Bad Credit Repair Discussion Forum - View Single Post

PDXBLAZERFAN · 01-03-2008, 06:06 PM

The following is from Oregon Administrative Rules.

"Return of Accounts" is OregonSpeak for "Validation (?)

Collection Activities
441-810-0070

Return of Accounts

(1) Immediately upon receipt of a certified mail request from the client, a collection agency business shall cease all collection attempts, unless a written contract requires otherwise (nice loophole).

(2) A collection agency business shall return all accounts to the client within 20 days from the receipt of the certified mail request from the client. Return of accounts shall include an itemized status report for the accounts being closed, showing name, amount assigned, payments collected, and amount still owing.

(3) If a client requests the return of accounts and there are no stipulations otherwise in a written contract, the collection agency must return all documents given it relating to the accounts; however, the collection agency's own work papers, contact sheets, etc., are the sole property of the collection agency, and need not be sent to the client.

After reading these rules, I fired off a letter to State of Oregon Consumer Protection Services (part of DOJ). Perhaps, I should have posted first, then send. Live and Learn.

Consumer Protection Services:

I am writing with regard to OAR 441-810-0070 (1). The administrative rule defines the process, a debtor or person being contacted about a debt, must follow to request “return of account” or validation. This process requires a person to send the request certified mail while the collection agency is not required to send any request certified mail.

It is my understanding collection agencies are required in an initial communication about a debt, to notify consumer of their rights including the right to dispute and request validation. In addition, if the consumer doesn’t dispute within 30 days; this right is lost.

The initial communication is vital to the consumer preserving their good name and credit rating which directly affects our economy. This communication can be overlooked or simply discarded as “junk mail”. By requiring certified mail for the initial communication, Oregonians would be protected from this gap in the rules and the financial industry would have a more accurate representation of Oregonians as potential customers.

Collection agencies use credit reporting to enforce their claims. Oregonians are being unfairly hindered economically by these industry practices. I suggest we protect our economy (and court system) from this burden.

I have heard the state of New York is set to require specific licensing information about debt buyers and debt collectors, as well as complete affidavits detailing a consumer's debt before default judgments will be approved by Civil Court clerks.

The current rule requirement is a barrier to Oregonian consumers. The consumer’s request is an effort to determine if the debt is their responsibility and if they are paying the correct party. Ultimately, a consumer would be motivated to have some proof of communication for their own protection. The collection agency does not have the same motivation or requirement but has the ability to unilaterally inflict damage through credit reporting. In addition, collection agencies are always in the top 10 of complaints and there are unscrupulous collection agencies. In the worst case scenario, collection agencies could be motivated to not send the initial communication letter and deprive consumers of their rights.

The certified mail requirement is misplaced in the process; the collection agency ought to be required to use certified mail. The result will be debts are validated on the front-end of collection instead of after an Oregonian’s credit is damaged and opportunities are lost.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your reply.

Your comments, please.

01-03-2008, 06:06 PM	#1 (permalink)
PDXBLAZERFAN Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 90 Casino Cash: $352300	Oregon Validation via Certified Mail The following is from Oregon Administrative Rules. "Return of Accounts" is OregonSpeak for "Validation (?) Collection Activities 441-810-0070 Return of Accounts (1) Immediately upon receipt of a certified mail request from the client, a collection agency business shall cease all collection attempts, unless a written contract requires otherwise (nice loophole). (2) A collection agency business shall return all accounts to the client within 20 days from the receipt of the certified mail request from the client. Return of accounts shall include an itemized status report for the accounts being closed, showing name, amount assigned, payments collected, and amount still owing. (3) If a client requests the return of accounts and there are no stipulations otherwise in a written contract, the collection agency must return all documents given it relating to the accounts; however, the collection agency's own work papers, contact sheets, etc., are the sole property of the collection agency, and need not be sent to the client. After reading these rules, I fired off a letter to State of Oregon Consumer Protection Services (part of DOJ). Perhaps, I should have posted first, then send. Live and Learn. Consumer Protection Services: I am writing with regard to OAR 441-810-0070 (1). The administrative rule defines the process, a debtor or person being contacted about a debt, must follow to request “return of account” or validation. This process requires a person to send the request certified mail while the collection agency is not required to send any request certified mail. It is my understanding collection agencies are required in an initial communication about a debt, to notify consumer of their rights including the right to dispute and request validation. In addition, if the consumer doesn’t dispute within 30 days; this right is lost. The initial communication is vital to the consumer preserving their good name and credit rating which directly affects our economy. This communication can be overlooked or simply discarded as “junk mail”. By requiring certified mail for the initial communication, Oregonians would be protected from this gap in the rules and the financial industry would have a more accurate representation of Oregonians as potential customers. Collection agencies use credit reporting to enforce their claims. Oregonians are being unfairly hindered economically by these industry practices. I suggest we protect our economy (and court system) from this burden. I have heard the state of New York is set to require specific licensing information about debt buyers and debt collectors, as well as complete affidavits detailing a consumer's debt before default judgments will be approved by Civil Court clerks. The current rule requirement is a barrier to Oregonian consumers. The consumer’s request is an effort to determine if the debt is their responsibility and if they are paying the correct party. Ultimately, a consumer would be motivated to have some proof of communication for their own protection. The collection agency does not have the same motivation or requirement but has the ability to unilaterally inflict damage through credit reporting. In addition, collection agencies are always in the top 10 of complaints and there are unscrupulous collection agencies. In the worst case scenario, collection agencies could be motivated to not send the initial communication letter and deprive consumers of their rights. The certified mail requirement is misplaced in the process; the collection agency ought to be required to use certified mail. The result will be debts are validated on the front-end of collection instead of after an Oregonian’s credit is damaged and opportunities are lost. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your reply. Your comments, please.