California Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act
Posted on September 29, 2009 at 4:00 am
Hi I need to know what the California Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act is all about, thank you!
Posted on September 29, 2009 at 6:00 am
Why what's so special about the California Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act compared to the that of the FDCPA?
Posted on September 29, 2009 at 6:12 am
The FDCPA does not apply to the creditors or its collection department but many states have fair debt collection laws that do cover creditors' collection departments.So the consumer should check with the state consumer protection office for that.
In California, they also have
RFDCPA (Rosenthal Act)
Creditors and debt collectors subject to California law are also subject to the federal law. If you live in California, you're protected by both laws.
Posted on September 29, 2009 at 6:35 am
Speaking of what's so special about California, the statute of limitations on collections there is also different, it's only 4 years as opposed to 6 years for most states.
Posted on September 30, 2009 at 5:51 am
In California also debtors are not allowed to record phone calls with debt collectors. It is considered as a breach of privacy and from what I believe this act is punishable by law. Can anyone verify this?
Posted on October 6, 2009 at 7:57 pm
According to the California Civil Code ยงยง 178.10 to .17, a "creditor collecting (their) own debt must comply with all provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act," except some certain disclosures in making initial communication with the debtor. In other words, they can get away with defrauding you and not informing you of your rights as a consumer. This is an unfair practice in itself because it does not guarantee the privacy and security of the debtor.
Posted on October 8, 2009 at 3:23 am
Just to add to what was mentioned earlier:
The required disclosures in the first written communication with the debtor include the following:
- The debt amount
- The name of the original creditor
- That the debtor is given 30 days to dispute the debt's validity
- That inability to send a formal dispute means within that period means that the debt is indeed valid
- That if the debtor did choose to dispute the debt, the creditor or collection agency will require verification of it.
The fact that these disclosures cannot be included as per California law means that their debt collection practices act in itself is unfair.
Posted on October 30, 2009 at 3:01 am
What is the statute of liminations of debt in California?