Talk:Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
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.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Major re-write

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Expansion

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)
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)

[edit] Hosseinzadeh

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)

[edit] Clarification Tag: Consumer Debt

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)