6 ms·

I've never understood this behavior. How is this not considered harassment?

by SamuelAdams 8y ago

cremp 8y ago
Because debt collectors have literal exceptions to harassment laws.
- djsumdog 8y ago
  I hate debt collectors as much as anyone, but they do have quite a few rules. Most jurisdictions have times during which you can call someone (collects need to be sure to adjust for the destination timezone; since they might not realize they're called at 6am if they're on a different coast). In Australia (if they show Tricky Business is at all realistic), Mercantile agents can't present you with a notice in front of other people and must serve you in person (similar to a legal summons in the US). So there are _some_ regulations in place.
- amyjess 8y ago
  In the US at least, you can serve debt collectors notice that they must cease all future communications with you, and if they disregard that, the FTC can and will go after them. I'd recommend reading the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-...
yebyen 8y ago
It's not outlandish to think that if, say, your parent bought a vehicle for you to use, and they held the <strike>title</strike> title documentation and lien note... while they were making payments on it on your behalf, and you were driving or in possession of the car when they died, that it follows logically that you should simply assume that debt and maintain an uninterrupted record of payments in order to be able to continue uninterrupted use of the car. Stretch that example to "a car that was bought with a credit card" and you can see how this could be a legitimate effort. I don't know how that plays out legally, but I assume there's not any legal option where the debt simply goes unpaid by the estate and by you, and the car is not legally meant to be repossessed. You may not have known that the car you are driving is not paid in full. Large assets can be repo'ed if the account that paid for them is in arrears. This is not necessarily going to happen right away, the estate may have accounted for this already, there are plenty of reasons why this contact is bogus, but it could also be possibly in your interest to follow up with payments in certain cases. (Fight me?) You could give the car back to the estate (probably the right answer?), or argue that it was a gift, and the estate should pay for it, but I don't know if either of those arguments will actually get you anywhere / prevent the car from being repossessed. You might have documentation that it was a gift, but there's also a lien on the title. Your gift might have been smaller than a car, there's no title, and you might not have any documentation of the gift. (I'm not sure if it matters that you can prove it was meant to be a gift.) It's probably not considered harassment or illegitimate on about the same basis that you can be newly considered responsible for your own debts that are "past the statute of limitations" that you have started payments on again, even if your last contact was some time after the statute of limitations had already expired. At that point the debt collectors can continue contacting you, but the collection efforts must include language that explains the fact that you can't be sued for these debts. Well, what they don't explain is that by making a payment, you could be resetting the statute of limitations and newly assuming responsibility for the whole debt, with a brand new expiry date. (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but this is my understanding of why you "just don't answer those letters.") You wouldn't have started making payments if you didn't feel that you ought to be responsible for the debt, "QED." Not saying it's fair or right, but there are cases where that's what the law assumes and approximately why it is so. There are also a lot of things that collectors can do, that would easily be considered harassment if you simply asked them to stop (and then they persisted anyway). People don't always ask, or know that they should ask. Especially if they don't want to pay! (Whether or not responsible, it rightfully makes people go on the defensive to receive a contact from a bill collector.) I'm getting downvoted but nobody is telling me if I've said something incorrect. That "disagree" button...
- xamuel 8y ago
  The car dealer should have accounted for that risk in their interest rate. If the recipient of the car didn't sign anything, they should not be liable to return car or money. What if I took out a payment plan to buy a sandwich, gave the sandwich to a homeless man, and then died without finishing all the payments? You say the homeless man should be obligated to give up the sandwich??
  - yebyen 8y ago
    A car is not a sandwich, just like a credit card is not a potted plant? I used the specific example of a car as something that has legal constructs for an actual document called a title of ownership, where there can be a lien on the title, etc. If the dealer has a lien against the title of the car, then yes, you give back that car when the order to repossess is issued. You think the lien is cleared because the debtor passed away? It doesn't work like that. The ownership of the car is based on a transfer of title, and though you may be driving the car, possession is "only 9/10" of the law. If the title is not in your name, then it is not your car. You're just driving it. Such cases I'm fairly certain that it's actually the title that says who owns the car. If you gave a homeless man a sandwich, paid for with a credit card, and then you died owing money on that card, then yes, that man probably has clear title to keep the sandwich.
  - julianj 8y ago
    If a person takes out a loan to buy a car then the financing company actually holds the title to the vehicle. You can't give away something you don't own.
    - yebyen 8y ago
      Where I've unfortunately made the water a bit muddy here because the story is about a credit card and not a car, is that you don't usually buy a car with a credit card. (But hypothetically if you do, and it was simply processed as a regular card transaction, would the credit card company potentially have any claim on the title?)

I've never understood this behavior. How is this not considered harassment?

cremp 8y ago

Because debt collectors have literal exceptions to harassment laws.

djsumdog 8y ago
I hate debt collectors as much as anyone, but they do have quite a few rules. Most jurisdictions have times during which you can call someone (collects need to be sure to adjust for the destination timezone; since they might not realize they're called at 6am if they're on a different coast). In Australia (if they show Tricky Business is at all realistic), Mercantile agents can't present you with a notice in front of other people and must serve you in person (similar to a legal summons in the US). So there are _some_ regulations in place.
amyjess 8y ago
In the US at least, you can serve debt collectors notice that they must cease all future communications with you, and if they disregard that, the FTC can and will go after them. I'd recommend reading the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-...

yebyen 8y ago

It's not outlandish to think that if, say, your parent bought a vehicle for you to use, and they held the <strike>title</strike> title documentation and lien note... while they were making payments on it on your behalf, and you were driving or in possession of the car when they died, that it follows logically that you should simply assume that debt and maintain an uninterrupted record of payments in order to be able to continue uninterrupted use of the car. Stretch that example to "a car that was bought with a credit card" and you can see how this could be a legitimate effort. I don't know how that plays out legally, but I assume there's not any legal option where the debt simply goes unpaid by the estate and by you, and the car is not legally meant to be repossessed. You may not have known that the car you are driving is not paid in full. Large assets can be repo'ed if the account that paid for them is in arrears. This is not necessarily going to happen right away, the estate may have accounted for this already, there are plenty of reasons why this contact is bogus, but it could also be possibly in your interest to follow up with payments in certain cases. (Fight me?) You could give the car back to the estate (probably the right answer?), or argue that it was a gift, and the estate should pay for it, but I don't know if either of those arguments will actually get you anywhere / prevent the car from being repossessed. You might have documentation that it was a gift, but there's also a lien on the title. Your gift might have been smaller than a car, there's no title, and you might not have any documentation of the gift. (I'm not sure if it matters that you can prove it was meant to be a gift.) It's probably not considered harassment or illegitimate on about the same basis that you can be newly considered responsible for your own debts that are "past the statute of limitations" that you have started payments on again, even if your last contact was some time after the statute of limitations had already expired. At that point the debt collectors can continue contacting you, but the collection efforts must include language that explains the fact that you can't be sued for these debts. Well, what they don't explain is that by making a payment, you could be resetting the statute of limitations and newly assuming responsibility for the whole debt, with a brand new expiry date. (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but this is my understanding of why you "just don't answer those letters.") You wouldn't have started making payments if you didn't feel that you ought to be responsible for the debt, "QED." Not saying it's fair or right, but there are cases where that's what the law assumes and approximately why it is so. There are also a lot of things that collectors can do, that would easily be considered harassment if you simply asked them to stop (and then they persisted anyway). People don't always ask, or know that they should ask. Especially if they don't want to pay! (Whether or not responsible, it rightfully makes people go on the defensive to receive a contact from a bill collector.) I'm getting downvoted but nobody is telling me if I've said something incorrect. That "disagree" button...

xamuel 8y ago
The car dealer should have accounted for that risk in their interest rate. If the recipient of the car didn't sign anything, they should not be liable to return car or money. What if I took out a payment plan to buy a sandwich, gave the sandwich to a homeless man, and then died without finishing all the payments? You say the homeless man should be obligated to give up the sandwich??
- yebyen 8y ago
  A car is not a sandwich, just like a credit card is not a potted plant? I used the specific example of a car as something that has legal constructs for an actual document called a title of ownership, where there can be a lien on the title, etc. If the dealer has a lien against the title of the car, then yes, you give back that car when the order to repossess is issued. You think the lien is cleared because the debtor passed away? It doesn't work like that. The ownership of the car is based on a transfer of title, and though you may be driving the car, possession is "only 9/10" of the law. If the title is not in your name, then it is not your car. You're just driving it. Such cases I'm fairly certain that it's actually the title that says who owns the car. If you gave a homeless man a sandwich, paid for with a credit card, and then you died owing money on that card, then yes, that man probably has clear title to keep the sandwich.
- julianj 8y ago
  If a person takes out a loan to buy a car then the financing company actually holds the title to the vehicle. You can't give away something you don't own.
  - yebyen 8y ago
    Where I've unfortunately made the water a bit muddy here because the story is about a credit card and not a car, is that you don't usually buy a car with a credit card. (But hypothetically if you do, and it was simply processed as a regular card transaction, would the credit card company potentially have any claim on the title?)