FDCPA changes according to Kaulkin-Ginsberg
FDCPA Gets New Industry-Approved Amendments
October 2, 2006
Changes in the FDCPA have been approved by the U.S. Congress and sent to the President to sign into law. The amendments were part of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief bill which was passed this weekend.
Some of the key changes include clarification around “mini-Miranda” disclosures and legal codification that allows agencies to collect during the 30-day validation period.
The mini-Miranda clarification comes in updating protocol for legal pleadings and other communications, such as 1099-C forms. One of the new amendments states, “A communication in the form of a formal pleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication.” Also, communications that do not seek the payment of a debt, like 1099-C forms or Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act privacy notices, will no longer be considered an initial communication and will not require mini-Mirandas.
The FDCPA was also specifically amended to allow for the collection of a debt during the 30-day violation period, unless the consumer has an active written dispute regarding the debt.
The FDCPA amendments were part of a larger Financial Services Regulatory Relief bill which the House passed last week and the Senate approved Saturday. The bill aims at correcting many outdated or redundant regulations in the financial services and banking industries.
The new amendments also include a provision that certain bad check enforcement firms, such as companies that run pretrial diversion programs for bad check offenders, will not be legally defined as debt collectors for purposes of the FDCPA.
Default Re: FDCPA Changes
Now then, here is the actual wording of the portion of the bill which is applicable to FDCPA. As you can see there seem to be some differences between the press release put out by the Caulkin-Groansberg gag-rag for the benefit of it's ACA (American Criminals Association) members.
802. Other Amendments
This section makes amendments to the FDCPA. These include:
(1) a clarification that formal pleadings are not initial communications;
(2) an exception to the definition of initial communication for forms or notices that do not relate to the collection of a debt and are required by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Title V of the GLBA, or Federal or State law relating to notice of data security breach or privacy; and
(3) a clarification that debt collection activities and communications may continue during the 30-day validation period as long as they do not overshadow or are inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.
Now then, as can be seen by checking the differences between the actual wording of the bill and the hype and hoopla put out by Caulkin-Groansberg and their ACA (American Criminals Association) things are not quite as they would like consumers to believe that they are.
Caulkin-Groansberg put out their gagrag article loudly proclaiming how much good they had done for their "hood" by working closely with legislators to get the new revisions to FDCPA passed in order to lighten the burdens put upon the collection industry by an old and outmoded FDCPA which sorely needed revamping.
Looks more like hogwash to me. As can be readily seen, they just reported the first part of the legislation but didn't talk about the part underlined in red above. It is that latter part in underlined red type that is the actual key to the whole thing. They can't overshadow in the process in anyway and what constitutes overshadowing has already been well defined by numerous court decisions.
It also puts the further burden on them which is that their actions may not be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.
What it looks like to me is a ready made trap for the overzealous criminal rather than bringing any great new benefits to America's Most Wanted Criminals.
What we will have to do is to be certain that we are more keenly attuned to exactly what is and is not overshadowing or what may or may not be adjudged to be interference with our right to dispute the debt or any portion thereof.
What is also inherently obvious in the comparison between the Caulkin-Groansburg gagrag version and the actual wording is that C-G did not read or comprehend the full text but rather in it's rush to publish rubbish chose to ignore the real truth of the matter in order to further enhance their bragging.
__________________
This Sigline updates constantly! Try it!
October 2, 2006
Changes in the FDCPA have been approved by the U.S. Congress and sent to the President to sign into law. The amendments were part of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief bill which was passed this weekend.
Some of the key changes include clarification around “mini-Miranda” disclosures and legal codification that allows agencies to collect during the 30-day validation period.
The mini-Miranda clarification comes in updating protocol for legal pleadings and other communications, such as 1099-C forms. One of the new amendments states, “A communication in the form of a formal pleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication.” Also, communications that do not seek the payment of a debt, like 1099-C forms or Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act privacy notices, will no longer be considered an initial communication and will not require mini-Mirandas.
The FDCPA was also specifically amended to allow for the collection of a debt during the 30-day violation period, unless the consumer has an active written dispute regarding the debt.
The FDCPA amendments were part of a larger Financial Services Regulatory Relief bill which the House passed last week and the Senate approved Saturday. The bill aims at correcting many outdated or redundant regulations in the financial services and banking industries.
The new amendments also include a provision that certain bad check enforcement firms, such as companies that run pretrial diversion programs for bad check offenders, will not be legally defined as debt collectors for purposes of the FDCPA.
Default Re: FDCPA Changes
Now then, here is the actual wording of the portion of the bill which is applicable to FDCPA. As you can see there seem to be some differences between the press release put out by the Caulkin-Groansberg gag-rag for the benefit of it's ACA (American Criminals Association) members.
802. Other Amendments
This section makes amendments to the FDCPA. These include:
(1) a clarification that formal pleadings are not initial communications;
(2) an exception to the definition of initial communication for forms or notices that do not relate to the collection of a debt and are required by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Title V of the GLBA, or Federal or State law relating to notice of data security breach or privacy; and
(3) a clarification that debt collection activities and communications may continue during the 30-day validation period as long as they do not overshadow or are inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.
Now then, as can be seen by checking the differences between the actual wording of the bill and the hype and hoopla put out by Caulkin-Groansberg and their ACA (American Criminals Association) things are not quite as they would like consumers to believe that they are.
Caulkin-Groansberg put out their gagrag article loudly proclaiming how much good they had done for their "hood" by working closely with legislators to get the new revisions to FDCPA passed in order to lighten the burdens put upon the collection industry by an old and outmoded FDCPA which sorely needed revamping.
Looks more like hogwash to me. As can be readily seen, they just reported the first part of the legislation but didn't talk about the part underlined in red above. It is that latter part in underlined red type that is the actual key to the whole thing. They can't overshadow in the process in anyway and what constitutes overshadowing has already been well defined by numerous court decisions.
It also puts the further burden on them which is that their actions may not be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.
What it looks like to me is a ready made trap for the overzealous criminal rather than bringing any great new benefits to America's Most Wanted Criminals.
What we will have to do is to be certain that we are more keenly attuned to exactly what is and is not overshadowing or what may or may not be adjudged to be interference with our right to dispute the debt or any portion thereof.
What is also inherently obvious in the comparison between the Caulkin-Groansburg gagrag version and the actual wording is that C-G did not read or comprehend the full text but rather in it's rush to publish rubbish chose to ignore the real truth of the matter in order to further enhance their bragging.
__________________
This Sigline updates constantly! Try it!
posted by Kaulkin-Ginsberg Report | 9:09 PM
<< Home