MINNEAPOLIS -

Repo agencies and other debt collectors readily acknowledge that using newer communications outlets such as email, text messages or even Facebook might be a strong pathway to reaching the debtor and collateral.

But a pair of legal experts warned agents and collectors about the pitfalls that could come by using these communication methods incorrectly. John Rossman and Michael Poncin, shareholders at Moss & Barnett P.A., recently dedicated their latest podcast to this subject. Their series called "The Debt Collection Drill" is orchestrated in conjunction with Accounts Receivables Management.

The attorneys began their podcast with statistics recently shared by ACA International, the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals. According to current data, 85 percent of Americans own a cell phone, while 27 percent of U.S. households no longer have a landline telephone. Meanwhile, about 130 million U.S. residents have an account on Facebook.

“The numbers on Facebook and the depth of people who use that medium is astounding,” Rossman surmised. “The question becomes to what extent can a debt collector use Facebook?”

What Rossman suggested was for repo agents and debt collectors to be clearly aware of what information is available for the public to access on Facebook and what details require a “friend” of the debtor to access.

What the attorney described as a clear violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act would be for a collector to act as though they are not an agent or “to use some kind of false name or use some kind of false information to collect a debt,” Rossman said.

“As far as Facebook is concerned, if it’s publicly out there, if the debt collector does not need to have that direct contact with the consumer, something where the debt collector can just go out and collect that information, that should be available like any public information that’s available and can be used to collect a debt,” Rossman continued.

Then a question was posed regarding if agents should clearly identify themselves and attempt to reach a debtor using Facebook.

Poncin is unsure about the level of security on Facebook, pondering whether friends and family have access to that individual’s Facebook account.

“(Debt collection) information may end up in the wrong hands,” Poncin stressed. “So unless you know it’s secure, I would say it’s not a good idea.”

Turning next to the use of text messages, neither Rossman nor Poncin delivered a strong recommendation for this communication method.

Because of text messaging limitations, Rossman questioned whether all of the necessary disclosures could be included in order for the message not to create a violation.

Poncin again wondered about the security of text messages if a cell phone was in possession of anyone other than the debtor. He also pointed out how not all cell phone users have unlimited text messaging, which could create a cost structure for the debtor that could be a possible violation.

“I’m leery of text messaging as well. I don’t think the technology is there yet,” Rossman asserted. “Perhaps in the future we’ll come to some different conclusions. But as we stand here today, text messaging is not a viable solution for debt collection.”

Finally when discussing email, Rossman and Poncin acknowledged how this method could be more productive — especially if agents have written permission to send documents to debtors this way.

Poncin suggested that agencies prompt debtors to send them an email; that way, collectors would have the written permission right away to communicate using those means. Also, Rossman interjected that email messages could be structured the same way as printed notices that include all necessary disclosures and other information.

More podcasts by Rossman and Poncin are available at thedebtcollectiondrill.blogspot.com.