Skip to content

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Serving A Terrible Blow to The Idea of Fast Cash Online, Justice Supported the Debt Collection Companies in The Debt Collection Case

On Monday, it is ruled by a divided Supreme Court that no one can sue the debt collection companies if they attempt to recover credit card debt of years old from those who look for bankruptcy protection. To be more specific, according to the Supreme Court, no debt collection companies can be sued while trying to recover their years-old debt of credit card from people seeking bankruptcy protection. The justices ruled this verdict 5 – 3 in favor of the Midland funding. Though the fast cash online seems to be a great solution to get quick cash, still, with this new verdict being ruled, the consumer groups have received a terrible blow.

Yes, the 5- 3 ruling is nothing less than a shock or a serious blow to the consumer groups, who often complain about the debt collection companies to mislead people unfairly into repaying the old debts, even though the consumers are not required to do so under the law.

The court finally sided with the Midland Funding on Monday. Midland Funding is a debt collection company that was trying to recover a debt of around $1879, which have incurred by an Alabama woman for more than around 10 years ago.  The name of the Alabama woman is Aleida Johnson who had argued that the debt collection company named Midland Funding was totally wrong to try to collect the debt. She also stated a reason behind her claim. According to her, the company has wronged because as per the law of Alabama, there is a six-year limitation statute for a creditor for collecting the overdue payments.

Based on this very reason, Aleida Johnson had successfully avoided paying the debt of $1879. According to a federal appeals court, Aleida could have sued the debt collection company for attempting to collect the debt, based on the existence of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. It is based on this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in Alabama that a money collection company can be sued as according to the Act, all the money collection companies are strongly prohibited from making any misleading, deceptive and false representation in any way or trying to recover the debt by any unconscionable or unfair mean. This particular law prohibits any attempt of the collection companies in trying to collect the debts outside the statute of limitations, which is, in this case, is around six years.

However, according to Justice Stephen Breyer, this Act doesn’t apply in case of bankruptcy proceedings. Yes, writing for the majority, and breaking with his liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer confirms that any effort made in order to recoup years old debt during bankruptcy do not violate the law or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in any way. He said that the attempts made by the money collection companies were neither misleading nor false as technically the bankruptcy law supports such claims.

Breyer also added that the attempt of recovering the debt by the money collection companies, such as in the case of Midland Funding, was neither unconscionable nor unfair, as a bankruptcy trustee definitely can object to claims which are so much old that they no longer have to be repaid. And it is exactly what happened in the case of Johnson’s, which also reduces the concerns of that of the consumers might unwillingly pay a years-old debt.

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas along with Chief Justice John Roberts also joined the opinion of Breyer. Though, Justice Sonia Sotomayor considered the practice to be both unconscionable and unfair.

According to Sotomayor, professional debt collectors and providers of fast cash online, have built a business out of filing unfair claims in bankruptcy proceedings to collect the debt and buying stale debt, assuming that no one noticed it. The dissent passed by her was also joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while Justice Neil Gorsuch preferred not to participate in the case.

Mr. Cordray, It’s Time to Step Down to Let Payday Loans Online Providers Breathe

CFPB or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a controversial agency and continues to remain polarizing. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia recently declared that the structure of 1 director followed by the bureau is unconstitutional. In light of the criticisms and the voters’ desire for a modification of the status quo, CFPB need to refrain from pushing regulations about payday loans online providers before the presidents enters his office.

It is common trend for federal agencies to implement some last-minute regulations when a new administration takes over the government. These regulations are usually rushed and supported by low quality assessment of the benefits and expenses. Since CFPB’s regulation can influence the financial well-being of tens and thousands of Americans, they should take time and act in good faith.

For instance, the proposed regulations on payday lending and arbitration have sparked a lot of public interest. 1.4 million comments have been received by the payday rule, which ranges from legal and economic analysis to people’s personal stories about how they quite terrified about losing access to important products and services.

The CFPB needs some time to carefully consider and reply to genuine concerns highlighted by the commenters. The staff of the bureau will really need to work 24/7 to be able to sift through, review and analyze the 1.4 million comments internally before the new administration takes over the reins of the government. Scrutinizing the comments of the arbitration rule is going to take some more time. The bureau’s proposed rule on arbitration and payday lending is going to influence significant change in the financial services market and affect so many consumers, along with their accessibility to credit. The bureau should give it the attention and time that it needs.

CFPB need to exercise control to get the rules right and to maintain legitimacy. Originally, the bureau did not have any accountability to the president and the Congress. Its structure was recently held as an independent agency by the decision of a federal appeals court. The court even said that the director of the CFPB is the single most powerful official in the entire US government, next only to the president.

The problem was addressed by the court and it gave the president the power to sack the director for various reasons other than neglect of his duty. The president has the authority to oversee the work of the CFPB and fire the director, just like for any other agency.

The CFPB also need to avoid taking aggressive actions for the interest of legitimacy until the new president decided on who he wants as director for the bureau. The future of CFPB is uncertain, and therefore, any new rules will be viewed as an invalid attempt to dictate policies. This can lead to the rules being overturned by the new administration and can cause even more uncertainties in the industry.

Instead of putting the financial industry under whipsaw policy, the bureau and its director need to step away from the pen. CFPB should spend some time to work through the information that it has received as response for its proposed rules. This way, the new administration will be able to make better, informed decisions. The major goals of the bureau is to protect the customers and promote innovation and access in financial products and that does not change. The best way for the bureau at this moment is to wait before inaugurating and announcing the final policy regarding payday loans online industry. They need to really take the time to evaluate and assess the whole situation.

Latest CFPB Payday Regulations are not as much of a Slam Dunk as the Bureau Believes

As you probably already know, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has introduced a new rule that the Bureau believes will effectively put an end to what they call “debt traps” that consumers allegedly wind up snared in due to the payday lending industry. The regulation is more than likely going to be challenged by payday lending advocates, some political leaders and those who work in the payday lending industry. There are many opposed to not just the new regulation, but the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau itself. There are charges being leveled that the CFPB, an arm of the United States government, is unconstitutional in its structure and that it lacks the official authority to implement any type of regulations on the short term lending industry.

When considering the CFPB and its new payday lending rule, it is important to consider not just the structure of the regulation, but the potential obstacles that the Bureau is likely to face in getting the new rule pushed through and made official. There are questions that interested parties need to consider.

How will the proposed payday lending rule actually protect consumers from falling into “debt traps” that some people associate with the payday lending industry? The rule is very comprehensive. To read through all of it, you’d have to be prepared to scour over 13,000 pages. But for all of the details covered in the rule, the descriptions for what makes up an actual payday loan are a big generalized. Some types of short term loans are covered, as well as some longer-term loans. Lenders who make these types of loans will need to comply with the newly created ‘ability to repay’ requirement covered in the rule. This is something that mortgage lenders and credit card companies have had to adhere to for a long time, but is new for short term lending institutions.

This requirement will force lenders to look into the potential borrower’s income, debt situation and then find out whether or not additional debt will work for the borrower. Will the person be able to make the loan payment with their existing debt level? Additionally, this rule forces lenders to consider everyday expenses, like food, utilities and other expenses that borrowers have to deal with. Here’s where it gets sticky – the lenders have to not only make these inquiries, but they have to verify all of the information. This means they will need to get paycheck stubs, credit reports and other documentation about each and every person they have to process loan requests for. These additional checks will likely make the costs of making loans so high, and the overhead costs of running a lending company so unmanageable, that many lenders will have to drop out of the market.

Will the rules even provide new levels of protection to American consumers?

Some experts believe that the new rule will prevent borrowers from “rolling over” too many loans, and that this will prevent people from getting into situations where they are rarely able to realistically pay off the principle of their short term loans. However, the elephant in the room is the fact that if the new rule effectively closes the doors of the majority of payday lending companies, then lower income borrowers, and people with low credit scores will have virtually no access to emergency lines of credit. The traditional banks are of no help to consumers with low incomes and subprime credit when those people need to borrow a few hundred dollars to keep their heads above water. By protecting consumers from loans that they don’t like, while potentially preventing those same consumers from getting access to short term lines of credit, the CFPB has shown that they have not paid a whole lot of attention to creating any type of rule that would benefit American consumers in a realistic manner.

The Clock Runs out on Proposed Payday Lending Regulation in Nebraska

A new change to the payday loan regulations in Nebraska – a change that was endorsed in full by the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce, along with TD Ameritrade – has died out. This proposal would have changed the payday lending rules in big ways, but will not wind up taking effect any time soon. The bill – 1036 – was introduced by way of State Senator Kathy Campbell from Lincoln. It was designed to cap interest rates on payday loans at just 36 percent. This cap represented a major reduction from where the loan fees – when amortized for an entire year – currently stand.

In addition to APR caps, the bill was also aimed at changing the way debts are collected, while requiring more reporting to be done on the payday lending companies doing business in Nebraska. However, the payday lenders can breathe a sigh of relief, since the overhaul failed to get past the Nebraska Legislature’s Banking and Commerce Insurance Committee. This means that the 60 local payday lending locations in Omaha, and more than 90 throughout the state will operate per usual for the foreseeable future.

Senator Jim Scheer is from Norfolk and is the chair of the committee. He indicated that time was a real factor with regards to the folks supporting this bill. Those same folks met a roadblock when it came to a relatively shorter legislative session. The session this year is 60 days, while the following year will be 90. Session days alternate every year. If the senator does not name a particular bill as being a priority it will more than likely not make it out of the committee. The bill is then to be talked about on the full Legislature floor. Campbell did not indicate that the payday loans bill was a priority.

Sheer said, “It got past the point of being named a priority bill, and without that designation, it had no vehicle to get anywhere on the floor.  It didn’t make much sense from the committee’s standpoint to move it into the general file if it wasn’t going to go anywhere.”

When the 90 day legislative session rolls around there may be more time for discussions and amendments to the bill via negotiations submitted from both opponents and supporters. In a 60 day session, though, lobbyists and other interested parties do not have as much time to arbitrate and come up with solutions. This process proves disappointing to those who have a stake in the proposal.

The executive director of the Women’s Fund of Omaha Michelle Zych said, “Quite frankly, we were really surprised that it didn’t make it out of committee.” Zych’s group was the organization that originally pushed for the new regulations. Her supporters criticized the fees that are currently permitted on Nebraska payday loans. They believe that there are not many other states that will allow these higher rates, and that the fees currently contribute to consumers getting stuck in “debt traps.”

Opponents of the reform, like Brad Hill said that the industry is already sufficiently regulated and that borrowers are stopped from rolling over loans that they cannot afford to pay back in time. Hill then told the hard truth that many people don’t want to hear about: the fact that people who need small dollar loans do not have anywhere else to turn, other than to local payday lending locations or to online lending companies. Time is on the side of the payday lenders in Nebraska, for at least a little longer. Both opponents and proponents of the regulation will likely turn out in force when the time for the 90 day session arrives.