Bankrupt Debt Acquisitions Partners with Beam Software

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. – Bankrupt Debt Acquisitions, the industry leader in the identification, purchase, and management of bankrupt and deceased debt has chosen BEAM as its purchased receivables management software platform.  Bankrupt Debt Acquisitions’ business model and evaluation process allow them to effectively liquidate bankrupt and deceased portfolios by identifying and monetizing otherwise uncollectible accounts.

“As a debt buyer, I had been looking for a software solution that could readily support our unique approach to helping organizations manage their bankrupt and deceased account inventory.  The integrated data exchange and data warehousing tools in BEAM work seamlessly with our account management service to the benefit of our clients,” said Jonathan Koop, Bankrupt Debt Acquisitions CEO.

Thomas Mohr, CEO of Beam Software commented, “Bankrupt Debt Acquisitions’ proactive approach to updating the status of an account removes the risk of bankruptcy stay violations resulting from missed notifications or erroneous data.  With Beam Software’s focus on compliance tools for its customers, this is a great partnership since BEAM users will be able to avail themselves of Bankrupt Debt Acquisitions service. This will allow our customers to focus on their collectible account inventory and eliminate the operational costs associated with the manual processing of paper notices.”

Bankrupt Debt Acquisitions identifies eligible secured and unsecured debt accounts and offers a premium to purchase those accounts.  They also provide a Litigant Alert service to identify litigious consumers.  Accounts are scrubbed throughout their collection life cycle to provide protection from consumers who have filed multiple FDCPA, TCPA, & FCRA lawsuits.

About Bankrupt Debt Acquisitions

Established in 2007, Bankrupt Debt Acquisitions is an industry leader in the identification, monitoring, servicing and liquidation of bankrupt and deceased debt. Customer solutions range from full bankruptcy servicing including purchase and liquidation, proof of claim filing and monitoring to litigious debtor scrubs. Bankrupt Debt Acquisitions is a proud member of the DBA International and the Better Business Bureau and has a DBA Certified Receivables Compliance Professional (CRCP) on staff.  For more information, visit www.bkacquisitions.com or call (800) 518-9248.

About Beam Software

Beam Software is a subject matter expert on purchased receivables and collections software.  Its product development team is a Microsoft Certified Partner and has written software for Wall Street while each of its executives have been heavily involved in the debt industry for over 20 years.  The company’s innovative collection software is built from real industry experience with leading edge technologies.  For more information, visit www.beamsoftware.com or call (800) 212-2326.

Bankrupt Debt Acquisitions Partners with Beam Software
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/deceased-debt/bankrupt-debt-acquisitions-partners-with-beam-software/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Portfolio Recovery Associates to Pay $18 Million to Settle TCPA Class Action

Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC (PRAA) will pay $18 million to resolve multidistrict litigation accusing the debt collection company of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making autodialed phone calls to consumers without their consent, according to documents filed Monday in California federal court.

Editor’s Note: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) is a special federal legal procedure designed for handling complex cases. MDL cases occur when civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts. In order to efficiently process multiple cases that could involve hundreds (or thousands) of plaintiffs in multiple different federal courts that all share common issues, those cases are consolidated and transferred to a single court for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery.

In this instance the MDL originally involves four (4) separate actions. The various actions that were consolidated in the MDL all involved allegations that PRAA violated the TCPA by placing debt collection calls to consumers’ cellular phones using an Automated Telephone Dialing System (ATDS).

The Plaintiffs in the case (In re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, Case No. 3:11-md-02295, United States District Court, Southern District of California) filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Class Certification that lays out the terms of the proposed settlement. A hearing to approve the proposed settlement is set for June 6, 2016.  A copy of that motion can be found here. The Defendants in the case are the aforementioned PRAA and PRA Group, Inc.

The Proposed Settlement

The proposed settlement consists of the following:

  1. Defendants will pay $18,000,000. Settlement Class members will receive a pro rata share of the balance of that amount after payment of notice and administration costs not to exceed $3,325,000, attorney’s fees not to exceed $5.4 million, litigation costs, and incentive awards for each of the named Plaintiffs not to exceed $6,250 each.
  2. The injunctive relief affirmed in Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 707 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2012) will be continued and expanded. In sum, the injunction will prohibit PRA from using its Avaya Proactive Contact Dialer to place calls to any person’s cellular telephone numbers without prior express consent.
  3. The Agreement defines the Class as follows: All natural persons residing in the United States who received one or more telephone calls from an autodialer or a predictive dialer operated by Defendants to such person’s cellular telephone number between December 23, 2006 and July 1, 2013, inclusive, and who are listed in the csv data file titled pra_outbound_dial_list_20140304.zip produced

to Plaintiffs’ counsel. (The data file identifies approximately 7.4 million Class Members as meeting the definition above.)

  1. A consent decree entered into with this settlement provides an injunction that prohibits PRA from using its Avaya Proactive Contact Dialer to place calls to any person’s cellular telephone numbers without prior express consent.
  2. Class Members will receive an opportunity to opt-out of the Class. Those that do not (“Settlement Class Members”) are eligible to claim and receive a pro rata share of the remaining common fund; the recovery for each Settlement Class Member who submits a valid claim will depend on the total number of valid claims. There is no minimum or maximum amount that any Settlement Class Member is entitled to receive.
  3. Any remaining funds will go to the designated Cy Pres Recipient. The Parties propose any cy pres relief be paid to the National Association of Consumer Advocates, in particular for its work with the Federal Communications Commission to ensure that consumers’ rights are maintained under the TCPA. No funds shall revert to Defendants.

insideARM Perspective

The TCPA insanity continues.

The TCPA is 1991 legislation. It was enacted before the widespread use of cell phone. It was designed to prohibit telemarketers that randomly dialed phone numbers of people where there was no prior business relationship. In a February 5, 2016 Blog posted in the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform website, a quote from Becca Wahlquist, an attorney for Snell & Wilmer, described the TCPA as “A destructive force that threatens companies with annihilation for technical violations that cause no actual injury or harm to any consumer.

The blog also noted that “TCPA case filings increased over 940% during the five-year-period between 2010 and 2015.” The following chart accompanied the article:

tcpa litigation chartinsideARM has written extensively on recent TCPA litigation as well as the July, 2015 FCC order regarding the TCPA. Last week at our Fourth Annual Larger Market Participant Summit a panel of attorneys from the Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP law firm provided participants with an excellent overview of the Appeal of that order. Neither the panel members or anyone who attended that session was willing to handicap the potential outcome of that appeal.  The ARM industry should be responding to all published TCPA opinions and modify practices accordingly.

 

Portfolio Recovery Associates to Pay $18 Million to Settle TCPA Class Action
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-buying-topics/debt-buying/portfolio-recovery-associates-to-pay-18-million-to-settle-tcpa-class-action/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Former CFPB Senior Advisor: Debt Collection Industry Must Press CFPB to Put Complaint Data in Context

Data can be accurate, but without context it could mislead. That was the message former CFPB Senior Advisor Jim McCarthy delivered to industry attendees of last week’s insideARM Larger Market Participant Summit in Washington, D.C.

The CFPB cares about data and accuracy, McCarthy noted, but it is not pairing collections complaint data with necessary context before it presents that data to the general public. And so long as that context is missing, CFPB complaint data could mislead the general public and the media about the nature of the collections industry, McCarthy warned.

McCarthy urged the collections industry to be good stewards of the complaint data in whole and to press the regulator to continue to improve data and transparency standards when it comes to collections complaint data.

How is the CFPB’s complaint data missing context? McCarthy points to a significant example: the full volume of complaints attributed to the industry and how the Bureau counts those complaints. Of the 834,400 collections complaints the Bureau received, a large percentage of complaints, around 34% or 283,387 complaints, have not been routed to or responded by any company. McCarthy believes the majority of the un-routed complaints could be debt collection complaints.

Many, perhaps most of those unattributed complaints likely belong to the bad actors in the industry – firms who have no interest in joining the CFPB complaint portal, investigating consumer complaints or in improving their processes. However, the Bureau often uses the full set of complaints, routed and un-routed, when analyzing collections complaint data for their Congressional Report and when it presents the Annual Consumer Response Report to the public. When the Bureau lumps complaint data involving unresponsive collections firms in with data pertaining to firms which do respond to complaints, it skews perceptions of the industry.

Jim McCarthy

Jim McCarthy, former CFPB Senior Advisor, Consumer Response

Specifically, Bureau reports note that collections complaints lead daily and monthly volume of complaints handled in 2015. The CFPB’s annual report also notes that only 47% of debt collection complaints are even sent to a company for response. That doesn’t sound so hot. And that’s the impression the public and the media take away from the CFPB’s report. If the Bureau reported on the performance or attributes only of complaints routed to a company for a response, the bureau’s reports would better communicate how the “responsive” debt collectors perform.

Another factor which would benefit from context in the public database is whether a consumer filed a complaint against the debt collector AND the original creditor. Because this counts as two complaints in the public database, McCarthy says, context about how those complaints are related would improve how that data is consumed and analyzed. Without context one could assume that complaint volume went up, when actually the way the bureau takes in debt collection complaints doubles (creates two complaints out of one) a percentage of all debt collection complaints. Simply noting whether a debt collection complaint is filed against the debt collector and the creditor would help normalize the data.

“Companies that are receiving and responding to complaints are shouldering the burden for the full volume of collection complaints in the CFPB reports, which includes un-routed [complaints directed at] the predators in the industry,” McCarthy said. “There is reputation risk in the public data base, but when there is no context explaining that the public database often includes two complaints for one consumer debt collection issue the message could get misunderstood. The public database contains only complaints for responsive companies. The data associated to the non-routed complaints, which one could assume represents the most harm, isn’t even in the public database and the work of the public data is limited.”

The Bureau doesn’t need to change methodologies, but it should explain those methodologies and what they actually measure, McCarthy said. “The CFPB doesn’t provide any context here to allow readers to understand that those complaints are not actually two separate complaints,” he adds.

What should the industry do? Explain the need for context, McCarthy argued. The industry has to make regular, reasonable arguments to the CFPB that the way it presents its data is not complete, that it lacks necessary context, and that CFPB data, as currently contextualized, can lead to a misleading view of the collections industry.

McCarthy believes the CFPB will make changes to the way it contextualizes industry data if the industry makes a cogent argument in favor of it.

“The CFPB is not interested in making errors,” McCarthy said. “So, when the industry points out those errors, the CFPB will react.”

 insideARM Perspective

insideARM has written extensively in the past about debt collection complaints and their lack of context. In a July 2015 article, insideARM CEO Stephanie Eidelman estimated that the true percentage of complaints against actual legitimate firms was likely 30-40% of the total number reported. The following is excerpted from that post:

insideARM reported on Forbes several years ago (we also published a comprehensive Complaints Compendium for 2012) that in the first quarter of 2012 there were approximately 50,000 complaints lodged against debt collectors with the FTC. Ten thousand of those (20%) were against unknown companies. After a painstaking process of normalization, we found that thousands more were against rogue operators whose numbers were no longer in service, or did not identify themselves in the way that legitimate companies do. I estimated that the true percentage of complaints against actual legitimate firms was likely 30-40% of the total.

Unlike the FTC, the CFPB verifies (not the validity) but the subject of each complaint so that it can be forwarded to a known human being for response. Otherwise, the complaint is not counted in the CFPB’s statistics. Indeed, for the second quarter of 2015, the CFPB recorded approximately 7,300 debt collection complaints – less than 15% of the volume reported by the FTC.

Worth noting is the fact that the greatest number of collection complaints continues to be related to attempts to collect debt not owed, or an inaccurate accounting of the underlying debt — a factor typically driven by the owner of the debt rather than the 3rd party collection agency. This, among other factors, helps to explain why the most complained about firms tend to include creditors and debt buyers. It also helps to explain why the CFPB has signaled that its much anticipated Debt Collection Rulemaking will eliminate the separation of accountability between creditors collecting on their own behalf and their service providers.

It also bears noting that even in the case of the state with the most debt collection complaints per 100k population (Washington, D.C.), 122 complaints represents a 0.12% “defect” rate.

Former CFPB Senior Advisor: Debt Collection Industry Must Press CFPB to Put Complaint Data in Context
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/debt-collection/former-cfpb-senior-advisor-debt-collection-industry-must-press-cfpb-to-put-complaint-data-in-context/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

LiveVox Discusses the Future of Consumer Contact Technology at iA’s 2016 Large Market Participant Summit

LiveVox Inc., a leading provider of cloud contact center solutions for enterprise operations, announced that LiveVox CEO, Louis Summe, has been invited to join a panel to discuss what macro trends will alter the financial services segment at this week’s Large Market Participant Summit presented by insideARM in Washington D.C.

On the session, LiveVox Chief Evangelist, Dusty Whitesell, notes, “As technology continues to move faster than ever, companies who can figure out how to use these advances will be the ones redefining success in this market. From risk-mitigation to agency performance, technology is changing how businesses achieve their competitive advantage. We are excited for session participants to get a sneak-peak at what is in store and learn first-hand how they may be impacted.”

The Large Market Participant summit is an exclusive event tailored to the specific challenges and needs of the industry’s largest firms. The summit offers leaders a unique opportunity to network and share insight in an intimate setting where the educational sessions are designed to be discussion-based and optimize interactions amongst participants.

About the Session: 

  • EVENT: 2016 Large Market Participant Summit
  • LOCATION: Washington, D.C.
  • PANEL: “What’s Next From ARM Industry Critical Vendors – What to look for in The Next Five Years”
  • DATE/TIME: Friday, April 22, 2016 at 9:10am ET

 

PANELISTS:

o   Louis Summe, Chief Executive Officer – LiveVox, Inc.

o   Peter Ghiselli, VP US Emerging Markets – TransUnion

o   Linda Straub-Jones, Dir. of Market Planning-Compliance – LexisNexis

o   Casey Stanley, VP Product Management and Marketing  – Ontario Systems

o   Matt Pridemore, Principal – Cornerstone Support

LiveVox Discusses the Future of Consumer Contact Technology at iA’s 2016 Large Market Participant Summit
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/livevox-discusses-the-future-of-consumer-contact-technology-at-ias-2016-large-market-participant-summit/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

CFPB Targets ARM Industry — Which Practices Should Your Company Avoid?

During the past year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has started to take a closer look at some of the ways that companies in the ARM industry do business. When the CFPB starts to take a closer look at an industry, it’s a good bet that penalties will follow soon. The CFPB most often issues penalties through the use of consent orders settled in federal court. The penalized parties agree to the consent orders through a “stipulation” that allows them to resolve the dispute and agree to the penalty without admitting guilt.

The CFPB intends for its consent orders to set industry-wide precedents. In March 2016, CFPB Director Richard Cordray referred to consent orders as a guide “to all participants in the marketplace to avoid similar violations and make an immediate effort to correct any such improper practices,” telling the Consumer Bankers Association that any company not following the precedents set by the CFPB’s consent orders is committing “compliance malpractice.”

The CFPB has issued multiple consent orders that regulate certain aspects of the ARM industry in the past year. The Bureau issued orders against EZCORP, Inc. for their practices in connection with attempting to collect debts, Citibank for using altered declarations in collections litigation, Encore Capital Group and Portfolio Recovery Associates for purchasing debts they should have known were inaccurate and attempt to collect those debts through unlawful means and the Student Aid Institute for false advertising and various other misrepresentations made to consumers. Other violations mentioned by the CFPB in multiple consent orders include a failure to properly investigate or report disputes to consumer reporting agencies, furnishing inaccurate information to CRAs, misrepresenting a debt in some way to a consumer, not having permissible purpose to access a consumer’s credit report, among other things.

Given the CFPB’s recent activity, what sort of practices should your company avoid? What is attracting the CFPB’s ire? The Bureau has the authority to issue penalties for violations of a range of laws, but they focus most often on violations of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

The main thing ARM companies are penalized for are so-called “unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices” (UDAAPs), which are prohibited by Sections 1031 and 1036 of Dodd-Frank. An act or practice is considered “unfair” if it can cause substantial injury to consumers, is not reasonably avoidable, and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition; “deceptive” if it misleads a consumer or could be perceived as misleading in any way; and “abusive” if it materially interferes with a consumer’s understanding of a product or takes unreasonable advantage of a consumer. Most often, ARM companies were penalized specifically for engaging in deceptive practices.

Other laws which are often cited in enforcement actions by the CFPB include the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Truth in Savings Act.

CFPB Targets ARM Industry — Which Practices Should Your Company Avoid?
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/cfpb-targets-arm-industry-which-practices-should-your-company-avoid/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

The Intelitech Group Announces Launch of StackUp, a Competitive, Reward-Based Collector Training Game for Collection Agencies

An entertaining way to train collectors in compliance and industry regulat­ions such as HIPAA and FDCPA as well as improve collector communication skills

Camas, Wash. – April 20, 2016 – The Intelitech Group, a premiere analytics provider and consulting practice in the ARM industry, today announced the launch of its latest collector training solution StackUp. StackUp is a game designed to help continuously train collectors in areas such as compliance, industry regulations, collection law, and communication skills in a fun and entertaining way.

StackUp offers collectors the ability to be trained while earning­­ certifications, cash prizes, and accolades as they compete against other collectors in the industry.

In addition to training collectors, the game will give agencies the opportunity to track test scores and collector performance, identify which subjects their team struggles with the most, and compare how their business and collectors “StackUp” against other agencies in the industry.

We have found agencies and collectors have more enjoyment being trained through StackUp than traditional training methods” says Jason Houston, Associate Partner at The Intelitech Group™.

Current StackUp user Jesse Brixey, Director of Revenue Management, J&L Teamworks has already seen success utilizing the training tool, “collectors will find that they are having fun while learning a lot of beneficial information”.

To learn more about StackUp visit www.playstackup.com or call The Intelitech Group at 360.260.9780

About The Intelitech Group

The Intelitech Group, a premier analytics provider for the collections industry, provides consulting and technology solutions to help agencies work smarter to achieve optimal results. Leveraging industry expertise and market intelligence with latest technology innovations, The Intelitech Group brings extensive knowledge, insights and practical tools to help agencies delve deep into all facets of the organization to measure, analyze and implement results-oriented solutions. For additional information, visit, visit www.intelitechgroup.com.

The Intelitech Group Announces Launch of StackUp, a Competitive, Reward-Based Collector Training Game for Collection Agencies
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/the-intelitech-group-announces-launch-of-stackup-a-competitive-reward-based-collector-training-game-for-collection-agencies/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

AmazonSmile Helps Decorated Military Vets Overcome Financial Struggles

ARM Vets Charity Combines Donations from Various Sources to Fund Grant-Making Program

Collingswood, NJ: ARMing Heroes, the collection industry’s charity for military veterans, is pleased to share the story of three military veterans from different walks of life to show how much they actually have in common. Each dedicated at least a decade of his life to serving his country, including time spent in both Iraq and Afghanistan; each earned no less than a dozen medals and commendations during his service; each struggled with financial problems after separating from service; and, each received a helpful grant from ARMing Heroes funded in part through the AmazonSmile program.

ARMing Heroes is registered with the program as an authorized funds recipient with the online shopping giant. Shoppers with an Amazon account can designate ARMing Heroes as their charity of choice, so that every purchase the person makes results in a donation of 0.5% of the purchase price to the charity in support of military veterans.  For every $200 spent through the website, military veterans receive $1 through ARMing Heroes, including 2015 grant recipients such as:

* David Schaecher: A 10-year veteran of the U.S. Army with active duty in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan. Returned home facing service-connected disabilities, overwhelming medical expenses, and mounting debt. The grant he received helped his family pay down a high balance credit card they often use to cover medical expenses.

* Moses Gipson: Served 10 years in the U.S. Army including one tour in Iraq and two tours in Afghanistan. Earned three Army commendation Medals, two Army Achievement Medals, an Air Force Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Medal, Parachutist badge, and several more.

* Zachary Scott: Highly-decorated U.S. Navy Parachute Jumper with more than 14 years of service. Medals and commendations include two Carpenter Mates First Class Joint Service Achievement Medals, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, two Army Achievement Medals, Combat Action Ribbon, Presidential Unit Citation, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Navy Sea Service Deployment Ribbon/Afghanistan Campaign Medal, and several others.

Here’s what a couple of these recipients had to say about receiving their grants in 2015.

David Schaecher

Schaecher_David

“Thank you so very much. This grant will help us to pay down a high balance credit card that we often use for David’s medical bills that many times insurance does not cover. We appreciate this grant and all the help you are offering to veterans and service members. May God bless you this Christmas, and thank you again.”

Moses Gipson (bottom left)

Gipson_Moses

“Thank you guys for all your support and patience. My family and I are truly blessed and fortunate for this opportunity that you have given us. The timing was Godspeed, I can’t express enough. Please accept this note and when it’s time for me to donate, NO DOUBT I will be there if I can help.”

Mr. Zach Scott

Scott_Zach

“Thank you so much again for all your help. I cannot tell you how much it means to me and how much I appreciate your organization helping Vets like me when it seems like no one else is. God bless.”

The grant-making program would not exist without support of generous donors within the ARM industry. Dozens of firms across the nation participate in the annual ARMing Heroes No Debts for Vets Charity Fundraising Drive, which runs from September 11th through Veterans Day, November 11th every year. The monies raised and donated by these firms go directly towards providing much-needed grants to the hundreds of vets who apply annually.

Any and all donations can help support this worthy cause. Hundreds of unemployed, underemployed, and disabled veterans are expected to apply this year, all hoping for a grant to help fill the gap between income and expenses, for needs that are largely unmet by government programs or even by other military charities. Stories of past grant recipients remind us all how rewarding this program can be.

Tax-deductible donations are accepted at any time online at www.armingheroes.org and via mail to PO Box 353, Collingswood, NJ 08108, payable to ARMing Heroes. Pledges may be made to info@armingheroes.org.  Any amounts pledged or donated now will be applied to the 2016 drive.

 

AmazonSmile Helps Decorated Military Vets Overcome Financial Struggles
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/amazonsmile-helps-decorated-military-vets-overcome-financial-struggles/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Appellate Courts Hold Typical Collection Letters Violate FDCPA

John Rossman, Moss & Barnett

John Rossman,
Moss & Barnett

Debt collectors and consumer advocates agree that collection letters do little (if anything) to truly inform consumers about their indebtedness. Very few consumers actually read collection letters. Further, the verbiage that debt collectors are required by law to include in each collection letter is so voluminous, confusing and often contradictory, any truly meaningful information is often obscured by the required verbiage.

The requirements for what debt collectors are required to provide in “snail mail” notices to consumers arises from a patchwork of Federal, State and local laws — as well as case law that often varies by jurisdiction — and many of the requirements are antiquated, dating back to the 1970s. Unfortunately, these dated and contradictory collection letter requirements continue to result in lawsuits and adverse Court decisions against debt collectors.

In the most recent episode of the Debt Collection Drill audio blog, attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin examine two recent cases decided by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, both of which found that typical collection letters violated the FDCPA. Below are links to those cases:

Janetos V. Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP

Avila V. Riexinger & Associates, LLC

 

Download it here: http://traffic.libsyn.com/thedrill/TDCD_ep56.mp3


Appellate Courts Hold Typical Collection Letters Violate FDCPA
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/appellate-courts-hold-typical-collection-letters-violate-fdcpa/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Online Lenders’ Use of ACH Can Lead to Cascading Fees, Account Closures for Consumers, CFPB Report Finds

Online lenders’ use of ACH networks to request payments can result in mounting fees and even account closure for borrowers with insufficient funds. That’s according to a new study from the CFPB, which took a look at the ACH behavior of lenders who, per the Bureau, make “online payday or other high-cost online loans with payments scheduled on a borrower’s payday.”

Half of online borrowers who avail themselves of these online payday-type loans end up with, on average, $185 in fees, the study notes. And, in one-third of these cases, the borrower loses the account entirely. (Although, on this second matter, the CFPB admits that there are other reasons besides this online lending debit scenario that may precipitate account closures.)

“After analyzing 18 months of data on more than 330 online lenders, we have found that borrowers face steep, hidden costs to their online loans in the form of unanticipated bank penalty fees,” said CFPB head, Richard Cordray.

Here is the scenario at the heart of the report. Online lenders often use ACH networks to deposit funds directly into borrower’s accounts. And then, when, payment is due, those lenders use the very same networks to withdraw payments. If the borrower in question has insufficient funds in his or her account, the borrower’s credit union or bank may charge an insufficient funds fee (NSF) or it may fulfill the request and charge an overdraft fee. During the time period covered in the report, the median fee in both instances was about $34.

Whether that financial institution opts to deny the payment or process it despite insufficient funds, the transaction starts with a fee.

The Bureau report also found that in many instances, the lender will attempt to debit the borrowers account again and again, in smaller increments, with the hopes that it can withdraw partial payments. There is no financial or legal disincentive for lenders to debit that borrower’s account repeatedly. But for the borrower, the fees mount and, in some cases, that borrower’s financial institution will eventually close the account.

According to Cordray, this kind of behavior should be considered abuse.

“Of course, lenders that are owed money are entitled to get paid back,” Cordray said, with regards to the study’s findings. “But we do not want lenders to be abusing their preferential access to people’s accounts.  Borrowers should not have to bear the unexpected burdens of being hit repeatedly with steep, hidden penalty fees that are tacked on to the costs of their existing loans.  Yet today’s report shows that this is just what is happening to many consumers.  We will consider this data further as we continue to prepare new regulations to address issues with small-dollar lending.”

Here are several takeaways from the report:

  • Half of online borrowers are charged an average of $185 in bank penalties: One half of online borrowers have at least one debit attempt that overdrafts or fails. These borrowers incur an average of $185 in bank penalty fees, in addition to any fees the lender might charge for failed debit attempts.
  • One third of online borrowers hit with a bank penalty wind up losing their account: A bank account may be closed by the depository institution for reasons such as having a negative balance for an extended period of time or racking up too many penalty fees. Over the 18-month period covered by the data, 36 percent of accounts with a failed debit attempt from an online lender ended up being closed by the depository institution. This happened usually within 90 days of the first non-sufficient funds transaction.
  • Repeated debit attempts typically fail to collect money from the consumer: After a failed debit attempt, three quarters of the time online lenders will make an additional attempt. Seventy percent of second payment requests to the same consumer’s account fail. Seventy-three percent of third payment requests fail. And, each repeated attempt after that is even less likely to succeed.

In 2015, the Bureau announced plans to prohibit high-cost online lenders from making more than two unsuccessful attempts in succession to debit a borrower’s checking or savings account. The Bureau also suggested that a new rule on the matter could be out later this spring.

The insideARM perspective

The actions taken by these online lenders are not illegal and make sense, from a strict financial perspective; but because the consequences for some borrowers have been material, it is not hard to imagine the CFPB considering this type of action to be abusive. This report and the comments the Bureau has made surrounding this are consonant with long-standing Bureau positions and actions – and, what’s more, serve as a general reminder to the collections industry to think through corporate policy and actions and assess whether certain actions could result in what the Bureau would consider a UDAAP violation.

More directly, however, this is a solid reminder for agencies who work with online lenders to vet the policies and procedures of those lenders. Why? Because we’ve seen plenty of collections agencies dinged by regulators for the behaviors and bad actions of the lenders for whom they work. And here is a great example of a potential pitfall. Remember to work closely with your online lender clients and make sure they are not handling consumer accounts in this way to save yourself from potential regulatory trouble.

Online Lenders’ Use of ACH Can Lead to Cascading Fees, Account Closures for Consumers, CFPB Report Finds
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/featured-post/online-lenders-use-of-ach-can-lead-to-cascading-fees-account-closures-cfpb-report-finds/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

LocateSmarter Introduces Movali Analytics and Movali 3.0

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa – LocateSmarter, a provider of consumer data and innovative technologies, announced today their new analytics professional services as well as their enhanced phone append product, Movali 3.0. The two new offerings will enable the collections industry to optimize the performance of their phone data through in-depth analysis of call disposition data and big data tools.

Movali Analytics will offer a solution that can organize collection agencies’ call disposition data, evaluate the data’s effectiveness, and work toward optimizing the client’s phone append product with data-driven metrics and product customization.

Clients can expect to see lower data costs from filtering out non-performing/bad data; improved operational efficiency by focusing on phone numbers most likely to yield a right party contact (RPC); and reduced regulatory risk with fewer wrong numbers.

LocateSmarter Senior Data Analyst, Brandon Huisman, commented, “Our end goal is to provide a highly efficient service to our clients that results in the best data possible, along with the information needed to maximize effectiveness. We will accomplish this by using call disposition data as a continuous learning mechanism to evolve and adapt the way skip tracing data is mined and utilized in the collection world.”

In addition to Movali Analytics, LocateSmarter will also be enhancing their batch phone append product, Movali, with additional data source options in their 3.0 release, providing unique, incremental RPC lift.

Movali provides a list of high quality data sources that can be used to create a custom product. The client is shown each data source’s performance metrics such as cell-to-landline distribution, quality score, processing time and hit rate. Using the Movali Simulator, the client can mimic how different combinations of the data sources would impact the product’s performance. This can be simulated at a client-level as well as a portfolio-level.

LocateSmarter Product Manager of Batch Services, Chance Hoskinson explained, “To maintain competitive advantage, many agencies handle portfolios with designated management, strategies, or technology. Today, those same agencies treat all their portfolios with the same phone products because it’s too difficult to manage a dynamic process internally and their vendor partners can’t make it a reality. We’re changing that with Movali 3.0.”

For more information about LocateSmarter, Movali Analytics or Movali 3.0, please contact LocateSmarter at 888-254-5501 or visit www.locatesmarter.com.

About LocateSmarter®

LocateSmarter, LLC, a subsidiary of CBE Companies, was formed in 2012 with a mission to deliver next generation, cloud-based skip trace solutions for accounts receivable management and collection purposes. The company developed an online application focused on providing quality consumer data and a patented process that connects its users to multiple data providers and data sources.

LocateSmarter’s key values include:

  • Increasing regulatory compliance and operational efficiency by focusing on data quality
  • Providing measurable data so businesses can make educated decisions about their skip tracing strategies
  • Ensuring that businesses are able to quickly adapt and customize their products/processes in order to comply with government regulations and client requirements

For more information on LocateSmarter and its products, please visit www.locatesmarter.com or call 888-254-5501.

LocateSmarter Introduces Movali Analytics and Movali 3.0
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/collection-technologies/collection-technology/locatesmarter-introduces-movali-analytics-and-movali-3-0/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management