Talk:Debt collection

Section removal How to deal with a collection agency

Well, I removed the section on "How to deal with a collection agency" from the article and formatted it so that it is only visible in the text when editing the page. The problem with this section is that it is written specifically for debtors who are dealing with collection agencies, which makes it unencyclopedic. Encyclopedia entries should always be written for a wide audience, not a specific one. This section may contain some useful facts, but they will need to be formatted and presented differently to be encyclopedic. And finally, I noticed that the article cited no sources, so I added a reference tag at the top. Andrea Parton 14:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now rewritten the article and corrected the problems. I reviewed it and removed several statements that have been construed as POV. I researched and added several references. And finally, I reread the article and corrected some parts that may have violated the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry.

Since I addressed all of the concerns listed in the tags at the top of the page I have removed said tags. Anyone is of course free to add those tags right back to the top of the page if they feel that I did not successfully address those concerns. I ask only that you read the article before slapping the tags right back up there. If you have any problems with the article please list why on this talk page. I hope to reach a consensus and continue to expand and improve this article. Seanr451 12:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the section that was removed, just incase someone is looking at this page for just this kind of information (The idea fits, I think, but it needed to be worded different and well researched and cited. Gingermint (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with a Collection Agency

If contacted by a collection agency there are several steps you can take to simplify what can be an otherwise difficult process. Remember that the Bill Collector that you are talking to is a human being just like you. Ask for proof of the debt. If the agency cannot send you proof of the debt then they must stop all attempt to collect the debt and reverse any adverse information they placed on your credit report. Note that depending on the type of debt proof may not have to consist of a contract with your signature. Pay the debt in full right away. This will save you money, and often this will prevent any adverse information from being placed on your credit report. If unable to pay the debt in full right away, work out a plan that will get it paid off in a reasonable amount of time. Remember that the collection agency often has guidelines from their clients they must follow like a minimum payment amount. Most accounts do have interest being added so the longer it takes to pay off the more money it will cost you. Don't lie. The bill collector you're talking to has often been doing the job for many years, and even if they don't sound like it they have many sources of information. If they find out you're lying they'll be less likely to believe anything you say in the future. If you have something you don't want them to know be honest and simply refuse to give the answer. Note that refusing certain information may mean they are not allowed to work with you to resolve the bill. Try to avoid having the agency sue you. If they sue you not only will interest be added but they are allowed to add legal costs, lawyers fees, and often punitive damages. It costs the agency money to file a lawsuit, and so it will cost you more money. Often a lot more.

Advertisements do NOT belong in Wikipedia

So please grow up 65.248.134.166 and quit adding them to the article every single day. -- message was unsigned by User:Seanr451

I added warnings to his talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs)

Oooo, a warning. And after this assclown racks up 10 or 12 of your warnings are you going to actually do anything? Seanr451 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

151.197.71.226 This guy is linking to a page with an audio file that clearly is an advertisement for debt collections. That is not welcome here. Turn on your speakers you won't believe your ears. www.collectionagencyservices.net/ Collection Agencies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RRSMONDO (talk • contribs) 17:50, June 30, 2006 (UTC)

De-spammed, Removed list of debt collectors. Wikipedia is not an ad vertising venue, nor a list of businesses. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Assignment of Debts

This whole article seems to be written from a debt collectors point of view or at the very least it assumes the debtor is in fact a debtor. Sometimes a first party will incorrectly assign a debt. I don't know enough about the internal working of collection agencies to author a section on incorrectly assigned debts, but a section really needs to exist.

On a semi-related note, Blockbuster has twice lost a movie and blamed it on me. Both times they admitted to their mistake but only long after assigning a debt. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not written from a debt collectors point of view. It's simply a description of what happens during the collection process. I did have a section that mentioned that debts are occasionally incorrect, and what to do about it. But, everybody and their brother complained about this Advice Section. They said it wasn't encyclopedic, etc. So I finally removed it.

If you'll read the article nowhere does it say; "Every debt assigned to a collection agency is correct." Nor does it say; "The collection agency or their clients are infalliable." I assumed that people reading this article realize that collection agencies are staffed by human beings and so by definition mistakes are made. I take it as given that human beings make mistakes, and I wrongly assume that other people are smart enough to realize that as well. Seanr451 04:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's not very encyclopedic. They're probably right. It's not like it's a rampent problem in which case it would be section-worthy. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It does show that you have never worked in a collections agency, the amount of incorrectly assign debts is very minimal, infact for every 10 thousand debts that are assigned to a collections agency, there may be 1 incorrecetly/false debt. This does not take into account fraudulent debts and it would therefore not warrant a section. It is infact the media that spread incorrect statistics/stories about incorrect assignement of debt and therefore would be seen as debtor bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.133.4 (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reply really glosses over the issue, which from my view point is what constitutes a valid debt? From the agency's point of view, if the assigned debt has some sort of invoice, that is good enough for them. From the consumer's point of view, if you have a dispute with a company - say you do not believe they fixed your plumbing properly; your only option is to sue in a court of law, with all the attendant costs. On the other hand, if the plumber is unwilling to compromise or even discuss the matter, all he/she has to do is assign the invoice to a collection agency, who will accept the billing/invoice as a valid debt. There is no cost to the plumber except whatever percentage the agency charges, after it collects the so-called debt. Without any judicial intervention or determination of fact, this collection becomes part of the consumer's credit record for 7 years. A collection becomes a public record and title companies typically report any collections on a title report for a lender. Many lenders, in turn, require that the collection be paid in full before the will approve a real estate loan. This forces the consumer to pay even though they may feel the bill/invoice is incorrect. I am employed in the banking business, and have for many years felt this situation to be unfair to consumers. Now that I am in a senior position in commercial lending, I have the authority to determine what items on a preliminary title report need to be cleared. My policy is to require the agency to validate the claim, and if they are unable to do so to my satisfaction, I do not require that the collection be paid. This happens many times, and most agencies are very surprised at my approach.206.169.172.212 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Page that was linked from here is a copy?

I found this URL: collectionagencysupport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=32 which was recently added and removed from the "external links" section. It seems to be a verbatim copy of many sections of this article. Except, there is no attribution (see the verbatim section of the GFDL). Does anybody know what should be done? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The link needs to be kept off. If you review the site, the sole purpose of this page is to push the link for retrieving quotes for service. This is just a sneaky advertisement. I edited the URL you listed and made it an inactive link. Having an active external link only gives them what they want. Bill 16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Sorry I made it a link at all. Anyways, my question stands: where do we report plagerism of Wikipedia? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not mean that the way it sounded. I meant that their links should be kept out of the article. I was just letting you know that I edited your the link in your comments. I can't answer your question though. It would be good to know where to report it. Did you try the Village Pump? WP:VP Bill 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, they did have something in the Village Pump: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks. Thanks for your help, I'll add the site there. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

BIAS

This page is written with bias in favour of debt collection agencies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.17.168 (talk • contribs) .

How so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.193.221.144 (talk • contribs) .

I'll answer this question by referring to an above section where I wrote: "This whole article seems to be written from a debt collectors point of view" out of context, the response was "nowhere does it say; 'Every debt assigned to a collection agency is correct.' Nor does it say; 'The collection agency or their clients are infalliable.'" I agree, however, if collection agencies make newsworthy mistakes, then that information belongs here. Sadly, no such information has been proposed or added. Maybe we should add {{bias}}? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You make a valid point. However, I don't think it's so much a matter of the article having a pro-debt collector bias as it is, as you point out, that the article doesn't have a section dealing with criticism of the collection agency model. I have knowledge in this area, and expanding the article is on my personal to-do list. -Kubigula (ave) 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Noted bias I spent a great deal of time including information on the 2 year limitation of debt collection in Ontario, Canada. I further included referenced statements about a 3 call / week limit. Upon returning after a few months, I noticed, my rare, verified information had been removed. I'm not impressed. Alan.ca 10:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see the edit you are talking about. When the content was removed, did the editor who removed the content give an edit summary? If so, what did the summary say? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was resolved - Alan.ca restored the deleted content.--Kubigula (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

I like the concept of having a section on collection agencies in the UK (and perhaps other countries too). However, the current section reads like a how-to column on collecting debt. I don't think that's any more appropriate than the how to get out of debt section that was previously deleted. Any objections to removing this info? Kudos to Dlohcierekim for cleaning up some of the advertising that had crept in. -Kubigula (ave) 20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I removed the info. However, I would still love to see someone add material on other countries. -Kubigula (ave) 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup and re-arrangement

• removed scope section and incorporated into intro
• no evidence produced that information is relevant outside USA, so i removed that
• cleaned up much of the language for conciseness
• i renamed one section to "collection practices" and included much of article in that subheading
• changed term from "bill collector" to "debt collector" in line with terminology of the rest of article
• legal section needs to be referenced
• disclaimer re legal advice is not necessary
• much of collection calls section is trivia - removed trivia and moved section up
• rearranged sections to more coherent flow

Tempest 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about one of your points above:

• "no evidence produced that information is relevant outside USA, so i removed that"

If you're referring to the section I wrote about collection agencies in Canada, you should have noted that I included three references for the information stated. In future, you may want to consider discussing the removal of cited information before deleting it from an article. Especially in an article that is obviously lacking International content. Alan.ca 10:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it too personally, Alan. It looks like Tempest may have mistakenly thought this article was only about US collection agencies. That being said, his reorganization was much needed, IMO, to make the article coherent.

I think the way you reinserted the information on Canadian regulation into the regulation section is perfect, and I hope that info on other countries will follow. I trimmed the lead a bit to internationalize it a bit. If you (Alan) have some expertise on collection agencies in Canada, I would like to hear your thoughts about whether the general information on collection agencies (regarding first party, third party etc) applies in Canada. Obviously, the current section on legal remedies is US specific, so it clearly needs "internationalization".--Kubigula (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to go through the article to clarify what is US specific and what is, I hope, more generally applicable. So, the article is set up for others to insert internationl information. The section on US legal remedies is currently overly long, and I will try to condense it a bit.--Kubigula (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the optimal organization for this article would be to lead with what is common and then have sections for each unique jurisdiction. Ultimately, we may find the article grows too large and that each jurisdiction will require its own version. I think we should leave out anything that cannot be backed up with a source citation. In respect to the edits by Tempest, he should be careful not to delete source cited information. Alan.ca 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to state the opinions on how bad collection agencies can be, concerning Americans spend more than they make, collections are robbing people blind. We have a serious economy issue and who America is suffering from major inflation rates right now and corporate greed stealing from people.--75.6.2.122 (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm no fan of collection agencies, but when "Americans spend more than they make", shouldn't they expect the phone to start ringing eventually? --CliffC (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunning

The verb "to dun" has the definition "to ask or beset, as a debtor, for payment" in Wicktionary. To "dun" someone or to engage in the process of "dunning" is used I think primarily in Europe. See http://academic.uofs.edu/faculty/gramborw/sap/dunning.htm and the stub Dunning (process). I'm not sure that the process of collecting on debts should in an article entitled "Collection agency", because a collection agency is a business entity, not a process. For now I'll put a See also Collection agency on the stub Dunning, but please consider using Debt Collection as the primary article in Wikipedia. --SueHay 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Dunning is used in the U.S. in that debt collection letters are referred to as "dunning letters". That being said, I think I agree that there should be a separate article on debt collection. Most of the Wikipedia content related to debt collection in the U.S. in currently contained in this article and the FDCPA article. Coverage on the subject, with more international coverage, would be better centralized around a Debt collection article (one that does not redirect to collection agency).--Kubigula (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term "dunning" before, so I assumed that it was solely a US term. Does anybody know of its use elsewhere? Groogle (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that this term is used in Canada and the United Kingdom as well. Seanr451 (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fraud and Abuse Section

Have added a new section regarding fraud and abuse by illegitimate debt collectors, which reliable sources show has become notable; being related to debt collection, I think this is appropriate for the article. --Cornince (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cornince! I'd like to express concern about this section. It is a single sentence long and doesn't elaborate at all on what you mean. I agree that there is most certainly fraud and collection agency abuse and it is somewhat widespread, but you need to make sure you are applying this in an encyclopedic way. WP:recentism warns of randomly applying recent events to an article without making sure they are in the context of the entire article. This can also be taken as a WP:POV issue as well... My overall view of the entire article is it needs to be completely rewritten in a more encyclopedic way.Netsquall (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Furtherly, much of what this small wp:stub says is already covered in the remainder of the article. Sometimes repeatedly.Netsquall (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal - Fraud and Abuse section

Due to lack of active editors reviewing, I have removed the Fraud and Abuse section. Much of what the one sentence it had is already covered in the article in many sections. If someone protests please feel free to make a much more fleshed out section on collection fraud and abusive practices. Netsquall (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Debt collection in general

I have found that English Wikipedia does not have an article about enforcement of court decisions in general. For example, in Russian law there are such terms as исполнительное производство (civil court decisions enforcement procedure) and обращение взыскания на имущество (recovery against property, i.e. seizure and sale of the debtor's assets). Are there relevant general English legal concepts? Would it make sence to have a general article about them (rules in different countries, etc.)? Olegwiki (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I miss information about what legal methods of enforcement there are in US and UK to claim money someone refuses to pay. In Sweden, any creditor can (if established by court) ask the National Enforcement Authority to claim money from bank accounts, or have the National Enforcement Authority (with police assistance) take proprty from the home, or sell the home itself (causing eviction). According to the article the only thing creditors can do in the US, is to call the debtor and threaten with bad credit record. --BIL (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have found the article Distraint which is now listed in the See also section. I think it is strange that an article to where "Debt collection" is redirected, does not describe this. --BIL (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition for American section 'negotiation of FDCPA'

I believe this would be a good addition in the American Collections section. Will inform people that they are taking action to change the act and guidelines for collection agencies. Please let me know if you would suggest any changes to this and if you also believe it would be a good contribution to the page.

Across the nation, the states have proposed for stricter consumer protection rules so as to help the debtors struggling with monetary problems. The states have proposed rules to address the collectors’ use of text messages and recorded messages too. By law, the debt collectors cannot use abusive language while communicating through phone or mails. As mentioned, this rule may be extended to text and recorded messages, too. Moreover, the collectors also cannot threaten violence against the debtors.

The State Attorney General of Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, has suggested to revise regulations (which were created in 1970) in order to be at par with the technological development. The proposed amendment also includes that the passive debt buyers or the debt collectors should be classified as creditors, who originally offered the loans. So, the rules that are applicable to the creditors should be applicable to the subsequent buyers, too.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorhall89 (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't use material that is copied from another source - you have to say it in your own words. Also, a blog is not considered a reliable source.--Kubigula (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There might be some useful information there, but citing to a blog is not appropriate (fails WP:RS on its face, and especially this site as likely non-neutral by its corporate nature). DMacks (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So the material can be used if rewritten but the blog will not be cited. I understand its non-neutral but in what way could this information benefit the corporate nature of that business? Its the law that a collection agency has to follow and the amendment will make those laws more strict because of new technology.Trevorhall89(talk)

Thank you for trying to improve the article. The first issue was that we can't take content copied directly from a copyrighted source. After that, the secondary issue is that content from a blog is not generally usable in Wikipedia; self-published content is just not considered sufficiently reliable. So, I suggest looking in other sources, like books, magazines, journals, or newspapers.--Kubigula (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

History of debt collection

Since 'Debt collection' connects here, the article should surely cover its history? I've created a section, with a stub entry, to get us started. If I've missed a relevant article elsewhere, kindly amend, note here, and provide a link from the text. Onanoff (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Data Security

Interesting news: A collection agency has passed a third party data security assessment. "Compliance validation is performed in areas such as PCI DSS, HIPAA, GLBA, Red Flags Rule, ISO 27002, FISMA (NIST 800-53), Nevada NRS 603a, Massachusetts 201 CMR 17.00, and CFPB Readiness" - I find validated compliance with ISO 27002 and 201 CMR 17.00 to be impressive; few financial entities have passed such assessments. I'd wager that First Collection Services is the only ARM Industry to have done so. Any thoughts on if/how any of this merits mention? --Elvey (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Collection agency → Debt collection – I think that the primary topic of importance being addressed by this article is the practice of debt collection. The collection agency happens to be the primary type of entity engaged in debt collection, but the rules governing debt collection generally apply to anyone collecting a debt. I would move this page to debt collection, and tweak the lede to make it clear that this article is about that practice, and that the major entities engaged in the practice are collection agencies. bd2412 T 14:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support encyclopaedic topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support as the common name. Also, this seems to be in line with using the name of the process rather than a noun (for example, coal mining instead of coal mine). Laurdecl ^talk 10:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Leaning to support. Wikipedia certainly ought to have a "debt collection" article, and much of the content related to debt collection is in this page. My only hesitation is that it appears the concept of a collection agency is also independently notable, so a separate article on collection agencies is likely justified. Ultimately, I think the best course is to move this page to debt collection, then spin-off content about collection agencies if/when the page becomes too long.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Cash collection into Debt collection; synonyms; the former is a long-term poorly-referenced stub; merge for short text, context and overlap. Klbrain (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose that Cash collection be merged into Debt collection. I’ve recently taken up trying to improve the article on cash collection, but the more I research it, the more I’m convinced that it’s either just a synonym for debt collection or simply a common type of debt collection with few unique features of its own. Either way, I believe it doesn’t warrant its own article. “Cash collection” is currently a stub, so there shouldn’t be much disruption in a merge. I’m certainly no expert in either topic, though, so I may be mistaken about their congruence. Master Wikinym (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I support the proposal. When the lead asserts "Debts currently being processed for cash collection are said to be in collections" it's difficult to argue that we're not talking about a subject that can reasonably be merged into "debt collection". Arllaw (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! As a full disclaimer, though, I wrote that line, and used nothing more than mine aforementioned similarity research to conclude it. I had to simply assume the two pages I cited (one of which was removed by another editor for being too forcefully commercial), were talking about the same thing (One page was on the topic of cash collection, the other was on debts being in collections.), given the fact that I couldn’t draw any clear distinction between them. (Mine only guess is that cash collection is just debt collection in cash.) It’s weirding me out that I haven’t managed to find one page on the entire Internet that even explicitly acknowledges that “cash collection”, “debt collection”, and “in collections” are distinct terms, let alone any one that attempts to either separately define them or declare their synonymity. If they’re not either the same, or nested, concepts, I’ll be very much surprised. That being said, I still stand by what I wrote as being easily the most reasonable conclusion, and wish to move forward with the merge, after consensus is reached. Master Wikinym (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of these terms is that "cash collection" is a broader accounting term that focuses on the overall cycle of converting money owed into money received (cash on hand) . "Debt collection" is the more difficult part of the process where the money owed is near or in delinquency, so that additional steps or third party assistance are needed to ensure receipt of the monies owed. I do think the two articles could be merged, though it sounds like we probably need expert attention, perhaps from a CPA, to confirm the distinction (if any).--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I’d definitely welcome an expert’s input, if anyone here has access to one. Master Wikinym (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)