This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I didnt like how this article was arranged so I spent some time re-sorting it out to make it easier to read and frankly--to apply to people who might be trying to find this information. I welcome discussions and edits. :) --Julien Deveraux 00:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud you for restructuring the article to make it easier to read - this was on my personal to-do list as well. In my opinion, It still needs editing for accuracy, and it could use expansion. That's still on my to-do list...--Qball6 18:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Julien -- I found the article easy to read and understand and congratulate you on a job well done. I made a minor change to tone down the ACA's section, but removed nothing. It is, after all a lobby and engaged in PR, not "education." I agree with Qball6 that some legislative history is needed.Scott Adler 01:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ACA is certainly primarily a PR and lobby organization, but they do also do produce many seminars and training materials on FDCPA compliance. That being said, I think your edit is a clear improvement.--Kubigula(talk) 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new here, but I would be happy to help with expansion. What did you have in mind? I was thinking it could use more about the legislative history of the FDCPA and the need for the statute. I think this series from the Boston Globe does a great job of outlining the need for the FDCPA, for example.
My opinion is that the article could certainly use information about the legislative history, and abusive debt collection practices are part of the congressional findings. Going into the need for the statute has to be done cautiously though, as you risk editorializing, getting away from NPOV, and forays into anecdote - many people have stories about a bad debt collection experience (even me).
Beyond legislative history, I think the article needs a more structured breakdown of the areas regulated by the FDCPA. Down the road, it would also add to the article to go into some of the significant court interpretations and/or expansions of the statute.--Qball6 03:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Qball, thank you for your inputs and edits and thank you for being constructive about it! :-) Yes, I know there is a court cased called "Chaudry" (sp?) that supposedly further obscured the definition of "proof" or "validation" of a debt but didn't know how to spell the guys name, so I didn't include it. I would certainly welcome an addition that includes that. --Julien Deveraux 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IP 75.20.180.22 - I think a reference to the Hosseinzadeh case would be a good addition. As I said above, an expansion into significant caselaw is the logical next step for this article. However, I removed the addition as written for two reasons - (1) we wind up with three items on the required/prohibited lists that basically say the same thing; and (2) unlike the other items in the list, the Hosseinzadeh case is not part of the actual FDCPA. It's an interpretation of the FDCPA from a NY District Court, so it has uncertain precedential value at this point. The holding regarding voice mail messages has been followed in other jurisdictions, so it does appear to be gaining steam; though I have to note that the ruling conflicts with the FTC commentary (which courts are free to disregard). I think we need to be careful to distinguish what is in the actual language of the Act from case interpretations. Court interpretations differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. -Kubigula(ave) 02:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the clerification tag on consumer debt, dated to August of 2007, should be removed. The definition is clear enough. There is also language contrasting consumer debt with business debt. I recommend removal of the tag. Xenophon777 (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sending Late Self Storage Late Notices via Email[edit]
I am looking for information in regards to sending late notices via email to a Self Storage customer which would include detailed information of their account. The email address is provided by the customer with a notation it would be used if the customer cannot be contacted by phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.131.131 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a request for legal advice. best talk with a lawyer. Xenophon777 (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
§1692g does not actually call the notice a "validation notice." The word "validation" appears only in the title to §1692g; after that the wording of the statute speaks of "verification" (though the notice is not actually called a "verification notice" either). The notice is merely referred to as a notice. What the creditor is to provide in response to a debtor's request under §1692g is called "verification." Xenophon777 (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither one is defined as a term of art, and they appear to be used interchangeably. However, your edit more closely follows the language of the statute, so I think it's a good one.--Kubigula(talk) 01:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the wording of the statute, such as what constitutes a "communication" under the act, continuously an issue in litigation under this act, shouldn't this article use terminology that more closely reflects the wording in the statute. I was just glancing over this article to see what it says because I deal with the FDCPA frequently, and I noticed things such as "contact after being asked to stop" when the statute refers to "communications" and there is case law which suggests that communication regarding the debt and contact are not one in the same. [see Biggs v. Credit Collections, Inc., 2007 WL 4094997, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84793 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 15, 2007)] failureofafriend(talk) 00:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The FDCPA defines "debt" as "any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment. The clarification appears to be requesting more on what personal, family or household purposes means. It is my understanding that it is a term of art used in consumer statutes that means not incurred primarily for business purposes. Most everything else, except nontransactions (such are parking tickets) are included. At this time, I don't really know how to clarify it better, but I really don't think the clarification tag belongs. With that said, I'm leaving it there for another editor to change if he or she agrees with me because I'm not 100% sure it should be deleted at this moment. failureofafriend(talk) 01:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I'm deleting it myself as apparently Xenophon777 already posted the same complaint. Failureofafriend (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Notify the consumer of their right to dispute the debt[edit]
This should be expanded to explain the section better. 1692g(a)(3) requires informing the debtor that if they do not dispute the debt within 30 days of receiving the notice, then the debt will be assumed valid. 1692g(a)(4) requires informing the consumer of their right to dispute the debt in writing and receive verification and the name of the original creditor. Courts have found that inserting the writing requirement into the 1692g(a)(3) notice is a violation of the act as well as ommitting the writing requirement in the 1692g(a)(4) part of the notice. If no one else does this, I will attempt to come up with the proper verbiage at some point in the future. failureofafriend (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it seems a bit too esoteric for the article at this point. I think there are more significant aspects of the law that need expansion before we expound on a fine point like that. That being said, your edits to the article have been solid, so I suppose I shouldn't discourage you from using your energy as you see fit.--Kubigula(talk) 04:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that other courts have found that there is *no* violation by requiring "in writing", so it is, indeed, an esoteric question. Not sure that giving legal advice on this tiwsted subject actually helps the reader, though perhaps a mention of the dispute might help. Xenophon777 (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I posted here before the edit. You have a point and I'll refrain from trying to add this in. If I have more time though, I would like to participate more in this article. Failureofafriend (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it - there hasn't been much energy on this article in a while.--Kubigula(talk) 03:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
