Collection agency rep to disabled veteran: "You should have died!"

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/12/51225.htm

I can't even begin to think why anyone would treat another person, especially a war veteran, this way. That paralegal had better see the inside of a cell for this.

I HATE collection agencies.

When I did my call center training, my trainer told us about some of the stuff she encountered when she worked at a collection company. One of her stories involved a collections rep telling a woman: "I don't care if you have to sell your body on the street, get us our money!"

How can people who act like that sleep at night?

[Jester]

They can sleep at night because they have no conscience, and see the debtors as debtors only, not as actual people.

I actually had an amusing (for me) conversation with a debt collector once, who was trying to collect a debt from me. On the phone with him, knowing that I owed this debt, I tried to be reasonable and rational, and asked about the possibility of setting up a payment plan so that I could pay the debt off. This didn't fly with him, and he said, "We're a collection agency. Traditionally, we don't do that." To which I shot back, "Well, I'm a college student. Traditionally, we don't have money."

And yes, folks, it truly IS gratifying when you can cause a debt collector to lose the ability to speak!

But while the guy in my example was a bit tenacious, he didn't hold a candle to the raging douchejockeys in the linked story. What a bunch of assholes!

[s_stabeler]

Unfortunately, there was no actual criminal offense. Still, there should be. 1st, garnishing protected assets (any social security benefits can only be garnished by the IRS) 2nd, refusing to return the money when the court quashes the order ( this may or may not amount to theft; I'm not sure) 3rd, saying the vet was lazy because he's claiming social security. The vet is 100% disabled. that means that he is at a minimum, unemployable (that is the minimum requirement for an 100% disability rating. It's a rating of how the injury affects your ability to function.) so he isn't just being lazy. Furthermore, you can assume the injury wasn't his fault, since a dishonourable discharge renders you ineligible. Had the vet caused his own injury through negligence, he would have been dishonorably discharged.

[Aethian]

2. It's a violation of the court order and if he took them back to court saying they violated the order the court could force the company to cut a check right then and there PLUS make them pay 100% of the amount owed on the debt.

Got that from another board I've gone to where something like that did happen. It was sweet cause that was the ladies LAST debt.

[s_stabeler]

They can sleep at night because they have no conscience, and see the debtors as debtors only, not as actual people.

I actually had an amusing (for me) conversation with a debt collector once, who was trying to collect a debt from me. On the phone with him, knowing that I owed this debt, I tried to be reasonable and rational, and asked about the possibility of setting up a payment plan so that I could pay the debt off. This didn't fly with him, and he said, "We're a collection agency. Traditionally, we don't do that." To which I shot back, "Well, I'm a college student. Traditionally, we don't have money."

And yes, folks, it truly IS gratifying when you can cause a debt collector to lose the ability to speak!

But while the guy in my example was a bit tenacious, he didn't hold a candle to the raging douchejockeys in the linked story. What a bunch of assholes!

Actually, debt collectors generally don't mind a payment plan, especially when they probably bought the debt for pennies on the dollar. If the first payment covers what they paid for the debt, which it may well do, then the future payments are pure profit. Also, good idea to be reasonable with the collector- that's generally the bets way to negotiate with them, and at the very least puts you in a better position if ti goes to court. ( for that matter, if a debt collector is being unreasonable, don't fear a court case- what almost always happens is the judgement specifies a payment plan to pay the debt off, which could easily be a payment plan previously offered by the debtor. In which case, who arguable won?)

[Andara Bledin]

The collection agency I work with in my capacity as accounts receivable has no issues at all with collecting a debt in installments. A couple of accounts I've tossed their way have done just that. They don't buy debts, however, but work as an agent of the creditor, so it's a slightly different situation.

I have had debts that were sold to collectors, and they were usually the ones to offer plans. I only had one collector treat me anything other than polite and he was an out and out lying asshole who I had no trouble telling off, particularly since the debt had been paid two years prior (Crapital One is a shitty company with shitty record-keeping).

^-.-^

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Actually, debt collectors generally don't mind a payment plan, especially when they probably bought the debt for pennies on the dollar. If the first payment covers what they paid for the debt, which it may well do, then the future payments are pure profit. Also, good idea to be reasonable with the collector- that's generally the bets way to negotiate with them, and at the very least puts you in a better position if ti goes to court. ( for that matter, if a debt collector is being unreasonable, don't fear a court case- what almost always happens is the judgement specifies a payment plan to pay the debt off, which could easily be a payment plan previously offered by the debtor. In which case, who arguable won?)

I agree but let's not forget the commission incentive. I'm sure a collection agent makes more money off reclaiming a debt in full than putting a debtor on a payment plan (which may or may not be fulfilled).

[Andara Bledin]

If a person pays off all payments, then a collection agency earns the same as if it's all paid off in one lump sum.

Plus, even half the payment in installments is more than none at all because the agency wasn't willing to take payments.

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

if they're doing a payment plan, they can also probably tack on an interest to it, like a CC does. i would have to check that though.

[Andara Bledin]

I can't say for collections that buy out debts, but for agencies that are contracted by the creditor, they can only collect based on the contract between the creditor and debtor.

As an example, my company cannot charge penalties unless the contract we have with our customer notes that interest and/or collection fees are going to be added.

^-.-^

[Jester]

Regarding the collection agencies, I can't comment on what their policies are. I can only comment on what this one particular collection agent told me. Now, I have no idea if it makes a difference, but this was in the early Nineties, when things may have been different than they are now.

[HEMI6point1]

And debt collectors wonder why other people hate them so much.

Saw this story on the Consumerist and I was appalled.

[Panacea]

Unfortunately, there was no actual criminal offense.

Taking money from an account without a court order may be a criminal act. It may vary from state to state. I'd love to know how they convinced a credit union to let them seize the funds without a court order to garnish wages.

But the collector's lawyer could be and should be cited for contempt of court, since he promised to release the funds, then reneged in the parking lot.

Actually, debt collectors generally don't mind a payment plan, especially when they probably bought the debt for pennies on the dollar. If the first payment covers what they paid for the debt, which it may well do, then the future payments are pure profit. Also, good idea to be reasonable with the collector- that's generally the bets way to negotiate with them, and at the very least puts you in a better position if ti goes to court. ( for that matter, if a debt collector is being unreasonable, don't fear a court case- what almost always happens is the judgement specifies a payment plan to pay the debt off, which could easily be a payment plan previously offered by the debtor. In which case, who arguable won?)

I've had mixed results with this when dealing with collections agencies. One agency, which was definitely a vulture agency (bought a BoA debt for pennies) refused utterly to do a payment plan. On my part, I was extremely pissed about this because I had been paying on the original account regularly when BoA for some strange reason stopped accepting my payments and couldn't find my account when I called to inquire.

Since the vultures wanted all the money (with interest amounted to 1300 bucks) all at once, I told them I couldn't do it. So they served me with papers.

I went and saw a lawyer, who advised me to pay up. He told me it would cost more to fight it than it would be worth. He was right. So when I called back, the asshole manager said, "oh so NOW you want to deal?" I finally convinced him to let me pay over 60 days. It really hurt me financially, I had to pay other bills late because of it. Asshole.

Ever since I've left California, I've been a hard ass with these agencies seeking to collect on debts in some cases 15 years old, and have usually been settled with another agency. Here in North Carolina, you don't have to pay any debt older than 3 years if holder of the debt doesn't move it to the court system.

if they're doing a payment plan, they can also probably tack on an interest to it, like a CC does. i would have to check that though.

It varies from state to state, and it's based on your state of residency since each agency has to be registered within your state to collect (they often collect for one another to get around this). California lets collection agencies tack on interest. North Carolina does not. That's why I had to cave with the old BoA account: the interest charges were killing me.

Now that I'm in North Carolina, I set the rules. I tell the collector how much I'm going to pay each month, and they can take it or leave it. They always take it.

[Jester]

I forgot about this until just now, but a few years ago, a really rather nasty debt collector called me demanding payment on a defaulted Zales Jewelery account of mine, for several thousand dollars.

One small problem: I didn't have any such account.

"Oh, so you didn't sign up for this account?" Um, no. I didn't. I don't wear jewelery, and while I was shopping for an engagement ring at the time, I didn't actually buy anything anywhere. So there can't be any account of mine.

More nastiness. "Oh, so you're saying this isn't your signature on this account?" Well, no. It can't be. Since, as I said, I would never have signed up for any such account, nor would I or did I spend any money at Zales or any other jewelery store.

"Well I have your signature right here in front of me." No, you have A signature in front of you. Not MY signature.

"Are you saying that you can look at this signature and say it isn't yours?" Sure, send me a copy of the paperwork you say you have.

They never did.

Assholes.

[s_stabeler]

Taking money from an account without a court order may be a criminal act. It may vary from state to state. I'd love to know how they convinced a credit union to let them seize the funds without a court order to garnish wages.

There WAS a court order, actually. what happened was the agency got a garnishment, then the veteran asked for the garnishment to be overturned on the basis that the income was exempt. The garnishment was therefore overturned, but was in force when the money was taken out of the veteran's account. So technically not illegal; I don't, however, know the legal situation when the garnishment is overturned. However, there is definitely contempt of court, however, I don't think Contempt of court has a particularly severe penalty unless you keep doing it.