Dallas Debt Dialogue Moved to Bigger Venue; Registration Re-Opened

September 6, 2015 By Leave a Comment

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced yesterday that it has moved the second Debt Collection Dialogue, the “Dallas Dialogue,” to Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law on September 29, 2015. The FTC switched to this larger venue because the number of pre-registrations had almost reached the maximum for the previously scheduled venue. Pre-registration, which was closed on August 13, has been re-opened.

More information about the Dallas Dialogue, including how to pre-register and how to submit questions for the two panels in advance, is posted at www.ftc.gov/debtcollectiondialogue-dallas.

The third Debt Collection Dialogue, in Atlanta, will begin at 1:30 p.m. on November 18 at the Latin American Association, 2750 Buford Highway. Information about the Atlanta event is available at www.ftc.gov/debtcollectiondialogue-atlanta.

Both events are free and open to the public, but pre-registration is recommended.

insideARM had previously written about the first Debt Dialogue, which took place in Buffalo, NY on June 15, 2015. Some had criticized the event as more of a series of pre-scripted announcements than an actual back and forth dialogue. This upcoming event features several industry panelists, and promises to deliver more of the dialogue that some had wished for. We will report on the event and let you know.

Dallas Debt Dialogue Moved to Bigger Venue; Registration Re-Opened
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/dallas-debt-dialogue-moved-to-bigger-venue-registration-re-opened/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Filed Under: News

Apparently Creditor Friendly North Carolina Debt Collection Law Revision Surprises Some

September 6, 2015 By Leave a Comment

On August 5 the General Assembly of North Carolina passed Senate Bill 678 which amended the State’s debt collector statutes to more nearly conform to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The following changes were made.

§ 75-50. Definitions. A new definition was added:

“Location information” means information about a consumer’s place of abode, any telephone numbers used by the consumer, and information about the consumer’s place of employment.”

§ 75-53. Unreasonable publication. The following changes (stricken portions)/additions (underlined portions) were made:

No debt collector shall unreasonably publicize information regarding a consumer’s debt. Such unreasonable publication includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) Any communication with any person other than the debtor or his attorney, except:

  1. With the written permission of the debtor or his attorney given after default; To designated third parties with the written permission of the debtor or his attorney.
  2. To persons employed by the debt collector, to a credit reporting agency, to a person or business employed to collect the debt on behalf of the creditor, or to a person who makes a legitimate request for the information.
  3. To the spouse (or one who stands in place of the spouse) of the debtor, or to the parent or guardian of the debtor if the debtor is a minor and lives in the same household with such parent. If the debt collector has a good faith belief that the exception set forth in this sub-subdivision applies to a particular communication, that communication shall not be a violation of this sub-subdivision.
  4. For the sole purpose of locating obtaining location information about the debtor, if no indication of indebtedness is made. A debt collector making a communication under this sub-subdivision shall:
    1. Identify himself or herself, state that he or she is attempting to confirm or correct location information about the debtor, and, only if expressly requested to do so, identify his or her employer.
    2. Not state that the debtor owes a debt.
    3. Not communicate with any particular person more than once per week or a total of three times during any 30-day period unless requested to do so by the person.
  1. Through legal process.

§ 75-54. Deceptive representation. Section 2 was rewritten as follows (underlined portion added):

No debt collector shall collect or attempt to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer by any fraudulent, deceptive or misleading representation. Such representations include, but are not limited to, the following:

(2) Failing to disclose in all communications attempting to collect a debt that the purpose of such communication is to collect a debt, unless the communication is made to a third-party pursuant to G.S. 75-53 for the purpose of obtaining location information about the debtor.

§ 75-55. Unconscionable means. Section 2 was amended as follows (underlined portion added):

No debt collector shall collect or attempt to collect any debt by use of any unconscionable means. Such means include, but are not limited to, the following:

(2) Collecting or attempting to collect from the consumer all or any part of the debt collector’s fee or charge for services rendered, collecting or attempting to collect any interest or other charge, fee or expense incidental to the principal debt unless legally entitled to such fee or charge. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the collection of filing fees, service of process fees, or other court costs actually incurred. The collection of such fees is not a violation of this Article or of Article 15 of Chapter 53 of the General Statutes.

According to a July 2015 article in The News & Observer, some North Carolina legislators expressed concerns that these changes roll back protections that their constituents had under the previous law.

An article posted last week in The Globe (serving Camp Lejeune and the surrounding area) says that these changes will make it easier for creditors to communicate with commanding officers, employers, and others about debtors. The concern raised is with the change in § 75-53 (1) a. which essentially removes the phrase “after default,” suggesting that permission can be given at any time, such as buried within the original contract.

Apparently Creditor Friendly North Carolina Debt Collection Law Revision Surprises Some
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/apparently-creditor-friendly-north-carolina-debt-collection-law-revision-surprises-some/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Filed Under: News

CBA Joins the Bandwagon; Files Petition to the FCC for Declaratory Ruling

September 6, 2015 By Leave a Comment

The Consumer Bankers Association (CBA) announced today that they have filed a petition for review of the Federal Communications Commission’s July 10, 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order  in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Petition for Review details the various challenges to the FCC Ruling, alleging that the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the following elements of that order:

1)      FCC finding that the “capacity”  of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) is “not limited to its current configurations but also includes its potential functionalities”

  1. Finding that the definition of an “ATDS” as any equipment for which “there is more than a theoretical potential that the equipment could be modified to satisfy the [ATDS] definition.

2)      FCC finding the term “called party” for purposes of the TCPA’s exemption for calls made with “prior express consent” as the current subscriber or customary user of the phone instead of the intended recipient of the call.

3)      FCC creating a “one-call” exemption for calls made to a telephone number for which the caller has been provided “prior express consent” but which number has subsequently been reassigned to a new subscriber and imposing liability for every call made to that number thereafter, whether or not the call was ever answered or whether the caller ever knew that the number had been reassigned.

4)      FCC finding that the TCPA does not allow callers to define the manner in which “prior express consent” may be revoked, even if the established methods for revocation are reasonable.

5)      FCC finding that text messages be treated as phone calls for purposes of the TCPA and that there should be no distinction between text messages and phone calls for assessing TCPA liability and applicability.

The CBA Petition will be consolidated with the prior Petitions filed by ACA International and others and will be heard as a single case before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

insideARM Perspective

insideARM will continue to monitor and report on this case and this issue that is critical to the industry. TCPA litigation continues to be an incredible cost to companies in this space. The long-term implications are significant. It was good to see the CBA jump into the fray.

 

CBA Joins the Bandwagon; Files Petition to the FCC for Declaratory Ruling
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/credit-card-accounts-receivable/charge-off/cba-joins-the-bandwagon-files-petition-to-the-fcc-for-declaratory-ruling/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Filed Under: News

As Economy Improves, Collectors Need Fresher, Expanded Data Sets, TransUnion Says

September 6, 2015 By Leave a Comment

How do you identify which accounts have a higher likelihood to pay? Every collections firm wants to get better at answering this question. TransUnion claims that firms can – with better, fresher account data. Scoring accounts with a broader data set and more historical data can help firms better separate the uncollectable accounts from those that might pay, according to the credit scoring company.

TransUnion claims that with an expanded data set, its own, new model, the CreditVision Recovery Model, yields a 3% increase in the number of payers, a 9% increase in the number of borrowers, and 13% more dollars recovered from payers in the top tier.

TransUnion’s proprietary model was designed to incorporate new data types more representative of recent economic conditions. For the analysis, TransUnion uses 30 months of account history and nine separate data elements, including balance, payment due, payment made, high credit, past due and credit limit. For the analysis, TransUnion looked at several forms of debt, including medical, credit card and student loan debt. The company then analyzed more than 40 million accounts from 15 collection agencies and debt buyers.

The economy is changing and collections firms can’t rely on aging data if they want to remain effective, says TransUnion’s specialized risk group president Peter Ghiselli.

“As the economy continues to recover, collection agencies and debt buyers need a broader and fresher data set that is representative of recent economic conditions,” Ghiselli says. “This new recovery model is built on current consumer credit data to incorporate the evolving credit landscape, allowing collectors to see a substantial improvement in the number of payers and dollars recovered.”

“For collection agencies and debt buyers, every dollar recovered is important, but collectors need to prioritize accounts that have a higher likelihood to pay,” he adds.

As Economy Improves, Collectors Need Fresher, Expanded Data Sets, TransUnion Says
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/as-economy-improves-collectors-need-fresher-expanded-data-sets-transunion-says/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Filed Under: News

LocateSmarter Determined to Change the Data Industry with New Product

August 30, 2015 By Leave a Comment

CEDAR FALLS, IA – Today, data company LocateSmarter announced the launch of Movali 2.0, a phone append product. Movali 2.0 allows customers to create custom phone append products in real-time by choosing from a list of available data sources. The customer is provided with metrics on each data source’s hit rate, phone type, priority score and processing time.

This news comes just months after the company’s first announcement of Movali.

LocateSmarter President Chad Benson explained, “With our first Movali product release, we created a phone append product focused on data quality and reducing excess bad data. We worked with our data sources to tighten up the logic used to determine matches and in doing so, we were able to compete with leading data providers and win champion challenger tests. With Movali 2.0, we’ve expanded our data sources and added the ability to customize around each source. We’re introducing a disruptive approach to the market that empowers our customers.”

Benson commented that many data providers use similar data sources in their phone append products, however, the customer doesn’t typically have visibility into the overlapping data sources.

“With Movali 2.0, we’re being extremely transparent.” Benson added, “We give our customers visibility into the data sources and provide them with metrics to help them tailor the product to fit their specific business needs.”

Movali 2.0 features an interactive dashboard that shows statistics on each data source. These metrics are shown in real-time and include hit rate, phone type, priority score and processing time. In addition, Movali’s waterfall simulator displays how the product will perform based on the order of the chosen data sources.

However, LocateSmarter doesn’t just leave it up to the customer to create their phone append product, they delegate a team of data strategists and analytics professionals to help the customer make sense of their data and recommend  specific Movali data sources.

“I think what is unique about LocateSmarter is that we really roll up our sleeves and dig into the data with each client,” stated Manager of Consumer Data Strategy, Chance Hoskinson. “We want our customers to be able to clearly see how our products can deliver a positive impact to their operations – how we can help decrease wrong numbers, how we can increase right party contact rates, and how they can ultimately collect more money while reducing labor and data costs.”

Movali 2.0 is also helping meet clients’ requirements too.

Hoskinson mentioned, “What’s great about Movali 2.0 is that if our customers want all landline phone numbers – we can accommodate that in a few simple clicks. If they need to manage to a specific hit rate due to limited internal resources – we can handle that too. Plus, at any time, they can make changes to the product themselves too. Everything can be done in real-time through our easy-to-use online platform.”

LocateSmarter will deliver a complete set of scrubs products in the coming months and plans to introduce Movali 3.0 are well underway. Movali 3.0 will focus on leveraging disposition data in the analytics and decision making process.

For more information on LocateSmarter’s newest phone append product or for partnership opportunities, please call 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.

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
  • Streamlining the data testing and onboarding process with a patented online platform

Interested data partners are advised to contact LocateSmarter at 866-912-1314 or info@locatesmarter.com.

LocateSmarter Determined to Change the Data Industry with New Product
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/locatesmarter-determined-to-change-the-data-industry-with-new-product/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Filed Under: News

FTC’s Reilly Dolan Lists Those Banned From Debt Collection, and Discusses Industry Self-Regulation

August 30, 2015 By Leave a Comment

Earlier this week, Reilly Dolan, Associate Director, Division of Financial Practices at the Federal Trade Commission posted a blog about the debt buying industry and its efforts to self-regulate. Below is the full text of the piece, which offers insight into the regulator’s expectations. Also of interest is the link to the 75 bad apples recently banned from the debt collection business.

—

Last year the FTC received 280,998 complaints about questionable debt collection practices. We think consumers and responsible members of the industry can agree that number is higher than it should be. The FTC is fighting that battle on three fronts. We’ve brought dozens of cases – both on our own and with state partners – to enforce the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Section 5. We’ve fought to have 75 bad apples removed from the debt collection barrel. And we continue to educate consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities in the collections process. But there’s another important effort underway.

Recently I was a panelist at a meeting of DBA International, a trade association that represents many members of the debt buying business, and I was asked about DBA’s ongoing efforts to put together a program of industry self-regulation.

The FTC has always been an enthusiastic proponent of effective self-regulation. We think the benefits are obvious. Self-regulation can encourage compliance through an alternative dispute resolution approach that is far less disruptive than litigation. It can foster fair competition so that law-abiding companies don’t have to go head-to-head with competitors that cross the line. And especially in industries whose reputation has been tarnished by bad apples, it can be an important step toward winning back public confidence.

We’ve also learned that self-regulation is worth doing only if it’s done right. We’ve looked at a lot of self-regulatory set-ups over the years. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach, but the good ones seem to have some characteristics in common.

  1. Effective self-regulatory programs are transparent. They feature consistent, workable standards that are easily understood by industry members, consumers, and law enforcers. A key component of transparency is avoiding conflicts of interest. No sweetheart deals or smoked-filled rooms. Effective regimens are open, autonomous, and above-board.
  2. Effective self-regulatory programs are nimble.  For most industries, the innovation button seems to be stuck on fast-forward. The best programs stay ahead of the game with active industry monitoring and standards that respond to changes in technology and the marketplace.
  3. Effective self-regulatory programs have teeth. Self-regulation doesn’t work when there’s lip service, but no bite. An effective enforcement mechanism is essential – for example, referring to law enforcers those who don’t promptly cure their practices.
  4. Effective self-regulatory programs have industry buy-in. Look at programs that have stood the test of time and what do you see? They all enjoy the widespread support of industry members. Businesses may not always agree with the result, but they respect the integrity of the process. And they put muscle behind it by actively participating and encouraging others to participate, too.

We’ll watch with interest as self-regulatory efforts continue in the debt buying industry and other sectors.

FTC’s Reilly Dolan Lists Those Banned From Debt Collection, and Discusses Industry Self-Regulation
http://www.insidearm.com/opinion/ftcs-reilly-dolan-lists-those-banned-from-debt-collection-and-discusses-industry-self-regulation/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Filed Under: News

CBE VP Sam Deines to Ignite Passion at TRMA

August 30, 2015 By Leave a Comment

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa – CBE Companies Inc. (CBE) Vice President for Organizational Development Sam Deines makes a natural fit for the Telecommunications Risk Management Association (TRMA) fall conference and its theme, “Igniting Passion.”

Deines uses her passion for people to create an engaged, excited workforce at CBE every day. At the TRMA conference, Deines will share research, ideas and takeaway tools about employee engagement in her presentation, “Light Up Your Employees.”

“A company becomes greater than the sum of its parts when employees are engaged,” Deines said. “If employees feel an emotional connection with their company and know their work matters and why, they’re willing to go the extra mile.”

TRMA is an industry forum for risk management professionals from the Telecommunications, Pay TV, Utility, Waste Management and other industries to collaborate, understand, and share best practices related to acquisition risk management, customer life-cycle and uncollectible debt issues among its members.

The TRMA conference Sept. 1 and 2 in Denver will feature more than 20 speakers incorporating the “Ignite Passion” theme into topics ranging from employee retention to regulatory compliance.

Deines brought experience as a mental health counselor, a leadership and team building consultant and a business owner in the leadership arena to CBE eight years ago. As Vice President of Organizational Development her expertise is in employee engagement, personal and professional development, training and retention strategies and corporate culture management.

In her TRMA presentation, Deines will illustrate why employee engagement matters. She will share her thoughts on what makes people tick and how to use that information to create an engaged workforce that produces measurable benefits for companies.

About CBE Companies

Founded in 1933, CBE Companies is a global provider of outsourced call center services focused on connecting people with solutions. The company specializes in receivables management and customer care services. This narrow focus has enabled the company to be an expert in every aspect of the business. From a one-of-a-kind culture immersion approach to a proven ramp process, CBE’s focused expertise saves its partners money and enables them to focus on their core business.

CBE approaches every business relationship as a strategic partnership. The company shares in its partners’ successes and failures and strives to create more of the former and less of the latter. CBE firmly believes transparency and communication are the cornerstones in the foundation for success. The company’s approach to a strategic partnership begins with open communication; this assures CBE partners that the team handling their business is committed to delivering customer insights, ideas and new ways to accomplish goals.

With more than 1,600 people in six locations globally, CBE Companies can deliver the right solution in the right location(s) for your ever-changing business needs. Its corporate headquarters is located in Cedar Falls, Iowa, with two facilities in Waterloo, Iowa, and additional facilities in Overland Park, Kansas; New Braunfels, Texas and Manila, Philippines.  The organization is consistently recognized as a local Employer of Choice.  It has also been recognized by Workplace Dynamics as one of Iowa’s Top Workplaces. For more information about CBE Companies, please visitwww.cbecompanies.com or call 888-386-0273.

CBE Companies Press Kit

CBE VP Sam Deines to Ignite Passion at TRMA
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/collections-jobs-news/collection-jobs/cbe-vp-sam-deines-to-ignite-passion-at-trma/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Filed Under: News

LiveVox and EOS NCN Discuss Emerging Agency Practices That Leverage New Canadian Contact Center Capabilities

August 30, 2015 By Leave a Comment

SAN FRANCISCO – LiveVox Inc., a leading provider of cloud contact center solutions for enterprise operations, announced that it will host an operations expert from EOS NCN to discuss emerging practices that take advantage of new technical capabilities.  Al Weaver, Vice President of Operations for EOS NCN, will share his view of optimizing the mix of people, processes and technology to drive superior business results in an agency practice.

The webinar takes place Wednesday, September 2 at 2:00PM (Eastern time) and is designed for agency operations executives and for revenue cycle managers in industries such as healthcare.

Panelists will discuss approaches to setting up and optimizing campaigns, with multiple tactics made possible by the rollout of LiveVox’s cloud contact center solution into Canada.  They will also cover other lessons learned in deploying technology in similar environments.

Brian Hamilton, Operations Consultant at LiveVox, states of the event: “Agencies face increasing pressure to effectively complete outbound outreach and education while simultaneously increasing their ability to service incoming calls. Businesses must take a holistic look at how they use technology and shift their processes to facilitate faster resolutions and smarter agents. We hope to share with the audience some ways that can be done.”

About the event:

EVENT: Emerging Agency Practices That Leverage New Canadian Contact Center Capabilities (Webinar)

DATE/TIME: Wednesday, September 2, 2:00 – 3:00 PM, Eastern Time

PANELISTS:

Al Weaver, Vice President of Canadian Operations and Strategy, EOS NCN

Brian Hamilton, Operations Consultant, LiveVox, Inc.

Joe Heinen, Senior Director, Product and Solution Marketing,LiveVox, Inc.

REGISTER: http://livevox.hs-sites.com/webinar-for-canada

Click to register, and we will send a calendar appointment item with webinar details.

About LiveVox, Inc.

LiveVox is a leading provider of cloud contact center solutions for enterprise operations.  Through a patented PCI-certified cloud platform and redundant IP/MPLS mesh, it delivers true multi-tenant highly scalable and burstable contact center solutions such as ACD, predictive dialer, IVR, centralized call recording, business analytics and compliance suite.  LiveVox enables fast deployment of contact center solutions from the cloud, while offering customers full control to manage their day-to-day business requirements in a cost efficient way.  For more information, such as the press release on theLiveVox Canadian center, visit http://www.livevox.com.

About EOS NCN

EOS NCN was originally established in 1964. Since that time, the company has concentrated on making its receivables management operations dynamic, transparent, responsive and effective. Solid performance over the past 50+ years has brought rapid and healthy corporate growth that continues today. Since 2011, EOS NCN has been part of the EOS Group.  For more information, visit http://www.eos-ncn.ca

LiveVox and EOS NCN Discuss Emerging Agency Practices That Leverage New Canadian Contact Center Capabilities
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/livevox-and-eos-ncn-discuss-emerging-agency-practices-that-leverage-new-canadian-contact-center-capabilities/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Filed Under: News

Eleventh Circuit Court Cites “Plain Language” of the FDCPA, Rules in Favor of Capital One in Debt Collection Case

August 30, 2015 By Leave a Comment

If an entity acquires a debt in default and tries to collect on it, does that automatically make it a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act? Several courts, including the Third, Seventh, and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals, all said yes it does. In a surprise ruling earlier this week, however, the Eleventh Circuit Court bucked the trend and ruled instead that the FDCPA is just not that simple. An entity’s primary purpose matters.

In the case in question, Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., plaintiffs argued that Capital One most certainly fits the FDCPA’s definition of “debt collector” because the subject debt it acquired from HSBC, as part of a portfolio of credit card accounts, was already in default. Capital One argued that it did not meet the definition because it was collecting on debt owed to it and not on debts owed to another entity.

Multiple circuit courts ruled that the distinction does not matter. Capital One acquired this debt in default and tried to collect on it. It is, by FDCPA definition, a debt collector – even if it’s collecting on its own debt – and therefore subject to the FDCPA.

Not so fast, said the Eleventh. Before an entity gets saddled with the Act’s “debt collector” designation, it has to meet one of two “substantive requirements.” It has to collect debt regularly or function, primarily, as a debt collecting entity. In other words, a single instance where an entity attempts to collect a debt in default does not make it, per the FDCPA, a “debt collector.” The court found that since Capital One does not function primarily as a debt collector and was, in this instance, only making an effort to collect debts owed to it, it does not meet either of the requirements.

“We need look no further than the statutory text to conclude that, under the plain language of the FDCPA, a bank (or any person or entity) does not qualify as a ‘debt collector’ where the bank does not regularly collect or attempt to collect on debts ‘owed or due another’ and where ‘the collection of any debts’ is not ‘the principal purpose’ of the bank’s business, even where the consumer’s debt was in default at the time the bank acquired it,” the ruling states.

Davidson attempted to argue that Capital One should count as a debt collector under the FDCPA because it regularly collects debts originally owed to other entities – debts that were in default when Capital One acquired them.

The salient distinction involves debt ownership and timing, not the simple act of collecting debt in default, the court countered.

“Our inquiry … is not whether Capital One regularly collects on debts originally owed or due another and now owed to Capital One; our inquiry is whether Capital One regularly collects on debts owed or due another at the time of collection,” the ruling notes. “The amended complaint makes no factual allegations from which we could plausibly infer that Capital One regularly collects or attempts to collect debts owed or due to someone other than Capital One.”

The ruling affirms the district court’s earlier dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint, noting that, contra the plaintiff’s assertion, Capital One does not meet the definition of “debt collector” under the FDCPA.

insideARM Perspective

In addition to the fact that this decision does not fall in line with those by other courts, this case is interesting in light of the CFPB’s focus on looking at first party collectors. The Bureau’s questions during its process of debt collection rulemaking, and recent enforcement actions, seem to point to its intention to treat first party collectors more like third party collectors.

 

Eleventh Circuit Court Cites “Plain Language” of the FDCPA, Rules in Favor of Capital One in Debt Collection Case
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/eleventh-circuit-court-cites-plain-language-of-the-fdcpa-rules-in-favor-of-capital-one-in-debt-collection-case/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Filed Under: News

Another Positive TCPA “Prior Express Consent” Case

August 30, 2015 By Leave a Comment

Yesterday insideARM reported on an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Decision confirming the validity of prior express consent in a TCPA case. Today we report on another, similar case.

On Friday, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in the case of  Hill v. Homeward Residential Inc., No. 2:13–CV–00388, 2015 WL 4978464, affirmed the lower court jury decision determining that a person gives “prior express consent” when he gives a creditor his cell phone number in connection with a debt.

The debt involved a mortgage that the plaintiff, Stephen M. Hill (Hill) had obtained in 2003. The mortgage was obtained through another company not a party to the lawsuit. The loan was ultimately transferred to Homeward Residential Inc. (Homeward). Hill had fallen behind in his mortgage payments and had significant interaction with Homeward as he attempted to resolve the delinquency and keep his home.

The court found that Hill had filled out at least 10 different forms with Homeward as he tried to mitigate his losses. He provided his cell phone number on all these forms. The court also found that Hill had provided express written consent for Homeward to call his cell phone on one of those forms. That consent read:  “I consent to being contacted concerning this request for mortgage assistance at any cellular or mobile telephone number I have provided [,] . . . includ[ing] . . . telephone calls to my cellular or mobile telephone.”

To collect from Hill and in other matters regarding his loan, Homeward called Hill on the number he provided: his cellphone. In all, Homeward called him an alleged 482 times from 2009 to 2013. For 176 of these calls the company used a device “capable of autodialing a phone number.”

The 11 page opinion discusses a number of procedural issues that occurred throughout the life of the case.  However, the crux of the opinion was that Hill did give Homeward “prior express consent” to call him on his cell phone.

insideARM Perspective

This case and the Murphy case we reported on yesterday should be read together for an excellent discussion on the issue of “prior express consent.” Unfortunately, in light of the FCC’s July Declaratory Ruling and Order, this issue may become secondary to the issue of when “prior express consent” is revoked by a consumer.

Another Positive TCPA “Prior Express Consent” Case
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/another-positive-tcpa-prior-express-consent-case/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Filed Under: News
« Previous Page
Next Page »