Collection industry insider, Bill Bartmann, has started an electronic petition he will submit to Congress where he suggests the following amendments to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA):

We hereby petition Congress to amend the current debt-collection rules by adding the following provisions:

1. Increase the penalty for violations of debt-collection rules from the current $1,000 to $10,000 for each violation.
2. Ban all collection activities on debt that is older than the relevant statute of limitations.
3. Raise the requirements necessary to file a lawsuit on credit-card debt.
4. Require collection agencies to provide clear and understandable history of debt.
5. Require all collection agencies to be licensed.
6. Require all collectors to be licensed.
7. Require an annual compliance audit for all collection agencies.

Learn more about the petition here:  http://www.stopthesecriminals.com

The FDCPA regulates the collection of debt. It is well recognized that amendments need to be made to this consumer protection law from the 1970’s in order to bring it current with advances in technology, and to assist in curbing the steady increases in reported collection abuses.

Collection abuse has been #1 in industry complaints to the Federal Trade Commission several years running.

2010 saw quite a bit of interest and activity toward amending the FDCPA.  The process to amend the Act is well underway.

Want to see the collection industry cleaned up virtually overnight?

Impose a 10k penalty per FDCPA violation.

Think a penalty of ten thousand dollars is that far fetched? The FTC recently put in place an up to 16k penalty per Telemarketing Sales Rule violation that is primarily imposed upon debt relief advertisers, marketers, and service providers – companies who promote they help consumers resolve delinquent debt.

Congress could certainly impose similar statutory penalty caps for violations of the FDCPA against collection agencies – companies who work with creditors and debt buyers to resolve delinquent debt.

I have continuously written articles and spoken out in interviews about the practice of “selling” debt settlement. Selling someone into debt settlement is the number one reason the industry has been tarred and feathered in the media. The over hyped selling by profiteers and sales groups has resulted in enforcement actions by many states, and new FTC rules, in order to curb abuse.

DEBT SETTLEMENT SHOULD NOT BE SOLD!

Steve Rhode, on his blog, getoutofdebt.org, regularly covers the debt relief industry and its foul ups, bleeps and plunderers. He has recently covered several lawsuits filed by employees against the firms they sell/sold debt settlement for. The lawsuits allege failure to pay wages related to work performed. Steve has posted about lawsuits against: Lloyd Ward and Associates, ABC Debt Relief, The Debt Answer, Debt RX USA, Silverleaf Debt Solutions, CreditAnswers, and Credit Solutions of America. Key assertions in these lawsuits provide a clear view into the sales culture at some of these companies. I will focus on Steve’s post about the employee suit against Credit Solutions. Credit Solutions are also the target of multiple state legal actions.

From Steve’s post where he excerpts from the court record (my comments are in bold):

For at least three years prior to filing of this complaint and continuing (hereinafter “Liability Period”), CSA had a policy and practice of not correctly compensating its debt consultants for work performed for the benefit of CSA over and above forty (40) hours per week, to wit: virtually all debt consultants received a $2,000 forgivable draw their first 90 days of employment and a non forgivable draw of $2,000 per month thereafter. Debt consultants qualified debtors for debt settlement plans of Defendant by verifying the debtor possessed at least $10,000 in debt. Next debt consultants analyzed each creditor comprising the $10,000 is owed at least $600 and there are contracts in place between the creditor and CSA. The debt consultant sets up a CSA account for each creditor. Lastly, the debt consultant verified the debtor’s bank accounts and assisted the debtor in picking a payment plan. Once a plan was chosen the debt consultant, using CSA guidelines, would set up a monthly draft on the debtor’s bank account whereby CSA would obtain its fee and moneys to satisfy the debtor’s creditors. Eighty-five percent (85%) of CSA’s fee is collected from debtors’ accounts within the first 90 days. Debt consultants received a fee from the first monthly draft which was a percentage determined on the total volume of draft’s occurring monthly attributable to that debt consultant.

Here we learn that “debt consultants” are what I would more correctly define as sales people. The way this alleged fact is laid out would actually describe more of an order taker. What do they actually do by way of a consultation? It appears they just hit the immediate qualifiers, and then help you pick a payment option that will work for you. There is an obvious motivation for “picking” a payment that you will agree to. That is how they get paid! They have to do it though (more on this below).

Debt consultants were required to work a minimum of 12 hours per day, but were expected to work as many hours as necessary to reach assigned sales goals. Debt consultants regularly worked 14-16 hours a day and CSA provided debt consultants a room to nap and sleep when necessary to reach company goals.

Imagine the pressure to hit sales goals. In the current job market, these sales people HAD to perform to keep the job. They HAD to hit sales goals even if it meant sleeping at HQ to do it! No pressure, right?

Debt consultants were not provided a rest or lunch break, but instead, CSA served debt consultants “cup of noodles” for lunch so they would not have to leave their desk and could continuing selling the debt settlement services.

This allegation is one of the most descriptive of the debt settlement sales culture I have ever seen. Why not just put a shackle from the desk to the ankle of the sales person? Were there bed pans nearby?

Debt consultants worked six (6) days a week.

Ever see Ben Affleck in the movie “Boiler Room”? “ALWAYS BE CLOSING” – The sale that is.

As stated above, debt consultants do not receive overtime for hours worked over 40 in any week.

And why should they? You think cups of noodles are free?

CSA’s revised compensation/bonus plan containing an overtime component does not correctly calculate debt consultants’ regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime; i.e. commissions paid on top of consultants’ hourly rate are not included in their regular rate of pay. – Source

Other than the outright lies that are told, there is no single more frustrating fact about the selling of a debt settlement service than the pick a payment plan approach. It is sold that way because it has to be. A consumer who is struggling to pay their creditors the required monthly minimum is focused on the dollar amount they cannot come up with. When a debt settlement sales person suggests all you need is to establish a monthly dollar figure that you can do, the hook is set!

Imagine if the sales people at Credit Solutions actually shared the TRUTH of the matter with you. If they told you that in order to be successful with settling your delinquent accounts, you are in a race. You have to come up with the money to fund offers as fast as possible. You would not feel the sigh of relief that is purposefully designed into the sales approach by the majority of people selling debt settlement.  Instead, your heart would palpitate. You would know that debt settlement is a tough choice, not an easy one. You would have a much clearer idea if debt settlement is even right for you. The sales person for CSA would not close as many sales. Do you think they would ever get to go home?

Don’t consult with a sales person offering debt relief!

If you are asked what you can come up with each month to put toward settlement, or someone “helps” you come up with a figure they are confident you will bite on, you are talking to someone offering “pick-a-pay”. Pick-a-Pay is a suitability test that everyone will pass. Using this approach means virtually any one breathing will qualify for debt settlement. That is, and has been, absurd (absurdly profitable that is).

Look to speak with someone who actually works with consumers and their creditors/collectors on a daily basis. If they have any experience and are what I would consider a responsible service provider, they will TELL you the amount of money you will need to come up with, and how quickly, in order to SUCCEED with settlement in your particular situation. Armed with this knowledge, you will then be able to evaluate whether or not filing bankruptcy would be the better choice.

You can speak with just such an expert by scheduling a consultation with a CRN negotiator. All CRN consults are conducted by people who, every day, actually settle debt or provide detailed information to CRN members on how to settle their own. There is no one more prepared to provide you the necessary details about how this approach will apply to your unique set of circumstances.

For more on how debt settlement is inappropriately SOLD, read:

• Dude Meets Debt Wall
• Shocking Eye Witness Debt Settlement Report
• Debt Settlement Marketing: The Gist, The Juice, and the Lies

A friend and I were having a conversation several years ago about his and my companies approach to working with consumers who are struggling financially. The context of the discussion was centered on how we both approach consulting with potential customers. His company, like CRN, is direct and honest in their assessment of consumer’s options, nearly to a fault. At the time, the CRN business model was still relatively new and competitors would win over business by saying anything they needed to in order to close the sale (many still do). While expressing my frustration, my friend said something that I have not forgotten since:

“You Can’t Compete With Liars.”

The reality of that statement has persisted in the debt relief industry prior to his stating it and since. I have covered the topic at different times, in articles and interviews. Nothing I have done can compare to the content put out by Steve Rhode over on his blog: getoutofdebt.org

Steve puts out regular content about the debt relief industry. The theme of his coverage can be best described as “Debt Industry – The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly”.

When it comes to competing with liars though, his recent piece outshines anything I have heard or read to date – on tape even! He published an extremely well-put-together investigative piece about false and misleading claims and the straight up willingness to lie, by those offering debt settlement services for a large attorney law firm and some of its affiliate marketing partners.

You Can’t Make this Stuff Up!

He did not even have to try very hard. He batted 1000%. He only made 3 calls during peak hours to the sales reps and all 3 were willing to lie, deceive, and connive to make a sale. HAT TRICK! The fact that these sales reps are working for and/or fronting themselves in direct relation to a law firm provides even more of a “greasy” feel to the whole thing.

You absolutely have to listen to some of the brief audio clips in Steve’s piece. (Most are around a minute long)

The practice of “say anything” to close a deal has been so wide spread, and the abuse now so well documented, that the FTC has published new rules to reign in the crazy profiteering. The new laws will be aggressively monitored for compliance as they become effective in the next 8-12 weeks. The attorney-modeled debt settlement companies are not exempted in the form many are known for today.

The industry gnashed their teeth and wailed about how the abuse and misrepresentations were the result of a few bad apples. They have only come off as disingenuous. What we have seen to date, and will continue to see for a while longer, may prove that this kind of “scammery” was more the norm for selling debt settlement. One thing for certain, the company(s) exposed in Steve’s piece likely have some “‘splainin to do”.

For additional reading here on DebtBytes: Sales Guy Represents Attorney Providing Settlement – Lies a Bunch

A well balanced article by Sandra Block in this morning’s USA Today – “Thinking of debt settlement? New FTC rule can help”, contained some great tips and information for consumers looking into debt settlement.

For the past many years (and through 10/27/10), Debt Settlement service providers have, in large part, been able to charge fees, whether they were helpful to consumers or not. With new rules issued by the FTC, companies offering settlement services will now have to earn their keep in all 50 states.

There are many attributes to the new rules that will benefit consumers looking for reputable and honest companies to assist them. I will cover many of these consumer protections, in detail, throughout the next several weeks, here on DebtBytes.

I want to expand on Block’s article where she quoted me from an earlier interview, saying:

‘Michael Bovee, founder and president of Consumer Recovery Network, a debt-settlement firm that doesn’t charge upfront fees, agrees. Many consumers who have signed up for debt settlement in recent years should have filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy’, he says.

I meant what I said in this quote. It is as applicable looking forward as it is in the looking backward context delivered above.

Debt Settlement is not the right solution for everyone struggling to pay their unsecured credit card bills. Not by a long shot!

Nobody wants to file for bankruptcy. The debt settlement industry has been able to leverage this fact exceedingly well with over hyped and over the top claims that debt settlement is a panacea to the debt woes of middle class America. What the FTC found through the 2 year process of crafting these new rules, and from their own enforcement actions, as well as those by state regulators is; AT BEST, Debt Settlement has only worked for roughly 1/3^rd of the people who try it. Some sham companies that have been shut down were shown to have only been successful with less than 5% of their client base!

Why?

Debt Settlement marketing has been designed to enroll the wrong people, along with the right people, because the fee model used by most companies allowed them to get paid, regardless if they delivered on their claims or not.

The FTC rule changes will chase away many of the “fee grab” marketers from the industry, as they will not be able to “sell” settlement as some easy, soft, “just send this less painful amount of money to a set aside account monthly and we will handle the rest” approach. They will be unwilling to wait to get paid their commissions from people they sign up who cannot fund settlements for sometimes 6 and more months (or at all).

WARNING: The soft sell of debt settlement, even with all of the new disclosures and the upfront fee ban, will still persist after all of the FTC rules take effect.

It may take a while for companies to realize they are shooting themselves in the foot by accepting clients who are ill suited to try to avoid bankruptcy through a debt settlement (often referred to as debt consolidation & debt negotiation) program. So, consumers are still going to have to be thinking through the math to see if they should try debt settlement. It is always the math that should determine whether settlement is right for you. Math & Timing… Math & Timing… If these two things do not sync, given your current finances, debt settlement is NOT right for you!

“Debt Settlement – The Math & Timing” will be Thursday’s post her on DebtBytes. Don’t miss it!

If you want to learn more about these 2 crucial aspects to debt settlement:  Schedule a consult with a CRN specialist on line or call 800-939-8357 ext. 3

Otherwise, Be Careful! It’s still a jungle out there.

CRN Supports Changes to the Telemarketing Rule Just Announced by the FTC

Yesterday, the FTC announced important changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/07/tsr.shtm. The changes are intended to protect consumers with too much credit card debt from abusive debt settlement practices. One of the most important changes is that settlement firms will no longer be able to charge consumers up-front fees to settle their debts as of 10/27/10.

Overall, I am thrilled that the FTC is reigning in abusive debt settlement firms. For too long, these firms have been allowed to prey on consumers with too much credit card debt. Sadly, in far too many instances, consumers who worked with such firms saw their financial situations grow worse, not better, because of the large up-front fees they had to pay, and many of those consumers eventually ended up in bankruptcy.

The rules will shape the industry and promote the best practices moving forward.

I am concerned that some settlement firms may charge a large fee at the back end of their work for consumers. I have always contended that the fee amount charged by a debt settlement service provider directly correlates to how long it will take an individual to be successful in settling all of their debts. Program duration is directly attributable to increased risk of aggressive collection efforts such as filing lawsuits against a consumer in order to collect.

When consumers are looking into debt settlement as one of the few legitimate options available to deal with crushing debt, it is IMPERATIVE that they still weigh the COST for the service.

I will be posting more detailed comments about the amendments soon. Stay tuned!

The Debt Relief Industry will be forever changed by the announcement and publishing of new rules from the FTC today. The rules are designed to protect consumers from those marketing and providing debt settlement services.

The most contested  measure anticipated in the new rules is a ban on companies charging upfront fees. Upfront fees have been held up as necessary by the majority of debt settlement companies who have lobbied heavily to maintain the status quo. Consumer advocates and regulators have argued that upfront fees are the equivalent of an abusive business practice. We, at CRN and Debt Bytes, agree! Which is why CRN fees for full service debt settlement have always been based on SUCCESS, after the creditor is paid.

Stay tuned to Debt Bytes, as we will be covering the impacts of these changes in the coming weeks.

For Immediate Release

July 28, 2010
**MEDIA ADVISORY FOR TOMORROW**

FTC Chairman to Announce a New Debt Relief Rule to Protect Financially Distressed Consumers at Middle Class Task Force Event

WASHINGTON – Tomorrow, Thursday, July 29^th, at 1:30 PM ET, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz will announce a new rule to protect consumers of debt relief services at a Middle Class Task Force event at the White House. Following the Chairman’s announcement, Vice President Biden will discuss the administration’s consumer protection agenda and the importance of consumer protection to middle-class families.

This event will be POOLED for TV cameras, and OPEN to print, online, radio and still photographers. An RSVP is required to participate.

WHAT: FTC Chairman to Announce a New Debt Relief Rule to Protect Financially Distressed Consumers at Middle Class Task Force Event

WHO: Vice President Joe Biden, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz

WHEN: Thursday, July 29, 2010, 1:30 PM ET

• Gather time: 1:00 PM ET at the White House stakeout location
• Camera pre-set: 12:30 PM ET

WHERE: Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Room 430

RSVP: Press who wish to cover this event should RSVP to press@ovp.eop.gov by tomorrow, Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 8:00 AM ET. **Press who DO NOT have a White House hard pass should include their Date of Birth and Social Security Number. All press must enter the White House at the Northwest Gate.**

FTC Sues Three Companies Marketing Bogus Credit Card Rate Reduction Programs to Consumers

The FTC announced this week that it had filed lawsuits against three companies: Economic Relief Technologies LLC, Dynamic Financial Group (U.S.A.) Inc., and JPM Accelerated Services, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/robocall.shtm. The lawsuits, which were filed in Florida, Georgia and Ilinois, allege that the companies have been marketing worthless credit card interest rate reduction programs to consumers via automated phone calls, also known as ‘robo” calls. According to the FTC, not only have the companies failed to deliver on their promises, but their calls have violated the federal Telemarketing the Do Not Call Rules.

Telemarketers working for the three companies told consumers who were interested in the program that the program would allow them to save thousands of dollars in interest within a short period of time and would make it possible for them to pay off their debts faster. Consumers were also told that to achieve these benefits they would have to pay as much as $1,495 up-front, but were promised that if they did not save a “guaranteed” amount — usually $2,500 — they could get their up-front payment back. Few consumers ever received a refund however.

Consumers who want to learn more about their rights and responsibilities regarding pre-recorded telemarketing calls, should read the following two FTC alerts: New Rules for Robocalls and Reining in Robocalls, which can be found at http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt162.shtm and http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/alerts/alt161.shtm.

Consumers should know that they have just as much likelihood (if not more) of successfully reducing their interest rates with their creditors on their own rather than by paying someone to attempt to do it for them. If you try it on your own and you hit a brick wall, do not get discouraged. Try again a week or so later and you may have success.

One little tip for those consumers whose high interest rate credit cards may force them to make a payment late: Missing a payment by as a little as a week or two will often give your account a different status that will qualify you for interest rate and minimum payment reductions that were curiously unavailable to you prior to your late payment. However, I must stress that this strategy for getting such reductions is only appropriate for someone who was already unlikely to be able to meet the minimum payment requirement.