Talk:Collection agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, I removed the section on "How to deal with a collection agency" from the article and formatted it so that it is only visible in the text when editing the page. The problem with this section is that it is written specifically for debtors who are dealing with collection agencies, which makes it unencyclopedic. Encyclopedia entries should always be written for a wide audience, not a specific one. This section may contain some useful facts, but they will need to be formatted and presented differently to be encyclopedic. And finally, I noticed that the article cited no sources, so I added a reference tag at the top. Andrea Parton 14:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now rewritten the article and corrected the problems. I reviewed it and removed several statements that have been construed as POV. I researched and added several references. And finally, I reread the article and corrected some parts that may have violated the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry.

Since I addressed all of the concerns listed in the tags at the top of the page I have removed said tags. Anyone is of course free to add those tags right back to the top of the page if they feel that I did not successfully address those concerns. I ask only that you read the article before slapping the tags right back up there. If you have any problems with the article please list why on this talk page. I hope to reach a consensus and continue to expand and improve this article. Seanr451 12:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Advertisements do NOT belong in Wikipedia

So please grow up 65.248.134.166 and quit adding them to the article every single day. -- message was unsigned by User:Seanr451

I added warnings to his talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs)
Oooo, a warning. And after this assclown racks up 10 or 12 of your warnings are you going to actually do anything? Seanr451 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you suggest? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

151.197.71.226 This guy is linking to a page with an audio file that clearly is an advertisement for debt collections. That is not welcome here. Turn on your speakers you won't believe your ears. www.collectionagencyservices.net/ Collection Agencies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RRSMONDO (talk • contribs) 17:50, June 30, 2006 (UTC)

De-spammed, Removed list of debt collectors. Wikipedia is not an ad vertising venue, nor a list of businesses. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Assignment of Debts

This whole article seems to be written from a debt collectors point of view or at the very least it assumes the debtor is in fact a debtor. Sometimes a first party will incorrectly assign a debt. I don't know enough about the internal working of collection agencies to author a section on incorrectly assigned debts, but a section really needs to exist.

On a semi-related note, Blockbuster has twice lost a movie and blamed it on me. Both times they admitted to their mistake but only long after assigning a debt. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not written from a debt collectors point of view. It's simply a description of what happens during the collection process. I did have a section that mentioned that debts are occasionally incorrect, and what to do about it. But, everybody and their brother complained about this Advice Section. They said it wasn't encyclopedic, etc. So I finally removed it.
If you'll read the article nowhere does it say; "Every debt assigned to a collection agency is correct." Nor does it say; "The collection agency or their clients are infalliable." I assumed that people reading this article realize that collection agencies are staffed by human beings and so by definition mistakes are made. I take it as given that human beings make mistakes, and I wrongly assume that other people are smart enough to realize that as well. Seanr451 04:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's not very encyclopedic. They're probably right. It's not like it's a rampent problem in which case it would be section-worthy. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It does show that you have never worked in a collections agency, the amount of incorrectly assign debts is very minimal, infact for every 10 thousand debts that are assigned to a collections agency, there may be 1 incorrecetly/false debt. This does not take into account fraudulent debts and it would therefore not warrant a section. It is infact the media that spread incorrect statistics/stories about incorrect assignement of debt and therefore would be seen as debtor bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.133.4 (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reply really glosses over the issue, which from my view point is what constitutes a valid debt? From the agency's point of view, if the assigned debt has some sort of invoice, that is good enough for them. From the consumer's point of view, if you have a dispute with a company - say you do not believe they fixed your plumbing properly; your only option is to sue in a court of law, with all the attendant costs. On the other hand, if the plumber is unwilling to compromise or even discuss the matter, all he/she has to do is assign the invoice to a collection agency, who will accept the billing/invoice as a valid debt. There is no cost to the plumber except whatever percentage the agency charges, after it collects the so-called debt. Without any judicial intervention or determination of fact, this collection becomes part of the consumer's credit record for 7 years. A collection becomes a public record and title companies typically report any collections on a title report for a lender. Many lenders, in turn, require that the collection be paid in full before the will approve a real estate loan. This forces the consumer to pay even though they may feel the bill/invoice is incorrect. I am employed in the banking business, and have for many years felt this situation to be unfair to consumers. Now that I am in a senior position in commercial lending, I have the authority to determine what items on a preliminary title report need to be cleared. My policy is to require the agency to validate the claim, and if they are unable to do so to my satisfaction, I do not require that the collection be paid. This happens many times, and most agencies are very surprised at my approach.206.169.172.212 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page that was linked from here is a copy?

I found this URL: collectionagencysupport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=32 which was recently added and removed from the "external links" section. It seems to be a verbatim copy of many sections of this article. Except, there is no attribution (see the verbatim section of the GFDL). Does anybody know what should be done? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The link needs to be kept off. If you review the site, the sole purpose of this page is to push the link for retrieving quotes for service. This is just a sneaky advertisement. I edited the URL you listed and made it an inactive link. Having an active external link only gives them what they want. Bill 16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Sorry I made it a link at all. Anyways, my question stands: where do we report plagerism of Wikipedia? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not mean that the way it sounded. I meant that their links should be kept out of the article. I was just letting you know that I edited your the link in your comments. I can't answer your question though. It would be good to know where to report it. Did you try the Village Pump? WP:VP Bill 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, they did have something in the Village Pump: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks. Thanks for your help, I'll add the site there. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BIAS

This page is written with bias in favour of debt collection agencies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.17.168 (talk • contribs) .

How so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.193.221.144 (talk • contribs) .
I'll answer this question by referring to an above section where I wrote: "This whole article seems to be written from a debt collectors point of view" out of context, the response was "nowhere does it say; 'Every debt assigned to a collection agency is correct.' Nor does it say; 'The collection agency or their clients are infalliable.'" I agree, however, if collection agencies make newsworthy mistakes, then that information belongs here. Sadly, no such information has been proposed or added. Maybe we should add {{bias}}? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
You make a valid point. However, I don't think it's so much a matter of the article having a pro-debt collector bias as it is, as you point out, that the article doesn't have a section dealing with criticism of the collection agency model. I have knowledge in this area, and expanding the article is on my personal to-do list. -Kubigula (ave) 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Noted bias I spent a great deal of time including information on the 2 year limitation of debt collection in Ontario, Canada. I further included referenced statements about a 3 call / week limit. Upon returning after a few months, I noticed, my rare, verified information had been removed. I'm not impressed. Alan.ca 10:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see the edit you are talking about. When the content was removed, did the editor who removed the content give an edit summary? If so, what did the summary say? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe this was resolved - Alan.ca restored the deleted content.--Kubigula (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

I like the concept of having a section on collection agencies in the UK (and perhaps other countries too). However, the current section reads like a how-to column on collecting debt. I don't think that's any more appropriate than the how to get out of debt section that was previously deleted. Any objections to removing this info? Kudos to Dlohcierekim for cleaning up some of the advertising that had crept in. -Kubigula (ave) 20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I removed the info. However, I would still love to see someone add material on other countries. -Kubigula (ave) 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup and re-arrangement

  • removed scope section and incorporated into intro
  • no evidence produced that information is relevant outside USA, so i removed that
  • cleaned up much of the language for conciseness
  • i renamed one section to "collection practices" and included much of article in that subheading
  • changed term from "bill collector" to "debt collector" in line with terminology of the rest of article
  • legal section needs to be referenced
  • disclaimer re legal advice is not necessary
  • much of collection calls section is trivia - removed trivia and moved section up
  • rearranged sections to more coherent flow

Tempest 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about one of your points above:

  • "no evidence produced that information is relevant outside USA, so i removed that"

If you're referring to the section I wrote about collection agencies in Canada, you should have noted that I included three references for the information stated. In future, you may want to consider discussing the removal of cited information before deleting it from an article. Especially in an article that is obviously lacking International content. Alan.ca 10:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it too personally, Alan. It looks like Tempest may have mistakenly thought this article was only about US collection agencies. That being said, his reorganization was much needed, IMO, to make the article coherent.
I think the way you reinserted the information on Canadian regulation into the regulation section is perfect, and I hope that info on other countries will follow. I trimmed the lead a bit to internationalize it a bit. If you (Alan) have some expertise on collection agencies in Canada, I would like to hear your thoughts about whether the general information on collection agencies (regarding first party, third party etc) applies in Canada. Obviously, the current section on legal remedies is US specific, so it clearly needs "internationalization".--Kubigula (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to go through the article to clarify what is US specific and what is, I hope, more generally applicable. So, the article is set up for others to insert internationl information. The section on US legal remedies is currently overly long, and I will try to condense it a bit.--Kubigula (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the optimal organization for this article would be to lead with what is common and then have sections for each unique jurisdiction. Ultimately, we may find the article grows too large and that each jurisdiction will require its own version. I think we should leave out anything that cannot be backed up with a source citation. In respect to the edits by Tempest, he should be careful not to delete source cited information. Alan.ca 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dunning

The verb "to dun" has the definition "to ask or beset, as a debtor, for payment" in Wicktionary. To "dun" someone or to engage in the process of "dunning" is used I think primarily in Europe. See http://academic.uofs.edu/faculty/gramborw/sap/dunning.htm and the stub Dunning (process). I'm not sure that the process of collecting on debts should in an article entitled "Collection agency", because a collection agency is a business entity, not a process. For now I'll put a See also Collection agency on the stub Dunning, but please consider using Debt Collection as the primary article in Wikipedia. --SueHay 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Dunning is used in the U.S. in that debt collection letters are referred to as "dunning letters". That being said, I think I agree that there should be a separate article on debt collection. Most of the Wikipedia content related to debt collection in the U.S. in currently contained in this article and the FDCPA article. Coverage on the subject, with more international coverage, would be better centralized around a Debt collection article (one that does not redirect to collection agency).--Kubigula (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)