Until the last few hundred years, the problem of unpaid debt was dealt with through a variety of punishment methods. In ancient Greece and Rome the use of Nexum (debt bondage) style contracts became so wide-spread, with so many people borrowing money they were unable or unwilling to pay back, the practice had to be abandoned due to too many people being held in bondage.
In medieval Europe, men and women debtors were locked up together in a single large cell and held until the debtor’s family was able to repay the debt. In some cases, the debtor would be released from prison and allowed to work as an indentured servant until the debt was repaid.
Until about 1833 the United States used incarceration in Federal prison as a penalty for unpaid debt. After about 1850 most states had declared the imprisonment of debtors unconstitutional.
While the Middle Age’s tactics for punishing debtors were out of control by today’s standards, it sure seems the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Now the debtor has all the rights, while the person rightfully owed has limited ability to collect what is rightfully theirs. Why is it that the only person with any rights when it comes to debt is the debtor?
There are always going to be those debtors and debtees who abuse the system in as many ways as they can. But can’t we find some middle ground that allows a debtee to contact the debtor by the most common means available? According to a survey conducted by the International Association for Wireless Telecommunications (CTIA) last year, nearly 285 million Americans subscribe to a cell phone. That translates to nearly 91% of the population!
Unfortunately, the debt collection industry can’t contact those debtors via their cell phone due to outdated federal legislation. I am stating what should be obvious; it’s time to update FDCPA and the TCPA to include technologies that had not been invented when these two pieces of legislation were written. It’s time to move the FDCPA and the TCPA out of the middle ages.
One Comment
The real problem is that the rules at times are left to too much interpretation. Foti is a great example. The FTC could simplify things and say Foti doesn’t violate 3rd party disclosure and yet they don’t. This has led courts to say that if you can’t follow Foti and 3rd party disclosure then don’t leave messages. In fact on inquiries, they almost refuse to address it. The problems our industry is having recently has nothing to do with the clear cut laws (3rd party, outside allowed hours, etc.), but with the laws that are not as defined and leave it to the local jurisdictions. It is almost like the ruling on Pornography. I can’t tell you exactly what it is, but I know it when I see it. That is the same attitude that judges are taking with collection agencies. That is due to the lack of response from any government agency on some of the newer rulings.