5 ms·

Perhaps "fucking with debt collectors" is not the best way to phrase this. At first I was left disliking the existence a service that claimed to try to fuck wit

Perhaps "fucking with debt collectors" is not the best way to phrase this. At first I was left disliking the existence a service that claimed to try to fuck with people (or companies) that are just trying to collect the money they are owed. They are not in the wrong... people in default are. (Even in situations were shit happens and you're behind... the fact remains that you owe someone money and they aim to collect it.) But it seems the service is meant to help both sides. EDIT: I also understand the collectors can be very invasive and annoying. But think about how you would be if someone owed you $5k. Would you just ping them once a month or would you be a little bit in their face trying to get your money?

sarahnadav 13y ago
The service is meant to help both sides- the creditors and the people in debt, but the collection agencies are just guns for hire and VERY abusive. So my goal is to try and take them out, but it is ultimately to everyone's benefit.
- jfrisby 13y ago
  ... except the collection agencies -- but good riddance to them.
  - sarahnadav 13y ago
    EXACTLy- they are an expensive and abusive middle man and it is time to take them out.
sarahnadav 13y ago
Just saw your edit- and the reality is that when people don't have money, or intend to jack someone, chasing after them usually doesn't work. that said, I do feel for people who get stiffed. But for my company, it is not really addressing loans or debts between people on a small scale but a trillion dollar defaulted debt market where large funds buy debt and then hire agencies to collect. For the funds, its not about what was owed, it is about return on investment.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  Companies buy and sell debt a lot. Defaulted debt is still debt. It is a riskier buy and probably comes at a discount. But it is still one company paying another company and assuming the debt collection process. In the case of my mortgages that have been sold numerous times, there is little (or no) risk to the buyer since the payment history is sound and the account is in good standing. They don't need to harass me. They just send me a nice letter telling me where to direct my payment going forward. For defaulted debt, of course there is a risk. They are dealing with people that have already shown they are not [able|willing] to pay. But I don't see any difference between the company that bought my mortgage and the company that bought my neighbor's defaulted mortgage[1]. Although the one might have to get a little more aggressive to get my neighbor to pay up. None of this changes the reality that my neighbor owes money to someone who wants very badly to collect it. [1] I'll admit that mortgages probably are not handled in the same way as other debt but that was the only high $$ debt I could think of... and it sounds like we're not talking about skipping out on a $100 cable bill here. Perhaps we're talking more about charging $20k on a Visa and then not paying. Feel free to substitute any other example where one person pays their debt and the other does not.
  - jfrisby 13y ago
    "more aggressive"? So you feel bullying and abusive tactics are justifiable means of collecting a debt. That's pretty fucked up.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      Not paying your debt is pretty fucked up too.
      - jfrisby 13y ago
        Stop and think about this for a second: If someone intends to not pay, abusive language isn't going to change their minds. If someone cannot pay, then abusive language has no value either because, well, they cannot pay. The only case where abusive language is beneficial is if someone is actively trying to pay down their bills, but they have more bills than they can pay all at once and a debt collector wants to get their bill paid before every other debt collector's bill. And gee, that's exactly what happens when someone loses their job / suffers a major medical crisis / etc. tl;dr: Abusive behavior is useless if someone is NOT going to pay their bills, and only does anything if someone is TRYING to pay their bills: It's a means for collectors to try and jump the line to get their own debt paid first. And frankly, anyone who thinks that two wrongs make a right is a terrible person.
jessaustin 13y ago
I've been on both sides, but on balance I'd say I have relatively little sympathy for industries that (a) consider "product innovation" to consist mostly of designing contracts that will trick consumers and (b) regularly lobby to change the rules governing bankruptcy, financial procedures, bank transfers, fees, etc. There are multiple industries that may be so described. Perhaps someday software will eat the world, but finance already has.
- sarahnadav 13y ago
  not to be cliche, but its just a system and it can be disrupted.
jfrisby 13y ago
I've faced two situations involving collectors: In one, I had forgotten to pay a bill in a timely manner. In the other, the bill was BS and the former landlord who sent it to collections was breaking a number of related laws (such as double-dipping). In both cases, the default behavior of the debt collectors was to... break the law. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act exists for a reason and its only peoples' ignorance of it that allows the grotesque tactics they employ to continue unabated. (BTW: The $100 bill I forgot about? I promptly paid it once I was reminded of it. The $5,300 the landlord claimed I owed? That went away the moment I pointed out I had proof of their malfeasance.) "Just doing their jobs" is not an excuse for bad behavior, ever.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  Of course. Anyone violating The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act should be punished. Also, anyone who owes someone money should pay it. If there is a dispute over the validity of a debt, there is a provision in The FDCP Act to handle that. Everyone should be held to the rules equally.
  - jfrisby 13y ago
    And my point is that the default behavior of both collectors -- the behavior from the very first word of their first call -- was in violation, and they continued to violate the law in numerous ways. If an entire industry is so systematically rotten that good behavior (read: compliance with the law) is the exception rather than the norm, what is one to do? For example, if the debt collector does not provide any written notice and refuses to provide an address to which one can mail a written notice of dispute, what is one to do? If the debt is intrinsically fraudulent, and the "validation" of the debt consists solely of confirming its veracity with the party committing fraud, what is one to do? If one tries to dispute a fraudulent claim when speaking to a debt collector on the phone and one is told "I don't fucking care, if you don't give me a goddamn credit card number right fucking now I'm going to garnish your wages and fucking destroy your credit!", what is one to do? And don't tell me that I should complain to the FTC -- since there was no written communication, and I couldn't identify the parties involved, they were unable/unwilling/uninterested in helping me. At this point I have no sympathy for debt collectors. The very best of them are preying upon people who are already in a bad position and that's being generous. I'm almost tempted to be late on a bill or two just so I can use this service (whatever it may be -- still can't access it) in an attempt to discourage these vermin from continuing in their chosen "profession".

sarahnadav 13y ago

The service is meant to help both sides- the creditors and the people in debt, but the collection agencies are just guns for hire and VERY abusive. So my goal is to try and take them out, but it is ultimately to everyone's benefit.

jfrisby 13y ago
... except the collection agencies -- but good riddance to them.
- sarahnadav 13y ago
  EXACTLy- they are an expensive and abusive middle man and it is time to take them out.

sarahnadav 13y ago

Just saw your edit- and the reality is that when people don't have money, or intend to jack someone, chasing after them usually doesn't work. that said, I do feel for people who get stiffed. But for my company, it is not really addressing loans or debts between people on a small scale but a trillion dollar defaulted debt market where large funds buy debt and then hire agencies to collect. For the funds, its not about what was owed, it is about return on investment.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
Companies buy and sell debt a lot. Defaulted debt is still debt. It is a riskier buy and probably comes at a discount. But it is still one company paying another company and assuming the debt collection process. In the case of my mortgages that have been sold numerous times, there is little (or no) risk to the buyer since the payment history is sound and the account is in good standing. They don't need to harass me. They just send me a nice letter telling me where to direct my payment going forward. For defaulted debt, of course there is a risk. They are dealing with people that have already shown they are not [able|willing] to pay. But I don't see any difference between the company that bought my mortgage and the company that bought my neighbor's defaulted mortgage[1]. Although the one might have to get a little more aggressive to get my neighbor to pay up. None of this changes the reality that my neighbor owes money to someone who wants very badly to collect it. [1] I'll admit that mortgages probably are not handled in the same way as other debt but that was the only high $$ debt I could think of... and it sounds like we're not talking about skipping out on a $100 cable bill here. Perhaps we're talking more about charging $20k on a Visa and then not paying. Feel free to substitute any other example where one person pays their debt and the other does not.
- jfrisby 13y ago
  "more aggressive"? So you feel bullying and abusive tactics are justifiable means of collecting a debt. That's pretty fucked up.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Not paying your debt is pretty fucked up too.
    - jfrisby 13y ago
      Stop and think about this for a second: If someone intends to not pay, abusive language isn't going to change their minds. If someone cannot pay, then abusive language has no value either because, well, they cannot pay. The only case where abusive language is beneficial is if someone is actively trying to pay down their bills, but they have more bills than they can pay all at once and a debt collector wants to get their bill paid before every other debt collector's bill. And gee, that's exactly what happens when someone loses their job / suffers a major medical crisis / etc. tl;dr: Abusive behavior is useless if someone is NOT going to pay their bills, and only does anything if someone is TRYING to pay their bills: It's a means for collectors to try and jump the line to get their own debt paid first. And frankly, anyone who thinks that two wrongs make a right is a terrible person.

jessaustin 13y ago

I've been on both sides, but on balance I'd say I have relatively little sympathy for industries that (a) consider "product innovation" to consist mostly of designing contracts that will trick consumers and (b) regularly lobby to change the rules governing bankruptcy, financial procedures, bank transfers, fees, etc. There are multiple industries that may be so described. Perhaps someday software will eat the world, but finance already has.

sarahnadav 13y ago
not to be cliche, but its just a system and it can be disrupted.

jfrisby 13y ago

I've faced two situations involving collectors: In one, I had forgotten to pay a bill in a timely manner. In the other, the bill was BS and the former landlord who sent it to collections was breaking a number of related laws (such as double-dipping). In both cases, the default behavior of the debt collectors was to... break the law. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act exists for a reason and its only peoples' ignorance of it that allows the grotesque tactics they employ to continue unabated. (BTW: The $100 bill I forgot about? I promptly paid it once I was reminded of it. The $5,300 the landlord claimed I owed? That went away the moment I pointed out I had proof of their malfeasance.) "Just doing their jobs" is not an excuse for bad behavior, ever.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
Of course. Anyone violating The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act should be punished. Also, anyone who owes someone money should pay it. If there is a dispute over the validity of a debt, there is a provision in The FDCP Act to handle that. Everyone should be held to the rules equally.
- jfrisby 13y ago
  And my point is that the default behavior of both collectors -- the behavior from the very first word of their first call -- was in violation, and they continued to violate the law in numerous ways. If an entire industry is so systematically rotten that good behavior (read: compliance with the law) is the exception rather than the norm, what is one to do? For example, if the debt collector does not provide any written notice and refuses to provide an address to which one can mail a written notice of dispute, what is one to do? If the debt is intrinsically fraudulent, and the "validation" of the debt consists solely of confirming its veracity with the party committing fraud, what is one to do? If one tries to dispute a fraudulent claim when speaking to a debt collector on the phone and one is told "I don't fucking care, if you don't give me a goddamn credit card number right fucking now I'm going to garnish your wages and fucking destroy your credit!", what is one to do? And don't tell me that I should complain to the FTC -- since there was no written communication, and I couldn't identify the parties involved, they were unable/unwilling/uninterested in helping me. At this point I have no sympathy for debt collectors. The very best of them are preying upon people who are already in a bad position and that's being generous. I'm almost tempted to be late on a bill or two just so I can use this service (whatever it may be -- still can't access it) in an attempt to discourage these vermin from continuing in their chosen "profession".