Daily Digest – February 3. Complaint Alleges Confusion; Agencies Fined for Unlicensed Activities

COMPLAINT ALLEGES CONFUSION BETWEEN WHO OWNED DEBT AND TO WHOM DEBT WAS OWED

• The issues related to making sure a consumer recognizes the debt being referenced in a collection letter (or notice) while also making sure to identify the current creditor to whom the debt is owed is not an easy needle to thread. Leave out a name and the consumer has less of a chance to figure things out. Include too many names and the consumer can get confused. It’s the latter situation in this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F lawsuit, which alleges a notice sent via email was too confusing.
• More details here.
• This series is sponsored by WebRecon

MINN. DEPT. OF COMMERCE FINES TWO AGENCIES FOR UNLICENSED DEBT COLLECTION ACTIVITY

• A pair of collection operations have waived their rights to a hearing before the Minnesota Department of Commerce and agreed to fines — one for $10,000 and one for $7,000 — for engaging in unlicensed collection activity in the state.
• More details here.

U.K. COLLECTION AGENCY IN HOT WATER AFTER BEING CAUGHT BREAKING INTO CONSUMERS’ HOMES

• I can’t speak for you, but I am fascinated by the differences from one city to the next, one state to the next, and one country to the next. Whether you call it pop, soda, or Coke, use your thumb to point instead of your index finger, or spit on the bride at a wedding, we are products of the environments in which we live. Take, for example, debt collecting in Great Britain. There, it is common for collectors to make visits to an individual’s home to try and collect on a debt. Imagine doing that here in the United States. But one collection agency across the pond has ignited a scandal after published reports revealed collectors were breaking into people’s homes and installing prepayment meters that forced customers to pay upfront for their gas supply and cut them off if they didn’t pay.
• More details here.

JUDGE DENIES MSJ MOTIONS FROM PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT IN FDCPA CASE OVER DISPUTE REMOVAL REQUEST

• A District Court judge in Michigan has denied a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, while also denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case involving the alleged failure of a credit reporting agency to remove a dispute flag from the plaintiff’s account after she notified the defendant she no longer wanted to dispute the account.
• More details here.

WORTH NOTING: How to stay warm when it’s really cold outside … Pronounced dead. Put in body bag. Found alive at the funeral home … A six-year-old at least was a good tipper after ordering $1,000 in food via Grubhub … How to avoid getting quiet promoted at work … The jobs that are most at risk of being replaced by artificial intelligence … Subway thinks slicing meat in front of you is going to sell more sandwiches … What would possess someone to think they could get away with this … A bill inspired by Seinfeld is moving through the New Jersey legislature.

Funny Friday, Part I

Funny Friday, Part II

The Daily Digest is sponsored by TCN. Today, contact centers need to do more with less. TCN’s cloud-based predictive dialing tools and services help clients to leverage the most sophisticated inbound, outbound, and blended calling technologies available. TCN’s award-winning platform offers multiple features to assist in compliance while improving performance with no hardware, no monthly minimums, or maintenance fees. Call 866-745-1900 or visit tcn.com today.