[X]
Write ReviewJump to 
Collection Agencies Informative - Debate Over Nevada's State Law - State Senate Panel Debates Bill Allowing Collector
State Senate Panel Debates Bill Allowing Collector
NEVADA -- State Senate Panel Debates Bill Allowing Collectors to be Recorded
After Nevada's lower house approved a measure to exclude debt collectors from the state's dual-consent recording law, the bill gets some debate time in the Senate before a vote.
After passing Nevada’s Assembly with a vote of 28-14, AB 127, a bill that would allow consumers to secretly record phone conversations with collection agencies, is now being debated in Nevada’s Senate.
The law would change a 1998 Nevada Supreme Court ruling that recording telephone conversations without the consent of both parties is barred under state law.
In support of AB 127, that “69,000 complaints to the FTC” data is being trotted out – again, without any corroborating evidence, or any acknowledgement that the 69,000 figure is all complaints lodged and not the number of valid complaints. The ACA, working with PriceWaterhouse Cooper, is preparing an analysis of the 69,000 complaints.
"I realize this is a departure from the way business is conducted in Nevada," Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, a sponsor of the bill, told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "After becoming aware of the amount of abuse is taking place, I have come to the conclusion that additional consumer protection measures in this area are warranted." However, when Smith mentions “becoming aware of the amount of abuse,” she’s only referencing the FTC’s data which has not been analyzed in any meaningful way. What she’s aware of is growing consumer dissent with collection agencies; that shouldn’t necessarily be the basis for an unfair new law.
John Sande IV, a lobbyist for an association of Nevada debt collectors, pointed out that the industry is tightly regulated by federal law. If Nevada wants to change the law regarding recording phone conversations, it should regulate all conversations equally, he added.
April 30, 2007
by Mike Bevel,
insideARM.com
After Nevada's lower house approved a measure to exclude debt collectors from the state's dual-consent recording law, the bill gets some debate time in the Senate before a vote.
After passing Nevada’s Assembly with a vote of 28-14, AB 127, a bill that would allow consumers to secretly record phone conversations with collection agencies, is now being debated in Nevada’s Senate.
The law would change a 1998 Nevada Supreme Court ruling that recording telephone conversations without the consent of both parties is barred under state law.
In support of AB 127, that “69,000 complaints to the FTC” data is being trotted out – again, without any corroborating evidence, or any acknowledgement that the 69,000 figure is all complaints lodged and not the number of valid complaints. The ACA, working with PriceWaterhouse Cooper, is preparing an analysis of the 69,000 complaints.
"I realize this is a departure from the way business is conducted in Nevada," Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, a sponsor of the bill, told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "After becoming aware of the amount of abuse is taking place, I have come to the conclusion that additional consumer protection measures in this area are warranted." However, when Smith mentions “becoming aware of the amount of abuse,” she’s only referencing the FTC’s data which has not been analyzed in any meaningful way. What she’s aware of is growing consumer dissent with collection agencies; that shouldn’t necessarily be the basis for an unfair new law.
John Sande IV, a lobbyist for an association of Nevada debt collectors, pointed out that the industry is tightly regulated by federal law. If Nevada wants to change the law regarding recording phone conversations, it should regulate all conversations equally, he added.
April 30, 2007
by Mike Bevel,
insideARM.com
Comments:
Posted by Nohandle on 2007-04-30:
DB, with the exception of a wrong telephone number once on my machine I've not been bothered. Wait, I take that back. I dialed the number left on the machine to inform the invididual not only did he have the wrong number but the wrong name as well. That opened a can of worms. It must have been 6 calls later, each call getting a little uglier for them to stop. I told them how long I had the number, who lived here and repeated they had the wrong number. They seems to find that impossible to comprehend. How could they have the wrong number? Incidently, the character they were tracking down was in another state. DUH..don't they recognize area codes?
I'm curious as to what is going on in Nevada and the end result. How many states have a like law? It appears the the consumers wouldn't want to tape any conversation unless it was to their benefit. Just how bad do these calls really get that someone would want to tape them? Also, has Nevada received 69,000 complaints on any other business?
You were in debt collection a long time. I realize your particular branch didn't use tactics used by others. You've also stated you guys would be fired for going over the line. What's your take on this?
I'm curious as to what is going on in Nevada and the end result. How many states have a like law? It appears the the consumers wouldn't want to tape any conversation unless it was to their benefit. Just how bad do these calls really get that someone would want to tape them? Also, has Nevada received 69,000 complaints on any other business?
You were in debt collection a long time. I realize your particular branch didn't use tactics used by others. You've also stated you guys would be fired for going over the line. What's your take on this?
Posted by superbowl on 2007-04-30:
DebtorBasher, so what do you think? I don't deal with collection agencies but if I had to and I told them I was going to record the conversation would that be allowed? I think having a recording of what was said by who on both sides would be a good thing in case complaints showed up later. You know my one and only story with a collection agency, NCO.
Posted by ejack053824 on 2007-04-30:
Recording phone calls depends on what state you reside in superbowl. Like for instance Florida, you have to have permission from the other party to record the conversation. If the collector continues to yack on, like basher, after you told them you are recording..then you have secured permission.
Posted by DebtorBasher on 2007-05-01:
EJ...You've been flying at high altitude again, haven't you?
Posted by ejack053824 on 2007-05-01:
Basher I was at 50,000 ft earlier today. You disagree with my advice?
Posted by DebtorBasher on 2007-05-04:
I disagree that I "Yack on"...whenever anyone told me they were recording, I told them that was fine...I wasn't doing anything wrong, so why should I care? Maybe they liked the sound of my voice and wanted to hear it over and over once they paid their bill and knew I wouldn't be calling them anymore.
Posted by Lidman on 2007-05-05:
ejack053824 is right like in CA. it is against the law with out permission and the "yack on" part as well.
Note: All comments are reviewed by a moderator before being published. Please be sure to read our guidelines before commenting.
Company Reps: Post your company response!
Recently Discussed:
- Pay Your Bills, Its Not Just Your Economy That Your Messing Up!!!! - Debts Owed
- Debt Collection Agencies = Debt Collection Agents - Agents That Take There Job Personally
- FCC: Collectors May Call Cell Phones with Autodialers, Prerecorded Messages - Collectors May Now Call Cell Phones!
- Collectors Seek to Modernize Do Not Call Update - Predictive Dialer To Include Cell Phones
- What a collector can see - Collector