Chicago Heights Joins Collection Program

An arti­cle pub­lished today by the South­town Star called Chicago Heights hopes to col­lect mil­lions in over­due fines explains that Chicago Heights has entered a state-wide pro­gram that allows the Illi­nois Comp­trol­ler to gar­nish wages of Illi­nois res­i­dents with unpaid util­ity fees. The pro­gram allows the Comptroller's office to act as a debt col­lec­tion agency and even­tu­ally gar­nish a debtor's wages if pay­ments aren't made. Arti­cles like this one high­light the impor­tant con­tri­bu­tion col­lec­tion agen­cies and sim­i­lar  busi­nesses make to the work­ings of economies across the nation. Chicago Heights have sub­mit­ted $100 mil­lion to the pro­gram and expect as much as $20 mil­lion to be col­lected through their enroll­ment. That's real money the city can rein­vest into pub­lic devel­op­ment and services.

Col­lec­tion agen­cies like The Kaplan Group work every day to recover money owed to their clients. This ser­vice allows these com­pa­nies and other enti­ties to rein­vest and grow, help­ing the econ­omy to thrive and rebuild.

Also, please check out our newest arti­cle, the sec­ond of six about Debt Col­lec­tion and Fraud­u­lent Com­pa­nies. This arti­cle focuses on the types of busi­nesses that are most often affected by busi­ness fraud.

Below is a brief descrip­tion of the article:

Unfor­tu­nately, instances of fraud can be found in almost every indus­try out there.  Pro­tect­ing your com­pany against fraud is impor­tant, and debt col­lec­tors may be use­ful for those times when the fraud has been per­pe­trated and debt col­lec­tion is nec­es­sary. This is the sec­ond arti­cle in a six part series of arti­cles on the busi­ness of fraud.  This arti­cle will focus on types of com­pa­nies which seem to be hard­est hit by fraud and red flags of fraud­u­lent poten­tial customers.

A recent arti­cle called Illi­nois law­mak­ers tar­get prac­tice of jail­ing debtors explains that a new leg­is­la­tion cur­rently in the Illi­nois leg­is­la­ture looks to limit the use of pub­lic courts, sheriff's deputies, and other pub­lic resources for the pur­pose of pri­vate debt col­lec­tions. The arti­cle explains that in recent years, espe­cially since the reces­sion began, debt col­lec­tors in Illi­nois have made increas­ing use of pub­lic courts to have debtors jailed for unpaid debts, espe­cially tar­get­ing poor debtors who fall behind on small pay­ment plans. Accord­ing to the arti­cle, debtors who fall behind on pay­ment plans as small as $25-$50 per month can be jailed for con­tempt and held until they pay off the debt, regard­less of the person's income or abil­ity to pay. The largest prob­lem that arises from this use of the courts is that debt col­lec­tion agen­cies use up publicly-funded resources in the col­lec­tion of pri­vate debts, which is what the bill looks to address.

Please also check out our newest arti­cle, the last of our six arti­cle series called In-House Debt Col­lec­tion Con­sid­er­a­tions. This arti­cle focuses on poten­tial steps that can be taken if debt col­lec­tors are unable to pro­duce results.

Here's a brief descrip­tion of the arti­cle:
When the in-house debt col­lec­tion process comes up empty, it may be time for the credit depart­ment to con­sider turn­ing the account over to a com­mer­cial col­lec­tion agency or a debt col­lec­tions attor­ney. This is the final arti­cle in a six part series of arti­cles about the prin­ci­ples of debt col­lec­tions. This arti­cle will dis­cuss addi­tional col­lec­tion tech­niques and when it is time to go out­side for col­lec­tion help.

An arti­cle pub­lished today by wvrecord.com explains that the Attor­ney Gen­eral of West Vir­ginia has filed suit against seven unli­censed debt col­lec­tion agen­cies to end their unlaw­ful prac­tices within the state. WV's Attor­ney Gen­eral, Dar­rell McGraw, explains that the "agen­cies" have been accused of harass­ing debtors, imper­son­at­ing law enforce­ment and gov­ern­ment offi­cials, falsely threat­en­ing law­suit, and other charges. Busi­nesses like these seven, oper­at­ing out­side of the law on their own terms, need to be dealt with and it is good to see the Attor­ney Gen­eral mak­ing pos­i­tive steps to shut down rogue debt col­lec­tors. The poor deci­sions of some debt col­lec­tors effec­tively tar­nishes the rep­u­ta­tion of the entire indus­try, regard­less of the num­ber of law-abiding and respectable busi­nesses which make up the indus­try. Col­lec­tion agen­cies like The Kaplan Group, who are 100% com­mit­ted to pro­vid­ing the best col­lec­tion ser­vice pos­si­ble, know that ille­gal col­lec­tion tac­tics do not breed supe­rior results (and even if an agency gets away with ille­gal col­lec­tion prac­tices, their suc­cess rates are still lower than those of law-abiding agen­cies). Our debt col­lec­tors always fol­low all laws gov­ern­ing com­mer­cial debt col­lec­tion to ensure the high­est returns for our clients.

Also, please check our our newest arti­cle, the fifth in a six arti­cle series called In House Debt Col­lec­tion Con­sid­er­a­tions. This arti­cle focuses on the nec­es­sary follow-up debt col­lec­tors should per­form in their col­lec­tion efforts.

Here's a short descrip­tion of the arti­cle:
Once the debt col­lec­tor has begun the debt col­lec­tion process, the ques­tion comes up of how often to follow-up with the debtor.  Each col­lec­tion is unique, but the gen­eral rule is that more fre­quent follow-ups are bet­ter because the debtor sees that the com­pany takes the delin­quency seri­ously, and expects pay­ment.  This is the fifth arti­cle in a six part series of arti­cles about the prin­ci­ples of debt col­lec­tions.  This arti­cle will focus on the follow-up process.

An arti­cle recently pub­lished called The Fair Debt Col­lec­tions Prac­tices Act applies only to Third Party Col­lec­tors explains that not all debt col­lec­tion efforts fall under the juris­dic­tion of the Fair Debt Col­lec­tions Prac­tices Act (FDCPA), high­light­ing the fact that employ­ees of the cred­i­tor col­lect­ing on accounts receiv­able for that cred­i­tor are not sub­ject to FDCPA reg­u­la­tion. The arti­cle also explains that the FDCPA applies only to debts "pri­mar­ily for per­sonal, fam­ily or house­hold prac­tices," which means that com­mer­cial col­lec­tion agen­cies like The Kaplan Group are not sub­ject to these reg­u­la­tions. It is impor­tant for debt col­lec­tors to know what reg­u­la­tions apply to the types of col­lec­tions they are pur­su­ing; every type of debt col­lec­tion has a unique set of laws gov­ern­ing what prac­tices are legal and which aren't.

Also, please check our our newest arti­cle, the fourth in a six arti­cle series about In-House Debt Col­lec­tion Considerations.

Below is a brief descrip­tion of the arti­cle:
Once the deci­sion of when to begin the debt col­lec­tion process has been made, the next ques­tion to answer is who to con­tact about the debt.  When­ever pos­si­ble, the cor­rect per­son to con­tact is the per­son who has the author­ity to make pay­ments.  This is the fourth arti­cle in a six part series of arti­cles about the prin­ci­ples of debt col­lec­tions.  This arti­cle will focus on who to con­tact, and how to make contact.

An arti­cle posted by the San Jose Mer­cury News explains that two firms located in the San Fran­cisco area has been shut down for hav­ing col­lec­tors pose as police offi­cers to col­lect debts. The two firms were owned by the same man, and oper­ated chiefly using call cen­ters in India. The call cen­ter employ­ees would harass debtors with fre­quent calls imper­son­at­ing law enforce­ment, which is ille­gal and incred­i­bly unpro­fes­sional. Col­lec­tion firms like these, which employ unsa­vory and ille­gal col­lec­tion  prac­tices, tar­nish the rep­u­ta­tions of the many law-abiding agen­cies, such as The Kaplan Group, that make up the debt col­lec­tions industry.

Also, please read our newest arti­cle, the third in a six arti­cle series about In-House Debt Col­lec­tion Con­sid­er­a­tions. This arti­cle focuses on when the col­lec­tion process should begin.

Here's a brief descrip­tion of the arti­cle:
In any debt col­lec­tion sit­u­a­tion, the first and most impor­tant step for the credit depart­ment is to make sure that the cus­tomer is truly delin­quent. A cus­tomer may not be mak­ing timely pay­ments for a vari­ety of rea­sons, some of which may be a result of things hap­pen­ing within your com­pany. This is the third arti­cle in a six part series of arti­cles about the prin­ci­ples of debt col­lec­tions. This arti­cle will dis­cuss when the debt col­lec­tor should start the col­lec­tion process.

WMFD.com recently posted another arti­cle cit­ing a US County employ­ing the ser­vices of a debt col­lec­tion agency or sim­i­lar busi­ness. The arti­cle, called County Clerk of Courts Enters Into Col­lec­tion Agree­ment, explains that the Rich­land County Clerk of Courts is enter­ing into a Delin­quent Debt Col­lec­tion Agree­ment with Ohio Attor­ney Gen­eral Mike Dewine's office in order to pur­sue pay­ments on unpaid court fees. This is not the first arti­cle that has been pub­lished recently about county gov­ern­ments tak­ing sim­i­lar steps to col­lect on debts owed to them, and shows the value of agen­cies in the debt col­lec­tion indus­try in many lev­els of the United States' econ­omy. Col­lec­tion agen­cies like The Kaplan Group make valu­able con­tri­bu­tions to the econ­omy by help­ing com­pa­nies get money owed to them so they can rein­vest it in com­pany growth.

Also, please check out our newest arti­cle, the sec­ond in a six-article series about In-House Debt Col­lec­tion Con­sid­er­a­tions. This arti­cle out­lines sim­ple steps and pro­ce­dures that can help increase the chance of col­lec­tion suc­cess.
Below is a brief descrip­tion of the arti­cle:
When an accounts receiv­able goes delin­quent, the debt col­lec­tion process must begin.  There are sev­eral steps to the debt col­lec­tion process which can increase the odds of suc­cess.  This is the sec­ond arti­cle in a six part series about the prin­ci­ples of col­lect­ing delin­quent debt.  This arti­cle will dis­cuss four steps which can lead to col­lec­tion suc­cess.
Here's a short descrip­tion of the article:

An arti­cle posted recently called Bill could cut the time col­lec­tors have to sue over debts explains that a new bill cur­rently in the Ohio Sen­ate could reduce the statute of lim­i­ta­tions in Ohio state from fif­teen years down to six. This means that debt col­lec­tors and cred­i­tors would be unable to take a debtor to court for an unpaid debt or unful­filled con­tract six years after the debt becomes delin­quent. Accord­ing to Ohio State Sen­a­tor Larry Obhof, the author of the bill, a fifteen-year statute of lim­i­ta­tions is too long. He explains, "Bill Clin­ton was Pres­i­dent fif­teen years ago. Fif­teen years is a long time." Many con­sumers and busi­nesses sup­port the bill, but if passed it would make debt col­lec­tion efforts on older debts more dif­fi­cult for col­lec­tion agen­cies and the credit depart­ments of cred­i­tors. Debt col­lec­tion agen­cies who attempt to col­lect from debtors located in Ohio should keep an eye on the bill's progress through Con­gress, and if it passes review claims in the state to ensure they are still legally col­lec­table. While Ohio does not have a reg­u­la­tion pre­vent­ing col­lec­tion efforts on time-barred or statute-barred debts, col­lec­tion efforts are allowed after the statute expires, although often these debts are much more dif­fi­cult to col­lect.
Agen­cies like The Kaplan Group, who col­lect from debtors located all around the nation, ensure their col­lec­tors are always knowl­edge­able and up-to-date in their knowl­edge of col­lec­tion laws, to pre­vent embar­rass­ing sit­u­a­tions that dam­age the rep­u­ta­tion of both the agency and creditor.

Also, please check out our newest arti­cle, the first in a new series on In-House Debt Col­lec­tion Con­sid­er­a­tions. This arti­cle will focus on pre-collection con­sid­er­a­tions.
Here's a brief descrip­tion of the arti­cle:
For every com­pany, no mat­ter how dili­gent the credit analy­sis, there comes a time when a cus­tomer becomes delin­quent and debt col­lec­tion is nec­es­sary. No cus­tomer ever wants to get behind in pay­ing its bills. The chal­lenge for the credit depart­ment is to col­lect the late pay­ment while main­tain­ing good cus­tomer rela­tions. This is the first arti­cle in a six part series of arti­cles about the prin­ci­ples of debt col­lec­tions. This arti­cle will dis­cuss things to con­sider before start­ing a debt collection.

A recent arti­cle on Redding.com explains what a debtor should do if con­tacted by a debt col­lec­tor after already set­tling a debt. As the arti­cle explains, this is a com­mon mis­take in today's world of debt buy­ing and sell­ing. Accord­ing to arti­cle author Steve Brucci, because so much of the orig­i­nal paper­work gets lost each time a debt is sold, it is pos­si­ble for a set­tled debt to acci­den­tally fall into the hands of another agency with no record of pay­ment on the debt. Brucci's strongly rec­om­mends that any time a set­tle­ment is agreed on, a debtor should obtain a writ­ten cer­ti­fi­ca­tion of the settlement's approval and retain some record of the pay­ment (copy of a check, credit card receipt, or some­thing sim­i­lar). Keep­ing these good records is impor­tant for debtors if another col­lec­tor calls, because they sim­ply have to send them a copy of the paper­work show­ing the debt is paid off to prove the set­tle­ment to them.

Here at The Kaplan Group, we don't buy or sell debts, choos­ing rather to col­lect for our clients (main­tain­ing reg­u­lar con­tact with them regard­ing most pay­ment agree­ments). This allows us to do the col­lec­tion work while allow­ing our clients to retain con­trol over the debts, and we are able to obtain all nec­es­sary paper­work to prove a debt is owed directly from the cred­i­tor. This allows us to pro­vide the best results for our clients.

Also, please check our our newest arti­cle. This is the ninth and final arti­cle about Debt Col­lec­tions and Finan­cial State­ment Analy­sis, and focuses on cal­cu­la­tions needed to under­stand a customer's oper­at­ing cycle.

Here's a short descrip­tion of the arti­cle:
When the credit depart­ment makes credit deci­sions, it must eval­u­ate a poten­tial new customer’s abil­ity to gen­er­ate cash which can be used to pay its cred­i­tors.  Deter­min­ing that the cus­tomer oper­ates with an ade­quate level of work­ing cap­i­tal rel­a­tive to the indus­try will lead to a pos­i­tive credit deci­sion and fewer debt col­lec­tions in the future.  This is the final arti­cle in a nine part series of arti­cles about finan­cial state­ment analy­sis.  This arti­cle will focus on under­stand­ing the poten­tial new customer’s oper­at­ing cycle.

Read our newest arti­cle, the eighth in a nine arti­cle series about Debt Col­lec­tions and Finan­cial State­ment Analy­sis. This arti­cle focuses on ana­lyz­ing a poten­tial customer's cash flow as a way of deter­min­ing their finan­cial sta­bil­ity. By per­form­ing this and other forms of finan­cial analy­sis, busi­nesses can min­i­mize the risk they take on when extend­ing credit to new customers.

Here's a brief descrip­tion of the article:

For a large poten­tial new cus­tomer, finan­cial state­ment analy­sis is espe­cially impor­tant.  When extend­ing a large amount of credit to a cus­tomer, the credit depart­ment must assure that the cus­tomer is credit wor­thy.  This care­ful exam­i­na­tion will also help min­i­mize debt col­lec­tions in the future.  This is the eighth arti­cle in a nine part series about finan­cial state­ment analy­sis.  This arti­cle will dis­cuss how to eval­u­ate the poten­tial new customer’s cash flow situation.

A recent arti­cle posted on businessjournalism.org explains that an arti­cle writ­ten about an abu­sive debt col­lec­tion agency lead to FTC action against the abu­sive busi­ness. Even­tu­ally, the FTC ended up shut­ting down the agency for abu­sive debt col­lec­tion prac­tices. While not all com­plaints sub­mit­ted to the FTC result in action by the agency, when com­plaints received show a trend regard­ing a cer­tain agency the agency is more moti­vated to inves­ti­gate the rea­son for the com­plaints. It is impor­tant for col­lec­tion agen­cies to be aware that if they do not fol­low the laws gov­ern­ing debt col­lec­tion, con­sumers do have a way to fight back and report the ille­gal activ­ity. Not only are these col­lec­tion meth­ods ille­gal, they are unpro­fes­sional and do not pro­duce the best results in the long run. Only col­lec­tion agen­cies like The Kaplan Group, which are com­pletely com­mit­ted to pro­vid­ing the best and most prof­itable ser­vice for their cus­tomers, under­stand the fact that ille­gal debt col­lec­tion prac­tices not only dam­age cred­i­bil­ity but pre­vent debt col­lec­tion success.

Also, check out today's newest arti­cle, the sev­enth of nine about Debt Col­lec­tions and Finan­cial State­ment Analy­sis. This arti­cle focuses on sev­eral ratios that can be used to help deter­mine the finan­cial strength of a poten­tial customers.

Here's a short descrip­tion of the arti­cle:
When a credit depart­ment makes a credit deci­sion about a new cus­tomer, the basis of the deci­sion is the credit and finan­cial state­ment analy­ses.  The finan­cial strength, oper­at­ing per­for­mance and liq­uid­ity are keys to this deci­sion and to help to min­i­mize the need for future debt col­lec­tions.  This is the sev­enth arti­cle in a nine part series about finan­cial state­ment analy­sis.  This arti­cle will exam­ine how to deter­mine the poten­tial new customer’s liq­uid­ity position.