Rule status: Proposed
Comment by date: November 29, 2023
Rule Full Text
The Department of Consumer and Worker Protection is proposing to amend its rules relating to debt collectors.
Attendees who need reasonable accommodation for a disability such as a sign language translation should contact the agency by calling 1 (212) 436-0161 or emailing firstname.lastname@example.org by November 22, 2023
Send comments by
- Email: email@example.com
- Mail: DCWP, 42 Broadway ; New York, New York 10004
Comments are now closed.
Online comments: 8
New York City Consumers, including small homeowners and tenants, have been under direct assault by Debt Collectors and Collection Agencies. The escalating high cost of living in New York City resorted consumers to debt to pay-off financial obligations with loans, credit cards, and refinancing their homes.
Much too few regulations, why don’t you write another 100 pages of rules, regulations and technicalities so no one can collect what is due to the hard-working creditors. The Federal FDCPA is not enough, we need duplicating and overlapping State and City regulations!! People who sell, provide services, merchandise should not be allowed to get paid. Every agency should be sued daily for minor technicalities to stop them asking what is owed. People should not be responsible for their debts, and everything should be free. Bigger government and more taxes on the few that still earn a living!! Keep up the very productive work!
One of the largest debts to owners of establishments that were ordered to close during the pandemic came from Con Edison.
Though places were closed with all equipment (ice machines, refrigerators, AC, etc.) turned off, Con Edison still charged the full amount per month for electricity. They explained to me that they were using “estimated bills” based on previous usage.
Con Ed functions as a monopoly and there is no respite from their charges. Can you help?
The NYC proposed rules for debt collection are excessive and will harm and very possibly cause small businesses to withdraw their licenses and/or prevent small businesses from operating in NY. NY continues to add additional burden on companies that conduct business in the right way, all in the name of overprotecting consumers while harming creditors that have the right to collect the debt they are owed. This over regulation ultimately harms more consumers by causing creditors to raise prices and/or restrict services in order to stay in business. Punish the bad actors and let the legitimate businesses operate as they should in a capitalist and free market. Stop encouraging consumers from shirking their financial obligations. Where is the common sense?
The searchable record keeping will incur substantial costs and highly burdensome. There is no space in collection software to reflect who we spoke to. Why is this needed? Also, why is a summary needed if call recording is already a requirement? And the record keeping requirements are vague, at best.
How can the name and number of a “natural person” be included in a letter when thousands of communications are sent? What if that person isn’t in? Do consumers sit on hold for hours until the “natural person” is available?
What is the purpose or reasoning behind “unverified debt” rule if we are already providing an itemization in our initial dunning notice?
Aside from the fact that the rules you are proposing are almost impossible to implement, the minimum time needed to attempt to put these rules into place is at least 18-24 months. In comparison, the requirements you are proposing are more involved than Regulation F, and the collection agencies will require more time than the CFPB provided to implement the Regulation F rules.
These rules make it virtually impossible to perform the work that our clients need to recover debts owed to them. It is cost prohibitive for many agencies, and you will find that it will ultimately harm consumers as many debt collectors will move to a straight litigation model.
As someone who works in the Collection Industry, I believe that making the proposed rules effective immediately and as is will only have a short-term gain for Consumers in NYC, and ultimately move the efforts from Collection to Judgements, which will have a long-term impact on Consumers. I believe we need to give a reasonable effective date of January 1, 2025, for any new rules as it does take time for businesses and consumers alike time to adjust.
Timothy Wan, Esq.
The definition of “medical debt” or any “medical providers” should be restricted to those identified as either “a health care entity that is tax-exempt under federal or New York State law or qualifies for distributions from the Indigent Care Pool from the State of New York or any other such fund or distribution allocated to reduce the charges of medical services by granting financial assistance, through a financial assistance policy, to patients based on need or an inability to pay.” To expand this to ANY medical provider would be unfair to the SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS such as chiropractors, dentists who work out of their garage, mobile massage therapists, etc., would force these small businesses to suffer.
I am the owner of a small business that is in the business of purchasing and collecting on defaulted debt, including debts from New York City residents. If the amendments to the Debt Collection Rule currently proposed by The New York Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) are adopted as drafted, there will be significant negative impacts to many New York City (NYC) consumers who are in active (or future) collections. This rule as drafted is inconsistent with the CFPB’s Regulation F, New York State and New York State Department of Financial Services requirements as they pertain to debt collections. The inconsistencies with other existing collection laws/regulations coupled with the onerous requirements proposed for collection businesses to comply will at best cause tremendous confusion to NYC consumers, at worst, cause collection businesses to forego the traditional collections process whereby NYC consumers will have little opportunity to resolve those debts before going directly into litigation.
We would ask that there be serious consideration given to the suggested changes proposed by members of the industry to the DCWP proposed rules. It is our strong belief that the suggested changes will reduce consumer confusion and avoid potentially unnecessary litigation where a mutually agreeable resolution (between the consumer and the Creditor/Collection Business) may have otherwise been found during the traditional collections process. Finally, whatever the modifications end up being, it would appear that the new rules would be effective immediately. As I am sure the DCWP can appreciate, it takes time and expense (of which small businesses rarely have an abundance) to adjust systems to new regulatory requirements. As such, we would request that an effective date be inserted into the rules, such as January 1, 2025. This would give businesses sufficient time to ensure system and process changes are well thought out and tailored to ensure compliance and consumer protection with regard to any new processes.