There is a section in the FDCPA entitled “Congressional findings and declaration of purpose.”  For those of you not familiar with reading laws, this section essentially sets out what Congress had in mind when writing the FDCPA.  Arguably, this section can be used as a guide when encountering a question involving the remaining provisions of the FDCPA which may be unclear or when countering an argument by a debt collector.

The Congressional findings section of the FDCPA are very interesting and I will summarize them below:

1.         Congress found that there “is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors” and that these practices “contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to the invasions of individual privacy.”  Section 1692(a).

2.         It was also the opinion of Congress that the “existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.”  Section 1692(b).

3.         Congress stated that there are ways for debt collectors to collect debts other than by abusing consumers.  Section 1692(c).

4.         It was also the opinion of Congress that, even if the abusive activity occurs entirely within one state, that abusive activity directly affects interstate commerce.  Section 1692(d).

5.         Congress stated the purpose of the FDCPA was to:

            a.         “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors”

            b.         to ensure that debt collectors who are not abusive are not “completely disadvantaged”

            c.         “to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.”  Section 1692(e).

After reading Congress’ findings and declaration of purpose, it becomes obvious that Congress intended first and foremost (almost to the extent of exclusively) to protect consumers from abusive debt collection by debt collectors.  There is no mention of protecting abusive debt collectors.  None, zero, zip, nada.  The only intent Congress had in creating the FDCPA with regard to debt collectors was to “insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not completely disadvantaged.” (Emphasis added.)  Section 1692(c).  Note that this isn’t even a strong protection for law-abiding debt collectors, just an expression that Congress thought it was okay to disadvantage debt collectors (probably given debt collector’s huge advantage over consumers) so long as compliant debt collectors are not “completely disadvantaged.”

The FDCPA is approximately thirty years old.  Although the FDCPA has been refined and fleshed out by case law over the years, it is time for Congress to take action to ensure further and better protections (and updated damages) and remedies to protect consumers from abusive debt collection activities and to affirm that the Courts are following Congress’ intent in their application of the law.

(Copyright - Amy B. Good-Ashman 2008)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!