West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw

West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw is at it again… in a good way. McGraw has been on a mission to shut down payday lenders and their collection agencies that operate in his state. McGraw’s office began their crackdown on the internet payday lending industry in 2005.

Since then, McGraw’s office has successfully concluded 75 investigations of Internet payday lenders and their collection agencies, which have netted a total of $1,784,772.82 in cash refunds and cancelled debts for 6,612 West Virginia consumers.

Now, McGraw has sued not only 7 online payday lenders, but also 5 of their accomplice collection agencies. The really great thing about this is that McGraw is not just going after the lenders, but also their collection agencies.

The problem with online payday loans is that they are illegal in many states (and some are illegal in all states, as they operate offshore), yet they are using legitimate, licensed U.S. collection agencies to do their dirty work.

Read the rest of this entry »

While the IRS has stopped working with private collectors, many local District Attorney’s offices have not. A company called American Corrective Counseling Services provides for-profit services to local District Attorney’s offices, including Los Angeles County. The company sends out letters on District Attorney’s letterhead threatening prosecution and jail time for writing bad checks, even though there is little chance that the District Attorney’s will ever follow through with any action. They also charge hundreds of dollars in fees and share a portion of them with the DA’s offices they contract with.

Now if a private debt collector makes threats that they do not intend to or have the means to follow through on, they are in violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act or FDCPA and can pay hefty fines. However, apparently those rules don’t apply to District Attorney’s and ACCS, since they joined together to convince House Rep. Barney Frank to support exempting them from FDCPA in 2006.

This certainly seems like a double standard and could really be an issue with loans secured by a check, namely payday loans. DA’s and ACCS could be inadvertently helping payday loan collectors falsely threaten prosecution against consumers who simply defaulted on a high interest, unsecured loan.

In a very disturbing case, the 7th Circuit has ruled in favor of debt buyers by upholding a lower court decision that MCM Capital Group did not violate the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).   In Wahl vs. Midland Credit Management, the court decided that by referencing the total amount of debt purchased as the “principle” amount the debt buyer did not violate FDCPA’s requirement that interest and principle be itemized.

The basic story is that Ms. Wahl charged less than $70 to a BP credit card in the 80′s.  Due to a stroke, she was unable to pay the balance, so interest and fees started accruing at about $40 per month.  After Ms. Wahl’s $70 in gas debt had grown to $1,149 in debt, BP decided to sell the debt to a debt buyer.  The debt buyer then began adding it’s own interest, but reported the $1,149 as the “principle” balance and it’s own interest as the interest.

So, what the court affirmed is that if a debt buyer purchases the debt, they are under no obligation to provide the consumer with any information on how a $70 debt turned into $1,149 and can in fact report that debt as the principle balance.

From the 7th Circuit Court’s Decision:

The starting or original amount owed, she would say, was what she actually charged on the BP card. It follows that none of the interest, whether tacked on by BP or Midland, is part of the “principal balance.” And since Midland included the BP interest within the “principal balance” figure, it uttered a falsehood. But this logic ignores Midland’s role in the process entirely. The interest charged by BP was very much part of the principal balance in Midland’s eyes.
Midland obtained the entire BP debt,3 including interest, so the starting or original amount owed, as far as it was concerned, was indeed $1,149.09.

Regardless of the legal merits, this is certainly a very bad decision for the consumer or debtor.  Basically, a creditor can rack up all kinds of usurious fees and interest, in this case over $1000 for $70 borrowed, and then sell the balance to a debt buyer.  At that point, the debt buyer has no obligation to demonstrate how $70 turned into $1,149 and can refer to $1,149 as “principle.”

This sounds like a great decision for payday lenders operating illegally out of Costa Rica or Grenada, banks hiding behind “fees” to charge usurious rates and collection agencies that want to pursue old inflated debts.

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…