Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc., a debt collector and credit furnisher from Kansas, filed a Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (or “RICO”) suit against Lexington Law Firm and its associated attorneys and entities.  

You can read the complaint here.

The suit, filed on May 21, 2018 in U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, alleges that the defendants run a “predatory and fraudulent ‘credit repair’ scheme.”  The suit alleges that Lexington Law devised the scheme “to bombard debt collectors with false credit dispute letters with the intention of deceiving [debt] collectors, like Plainitff, and frustrating their efforts to collect legitimate debts.” 

In describing the alleged scheme, Ad Astra claims that defendants target and prey on consumers in financial distress.  The suit also claims that defendants engage in actions that cannot legally be pursued in violation of several laws including the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Utah’s law requiring that letters from attorney disclose that they are from attorneys. 

The complaint brings light to the staggering volume of letters received by debt collectors from entities like defendants.  Ad Astra states that it has received 75,000 such letters in the mail and an additional 200,000 electronic disputes in the past four years, all from defendants.  The complaint even points to defendant’s own statement that they have secured “9,000,000 credit bureau deletions.” 

The complaint compares the stark similarities of the dispute letters, including similar format and spacing, identical fonts used in each letter, signatures that resembled each other but were different than the consumer’s actual signature, and using for too formal and uncommon language. 

Notably, the complaint alleges that the CEO of Ad Astra met personally with the directing attorney and principal of Lexington Law to discuss the issue, but that did not stop the high volume of dispute letters. 

As expected, this lawsuit will be closely followed by both sides of the industry.

Yesterday the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP or Bureau) announced it would disband all three of its formal advisory boards, including the Consumer Advisory Board (CAB). American Banker reported that CAB members were told about the development by Anthony Welcher, the BCFP’s new policy advisor for external affairs, during a conference call. The article quoted Welcher:

“We’ve decided we’re going to start the advisory groups with new membership, to bring in these new perspectives and new dialogue. We want more diverse voices and we want to bring people in from larger-scale organizations, larger-scale opportunities in the communities to hear about processes we may be going through.”

American Banker also reported that members of all three advisory boards, including the CAB, the Community Bank Advisory Board and the Credit Union Advisory Board received an email stating that they were terminated and would not be allowed to re-apply to a newly constituted future board.

The Bureau indicated that the decision was based in part on a need to reduce expenses, and in part on the comments received in response to its Request for Information about External Engagements. The comment period closed just about a week ago, and produced the following 13 submissions (with links to the full comments):

Consumer Group Comments

• Appleseed
• Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund
• Consumer Action
• Consumers Research
• National Council of Asian Pacific Americans
• Public Citizen

A few highlights:

Consumers Research urged the Bureau to hold more hearings about more topics (such as FinTech or cryptocurrencies, and the effects of the Durbin Amendment), with more diverse panels, in more rural or economically diverse regions. They also suggested the establishment of a bipartisan Commission on Consumer Finance to study the impact of consumer financial regulation post Dodd Frank.

Appleseed submitted comments similar to Consumers Research, and also suggested the Bureau should retain the CFPB complaint tool with public access to data; retain the “Tell Your Story” platform and promote it more widely; and expand small group meetings with expanded time for public to speak

Public Citizen added, “Though we recognize the value that industry representatives can bring to the CAB and its advisory mission, we recommend that a majority of the CAB be composed of individual consumers, consumer advocates, scholars, or others whose work focuses on protecting consumers. As a body charged with advising the CFPB on its consumer protection functions, the CAB should be led by and consist of members whose work is focused on consumer protection. Further, the CFPB already sustains two industry-based advisory boards related to community banks and credit unions.” 

Industry Group Comments

• Consumer Bankers Association
• Credit Union Advisory Council
• International Bancshares Corporation
• National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association (NRMLA)
• Receivables Management Association (RMA)

Highlights: 

RMA said that the Bureau’s engagement efforts have been one of the demonstrated strengths of the Bureau since its creation. The group shared that the CFPB, including senior staff, has been consistently available for meetings and speaking engagements. Nonetheless they noted some shortcomings, such as: the lack of ability to meet with the Director, and have him speak at conferences.

“Director Cordray refused numerous and repeated invitations to speak at annual conferences of non-depository participants during his entire tenure despite these participants being one of the industries he frequently cited for criticism. This aversion to speaking at conferences did not extend to the conferences held by consumer groups, originating creditors, academia, and some groups with which the Bureau had no involvement.”

RMA noted that Acting Director Mulvaney has shown an interest in engaging in direct dialogue with all industries on an even footing, calling it “a positive sign that the era of perceived hostility to the receivables industry, by our regulator, has come to an end.”

The group also noted the imbalance in representation and access between industry and consumer advocacy groups, as well as the lack of ongoing two-way dialogue, and cumbersome process for speaker requests, with the Bureau frequently not committing until just days prior to a conference.

International Bancshares said,

“While banks appreciate the Bureau’s efforts to have its personnel attend bank industry conferences and meetings, too often, the Bureau’s personnel do not appear to be candid nor responsive to questions from industry participants. Oftentimes, the Bureau’s personnel will simply read from prepared speeches and not give responsive answers to questions, or simply state they need to go back to Washington and confer with their legal department. The Bureau should view these events as an opportunity to receive constructive and meaningful input from its stakeholders, the financial institutions that are required to implement the regulations that it promulgates. Also, Bureau hasn’t done enough to solicit input from community and regional banks, even though there has been a Community Bank Advisory Council.”

NRMLA comments emphasize suggestions for changes to provide more outreach that is focused on reverse mortgages, more leadership on the CAB from the ranks of for-profit lenders, as well as CAB and Bureau staff performing other types of external outreach besides BCFP sponsored field hearings, town hall meetings and roundtables.

Academic Group Comments

• Financial Regulation and Consumer Protection Scholars
• Mercatus Center 

The Financial Regulation and Consumer Protection Scholars – a group of 40 law professors from a range of insititutions – said the Bureau should continue outreach and engagement efforts as they have been; the process has produced a balanced, responsive and inclusive approach. The group noted that, under the new Director, CAB members were no longer informed of which CFPB staff would be participating or listening to CAB conference calls. To the extent this new practice made CAB members feel they were being “watched,” Mr. Mulvaney had created yet another impediment to the effectiveness of the CAB.

The Mercatus Center said that the Academic Research Council has not fulfilled its purpose. The group expressed concern that minutes from the meetings are brief and vague, and that the Council could not provide an independent voice when under the control of the Office of Research. It also suggested that the Council should develop a plan to update the 1972 report of the National Commission on Consumer Finance.

Worth mentioning is another American Banker article which highlights the challenge of too many commenting deadlines. Author Rachel Witkowski notes that both industry groups and consumer advocates are struggling to respond to the deluge of RFIs from the BCFP. Some have limited resources; others say the timeframe is simply too short to gather input and gain approval from a large organization. As a result, groups are being selective in what issues they respond to and questions have been raised over whether the Bureau will get a complete picture on important matters.

insideARM Perspective

Thirteen responses is a pretty small number — although there is a decent balance here between industry and consumer group input. I will echo the issue of commenting deadline overload raised by American Banker’s Witkowski. Industry groups (and, no doubt, consumer groups alike) are very interested in the opportunity to provide comment. However it is indeed a challenge for industry volunteers to manage their full time day jobs, in addition to giving the proper amount of time to gather input, draft, discuss, revise, and finalize thoughtful responses to one request after another, for several months.

On behalf of the Consumer Relations Consortium (CRC) I will say that I don’t think we’ve ever been turned down for a meeting, and we did typically have the opportunity to direct the conversation, which has been greatly appreciated. Though I will also say that CFPB staff generally asks a lot more questions than they answer. We have also noted the ever-expanding debt collection rulemaking deadline, with target dates moving by weeks or months at a time; never being an accurate representation of next steps.

This article first appeared on the Ontario Systems Blog and is republished here with permission.

If you run a call center, a C2B business, a hospital, a government revenue center, or just want to provide excellent customer service, you need an Interactive Voice Response Unit (IVR). Yes, it is old technology. But in recent years, new functionality has made the IVR the hot new consumer communication tool for ARM, governments and healthcare providers.

The IVR first originated in the 1960’s and revolutionized the telephone industry. Keypad telephones were born from the IVR’s dual-tone, multi-frequency technology. And for almost 30 years, enhancements to the IVR technology beyond its use in keypad phones languished. Then came the 90’s.

During the computer technology boon of the 90’s, IVR solutions found a new purpose. The computer tech boom not only made IVR technology affordable, it mastered the integration of communication data and voice into one platform. Corporate America realized key pad technology could be used to interact with consumers for tasks other than dialing, today’s call center was born, and consumers and machines began to talk.

In recent years, the popularity of the IVR has skyrocketed. IVRs bring consumers and businesses together efficiently, systematically, accurately and are nothing less than technological problem solvers with seven must have functions:

1. Providing Disclosures – In addition to welcoming the consumer to your organization, inbound IVR solutions can be used to provide legally required disclosures and secure the consumer’s receipt. For example, after disclosing the call is being recorded or explaining the caller has reached a debt collection agency and information provided will be used to collect such debt, use the IVR to prompt the consumer to press a key and acknowledge receipt. This will confirm your compliance with the law and the consumer’s receipt of the information.

2. Directing the Right Party, Managing the Wrong – Callers come in many forms. Some are right parties and some are wrong. In either case, the goal is to assist the caller and direct him or her to the proper department or person. IVRs can provide right parties with access to representatives who can answer their questions, respond to their concerns and assist them with making payments. Similarly, IVRs can be used to direct wrong parties who were called in error or received a collection notice by mistake to a special team of trained representatives who can remove them from the data base and prevent future communications.

3. Collecting Cell, Text and Voice Mail Message Consent and Revocation – If you manage a call center you need to manage consent to contact consumers on their cell phones using an autodialer, text messages and unattended messages. This means the IVR is your new best friend. After welcoming the calling party, use the IVR to request consent, confirm consent, record reassigned cell numbers, and manage and confirm revocation of consent. The integration of the IVR with the collection software application makes this a seamless process and is one of the best ways to ensure compliance with the TCPA.

4. Managing E-Sign for Legal Documents and Disclosures – The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign) is the Federal law which legally establishes electronic records of contracts and documents as the functional equivalent of paper contacts and documents and which declares digitally created sounds and symbols expressed as a signature as the functional equivalent of a wet signature. The IVR has long been recognized as an E-Sign compliant process consumers may use to create and sign electronic records. It eliminates the need to mail paper contracts, agreements and payment plans to and from consumers for their signature and when properly integrated with the collection application, the IVR can populate letters and disclosures for delivery to consumers as required by law.

5. Accepting Payments – IVRs are consumer friendly. Consumers who want to make payments appreciate the convenience of an IVR payment solution. Used properly, the IVR can fully automate the payment process and eliminate the need for consumers to speak with an agent. Single or recurring debit card and bank account transfers can be authorized as ACH transactions and single or recurring credit card payments can be scheduled. Best of all, the IVR solution is recognized as an E-sign compliant tool that can create the digital record of a preauthorized recurring funds transfers authorization and the requisite digital signature to meet the requirements of Reg E.

6. Receiving complaints and disputes – If you are smart, you want consumers to call you with their concerns. You seek to collect debt from the right parties and do not wish to communicate with wrong parties. Yet, mistakes happen. Inbound callers should be provided with a simple, easily accessible opportunity to lodge a complaint, dispute a debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or file a direct dispute under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. A fully integrated IVR can respond to the consumer’s prompts regarding their complaint or dispute and launch the appropriate workflow to bring the matter to resolution.

7. Managing Contact Information – One of the most overlooked functions of an IVR is contact information management. With increasing frequency courts are enforcing contract language which requires consumers to maintain communication with the creditor and ensure their name, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses are accurate and current throughout the term of the loan or extension of credit. Using an IVR, consumers can access your organization 24/7 and you in turn make it easy for them to update their contact information and comply with the terms of the credit agreement.

Advances in technology are continuing to enhance the functionality of the IVR. Three-channel conferencing, tone clamping, IVR to text or email communications are all on the horizon. It’s a big opportunity – When are you going to take a moment to seize it?

On May 15, 2018, the Third Circuit broke away from the Fourth and Ninth Circuits on the question of when the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) statute of limitations begins to run. In Rotiske v. Klemm, No. 16-1668, 2018 WL 2209120 (3d Cir. 2018), the Third Circuit decided it begins to run on the date of the defendant’s violation, not the date that the plaintiff discovers – or should have discovered – the violation. 

Read the decision here. 

Factual and Procedural Background 

The decision does a very good job of clearly and efficiently describing what happened in this case: 

The relevant facts are undisputed. Appellant Kevin Rotkiske accumulated credit card debt between 2003 and 2005, which his bank referred to Klemm & Associates (Klemm) for collection. Klemm sued for payment in March 2008 and attempted service at an address where Rotkiske no longer lived, but eventually withdrew its suit when it was unable to locate him. Klemm tried again in January 2009, refiling its suit and attempting service at the same address.¹ Unbeknownst to Rotkiske, somebody at that residence accepted service on his behalf, and Klemm obtained a default judgment for around $1,500. Rotkiske discovered the judgment when he applied for a mortgage in September 2014. 

Rotiske filed suit against Klemm, alleging that Klemm’s actions violated the FDCPA. Klemm moved to dismiss based on the grounds that the statute of limitations for the FDCPA claim has expired. The district court agreed with Klemm. Rotiske appealed. A panel of Third Circuit judges affirmed the distrit court’s opinion, and the court sua sponte (on its own accord) ordered an en banc (by the full court) rehearing of the matter. 

The Decision 

The ultimate issue before the Third Circuit was whether the FDCPA statute of limitations began running when the violation occurred or when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the violation. The Third Circuit considered this a matter of statutory interpretation.  

The court discussed the two prevailing theories on the trigger point for the statute of limitations: the occurrence rule and the discovery rule. The occurrence rule dictates that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date that the injury actually occurred. The discovery rule, on the other hand, takes into consideration that a plaintiff, despite due diligence, may not know a violation occurred until much later. For this reason, the discovery rule begins the running of the statute of limitations on the date that the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the violation. 

It is in the legislature’s control whether to include a trigger for the start of the statute of limitations. General principles of statutory interpretation require that the courts first look to the plain meaning of the statute. Turning to section 1692k (d) of the FDCPA, the court found that Congress very clearly intended the occurrence rule to dictate the statute of limitations due to the very clear language used (“[a]n action to enforce any liability created by this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States district court … within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” (Emphasis added.)). 

Rotiske attempted to argue that the discovery rule should apply none the less, but this was to no avail. The court cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28, 122 S.Ct. 441, 151 L.Ed.2d 339 (2001), where the Court found that Congress may implicitly provide that the discovery rule does not apply where the legislature spells out a more restrictive rule. The Third Circuit found this to be the case with the FDCPA.

The Third Circuit referenced the opposite findings in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, but found those two Circuits to be in the wrong. The court noted that the Fourth Circuit did not look to the actual text of the statute when making its interpretation and that the Ninth Circuit took the TRW ruling as “food for thought” (despite TRW being a ruling from the highest court in the United States). 

The court likewise dismisses Rotiske’s argument that a prior Third Circuit case, Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380 (3d Cir. 1994), found that in general the discovery rule applied in a Title VII case despite the statute saying otherwise. The Third Circuit recognized that its ruling in Oshiver cannot be reconciled with the U.S. Supreme Court’s more recent decision in TRW and thus found that Oshiver does not apply. 

Ultimately, the Third Circuit en banc affirmed the decision and found that the FDCPA follows the occurrence rule. 

Analysis

With a circuit split on the issue, this may be a case ripe for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether or not the Supreme Court would hear the case is a different story, as first a petition for writ of certiorari (a request to the Supreme Court to hear the case) would need to be filed and then the Supreme Court would need to accept the case, which rarely happens.  

Unless that happens, debt collectors who collect nationwide will need to be aware of the circuit split when analyzing their legal risks. 

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — LiveVox Inc., a leading provider of cloud channel of choice communications solutions, announced LiveVox CEO will share with First Party leaders how cloud is helping solve for the challenge of managing multichannel consent by embedding consent management functions into existing agent workflows. In doing so, contact centers not only empower agents to meet customers on their channel of choice, but also establish a simplified path to evolving towards a digital strategy.

As a preview to his session, LiveVox CEO Louis Summe notes, “Businesses are facing mounting pressure to service a customer who is expecting more personalization than ever — at a pace faster than ever. Staying in front of these expectations can be challenging, especially for contact centers who must align engagement strategies with customer consent preferences across multiple channels. In this environment, we believe agents hold the key to solving for both and I look forward to sharing how at this year’s First Party Summit.”

Louis Summe, member of the CRC council and EY’s 2018 Entrepreneur Of The Year Semi-Finalist, will speak on Wednesday, June 6th at 9:30 AM – 9:40 AM CT

In addition to multichannel consent management, LiveVox has developed a number of capabilities in 2018 to help contact centers adapt to an increasingly digital environment. These include:

• Blacklist Management – Instead of seeking 3rd-party solutions that incur additional charges, LiveVox is now offering clients a pro-active path to managing LCIDs as part of the overall cloud solution. To learn more, read this blog.
• Integrated Chatbots – Included in LiveVox’s self-service solution, LiveVox has integrated chatbot capabilities that can be applied across multiple channels with a few clicks of a button.

LiveVox leaders will be at this week’s First Party Summit to share more about these solutions. To see them live, click here.

This article first appeared on TCPAland and is republished here with permission.

As we reported here recently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is seeking public comment on a number of key issues impacting the scope of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). One issue of profound significance to be addressed by the FCC, is how, exactly a party may revoke prior express consent to receive so-called robocalls after they had previously agreed to receive such calls.

Earlier this year in ACA Int’l, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FCC’s earlier rulings that consumer consent to robocalls can be revoked, at least where their contract does not say otherwise. The Court also blessed the FCC’s determination that such revocation can take place via “any reasonable means.”

Not content with that victory, the FCC is now seeking comment on whether it should make revocation requests easier for consumers to make— and for businesses to process—by standardizing the manner by which those revocations can occur. Some possible examples floated by the FCC include: (1) pushing a standardized code on one’s phone (e.g., “*7”), (2) saying “stop calling” in response to a live caller, (3) offering opt-out through a website, or (4) texting back “stop” in response to unwanted texts.

While each of these options has superficial appeal in an era when robocalls are rampant, unintended consequences abound and the devil will be in the details. What works for one caller, industry or business may not work for others. Indeed, the Courts have already blessed the idea that contracting parties can dictate the terms of revocation between themselves, a rule makes good sense to avoid the pitfalls of one-size-fits all solutions.

Focusing on the novel *7 revocation paradigm, for instance, will a consumer pushing “*7” during a telemarketing call be denied important servicing information related to their accounts by that same entity who will no longer be allowed to call for all purposes? Will pushing *7 with respect to a student loan issue prevent a consumer from learning valuable information about their home mortgage? Will a co-borrower pushing *7 on an account result in a primary borrower no longer receiving calls on their cell phones about their own account?

Without clear standards surrounding the direct impact of a *7 keypunch command—i.e. who must stop calling, what phone number, for what purpose, and for how long—the FCC risks creating even more uncertainty in the name of standardization. And while that might seem deliciously ironic to some, we in TCPAland have long ago lost our taste for that delicacy. The FCC needs to provide a revocation paradigm that is actually workable and embarking on a quixotic keypunch revocation solution risks replacing a handful of old problems with a pile of new ones.

Reducing consumer revocation efforts to a *7 may mechanize consumer intent into a language easily understood by machines—a concept Cambridge Analytica would certainly appreciate—but it overlooks the human being behind the keypunch. The risk of an uneducated, or perhaps rash, individual depriving themselves of access to information needed in the future because a moment of frustration or confusion is simply too real to ignore. And the risk of an implementing Order that leaves too many questions with respect to how callers can actually make use of the *7 data hits too close to home for those who have suffered under the relentlessly vague “declaratory” TCPA rulings the FCC has handed down over the last decade.

Presumably industry participants will answer the FCC’s call for comment and address how a *7 revocation paradigm would impact their institution. Let’s hope so. If not, American businesses may be left trying to implement yet another in a long line of half-baked TCPA ideas.

Recently Town & Country magazine published its annual Top 50 Philanthropists list. A new entrant for 2018 was RIP Medical Debt.

This is an organization we’ve been writing about for several years. The group gained attention in June 2016 when it became linked to an episode of “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,” when Oliver dedicated the show to the debt-buying industry, and claimed to give away $15 million. He accomplished this by purchasing a medical debt portfolio for $60,000 and then had RIP manage the debt forgiveness so that it could be done without tax consequences to the patients.

In December 2016 we published a Q&A addressing questions about the non-profit, how it works, where the money comes from, how it addresses HIPAA requirements, and more.

In June 2017 we wrote about a team of researchers that convened in New York City to study the impact of medical debt forgiveness.

In November 2017 we published this story about a group of Michigan nurses who raised $10,000 to buy and forgive the debts of 500 patients.

Then the local angle started to gain steam. RIP managed to partner with NBC to raise money in local markets across the country to purchase and forgive the medical debts of struggling local residents. In March 2018 we reported about NBC4, the local broadcaster in the Washington, DC market, which reportedly made a $15,000 donation to RIP so it could forgive $1.5 million in debt. NBC7 in San Diego made a similar announcement. Both stations are part of the parent, NBC and Telemundo Owned Television Stations Group, which announced a donation of $150,000.

The organization’s latest initiative is RIP Veterans’ Medical Debt Program. They are working to raise enough in donations by the end of 2018 to purchase and abolish $50 million in unpayable veterans and military medical debt in America.

RIP Medical Debt’s recognition by Town & Country is well-earned by this organization whose mission couldn’t be more timely or relevant.

insideARM Perspective

Some articles about RIP in mainstream media explain that medical debts can be sold for pennies on the dollar, and then collectors attempt to collect the full amount. While this is technically true, what is also true is that the lion’s share of medical debt is not sold. Instead, healthcare providers either attempt to collect it themselves, or engage professional debt collection firms that specialize in working with patients to

1. assist in sorting through the bills they have,
2. identify possible sources of payment (including insurance, or application for charity care)
3. establish settlements and/or payment arrangements in accordance with their client’s policy (the client may be a hospital, a physician, dentist, home health agency, skilled nursing facility, etc.); and
4. identify patients who may meet a healthcare provider’s standards for financial aid and work with those patients in applying to any applicable financial assistance programs the caregiver may sponsor. 

Legitimate collectors will tell you that they would applaud this effort. As a strategy, especially when working on behalf of non-profit hospital clients, it is important for collectors to help identify patients who do not have the ability to pay outstanding medical bills.  Collectors who are able to communicate with patients and/or their responsible parties prefer to focus their efforts on situations where there appears to be an ability to afford to pay. If there is an organization with an ability to resolve “unpayable” medical bills it would seem to be — all the better for everyone involved – the patients, the healthcare providers, and the collectors.

Congratulations to founders Jerry Ashton and Craig Antico for this well-deserved honor.

insideARM is proud to announce the 2018 Best Call Centers to Work For winners. This survey and award program is designed to celebrate excellence among call center work environments in customer care, collections, and outsourcing. 2018 marks the 11th year that insideARM has recognized the industry’s best places to work, primarily as rated by employees.

To be considered for participation, companies had to fulfill the following eligibility requirements:

• Be a for-profit or not-for-profit business or government entity;
• Be a publicly or privately held business;
• Must be in business a minimum of 1 year;
• Must have U.S. call center operations with at least 15 employees, providing either customer care, outsourced services, collections, or online chat services. Only employees working in the United States are eligible to be surveyed.
• Separate call center locations were asked to apply separately. 

As always, our program is administered by Best Companies Group, which conducts over 60 local, national and industry “Best Places” programs each year. insideARM was not involved in any way in the review of submissions or determination of awards. 

Companies from across the U.S. entered the rigorous two-part survey process to determine the Best Call Centers to Work For. The first part consisted of evaluating each nominated company’s workplace policies, practices, philosophy, systems and demographics. The second part consisted of an employee survey to measure the employee experience. The combined scores determined the top companies and the final ranking. 

This year, 25 companies met the standard to be selected. The Best Call Centers to Work For list is divided into three size categories: Small (15-49 employees), Medium (50-149 employees) and Large (150+ employees). 

All of us at insideARM applaud the winners on this great accomplishment. This is a rigorous process – it is NOT a pay to play contest. We encourage all organizations that meet the criteria to participate next year. Winning is a great badge of honor. However even those who don’t make the list get something extremely valuable – a blueprint for how they can improve – for practically no cost.

Click here to view the rankings by size category, and profiles on all of the winners.

The following are this year’s winners, in alphabetical order:

Advance Financial
American Profit Recovery, Inc.
Americollect, Inc.
Associated Credit Services, Inc.
Conrad Credit Corporation
Credit Collection Partners
Credit Solutions, LLC – Medical Collections
Delta Outsource Group
Eastern Revenue, Inc.
GB Collects
Healthcare Receivables Group
Hilton Grand Vacations
Hunter Warfield, Inc.
Investment Retrievers, Inc.
KeyBridge Medical Revenue Care
Mnet Financial
Professional Account Services, Inc.
Professional Finance Company, Inc.
Protocol Financial Service, LLC
Sentry Credit, Inc.
State Collection Service, Inc.
Team Recovery, Inc.
Todd, Bremer & Lawson, Inc.
United Credit Service, Inc.
Williams & Fudge, Inc.

The 2019 program will open for registration in the fall.

Click here to give us your contact information If you’d like us to notify you when that happens.

This article first appeared on TCPAland and is republished here with permission.

The prior express consent granted when a consumer voluntarily provides their phone number has its limits.  The recent ruling denying summary judgment in Walintukan v. SBE Entm’t Grp. LLC 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88036 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2018) is a good example of the parameters of this type of consent.

In Walintukan, the Plaintiff purchased online tickets for a concert at Create Nightclub in L.A., and provided his phone number as part of the purchase.  Several months later, Defendant sent Plaintiff two text messages promoting other events at the club, and got themselves sued in a nationwide TCPA class action.

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff consented to the texts by providing his phone number when purchasing tickets.  The court rejected the argument, finding that the scope of consent is defined by the “transactional context” in which Plaintiff provided his phone number.  Because the subsequent texts did not relate to the event for which Plaintiff had bought tickets, but instead were for different events and different artists (albeit at the same club), they were not within the scope of the presumed express consent provided by Plaintiff.

Walintukan isn’t groundbreaking, but it’s a good reminder of the limits of presumed express consent.  Of course, courts have reached different conclusions under this same rule when the texts are more closely related to the transaction at issue.  So, when a customer provides a restaurant his or her phone number when making a reservation, a text by the restaurant with links to specials for that night falls within the scope of the consent provided.  See MacKinnon v. Hof’s Hut Restaurants, Inc.,  2017 WL 5754308 (E.D.Cal. 2017).  But that consent has its limits – and as Walintukan shows – the more attenuated the connection between the original transaction, and subsequent text, the more likely it is that the subsequent message falls outside the bounds of the consent provided.

Last week in a joint announcement, First Data (NYSE: FDC) and Navient (Nasdaq: NAVI) announced they had reached a strategic agreement for First Data to become the primary provider of technology solutions for Navient’s federal and private education loans. As a part of the agreement, First Data will acquire Navient’s student loan technology platform. The deal is expected to close in the third quarter of this year.

According to the announcement,

“First Data is one of the world’s largest providers of credit processing services, with more than a billion accounts on file. This agreement will also position First Data as a major provider in the student loan technology market and allow First Data to further leverage its scale, technology, and deep experience on behalf of student borrowers. To reinforce First Data’s commitment to this space, First Data is establishing First Data Education, which will be led by Jeff Whorley. Jeff has been Group President, Asset Management and Servicing at Navient and will become a member of First Data’s Management Committee.

As one of the largest servicers of student loans, Navient will continue to provide its leading customer service, data insights, default prevention, back office support, and other services that have delivered a track record of customer success.

Navient will continue to service loans for its 12 million federal and private education loan customers, including those serviced under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education.”

insideARM Perspective

This is significant not only because of the sheer size of both companies, but because of the timing. The Department of Education (ED) announced last year that it is building a “NextGen” system to manage its entire financial aid process. It is expected to be a “mobile first, mobile-complete, omni-channel environment.”

Currently, the major loan servicers each use their own technology, so a borrower who has multiple loans may be dealing with multiple entities — none of whom are currently able to see the full picture. ED’s vision of the future is to have all servicers — and all borrowers — on a single platform, which should improve the customer experience significantly.

On October 20, 2017 insideARM reported that one of the primary servicers, Nelnet, announced its intentions to acquire another of the primary servicers, Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. The two companies had been working for some time on a project to develop a servicing platform which they call “GreatNet.” It was clearly developed with “NextGen” in mind; the GreatNet website currently states that it has been chosen as one of three finalists to provide the system for ED. I contacted GreatNet for background on where these “three finalists” might be publicly listed (and who the other two are) but they did not respond in time for publication.

This December 2017 diagram produced by ED illustrated the current loan servicing environment. The dark blue center section represented the area of focus for phase one of the NextGen project.

This February 2018 diagram illustrates a new enterprise-wide approach. Note that Private Collection Agencies (PCAs) are still represented, but the entire process is now encompassed in one box. Based on last week’s dismissal of FMS v. USA, perhaps a new version of this diagram will reveal a debt management and collection system that does not also have a box with 9+ PCAs. In its Motion, ED argued that its needs for PCAs have changed, as it anticipates servicers to conduct more pre-default activities in order to prevent defaults.

The latest Solicitation includes ten components: A-I, plus an independent quality assurance support role. Although defaults are not specifically referred to, it seems the components relevant to debt collection are E and F, which cover “business process operations, to include direct customer contact (inbound/outbound) and processing operations.” Component F is specifically described as supporting those activities which cannot be automated. A more detailed diagram states that “multiple awards [are] anticipated.”

The majority of components E and F are currently slated to launch as part of milestone 3 (out of 4), with a target date of late 2019 or early 2020. Of note is that the Solicitation states, “FSA recognizes that it may take time to deploy Solution 3.0. FSA also recognizes that it may not be cost-effective to service some of FSA’s older loans on Solution 3.0.” It is unclear how many is “some,” and whether these older loans are in default; some older loans do not have the same repayment options.

Dr. A. Wayne Johnson — who was appointed Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid (FSA) in June 2017, and then in January 2018 was named to lead a new ED unit called the Office of Strategy and Transformation — is in charge of the project to build NextGen. Johnson has deep qualifications for the job, though for what it’s worth, he was an executive vice president of First Data Corporation from 1992 – 1997 following its purchase of a company he founded. He has also worked at TSYS. Given their size, scope and experience, both of these companies could be serious contenders for a NextGen contract.

While having these firms on his resume might raise an eyebrow, I’ll concede it would likely be challenging to find a professional who has the experience for Johnson’s job at ED without having worked at any of the firms that are likely contenders for these contracts.

Finally, it will be interesting to see whether — down the line, if/when servicers are responsible for collections — the servicers are allowed to use subcontractors. Large PCAs may just be in the game again if they can hold out long enough.