I read where a forwarder was offering a fee for a “RESOLUTION” where a recovery specialist makes contact with a consumer and through that effort the client reaches an amicable agreement with the consumer. This fee, I would assume, would be less than a full recovery fee and under the circumstances I wonder “WHY”?
Why would a “RESOLUTION not be worth the same as a “REPOSSESSION”?
Is it not in the financial institutions best interest to salvage the debt and not suffer the inevitable loss which comes with repossessing mortgaged collateral? Is it not in the consumer’s best interest to be able to keep possession of their vehicle and maintain a credit rating which does not reflect “REPOSSESSION”? If then a “RESOLUTION” is a win-win situation why should the agent who made it happen be paid less for their efforts.
It is my opinion that “RESOLUTION…SAME AS REPOSSESSION” should be the desired end result for all concerned parties.
I would like to explain this statement by first stating that when a request is made by a lender for the repossession of mortgaged collateral and an assignment is placed with a professional recovery specialist, one of three things is going to take place.
One, the mortgaged collateral is located and recovered, this is “REPOSSESSION”.
Two, the mortgaged property either cannot be located or due to extenuating circumstances cannot be recovered without a possible “breach of peace” and the client or recovery specialist decides to cease further attempts to recover the mortgaged property by self help. This is normally referred to as a “CLOSE”.
Three, the recovery specialist is unable, for various reasons, to effect peaceable self help repossession and contact with the consumer is warranted. This may be a case where the collateral is secured inside a garage, never present at the consumer’s verified address or it may be a case of where the consumer insists on speaking with the lender prior to surrendering the collateral. At this point the lender has control of the outcome of situation and may decide to allow the consumer to “pay current” and keep the collateral. The recovery agent has no control over what the lender decides. In most cases a knowledgeable lender, knowledgeable of the conditions of the contractual obligations of the consumer, will insist the consumer pay the past due amount plus the recovery specialist’s charges. If the consumer complies in order to retain possession of the collateral there has been no cost whatsoever to the lender and their account has now been brought current. In many cases the lender will add the recovery specialist’s cost to the balance of the consumers account and again there has been no actual cost to the lender. This action is commonly recognized in the lending industry as a “RESOLUTION”.
A “RESOLUTION” is usually the most desirable of the three results if the consumers past pay record so warrant this action. It should be clearly understood that it is the lenders decision for the consumer to be allowed to “pay current” and retain possession of the collateral or demand that the consumer release the collateral to the recovery specialist.
The question then becomes, why, in this win-win situation would not the recovery specialist be entitled to a full recovery fee? The recovery specialist has certainly earned his fee by making a direct face to face contact with the consumer, which in itself may be a very dangerous situation, made demand for the surrender of the mortgaged collateral and placed the lender in direct contact with the consumer. It is evident that the actions of the recovery specialist have been the catalyst which has brought the lenders account current, at no cost to the lender, and put the account back in an acceptable status.
This is the meaning of “Resolution…Same as Repossession” and why the fee, in my opinion. Should be the same for either result,
Ron L. Brown is the President and Chief Executive Officer of CSI Group in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, one of the oldest and largest Asset Investigation and Recovery Agencies in the Central Plains area.
Ron, a state licensed Private Investigator and member of the National Association of Fraud Investigators, has over 35 years experience in the field of locating and recovering lost and missing people and assets and has assisted many law enforcement agencies including the U.S. Marshall’s Service, U.S. Customs, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Texas Rangers.
The subject of numerous published articles related to his unique methods of locating people and assets he is internationally recognized as one of the leaders in the Tracing and Recovery Industry. Receiving the prestigious “Instructor of the Year” award from ACA International in 2002, 2004 and 2009, he now spends much of his time traveling as an instructor for ACA International, the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training and co-presenting the critically acclaimed “MANHUNT” and “CYBERTRACKER” Seminars.
Ron is recognized as one of the key instructors of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Graham-Leach-Bliley Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act and has written many published articles on these ever-changing federal laws. He is industry recognized as an expert witness and has written opinions and given testimony regarding areas of “Breach of Peace” related to the asset recovery industry.
Having authored numerous articles and books on the subject of tracing and the utilization of neuro-linguistics in the psychology of motivation in the tracing and collection process, his latest endeavor has been to co-author the best seller, “MANHUNT: The Book”.
Currently active in all divisions of CSI Group he continues to personally handle investigations ranging from international and national recovery assignments to internal fraud and embezzlement and is well known in Debt Collection, Law Enforcement and Asset Recovery circles.
Ron may be contacted at Rbrown2150@aol.com and you are invited to visit him at the “MANHUNT” website, www.manhunt-seminars.com , the National Association of Fraud Investigators website, www.nafraud.com or at the “CSI”, website, www.csi-arm.com