The Hunstein Case is just the latest example of how consumer-centric policies, laws and market conditions are causing disruption and uncertainty in the collections industry. And it won’t be the last. Here are some recent examples:

• COVID pandemic
• Dodd Frank vendor oversight requirements
• New debt collection rules and Reg F
• New administration and regulatory activism

All these changes are designed to protect consumers and regulators are forcing creditors to be responsible for this consumer-centric movement.  To protect their brand and reduce operational risk, creditors need to make a paradigm shift from a decentralized approach to a centralized, creditor-driven approach.

This three-part webinar series will explore this centralized, creditor-driven approach from three different perspectives: creditor, regulator, and servicers.

Part One: Collectors Perspective (on-demand)

How 2 of the Top 5 Creditors are Poised to Win in this New Paradigm for Today and Tomorrow.

May 12, 2021 | 3:00 PM EDT

Part Two: Regulator Perspective (register)

How Creditors can Align their Strategies to Meet Regulators Future Expectations

June 2, 2021 | 1:00 PM EDT

Part Three: Servicers Perspective (register)

Minimize Chaos in a Dynamic Environment

June 30, 2021 | 1:00 PM EDT

Watch PART ONE webinar today and hear Heidi Staloch, USBank, Stefanie Jackman, Ballard Spahr, Walker White, Oliver Technology Corporation and Thomas Michael, Oliver Technology Corporation discuss:

• Why creditors are shifting to a centralized, creditor-driven model.
• How a free flow of consistent, accurate data is the source of the solution across the creditor’s strategy.
• What end-to-end oversight and control means for collections and consumers.

The new rulings from CFPB will curtail some of the most widely used—and often abused—practices in collections.  Keeping up with federal, state, local and, venue-specific laws, rules, and procedures is a huge cost and risk to manage, and implementing the Final Rule will be no different.  Creditors and law firms need full-time staff to monitor the laws, rules, and procedures across the nation.  Since the formation of the CFPB, the amount of quality control checks and audit requirements has grown exponentially.  In the past, there were only two solutions; hire more people or lower your volume.  In the face of the expected growth of debt over the next few years, neither course of action is ideal.

Want to learn how to best prepare for the new FDCPA rule?  Watch our on-demand webinar with Diana Banks, Vice President with American Bankers Association and, Walker White, CEO of Oliver Technology.

The Opportunity:  Automation with Built-in Compliance

The technology exists today to automate much of the compliance process to ensure adherence across the collections litigation channel.  Here are three key categories of automation that allow creditors to maintain rigorous compliance.

1. 1. Codify Compliance

Think of how TurboTax™ transformed the way the average person does their taxes and remains compliant with the IRS; that’s codifying.  The first step is to codify all the federal, state, local, and venue specific laws and regulations.  Next, place this code onto a platform that is used by all parties across the collections litigation channel to ensure that everyone is maintaining compliance throughout the process.

Creditors and law firms have extensible procedures and business rules that need to be incorporated into the platform.  These are specific procedures that help those companies meet reputational goals or internal controls.

A key value to codifying compliance is providing granular visibility and agility. When an account cannot automatically flow through the process, they need to be escalated and handled on an exception basis.  Now 90% of inventory can be automated and only 10% need exception-based management.

2. Simplify Audit

The CFPB measures compliance through audits, yet this can be a very manual, time-consuming, and subjective process.  Additionally, many creditors have strict internal controls that need to be managed and measured.  By building compliance into the collections litigation platform, all collections activity can be audited easily.  The platform documents every step of the process including measuring meaningful attorney involvement.

Clear reporting of handoffs, reviews, approvals, and SLAs are critical to the accuracy of the audit.  Finally, giving creditors end-to-end visibility and control over the process is critical to ensure that all the compliance and internal controls are met.

3. Customization

Litigation is a combination of science and art, meaning that there can be multiple ways to manage an account and remain compliant.  Many debt collectors have developed unique standard operating procedures (SOPs) that need to be incorporated into the compliance framework.  Creditors have multiple law firms in each state where they litigate and each of their firms can navigate the compliance framework with their unique SOP.  By integrating these SOPs into the platform, all the parties can continue to process inventory according to their SOP and still maintain the overall consistency of approach that creditors and regulators require.

Finally, technology today enables us to quickly adapt to changing market and regulatory conditions.  The COVID-19 pandemic is a perfect example.  From a legal and reputational perspective, creditors needed to suddenly stop the litigation process, reassess the level of the hardship of their accounts, modify their process of collection with courtesy communication or forbearance offerings, and then quickly restart the process when the courts reopened.   If they had a collections litigation platform in place with built-in compliance, SLAs, and SOPs, they would have been able to automatically send courtesy communication, and continue to work on accounts and place them in processing queues.  Upon reprioritization based on their ability to pay and preparing them for litigation, accounts would be ready to be put into the system as soon as the courts reopened.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its final rule for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act on October 30, 2020.  The release of the rule promises to bring substantial changes in consumer debt collections practices.  The rule becomes effective one year after its date of publication, or November 2021.

In the meantime, here is a summary of 10 key changes that you can expect from this rule.  Please visit the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for more detail.

1.  Communication for debt collection

For purposes of this section, the term “consumer” includes consumer’s spouse, parent (if the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator.  There are specific updates on who, what, where and when you can communicate with consumers and third parties.  In addition, there is a section on the circumstances on when a debt collector needs to cease communication.

2.  Harassment or abuse

A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, six examples of conduct that are a violation of this section are provided.

15 USC 1692e

3.  False or misleading representations

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, there are 16 points on conduct that are violations.

15 USC 1692f

4.  Unfair practices

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, this section describes eight examples of conduct that is a violation.

15 USC 1692g

5.  Validation of debts

This is a detailed description of new processes for

• Notice of debt, contents
• Disputed debts
• Admission of liability
• Legal pleadings
• Notice provisions

15 USC 1692h

6.  Multiple debts

If any consumer owes multiple debts and makes any single payment to any debt collector with respect to such debts, such debt collector may not apply such payment to any debt which is disputed by the consumer and, where applicable, shall apply such payment in accordance with the consumer’s directions.

15 USC 1692i

7.  Legal actions by debt collectors

Any debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer shall abide by the specific venue rules outlined in this section.

15 USC 1692j

8.  Furnishing certain deceptive forms 

It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating.

Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the same extent and in the same manner as a debt collector is liable under section 1692k of this title for failure to comply with a provision of this subchapter.

15 USC 1692k

9.  Civil liability 

This section outlines the civil liability of any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter.  It provides details on…

• Amount of damages
• Factors considered by court
• Intent
• Jurisdiction
• Advisory opinions of Bureau

15 USC 1692l

10.  Administrative enforcement

This section gives detail on compliance and enforcement as it pertains to:

• The Federal Trade Commission
• Applicable provisions of law
• Agency powers
• Rules and regulations

15 USC 1692m

This is a high level summary of the new rule, please visit the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for more detail.

Today is an exciting day for Oliver. In an announcement this morning, Wells Fargo named Oliver one of the newest companies to join the Wells Fargo Startup Accelerator, which helps advance emerging technologies like ours that are working to create breakthrough solutions for the financial services industry. The program, which began in 2014, provides up to $1 million in funding, as well as critical guidance from Wells Fargo business and technology leaders. As Oliver continues to scale, this valuable collaboration will provide us with the capital and expertise needed to help our banking customers produce more revenue at lower costs.

In a year that is significantly impacting debt collections for financial services, joining the Wells Fargo portfolio is more meaningful than ever. It provides us the opportunity to not only lead the charge to redefine debt recovery for banks, but to absorb the real-world experience of Wells Fargo along the way.

The Collections Market is currently experiencing the first credit cycle in the CFPB era. In February 2020, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, consumers were expected to default on at least 2.3% of outstanding debt, costing creditors over $325B. However, that prediction was PRIOR to the any impact of the pandemic. If the 2008-2009 recession is any indicator, defaults almost doubled. And many feel we are headed that direction.

Creditors, law firms and master servicers are looking at what they need to do today—to keep progressing—while preparing for an inevitable influx of debt collection in the near future.

Most collections litigation strategies lack the built-in agility needed to manage the changing dynamics of the market, bringing to light clear failure points in the process. Each time creditors hit a failure point, they leak value out of their strategy, directly impacting their bottom line.

Want to get a 360° view from a creditor, lawyer and technology experts on conquering these failure points? Watch our on demand webinar with Heidi Staloch, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel at US Bank , Stefani Jackman, Partner at Ballard Spahr and Walker White, CEO of Oliver Technology.

In the meantime, here is a brief review of the five failure points and recommended fixes.

Failure #1: The Data is Fractured
Antiquated data formats and data collection with limited access across the parties.

Creditors system of record comes in many forms. While standards exist, many were designed decades ago and they are not flexible enough to handle dynamic environments like we see today. Additionally, due to the number of sources and systems, these processes raise the risk of inaccurate or incomplete information, either for the Creditor deciding if a particular account is suit-worthy, or for the law firm taking action upon it. We have an opportunity to improve in this area and really modernize.

The Fix: A modern, holistic Platform
360° view of data across all relevant parties

There are three key categories to fixing a fractured data model.

• Consolidation: Bring the data together into a litigation master record visible to all parties; don’t just throw it over the fence.
• Automation: Use modern technology to automate many of the tasks you perform manually like loading data, transforming data, cleansing data and even redaction of documents that we want to share with various parties.
• Accessible: Using proper permissions, having the ability to share the same data with all interested parties, making it more functional for everyone.

Failure #2: Operating on Disparate Platforms
Inconsistent, ineffective file management impacts cost and risk

Historically, there’s a lot of data and systems involved. Files are tossed over the fence to law firms to operate inside local matter management system and codes are sent back and forth. Matter-specific communication is often relegated to separate emails, texts, and phone calls. It’s inefficient. It also creates potential compliance risks for creditors and law firms, as they are updated about changes after the fact. Any time you lack a master record – a single source of truth – you leak value and efficiency from the process.

The Fix: Collaboration and execution in a single streamlined platform
Management of all activity by all involved parties within the context of the file.

Here are the critical capabilities needed to move from a disparate system to an agile solution:

• Collaboration: Create a single place that holds the litigation master record, accessible to all parties all the time, allowing near real-time interaction.
• Orchestration: Effectively automate the many handoffs, approvals, and reviews to accelerate the process and capture a standardize audit of the “who, what and where” of each transfer.
• Visibility: End-to-end visibility for creditors of the entire channel.

Failure #3: Efficiently Maintaining Rigorous Compliance
Maintaining compliance requirements has increased the need for more FTEs, while slowing time to revenue.

Keeping up with all the federal, state, local and venue specific laws, rules and procedures is a huge cost to manage. Since the formation of the CFPB, the amount of quality control checks and audit requirements have grown exponentially. And currently, there’s just no easy fix. You either hire more people or you slow down the volume.

The Fix: A Platform with Compliance Built-in
All federal, state, local and venue specific laws plus all regulatory, creditor and law firm rules and procedures are built into one platform and managed across the channel.

With the technology that exists today, there’s absolutely no reason we cannot codify these rules. So, let’s start there:

• Codify Compliance: Think about Turbo Tax, which codified the tax laws to make it very simple for someone to file taxes. The same is possible with the laws, rules, and procedures that govern collections.
• Simplify Audit: Pairing codified compliance with a single system that allows for a comprehensive audit makes rigorous compliance a breeze because each step and timing is documented, including attorney meaningful involvement.
• Customization: Compliance is a framework, but there are many paths to maintain it; law firms must maintain the ability to practice the “art of litigation” while preserving a consistent approach from the creditor to the consumer.

Failure #4: Litigation Lacks Economy of Scale
Individual law firms maintain their own knowledge base making it difficult for creditors to scale within and across states.

Since creditors partner with law firms in each state, essential business logic about how to litigate in a given state is distributed and is not accessible to the creditor. This makes it difficult for creditors to develop a consistent process across the channel to achieve an economy of scale. When a creditor can integrate law firms onto one platform using a consistent litigation process all parties realize an economy of scale. Even more, creditors are provided end-to-end visibility and control of the process.

The Fix: A Platform with integrated law firm knowledge
Integrate law firm knowledge into a consistent litigation process on a shared platform.

Let’s look at three ways to fix this problem:

• Standardize: allows creditors to capture all data during pre-placement and then share that data based on the needs of the firm and states.
• Consolidate: Bring law firms onto a single operational platform or set of processes.
• Visibility: Provide dynamic and comprehensive dashboards for creditors to be able to see how those files are moving and either assist the firms to keep them going, or bounce them to another firm that can move the file faster.

Failure #5: Stalled Inventory
Stalled files equate to lost revenue. When the percentage of stalled files increases, profitability dwindles.

Today, inventory is distributed to individual law firms in batches. With limited to no oversight of all files across the channel, inventory can become buried or under-utilized. Each file has many moving parts and inevitably, active files garner the most attention, while higher value files may go unnoticed.

The Fix: Automation of Inventory Management
Automating inventory is a new solution, in a unique way, to a common problem.

Let’s look at three ways to fix this problem:

• Actionable views: A consolidated view allows all relevant parties to see which files are active and which are not. By adding actionable and consumable views of inventory, creditors can rely less on people and more on automation to keep files moving.
• File Granularity: Workflows should be based on individual files verses pools/batches. A platform should automatically manipulate, test and compare individual matters to determine if the file should be placed and then evaluate multiple variables of data simultaneously to make a data driven decision regarding where to strategically place files. Automatically processing files to the next step is critical to prevent inventory from stalling; yet some files need human interaction, requiring the platform to flag those files and automatically notify the appropriate person that action is needed.
• Visibility: Better visualization ensures more inventory will move in a consistent manner to create more value. When a creditor can visualize the value of each file (including the stage each file is in and why files are not advancing) they can proactively address issues like rebalancing load across firms or rebalancing files based on probability of success. Creditors need a comprehensive view of the inventory and an agile platform that can quickly modify the flow of inventory to generate higher value.

Think about it. With your business under a microscope of regulators, most creditors are forced to manage their business with caution. While the debt is mounting, the pressure is building. At some point, the storm is going to pass, and the economy will expand. Now is the time to re-tool your collections litigation process into an agile system so you can cost-effectively scale your operation to capture more revenue in a shorter timeframe when the opportunity arises.

Learn more with a 360° view from a creditor, lawyer and technology experts on conquering these failures.