The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has finalized a rule to define how debt collectors should follow up on time-barred debts with consumers, and consumer advocates say such collection efforts should be banned outright.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a proposed rule in December to define how debt collectors should follow up on time-barred debts with consumers, but consumer advocates say it should have banned such collection efforts instead.
This rulemaking is a supplement to the CFPB efforts from 2019 to update the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to better reflect the use of modern technology. Consumer advocates had said that the proposal was more geared to the interests of debt collectors than consumers. However they are pleased that the final rule prohibits debt collectors from suing or threatening to sue consumers on time-barred debt.
Also, the final rule does away with time-barred debt disclosures that the advocates say are not very clear to consumers and were modeled on inadequate testing. And the finalized version also prevents debt collectors from “parking” debts on consumers’ credit reports without notifying them about these debts first.
In a media release put out by consumer advocate groups, Linda Jun, senior policy counsel at Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, said, “As we face a dire and worsening economic crisis, allowing collectors to collect ‘zombie debt’ could leave consumers more vulnerable to deception and harassment.
Collectors should not be allowed to bring expired debt back to life by luring people into making a small payment that revives a debt that would otherwise be past the timeline for a lawsuit.”
Time-barred debt disclosures
The CFPB’s rule is based on the FDCPA’s outlawing of the use of “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”
Accordingly, the consumer protection agency had come up with requirements for debt collectors to make disclosures to consumers relating to time-barred debt, and also disclosures related to the revival of the debt, if necessary.
A time-barred debt is considered an inactive zombie debt since it is past the statute of limitations for legal action by debt collectors. Once a debt is revived, the debt collector is allowed to legally sue for collection of the debt.
The new rule requires debt collectors engaged in collection efforts on debts to notify consumers that there are legal limits on the period of time a consumer can be sued for a debt. They should also inform consumers that because of the age of the debt being collected on, the collector will not sue them to collect it.
In addition, debt collectors should disclose, in case this applies, if their right to bring legal action can be revived under the laws that govern the debt, and the circumstances under which this revival could occur. State laws vary on how a debt could be revived. Generally, a debt can be revived when a debtor makes a partial payment on the debt, or when a debtor acknowledges the debt in writing.
Consumer advocates: Ban collection efforts on time-barred debt
Although the CFPB touted the protections that these disclosures will afford consumers, when it proposed the rule, advocates did not see it that way. They alleged that the CFPB should have outright banned collectors from following up on time-barred debt.
April Kuehnhoff, a National Consumer Law Center attorney, noted, in a media release, “Unfortunately, disclosures cannot adequately protect vulnerable consumers from abusive practices related to the collection of time-barred debt.” She added, “The CFPB took what should have been a simple prohibition and watered it down.”
Voicing similar concerns, Linda Jun, senior policy counsel at Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, said, “To truly protect consumers the CFPB should ban collection of time-barred debt in and out of court because these debts are so old that records are lost, the collector may have the wrong person or wrong amount, and the debt cannot be collected without mistakes or deception.”
The Center for Responsible Lending also weighed in. Kiran Sidhu, policy counsel with the organization, said, in a media release, “Nearly one-third of adults among the nation’s 71 million consumers with active credit files are aggressively pursued by debt collectors based on information that is often in error, incomplete or so old that the statute of limitations has passed.
“As courts have held, collection and threat of collection of time-barred debt violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s prohibition on false or misleading representations, prohibition on unfair practices or both.”
CFPB defends proposal
The CFPB, however, stated in its notice about the proposed rule, “courts generally have agreed that a debt collector can use disclosures to correct misleading impressions relating to a debt’s enforceability and the possibility of revival that arise from the debt collector’s attempt to collect a time-barred debt.”
The agency conducted consumer research, completed in September 2019, on different disclosures to determine which ones would work best. It had also sought feedback from some small business representatives through a panel.
Based on this research, the CFPB rebutted consumer groups’ assertion that collectors should be barred from following up on time-barred debts altogether.
The CFPB notes that its quantitative test results “suggest that disclosures can be effective in preventing the deception associated with the collection of time-barred debts and that, therefore, prohibiting the collection of time-barred debt and banning revival are not necessary to prevent deception.”
One negative consequence of altogether banning collection on time-barred debts the CFPB cites include a negative fallout for consumers in the form of rising litigation before the statute of limitations expires on the debt.
In a media release, ACA International, a trade association for the debt management industry, including outsourced debt collectors, noted that it supports a “safe-harbor disclosure” for debt collectors since “it would ensure that the collector adequately warns the consumer about the consequences of nonpayment and it allows the collector and consumer to engage in legitimate communications about resolving the account.”