Well, it's about time, New York Times. Finally, a trend article that doesn't only apply to the upper East side but has actual news we can use:

Mr. Katz, a 58-year-old accountant in suburban Tucson, spends his free time schooling debtors on the finer points of consumer protection law to help them turn the tables on debt collectors. On occasion, he thumbs his own nose at them too.

“How many times can I sue you? Let me count the ways,” he wrote under his pseudonym, Dr. Tax, in a March posting on Inside ARM, a debt collectors’ Web site.

A former bill collector himself, Mr. Katz rebelled after a debt buyer damaged his credit score with what he says was a bogus bill. Mr. Katz sued, and in 2003 he collected his first damage award, a $1,000 check that he now keeps framed behind his desk.

“The bill collectors, when they call, make you feel like the only option you have is to lay down and play dead. That’s not true,” said Mr. Katz said, who does not charge for his advice. “Nothing validates this more than getting a check.”

Call this movement revenge of the (alleged) deadbeats. Even as collectors try to recoup debts from millions of Americans struggling to pay their bills, a small but growing number of lawyers and consumers are fighting back against what they describe as harassment, unscrupulous practices — and, most important to their litigiousness, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

If I accidentally pick up the phone when a debt collector calls, I immediately let them have it: "You used a spoofed caller ID, which is a violation of federal law. Please give me your company name, address and phone number so I can file a federal complaint." (So far, they've always hung up.)

In fact, 8,287 federal lawsuits were filed citing violations of the act in 2009, a 60 percent rise over the previous year, according to WebRecon, a site that tracks collection-related litigation and the most litigious consumers and lawyers on behalf of debt collectors.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court made it even easier for consumers to use the courts to fight debt collectors, ruling that collectors cannot be shielded from suits by claiming they made a mistake in interpreting the law.

Continue reading »

Because I live in a city (the unhip part), I actually know people who occasionally use payday lenders. And while the industry is ripe for all kinds of abuse, the people who use these lenders conscientiously (the ones who don't roll over the loan, thus incurring obscene amounts of interest) insist they want that option -- because it's still cheaper than going to the loan sharks.

However, the number of people who do roll over those loans is great enough that the payday lending industry needs to be very tightly regulated. The industry knows that; that's why they pour so much money into campaign coffers. But there's simply no question that the interest rates are usurious and this is exactly the sort of thing Democrats have been fighting to change. Not a good place for "bipartisan" compromise! From the NY Times Dealbook:

Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who is playing a crucial role in bipartisan negotiations over financial regulation, pressed to remove a provision from draft legislation that would have empowered federal authorities to crack down on payday lenders, people involved in the talks said. The industry is politically influential in his home state and a significant contributor to his campaigns, records show.

The Senate Banking Committee’s chairman, Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, proposed legislation in November that would give a new consumer protection agency the power to write and enforce rules governing payday lenders, debt collectors and other financial companies that are not part of banks, Sewell Chan reports in The New York Times.

Late last month, Mr. Corker pressed Mr. Dodd to scale back substantially the power that the consumer protection agency would have over such companies, according to three people involved in the talks.

Mr. Dodd went along, these people said, in an effort to reach a bipartisan deal with Mr. Corker after talks had broken down between Democrats and the committee’s top Republican, Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama. The individuals, both Democrats and Republicans, spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the negotiations.

Under the proposal agreed to by Mr. Dodd and Mr. Corker, the new consumer agency could write rules for nonbank financial companies like payday lenders. It could enforce such rules against nonbank mortgage companies, mainly loan originators or servicers, but it would have to petition a body of regulators for authority over payday lenders and other nonbank financial companies.

Consumer advocates said that writing rules without the inherent power to enforce them would leave the agency toothless.

"They make you feel like a criminal. They try scare tactics, harassment and everything. And you take a look and ask, 'Seriously, is the attorney general of Florida after me for a $14 bounced check?' "

- Michael O'Neil, who wrote two bad checks while living in Florida.

Amazing story. Basically, these District Attorney offices are renting out their name to deceptive bill collectors for bounced checks under $100. Think about it: You're so tight for money that you bounce a check under $100, you still have to pay all the bank fees AND you get slammed for $200+ in charges from this rent-a-cop collection agency? Nice, huh.

I always question the legal premise of anything like this I get in the mail, and you should, too:

DETROIT, Michigan (CNN) -- Michelle O'Neil and her husband Michael are young, scrambling to stay afloat financially and, by their own admission, not the best money managers.

Both acknowledge they wrote two bad checks, totaling about $200, as they were moving from Florida to Michigan in late 2007. The bad checks, they say, were mistakes. But nearly a year after they settled in a Detroit suburb, letters and phone calls followed from Florida.

"They told me they were part of the attorney general's office," Michelle O'Neil told CNN. "And that was scary in the sense that I've never had any legal problems. I'm a teacher."

But the calls weren't coming from a state agency. They were coming from a company hired by a Florida county prosecutor's office to collect on bounced checks.

The firm -- American Corrective Counseling Services, or ACCS -- splits the money it collects with the prosecutor's office. But it also makes money from financial management courses that people who wrote the checks are required by law to attend at their own expense. And the company's contract with the prosecutor's office states those classes are its "principal business activity."

The $14 check Michael O'Neil wrote to a Florida drugstore ended up costing him $285, including the $160 class fee.

O'Neil said he and his wife tried to make good on the checks with the merchants involved and pay any fees required. But he said the companies told him it was too late -- they had turned the matter over to ACCS.

The couple had been in Michigan for 10 months before they got their first notice from the company, which warned that "the State Attorney will not discharge the report(s) of criminal activity against you until all program requirements, including attending class, have been met."

"They make you feel like a criminal," Michael O'Neil told CNN. "They try scare tactics, harassment and everything. And you take a look and ask, 'Seriously, is the attorney general of Florida after me for a $14 bounced check?' "

The short answer is yes. Prosecutors are outsourcing some of their bad-check collections to companies like ACCS.

But Jennifer Osborn, a California student who bounced a $92 check to her college bookstore, said the company's money-management class was useless to her.

Continue reading »