FTC Announces Further Extension On ‘Red Flags’ Rule Implementation To November 1st
To support small businesses and other entities, the Federal Trade Commission faculty will intensify its efforts to educate them about compliance with the “Red Flags” Rule and ease compliance by provisioning additional resources and guidance to clarify whether businesses are covered by the Rule and what they must do to comply. To give creditors and financial institutions additional time to review this guidance and develop and implement written Identity Theft Prevention Programs, the FTC will further delay enforcement of the Rule until November 1, 2009.
The Red Flags Rule is an anti-fraud regulation, necessitating creditors and financial institutions with covered accounts to implement programs to identify, detect, and respond to the warning signs, or red flags, that could signify identity theft. FACTAs definition of creditor includes any being that regularly extends or renews credit ” or arranges for others to do so ” and includes all entities that systematically permit deferred payments for goods or services.
The FTCs Red Flags Web site, www.ftc.gov/redflagsrule, offers resources to help entities determine if they are covered and, if they are, how to conform with the Rule. It includes an online compliance template that enables companies to design their own Identity Theft Prevention Program through an easy-to-do form, as well as articles directed to specific businesses and industries, guidance manuals, and Frequently Asked Questions to help companies navigate the Rule.
Although many covered entities have already grown and implemented appropriate, risk-based programs, some ” particularly small businesses and entities with a low risk of identity theft ” remain uncertain about their obligations. Among other things, Commission staff will create a special link for small and low-risk entities on the Red Flags Rule Web site with materials that provide guidance and direction regarding the Rule.
The Commission has already posted FAQs that address how the FTC intends to enforce the Rule and other topics ” www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/redflagsrule/faqs.shtm. The enforcement FAQ states that Commission staff would be unlikely to recommend bringing a law enforcement action if entities know their customers or clients individually, or if they perform services in or around their customers homes, or if they operate in sectors where identity theft is rare and they have not themselves been the target of identity theft.
Todays announcement that the Commission will delay enforcement of the Rule until November 1, 2009, does not affect other federal agencies enforcement of the original November 1, 2008, compliance deadline for institutions subject to their oversight.
Rapid Recovery Solution is a national collection agency.
Massachusetts Toughens Rules For Small Claims Collection Lawsuits
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released last week that it has altered some of the rules governing the use of small claims courts. The Court said that the changes were created specifically to address the number of debt collection cases that are filed in small claims courts.
The rule changes come on the suggestion of the Small Claims Working Group, a panel of legal experts that was convened in 2006 to analyze and improve current small claims practices. In a press release describing the changes, the Supreme Judicial Court noted that While the rules apply to all small claims matters, there will be a major impact on debt collection cases. The changes address many of the affairs labeled by the Working Group in collection cases, and four in particular: increased genuineness of service, incompletely detailed claims, increased analysis of default judgments, and notice to the court when a judgment is paid.
Adam Olshan, an attorney with Law Offices, Howard Lee Schiff, P.C. in Worcester, Mass., agrees that some collection law firms will be affected. This will impact the high-volume collection law firms.
But Olshan, who was on the Working Group representing credit card issuers, noted that most collection law firms ” including his own ” do not make use of small claims courts. If the plaintiff fails to confirm the address, the court may not enter a default judgment if the defendant later fails to appear for trial.
The changes also add enhanced scrutiny to default judgments that are entered. New small claims laws require plaintiffs to send word to the court in writing when a small claims judgment has been paid in full, or be responsible for any reasonable costs incurred by the defendant in later establishing that it was satisfied.
Another requirement is that the magistrate or judge is to analyze the terms of any agreement for judgment with the parties if they are present in court. This makes certain that the court does not order or otherwise endorse any private payment agreement that relies on exempt sources of income. This avoids any arbitrary surprise to the defendant by delaying any levy on the judgment until the defendant has had an opportunity to pay as ordered or to attend a payment hearing.
Rapid Recovery Solution is a New York debt collection agency.
What Is The FDCPA?
In order to do battle with the problems associated with harassing debt collectors and debt collection companies, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (also known as the FDCPA) was designed. The laws and regulations legislated by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act not only shield consumers, but they also aid debt collection agencies as well by encouraging them to operate in a serious and professional manner when engaging in communication with supposed debtors.
In most standings lenders are within their rights to go after payment. This includes situations where the borrower is neglectful in their responsibilities and then afterwords default on their financial obligations, and or if the borrower simply needs some more time due to acrid financial circumstances and strain. These above situations represent instances in which the lender is not getting his due payments from the borrower when they began with a reasonable expectation of being paid back in an adequate time frame. No matter the reason in these cases, the lender in question is legally within their rights to seek payment that they are due.
In these situations, the majority of the time lenders have no other alternative but to become involved with a collection agency. The goal of collection agencies is to recover and collect all of the monies that are unsettled to their clients (the lenders). Due to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, collection companies can no longer act rashly and with disinterest for the consequences of their actions when making an effort to recover monies for their clients.There are several clauses that come along with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as enacted in 1978. These clauses both protect debtors and enable collection companies to strongly pursue valid debts.
Even if a debtor instructs a collections representative to conclude all further contact with him there are other means by which a debt collection representative may strive for the valid debt. For example, under the FDCPA, while the collection rep must accept the debtors request to cease any further contact with them, they are also perfectly within their rights to make the debtor aware that they intend to pursue the debt via legal channels through an attorney.
If the collection agency in charge of recovering the delinquent account cannot communicate with or cannot reach the debtor, then they are legally allowed to contact third parties related to the debtor. However, under the FDCPA there are some boundaries to contacting third parties. First and foremost, the collection rep cannot harass the third party or be non-courteous. Also importantly, the collection rep cannot violate the right of privacy of the debtor by disclosing the nature of the call to this third party.
Among protocols for collection agencies to abide by, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also has a penalization system in place for those collection companies that do not abide by the aforementioned stipulations. These penalties against collection agencies found to be in violation of the FDCPA include: fines; license revocation; and even legal actions.
At first glance it appears as though the guidelines of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are strongly skewed toward the debtor. However, these rules also protect the debt collection agency by helping them steer to wards fair practices and policies in a courteous and professional manner. Without the FDCPA, the unprofessional behaviors of some select few collection agencies would go unchecked and thus would undermine the entire reputation of the business of debt collection.
Mallory McGuinness works for a collections agency that works with a debt collection lawyer. Also, she does articles on business, finance, consumer spending and collections agencies.