Continuing our coverage of the CFPB’s proposed debt collection rules, this blog post will focus on a few provisions that pertain specifically to mortgage servicers.

In part, the proposal continues the CFPB’s efforts to harmonize mortgage servicing regulation (which generally promotes communication with consumers) and debt collection regulation (which generally restricts communication with consumers). 

In this blog post, we attempt to dissect and explore the Bureau’s proposed call frequency and time/place limitations in the recently-released debt collection NPRM.

Proposed Call Frequency Limitations

First, let’s tackle the proposed call frequency limitations.  Section 1006.14(b)(2) prohibits attempting to call (note the use of the word “call,” as opposed to “communicate with”)

The CFPB has published its long-awaited notice of proposed rulemaking under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The proposed rule would apply only to debt collectors covered by the FDCPA, although creditors and servicers acquiring debts before default will feel its impact as well.

On May 14, 2019, from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

The CFPB has announced that it will hold a Debt Collection Town Hall in Philadelphia at the University of Pennsylvania beginning at Noon on May 8, 2019. The event will feature remarks from Director Kraninger as well as comments from community groups, industry representatives, and members of the public.

Although the CFPB did not indicate

The CFPB published two notices in today’s Federal Register seeking OMB approval for two surveys, one dealing with debt collection and the other with household balance sheets.

Debt collection.  The request described in the notice is a resubmission of a previously published request to OMB seeking approval to conduct an online survey of 8,000

Seventy-four organizations that describe themselves as “consumer, community, civil rights, faith, labor and legal services groups” have sent a letter to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger to “reiterate our concerns about widespread debt collection abuses that we have raised in the past and the ongoing need for better protection against these abuses.”

In the letter, the