Outsourcing collection slogan

Personally, I think that the bank violated the rules first and leaked personal privacy to the collection company, one for Party A and one for Party B. In this case, the bank must be responsible.

Banks have the responsibility, but have the right to entrust a collection company to collect debts. It is common to collect overdue credit cards. In reality, there must be some individual collectors who don't follow the rules when collecting, but there is really little violence and there are too many methods available. For those who owe more than 50,000 principal, they are suspected of credit card fraud and can be criminally filed. I really won't use violence for that commission.

This time, as long as the criminal law is supplemented by violent punishment, including all aspects, glue, slogans, terrorist threats, humiliation, kidnapping and so on,

The bank was not responsible and handed over the collection business to the outsourcing company. The bank's collection mainly focuses on the 90-day overdue stage. More precisely, it is not a collection, but a notice and urging cardholders to repay as soon as possible. The attitude is relatively mild. After 90 days, the bank pushed the list to a third party for collection without paying a penny.

Why push it to a third party? First, the bank has limited manpower, so it is impossible to spend too much experience on asking accounts. Another reason is to avoid responsibility. If the cardholder goes to court, the bank can't stand it. Frequent harassment of cardholders is illegal in itself. Although there are no relevant laws and regulations, cardholders can also call the police.

Many cardholders call the bank to solve the repayment problem, such as repaying the principal in installments. If the bank doesn't accept it, it will push it to a third party. The third party really has no way to collect it. If you don't get a point, you will push the list back to the bank. Therefore, cardholders often receive collection calls from all over the country. You want to sue them, and you don't even know who to call.

When have you ever seen a bank responsible?

The law does not explicitly prohibit banks from entrusting a third party to collect debts. However, it is illegal to collect accounts from companies for others. It is also illegal for a bank to entrust a collection company to collect money from others while knowing that it is suspected of illegal operation. If debt collection companies use violent means, if serious consequences are caused, both debt collection companies and banks will be investigated for criminal responsibility.

Just like hiring a murderer, he should be the principal offender and the punishment should be aggravated.

People who hire murderers are as guilty as murderers.

I am the owner of Ghost Rain House who only talks about dry goods. Regarding the subject's question, if you have enough evidence to prove that the collection company is appointed by the bank, then the bank must bear the relevant joint and several liabilities. However, in reality, it is difficult for victims to provide evidence for the following reasons:

1. No collection company uses a fixed real-name telephone when collecting money. Even if you use recording, you can't actually prove that the collector on the other end of the phone is an employee of a third-party company entrusted by the bank. Therefore, it is recommended that all strange calls should not be answered.

Even if the payee shows that he is an employee of a company, you can't prove whether the company still cooperates with the relevant bank when answering the phone.

3. Even if the collector provides the cooperation information between the relevant company and the bank (provided that it is true), it is difficult for you to prove whether the employee is a real employee of the company.

If the above three points are not established, you cannot sue the bank or the collection company. You got it?