued to collect late fees even after repossession of the vehicle on periodic payments scheduled to occur after the date of acceleration.

• Charging estimated repossession fees that were significantly higher than the costs they purported to cover, even where the servicers returned the excess amount to the consumers after they received the invoice for the actual costs.

Examiners also found that auto servicers engaged in unfair and abusive acts or practices by charging payment processing fees that “far exceeded” the servicers’ costs for processing payments.  Servicers only offered two free payment options-preauthorized recurring ACH and mailed checks-which were only available to consumers with bank accounts.  Approximately 90 percent of payments made by consumers incurred a pay-to-pay fee, with servicers receiving over half the amount of the fees from the servicers’ third-party payment processor.

Mortgage servicing  

Examiners found that servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices by:

• Assessing late fees in amounts in excess of the amounts allowed by the borrowers’ loan agreements.  This was the result of the servicers’ failure to input late fee caps into their systems where the borrowers’ loan agreements included a maximum permitted late fee.  Servicers were also found to have violated Regulation Z by including inaccurate late fee payment amounts in periodic statements (since the amounts exceeded the late fees permitted by the loan agreements).

• Charging consumers for repeat property inspection visits to known bad addresses.

• Failing to waive certain late charges, fees, and penalties accrued outside of CARES Act forbearance periods where required by HUD for a consumer entering into a permanent COVID-19 loss mitigation option.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in deceptive acts or practices by:

• Sending periodic statements and escrow statements that included monthly private mortgage insurance (PMI) premiums that consumers did not owe.  These consumers’ loan had lender-paid PMI which should not be billed directly to consumers.  

• Sending periodic statements to consumers in their last month of forbearance that incorrectly listed a $0 late fee amount for the subsequent payment, when a late fee was in fact charged if the subsequent payment was late.

Examiners found that servicers violated the Homeowners Protection Act by failing to terminate PMI on the date the principal balance of the mortgage was first scheduled to reach 78 percent loan-to-value on a mortgage loan that was current.

Payday and small-dollar lending 

Examiners found that lenders in connection with payday, installment, title, and line-of-credit loans engaged in unfair acts or practices by:

• After unsuccessful debit attempts, without consumers’ authorization, splitting missed payments into as many as four sub-payments and simultaneously or near-simultaneously representing to consumers’ banks for payment by debit card.

• Charging borrowers unexpected fees to retrieve personal property from repossessed vehicles and to cover servicer charges, and withholding the personal property and vehicles until the fees were paid.

• Failing to stop vehicle repossessions before title loan payments were due as-agreed, and then withholding the vehicles until consumers paid repossession-related fees and refinanced their debts.

Student loan servicing  

Examiners found that servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices by initially processing credit card payments that were subsequently reversed, leading to additional late fees and interest.  Where servicers’ policies did not allow payments to be made using a credit card, customer service representative had erroneously accepted and processed credit card payments.  These payments were subsequently reversed, causing consumers to become delinquent on their accounts.  Servicers did not consistently send notices explaining the reversals or give consumers an opportunity to use another method for making the payments before reversing the credit card payments.

The CFPB’s press release describes the “Junk Fees Special Edition” as a report “on unlawful junk fees.”  However, it appears that all of the violations cited by CFPB examiners that are  discussed in the report did not involve fees that the supervised entity could not lawfully charge.  Rather, there were various errors in how or when the fees were assessed that caused them to be “unlawful.”  The CFPB’s use of the loaded term “junk fees” to describe the fees discussed in this issue of Supervisory Highlights appears intended to further a political agenda rather than further what the CFPB has always described the goal of Supervisory Highlights to be–namely assisting supervised entities in complying with federal consumer financial law.  In recent remarks to the Consumer Law Scholars Conference, CFPB Deputy Director Martinez described credit card late fees as “a fee that has skyrocketed from a small corner of the market to the top of everyone’s most hated junk fee list.”  The CFPB’s continued indiscriminate use of the term “junk fees” to describe what in most cases are heavily regulated, clearly disclosed fees for services used by consumers or that consumers incur as a result of avoidable behaviors serves neither the interests of consumers nor those of industry.  

ELK GROVE, Calif. — Superlative RM, a collection agency located in Elk Grove, CA and Phoenix, AZ, is honored to announce its receipt of the 2022 Tier 1 Top Agency Award from Cascade365 — a family of companies that provide accounts receivable liquidity solutions to the consumer finance and healthcare industries.

“I’m very fortunate to be able to say our team is both dedicated and extremely hard-working. This award is a reflection of that and our core values: Create a WOW factor with everyone we contact; Do it right from A to Z; Collaborate at every opportunity,” said Superlative RM Founder and President, Jerry Terrill. “We’re incredibly thankful for strong partnerships with clients such as Cascade, and we look forward to continuing to do excellent work with them.” 

The Cascade award is a recognition of superior performance, adherence to compliance standards, and exemplary back-office support. Cascade Receivables Management, LLC — a subsidiary of Cascade365 — provides master servicing solutions for creditors and works with a network of vendors to achieve asset liquidity. Like Superlative RM, the company is headquartered in California and is an RMAI-Certified Receivables Business. 

The consistent growth at Superlative RM is reflective of the culture—creating a positive and high-energy atmosphere that sparks a “Wow Factor” for anyone that interacts with the team. Their relationships among the team and with their clients are enhanced through their collaborative work environment. As effective communication is the key to maximizing performance, it is the standard they set for themselves in everything they do. They call this “The Superlative Way.”

About Cascade365

Cascade365 is a family of companies that provide accounts receivable liquidity solutions to the consumer finance and healthcare industries. Cascade365’s suite of products and services include AR purchase and finance, master servicing and third party collections, and revenue cycle optimization. The Cascade365 Family of Companies believes in promoting financial accountability while treating consumers and patients in a fair, dignified, and lawful manner.

About Superlative RM

Superlative RM (SRM) is an accounts receivable management company that assists our clients by contacting consumers to resolve outstanding account balances. We are nationally licensed and work diligently to follow all current state and federal guidelines. We bridge the gap between creditors and consumers by innovating user-friendly, digital account resolution options.

During this week’s RA Peer Call, a member asked about the new Visa rule that implements Merchant Category Code (MCC) for debt collection and what it means for debt collectors. 

As a result of this question, Sara spent Monday evening researching and speaking to several payment processors to gain additional clarity, and Missy spent Friday morning reading and rereading Visa rules. It is confusing, but here’s what we’ve come to (Missy is insisting we include a disclaimer here that nothing in this newsletter should be considered legal advice, and you should always consult your own counsel).  

Background on MCCs 

[article_ad]

When you accept credit card payments, your payment processor assigns an MCC to your account. Until now, American Express was the only merchant that assigned a specific MCC to debt collection (find the Amex list here). When American Express added MCC 7322 for debt collection as a “restricted industry” the industry responded universally by dropping it as a payment option altogether. Until now, Visa likely assigned a similar but not specific MCC for payments processed via a credit card. 

The Current Rule

Visa’s current rules apply to “debt” which includes credit cards, money advanced for goods and services, and repayments that include interest (see page 845). Section 5.8.12 (page 459) of the current rules prohibit an acquirer (bank or processor) from allowing a merchant to use a credit or charge card for repayment of a “debt.”

What is Visa Changing? 

Visa announced in October 2022 that they were introducing a new MCC and rules for collection agencies. Visa has defined a collection agency as a merchant that collects payments of overdue receivables under contract or that collects overdue receivables that they have purchased from a third party. 

You can find a copy of the Visa Bulletin provided to Acquirers, Issuers, Processors, and Agents here. 

Overdue Receivable Definition

Visa has defined an overdue receivable as money owed by one party (debtor) to another (creditor) that is not classified as a debt and is one of the following:

• Classified by the receivable owner as non-collectable
• Written off and/or sold to a third party
• Subject to a court order as the result of a bankruptcy or insolvency
• 120 calendar days past the due date for payment

Based on the above criteria, in addition to third-party debt collection activities, overdue receivables may include any first-party or early-out accounts that are 120 calendar days past the due date for payment. 

The Rules and the Debit/Credit Split

Visa’s Bulletin included both “New Collection Agency Rules” and “Overdue Receivables Rules.” At first glance, these rules seem to be in direct conflict with each other, which is causing confusion across the industry. 

The Collection Agency Rules provide disclosures that must be read to the consumer, “before the transaction occurs.” However, the Overdue Receivable Rules say that an acquirer (bank or processor), must ensure that a merchant accepting an overdue receivable transaction, “Does not use a credit or charge card.”

Huh? How can Visa allow transactions and require disclosures at the transaction stage, but simultaneously seem to prohibit the use of Visa charge cards to pay an overdue receivable?

Though worded ineloquently, the difference may hinge on whether the payment is made with a Visa debit or Visa credit card. 

Taken at face value, the bulletin indicates that effective April 15, 2023, those collecting first or third-party accounts that meet the definition of overdue receivables will be prohibited from accepting Visa credit cards. Debt collectors can accept a Visa debit card if they provide the following disclosures before the transaction occurs: 

• Name of the original lender or creditor 
• Information to identify the transaction such as:  

           – Account/reference number from the original lender or creditor

           – Description of the debt or receivables 

           – Date of the repayment contract 

• Instructions for the cardholder on how to obtain additional information about the underlying transaction

Additional Clarity Needed 

Visa needs to clarify several points before debt collectors can comply with Visa’s new MCC and rules. First, Visa needs to explain the above issue. As worded, it is extremely confusing to everyone who has read it. Additionally, Visa should clarify:

1. What does the “Date of the repayment contract” mean? 
2. Do the “Instructions for the cardholder on how to obtain additional information about the underlying transaction” mean that debt collectors are required to pull debt validation documents long after an account is paid off?  
3. Do these new rules impact current payment plans which were set up using a Visa credit card? 
4. Do these rules require collection agencies to submit payments to MCC 7322 and abandon the current MCCs being used?

Impact to Collection Agencies

One school of thought is that since Visa already had rules applying to “debt” this new rule changes very little. Others disagree and contend the update creates a new mandatory prohibition on accepting credit cards. 

Some collection agencies might proceed business as usual since there were already rules surrounding debt, and others might decide to stop accepting Visa as a payment option to avoid any issues. Some might even stop accepting credit cards moving forward. After all, it is the most expensive payment option. As always, your team should connect to determine your risk and risk tolerance. 

Visa is expected to publish additional information regarding this change before the end of the month, so be sure to watch for information from your payment processor. If those updates do not clarify this bulletin or your payment processor has not reached out to discuss the Bulletin and its impact on your payments, you should reach out directly to them. If Visa aggressively stops credit card payments from going through on April 15, 2023, you’re going to want to know how that impacts your future dated payments. 

Research Assistant members can rest assured that we are watching this closely and will alert our members of any additional clarity received from Visa prior to the effective date. 

—

Don’t manage compliance on an island. Access peers and industry experts for insight and feedback while working through difficult compliance projects as a Research Assistant member. Learn more.

In addition to a library of compliance tools and resources, Research Assistant members have the opportunity to meet weekly to discuss their pressing compliance issues. The unique feedback and insight -that can only come from peers – helps our members find answers quickly without the need for additional staff. Recaps of our meetings are kept in a members-only portal, ensuring Research Assistant members can always find what they need.  For more info about Research Assistant or to sign up for a one-month free trial, click here.

On March 3, the CFPB received a rulemaking petition from the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) in response to forthcoming FCRA rulemaking announced in the Bureau’s Fall 2022 regulatory agenda. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau announced it is considering pre-rulemaking activity in November to amend Regulation V, which implements the FCRA. In January, the Bureau issued its annual report covering information gathered by the Bureau regarding certain consumer complaints on the three largest nationwide consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). At the time, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said that the Bureau “will be exploring new rules to ensure that [the CRAs] are following the law, rather than cutting corners to fuel their profit model.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)

The NCLC presented several issues for consideration in the FCRA rulemaking process, including that the Bureau should (i) “establish strict requirements to regulate the furnishing of information regarding a debt in collections by third-party debt collectors and debt buyers”; (ii) “require translation of consumer reports by the [CRAs] into the eight languages most frequently used by limited English proficient consumers”; and (iii) “establish an Office of Ombudsperson to assist consumers who have been unable to fix errors in their consumer reports from the nationwide CRAs and other CRAs within the CFPB’s supervisory authority.”

“Given the level of errors, problems, and abuses by debt collectors in furnishing and resolving disputes, requiring an original creditor tradeline is a reasonable quality control mechanism,” the NCLC said. “Alternatively, if the CFPB continues to permit the furnishing of debt collection information without a pre-existing tradeline by the original creditor, the Bureau should require that the furnisher of debt collection activity (whether a debt collector, debt buyer, servicer or other) provide a complete account history in the tradeline, including positive payments,” the petition added, stressing that “such reporting must require adequate substantiation[.]”

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — RMAI introduces a new guide for the accounts receivables management industry, Implementing Diversity Equity Inclusion Best Practices: RMAI Diversity Equity Inclusion Program Baseline Recommendations. This companion guide to the January 2022 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Report on Diversity and Inclusion within Financial Services identifies the foundational areas of a Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI) program, as well as steps RMAI member companies can take to establish and mature their DEI initiatives.

This guide is designed for companies that are building their DEI efforts, as well as those that are refining their well-established DEI programs. The RMAI DEI Task Force prepared this resource to help RMAI member companies implement the CFPB’s best practices and recommendations for organizations based on size. The guide is organized into action items within the following four areas identified in the CFPB Report:

1. Organizational Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion
2. Workforce Profile & Employment Practice
3. Supplier Diversity
4. Practices to Promote Transparency of Organizational Diversity and Inclusion

“DEI is a topic of growing awareness for our members and the larger credit ecosystem,” said RMAI Executive Director Jan Stieger. “This guide is one of several resources providing education to our members in this area. RMAI also offers a DEI Scholarship for our Annual Conference, and DEI education at our events and in our publications. This new guide provides members support for their own DEI programs.”

[article_ad]

The RMAI Board of Directors initiated the Diversity & Inclusion Task Force in 2019 after recognizing the development of D&I initiatives by the Fortune 500 companies. In February 2023, the RMAI Board of Directors reclassified the Task Force as the current Diversity Equity Inclusion Committee. The Committee’s mission is to empower RMAI member companies to create an inclusive culture by delivering rich content and experiences on diversity and inclusion practices that will allow their businesses to thrive.

Find out more and download Implementing Diversity Equity Inclusion Best Practices: RMAI Diversity Equity Inclusion Program Baseline Recommendations.

About RMAI

Receivables Management Association International (RMAI) is a nonprofit trade association representing more than 600 companies that purchase or support the purchase of performing and nonperforming receivables on the secondary market. The RMAI Receivables Management Certification Program is celebrating its 10th anniversary in 2023. Together with RMAI’s Code of Ethics, the Certification Program sets the global standard within the receivables industry due to the rigorous uniform standards of best practice which focus on protecting consumers. More information about RMAI is available at www.rmaintl.org.