Home > 2014 > Managing Debt

Debt Collectors’ Jobs Just Got Harder

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 2 Comments

A new court ruling may be giving more power to consumers trying to figure out if a debt collector’s phone call means they actually owe that debt.

A July 16 ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals elaborated on debt collectors’ obligation to respond to debt-verification requests, requiring collectors to provide details on the origination of the debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

“The verification provision must be interpreted to provide the consumer with notice of how and when the debt was originally incurred or other sufficient notice from which the consumer could sufficiently dispute the payment obligation,” reads the ruling in Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, PLLC.

The ruling stems from a case in which the debtor claimed the collector resumed collecting his debt before it had been sufficiently verified. Consumers have 30 days after receiving a collection notice to request verification from the collector, to which the collector must respond in writing. Verification is an important step for consumers to take when dealing with debt collectors, to ensure they’re not being scammed or held liable for a debt that isn’t theirs, but historically, there hasn’t been a strong definition of verification.

Previous opinions (Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, Fourth Circuit) have said verification consists of “nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt.”  At the same time, other rulings have said verification requirements are met when the debtor has enough information to dispute the debt, which is difficult to do without details on the unpaid sum.

The Haddad ruling may not be painting a clearer picture for debt collectors on what they must do to verify a debt, said Mark Schiffman, a spokesman for ACA International, a collection industry trade group. However, it does mean that collectors in the 6th Circuit will need to be more careful in verifying debts.

“Debt collectors, especially in the 6th Circuit, will need to pay more attention to the substance of a dispute and differentiate between the typical form dispute letters that are most often sent versus a particular or specific dispute about a debt,” Schiffman said. “The Haddad decision now appears to expressly require what many of our members may already be doing – providing more information to verify the debt that what was previously articulated as being required by the courts.”

What Verification Should Look Like

In the Sixth Circuit’s opinion, a list of account transactions that led to the debt is noted as the best way to verify debt and allow the debtor to contest it. It “makes good sense,” the opinion says, and the itemized history doesn’t need to be complicated.

“It should provide the date and nature of the transaction that led to the debt, such as a purchase on a particular date, a missed rental payment for a specific month, a fee for a particular service provided at a specified time, or a fine for a particular offense assessed on a certain date,” the decision reads.

This structure allows consumers to compare the collector’s information with their own records and possibly identify errors with the history. The previous definition of verification — a collector saying, “Yep, this is what the creditor says you owe” — isn’t useful in resolving disputes, the court found.

A collection account has a negative impact on your credit standing, which in turn could make it more difficult or expensive for you to obtain credit. If a collector is claiming you owe something you don’t, you’ll definitely want to dispute it and try to remove the inaccuracy from your credit report. If you have a legitimate collection account on your credit report, you’ll want to do everything you can to compensate for that negative mark in your credit. To monitor how a collection account affects your credit scores and your future access to financial products, you can check your credit data for free through Credit.com.

More on Credit Reports and Credit Scores:

Image: Digital Vision

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • Eddie J

    I won in a Florida court over this very thing. It was over a credit card debt that I did not owe and the collection agency insisted I did. I sent them a debt validation letter, which they ignored. I kept that letter, along with the return receipt and certified mail receipt, which I brought to court and handed the judge. The judge asked the collection attorney why they never responded to my request for validation and the attorney had no answer. The judge also asked him for proof of all the itemized charges that added up to the $3000 they claimed I owed. The attorney had no such proof. The judge ruled in my favor stating to the attorney that he can’t simply walk into court and demand action when he had no proof and ignored requests for same. I also asked the judge to order that the collection agency remove any reference to the debt on my credit reports, which they did. FIGHT BACK! Do not let these people intimidate you and wrongly accuse you when, in fact, they are more remiss in their record-keeping than you are.

  • http://www.Credit.com/ Gerri Detweiler

    Absolutely. One option is to talk with a consumer law attorney who regularly represents consumers in debt collection disputes. They may be willing to represent you at no cost to you since the collection agency will have to pay your attorney’s fees if it is breaking the law. The other option is to file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team