Bank Of America Debt Collectors Called Borrowers "F___ing N__ger" And "Punk"

[PatriotOne]

Bank Of America Debt Collectors Called Borrowers "F___ing N__ger" And "Punk" To Get Them To Pick Up The Phone

Bank of America has been busted using some seriously outrageous tactics to try to collect debts so small they're barely worth the paper they're written on.

It wasn't until ABC News ambushed BOFA CEO Brian Moynihan Michael-Moore style outside his office that the firm finally responded by firing its debt-collection firm.

See recording here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-of-america-debt-collectors-called-borrowers-fing-******-and-punk-to-get-them-to-pick-up-the-phone-2010-9

[BlackTerrel]

Class BofA. Hope they get sued like this guy did.

http://gawker.com/5551282/debt-collectors-forced-to-pay-15m-after-filthy-racist-voicemails


A Texas debt collection company had a unique style for reminder voicemails to one black customer. "This is your motherfucking wake-up call you little lazy ass bitch. Get your motherfucking ****** ass up and go pick some motherfucking cotton fields."

Allen Jones was told he owed $200 on some credit cards. He disputed the debt. The issue was apparently dealt with by a company called Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, back in 2007. They left eight or so voicemail messages demanding the money, according to the local news network, WFAA, who reported the story. The one transcribed above is apparently the mildest, and the only one they felt able to run in any form at all.

Jones sued and was awarded $50,000 for mental anguish and a whopping $1.5m in punitive damages. Here's the report.

[erowe1]

Class BofA. Hope they get sued like this guy did.

http://gawker.com/5551282/debt-collectors-forced-to-pay-15m-after-filthy-racist-voicemails

I'm glad they got sued, but I can't fathom how any jury could come up with that amount. If I'd been in that jury I probably wouldn't have gone along with any more than about $5,000 plus legal fees.

[PatriotOne]

I'm glad they got sued, but I can't fathom how any jury could come up with that amount. If I'd been in that jury I probably wouldn't have gone along with any more than about $5,000 plus legal fees.

Yeah...I gotta agree that was a bit much. Makes me wish I were a minority and they would call me.

[Promontorium]

I'm glad they got sued, but I can't fathom how any jury could come up with that amount. If I'd been in that jury I probably wouldn't have gone along with any more than about $5,000 plus legal fees.

If they award such absurdly low amounts, it would cost most people more to sue than they could get back, and it would basically become a cost of doing business for the bank and they wouldn't stop.

[PatriotOne]

Several years back i decided I had made a big mistake buying a timeshare in Las Vegas. Big mistake. I just quit paying my annual fees of $600.00. They turned me into a collection agency and I got a call from some tough Italian sounding guy. I can't remember now what he said but it made me start laughing and I asked him if his name was Guito and if he worked for the mafia and if they were going to send over someone to break my legs. After I hung up on him I got to thinking he probably was. Las Vegas Timeshares?

[specsaregood]

"Bottom line is, abusive phone calls work!"
--Well there you go.
I know they wouldn't work on me if I owed money.

[erowe1]

If they award such absurdly low amounts, it would cost most people more to sue than they could get back, and it would basically become a cost of doing business for the bank and they wouldn't stop.

1) It wasn't a bank, it was a collection agency.

2) $5,000 plus legal fees (where legal fees would probably be well into the thousands as well, plus the defendant's own legal fees) is not an absurdly low amount. It's an appropriate amount for the offense, and frankly it's well beyond what's fair IMHO. We're just talking about offensive words here.

3) A business that has to pay thousands of dollars simply as the cost of doing business to collect $200 won't stay in business long.

4) It's a civil suit, not a criminal case. It shouldn't primarily be about coming up with an amount that hurts the business, it should be about repairing the damage done. If that damage can be quantified, then that amount should be paid back fourfold as an amount that includes both real and punitive damages. The pool of wealth the defendant has should not be a factor for consideration, as though wealthier defendants need to be sued for higher amounts so that they feel the punishment.

[specsaregood]

Class BofA. Hope they get sued like this guy did.

http://gawker.com/5551282/debt-collectors-forced-to-pay-15m-after-filthy-racist-voicemails

That's the same company and line that is in the OP article/video.

[silus]

Calling someone a ni***r isn't really the greatest technique for collecting on a debt.

[JamalianTheory]

Sounds far fetched. Are we sure that these phone calls weren't staged?

[Promontorium]

1) It wasn't a bank, it was a collection agency.

2) $5,000 plus legal fees (where legal fees would probably be well into the thousands as well, plus the defendant's own legal fees) is not an absurdly low amount. It's an appropriate amount for the offense, and frankly it's well beyond what's fair IMHO. We're just talking about offensive words here.

3) A business that has to pay thousands of dollars simply as the cost of doing business to collect $200 won't stay in business long.

4) It's a civil suit, not a criminal case. It shouldn't primarily be about coming up with an amount that hurts the business, it should be about repairing the damage done. If that damage can be quantified, then that amount should be paid back fourfold as an amount that includes both real and punitive damages. The pool of wealth the defendant has should not be a factor for consideration, as though wealthier defendants need to be sued for higher amounts so that they feel the punishment.



I don't think you get what "punitive" means. This time it was $200, but often it's much more, and the poor are least likely to sue. with all your nitpicking, I still disagree with the premise. A tiny little drop in the pond fine will do absolutely nothing.

[specsaregood]

Calling someone a ni***r isn't really the greatest technique for collecting on a debt.

Evidently their experience showed that it was.

[BlackTerrel]

I'm glad they got sued, but I can't fathom how any jury could come up with that amount. If I'd been in that jury I probably wouldn't have gone along with any more than about $5,000 plus legal fees.


"Bottom line is, abusive phone calls work!"
--Well there you go.
I know they wouldn't work on me if I owed money.

If the abusive phone calls work and it only costs them $5,000 when they lose then they'll continue to do it.

That's why it's called punitive damages. It's a penalty to BofA for being jackasses.

[JamalianTheory]

If the abusive phone calls work and it only costs them $5,000 when they lose then they'll continue to do it.

That's why it's called punitive damages. It's a penalty to BofA for being jackasses.

The question I ask myself is, will this help black people?

"OK! Let's not pay our bills, hope people make racist calls, sue them racist muhfukkas, and stick it to the white man. DON'T PAY YO BILLS, NIGGA!"

[BlackTerrel]

The question I ask myself is, will this help black people?

"OK! Let's not pay our bills, hope people make racist calls, sue them racist muhfukkas, and stick it to the white man. DON'T PAY YO BILLS, NIGGA!"

The point is not "to help black people". It is to punish banks for abusive and illegal behavior.

[JamalianTheory]

The point is not "to help black people". It is to punish banks for abusive and illegal behavior.

Well, first of all, I think this whole story is a scam. I mean, the first thing I noticed is that one of the callers sounded black himself.

I don't know, the story seemed bogus as hell to me, bro. But I can't know for sure.

You know what? I'm finna do some research.

[erowe1]

I don't think you get what "punitive" means. This time it was $200, but often it's much more, and the poor are least likely to sue. with all your nitpicking, I still disagree with the premise. A tiny little drop in the pond fine will do absolutely nothing.

I do get what punitive means. I just don't buy the reasoning behind it. Just because a word exists for some concept doesn't mean it's valid. The just compensation awarded the plaintiff in a civil suit for any crime shouldn't change based on how much money the defendant has, it has to be a function of the crime itself. In this case $5k + legal fees would be more than enough.

I still think it's more than enough disincentive for them. But suppose it's not, and they decide to keep doing it. So what? Then all that happens is all these debtors get to get paid $5k just for recording phone calls of their collection agency calling them names. If I were in those debtors' shoes, I'd hope that the collection agency didn't quit.

[Kludge]

I do get what punitive means. I just don't buy the reasoning behind it. Just because a word exists for some concept doesn't mean it's valid. The just compensation awarded the plaintiff in a civil suit for any crime shouldn't change based on how much money the defendant has, it has to be a function of the crime itself. In this case $5k + legal fees would be more than enough.

I still think it's more than enough disincentive for them. But suppose it's not, and they decide to keep doing it. So what? Then all that happens is all these debtors get to get paid $5k just for recording phone calls of their collection agency calling them names. If I were in those debtors' shoes, I'd hope that the collection agency didn't quit.

In Wall Street, there are many dirty tactics to ruin someone you'd like to go bankrupt, for whatever reason. A method of doing this is by filing lawsuits against corporations the person owns, swamping them with legal fees, and hoping they go bankrupt before the frivolous lawsuits are brought to court.

I suspect a similar principle is why punitive damages are generally accepted by society. How does a person justify risking filing a lawsuit and hiring a lawyer when they're already being hassled by debt collectors? Punitive damages do the following:


Keep unnecessary cases out of the courtroom
Instead of hoping a person will risk going to court, the courts eliminate future victims by penalizing the company with abusive practices.


I would never argue the morality of punitive damages on a individualistic basis, but I do think that while we have a government, it seems like a practical practice for the people they serve.

[erowe1]

How does a person justify risking filing a lawsuit and hiring a lawyer when they're already being hassled by debt collectors?

By hiring a lawyer on contingency.


Punitive damages do the following:


Keep unnecessary cases out of the courtroom



I disagree. I think punitive damages encourage more frivolous law suits. Because of the possibility of a jury wanting to stick it to some big, rich, evil corporation, every victim of some minor aggravation thinks that a law suit is their best way to get rich quick.

[fisharmor]

I do get what punitive means. I just don't buy the reasoning behind it. Just because a word exists for some concept doesn't mean it's valid. The just compensation awarded the plaintiff in a civil suit for any crime shouldn't change based on how much money the defendant has, it has to be a function of the crime itself. In this case $5k + legal fees would be more than enough.

I still think it's more than enough disincentive for them. But suppose it's not, and they decide to keep doing it. So what? Then all that happens is all these debtors get to get paid $5k just for recording phone calls of their collection agency calling them names. If I were in those debtors' shoes, I'd hope that the collection agency didn't quit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDCPA
The FDCPA was passed in 1978. That means a lot of you reading this weren't even born when this became standing law.
Do I agree with this in principle? No. It's federal regulation under the commerce clause, which is crap, and as someone who becomes more ancap every day, I don't agree with regulation to begin with.

But I'm also a guy who works with third party collection agencies every single day, and there is one immutable truth I can bring to the table here: the collection agency knew beforehand that what they were doing is illegal, they knew beforehand that their collectors were doing it, and they knew beforehand that there was a chance they'd get sued over it eventually.

Is it a good solution? No, because this is the route government regulation always goes. Slap a rule in place, then get more rules in place when businesses figure out ways to get around the old rules, and finally bring the hammer down hard when government decides it has had enough.

The better solution is of course to end the Fed and let the market decide how much debt consumers need to get into: which in reality, with a non-inflationary currency, would be little or none.

But given that we're never going to get there, and given that you can't find enough morality in that collection agency to fill a thimble, I actually kind of support punitive damages that ruin the company. If government is going to get involved in an industry that it created and that I don't think would even really exist in a free society, then I support government taking actions that ruin that industry completely.

[fisharmor]

Oh, and in case you're wondering, all this regulation really only applies to third party agencies anyway: if BOA created an in-house collections department, they wouldn't be beholden to most of these laws. Of course, the people that make up the market would decide for themselves whether they like to be mistreated this way at the hands of their direct creditors.