Forum Post: I filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 8, 2013, 8:35 p.m. EST by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition
(647)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. However, I would like them a whole lot more if they weren't so protective of how credit card debt is treated once a default occurs.
If you want to read my complaint, I have posted it on my Debt Suspension Rights blog, here is the article link. http://debtsuspensionrights.blogspot.com/2013/12/debt-suspension-rights-files-complaint.html
Please feel free tell me if you agree or disagree with my position.
Interesting blog post, but I'm curious about one thing you mention there. You mention perpetual ongoing interest rate charges. It was my understanding that unsecured debt, like a credit card, had a statute of limitations as to how long the company can collect. I had heard it was from three to six years depending on the state.
I also heard that if the statute of limitations runs out, the defaulter should NOT answer any letters from collection agencies because to do so would, in effect, "reaffirm the debt."
Good questions. If the debt collection company is aggressive enough, they will serve the debtor with court papers and take them to court before the 3 or 4 year time limit has accrued.
If the debt collector wins in court, each state varies but in California the debt turns into a perpetual 9.9% interest rate charge month after month forever, or until paid.
What is sadder still, because judges only judge on the basis of whether a default occurred or not, no excuses are allowed. This position by the judges has energized debt collectors to serve papers on as many defaulters as possible, even if means hiring robo servers who provide false service.
I can swear under oath that I have been false subserviced twice. This means the servicing agent made up that they served someone else at my residence. However, the description they gave of who they subserved was basically designed to be as generic as possible, however in my situation that made it completely wrong and impossible.
The first time the servicer actually made up a name of a person who didn't even exist as having been the person that was subserviced, the second time the servicing company simply put Jane Doe as the recipient. But in both instances, the description could not have been more inaccurate.
The judges apparently are willing to let the false services fraud slide because they figure the debtor probably owes the money anyways.
However, this is not only corrupt, it also WEAKENS an alleged defaulters ability to negotiate with the debt collector because the debt collector knows they can simply hire a robo server to falsify court documents, as was done to me twice.
If alleged credit card defaulters were allowed to plead INVOLUNTARY Default, then that could give the judge latitude to simply freeze the debt amount. That is a completely reasonable thing to do if indeed the default was involuntary. But for some reason, reasonable and courts don't go hand in hand when it comes to credit card defaults.
Now if one is a STRATEGIC DEFAULTER, a common practice among wall street, then the judges treat the Strategic Defaulter a lot better than the Involuntary Defaulter. Amazing, no?