Tennessee Adopts Provisions Setting Forth New Standards of Practice for Debt Collectors

The Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, Division of Regulatory Boards, Collection Service Board has adopted provisions regarding the standards of practice for debt collectors. The new provisions address, among other things, the acquisition of location information from 3rd parties, communications in connection with debt collection, harassment or abuse, and unfair practices.

The standards define a debt collector as a person acting on behalf of a collection service licensed or required to be licensed by the Tennessee Collection Services Board. In the event a debt collector seeks to acquire location information about a consumer from a 3rd party, the debt collector must identify himself or herself and state that he/she is attempting to confirm or correct location information, and may only identify his/her employer if expressly requested. The debt collector cannot state that the consumer owes a debt, may not communicate with the 3rd party more than once unless requested to do so, may not communicate by post card, may not use any language or symbol on an envelope that indicates the debt collector is in the debt collection business, and, should the debt collector become aware that the consumer is represented by an attorney, may not communicate with any person other than that attorney.

When communicating with the consumer, the debt collector may not communicate at any unusual time or place that is known to be inconvenient to the consumer. The standards provide that it may be assumed that communication at the consumer’s location after 8:00am and before 9:00 pm local time is a convenient time. The debt collector, if he or she knows the consumer is represented by an attorney, may only communicate with that attorney unless the attorney consents to direct communication with the consumer. Further, a debt collector may not communicate with the consumer at his or her place of employment if the debt collector has reason to know that the employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication. If a consumer notifies the debt collector in writing that he or she wishes to cease communication, then the debt collector must cease all communication except to advise the consumer that the collector is terminating further efforts to collect the debt, notify the consumer that the collector may invoke specific remedies which are undertaken in the ordinary course of business, or to notify the consumer that the collector intends pursue a specific remedy.

The standards also prohibit harassing and abusive behavior. A debt collector may not use violence or criminal means to harm the consumer or his or her reputation or property; may not use obscene or profane language; may not publish a list of consumers who refuse to pay the debt; and may not repeatedly or continuously telephone a consumer with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person.

A debt collector may not engage in unfair debt collection practices. Such practices include the collection of any amount that is not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or other amounts that are prohibited by law. The debt collector may not accept, solicit, or deposit a postdated check with the intent of depositing the check prior to such date, or for the purpose of threatening criminal prosecution. Further, the debt collector may not take or threaten to take any non-judicial action the purpose of which is to dispossess the consumer of property if there is no right to possession through an enforceable security interest, there is no present intent to take possession of the property, or the property is exempt from dispossession by law.

These standards take immediate effect and the full text may be found at: https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/rules/0320/0320-05.20180605.pdf

  • Regulatory Compliance Consultant
  • Lexington, MA
  • 781-402-6403

Adam Faria, JD, is a regulatory compliance consultant with CLA. He is a graduate of Northeastern University and earned his juris doctor at Suffolk University Law School. He is admitted to the bar in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Comments are closed.