In Dallas, the North Texas Tollway Authority, an entity responsible for collecting tolls, has been under fire for months over its toll collecting policy. This policy charges drivers who do not pay up at the toll booth fines of hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars. Because the NTTA has been scrutinized by the public, it announced today that they are taking two steps it says that will target improving customer satisfaction.

The first measure that the NTTA took was to allow all drivers to use the electronic toll collection lanes, including those who do not have one. They are able to do this without being punished with a twenty five dollar fine.

Before this endeavor, drivers who didn’t have toll tags that used the electronic lanes on the Dallas North Tollway were looked at as violators and would subsequently be fined twenty five dollars for each time they passed through an electronic toll booth, rather than a cash booth.

However, after February eighth, the drivers lacking a toll tag who use the electronic lanes will be given the opportunity to pay for the tolls before being slammed with the additional twenty five dollar fine. But these toll charges will continue to be calculated at the cash rate, which is twice as high as the rates paid by toll tag consumers.

Despite all this, the change won’t affect the NTTA’s collections policy in any other way and it will not stop consumers with no toll tags and who do not pay off toll bills sent to their homes from being charged twenty five dollars for every unpaid toll. This is a policy that can turn a week’s worth of tolls into a thousand dollar bill.

The NTTA’s second measure was to appoint an internal auditor as a mediator of some sort, which will be on hand to help frustrated customers who have first complained their way through NTTA customer service hierarchy without a result that they deemed to be satisfactory. The auditor will then review the account and determine if customer service and billing reps have followed their own rules.

Mallory Megan works for Rapid Recovery Solution, a national collection agency. Looking for credit card services or skip tracing? Contact us today.

Are you a newcomer when it comes to playing the stock market? No big deal at all! This series of articles on mutual funds will make it simple for you to understand what a mutual fund is, what it is all about and whether it is worth your while to invest in one. My first three articles are called “Mutual Funds For Beginners” and they lay down the basics.

The next one is titled “Expenses Associated With Mutual Funds” and it goes over the general things you can expect to be charged for if you make the choice to invest in a mutual fund. The last two are called “Is Investing in a mutual fund worth your while?” and they cover the pros and cons of mutual funds. First let’s break things down to a molecular level and talk about securities. The fancy definition of a security is a negotiable instrument representing financial value.

This definition is quite esoteric so let’s look at an example of a security to help you get a better idea of what one is. A stock is considered a security. Stocks can be bought or sold, and therefore have financial value, and a share of stock literally means that as a stockholder you “share” a fraction of ownership in the company whose stock you own. Bonds, which are contracts to pay back money with interest on specified dates, are also securities. If you hold a bond, you know that you are going to receive money on these set dates, so bonds have financial value as well.

Stocks are bought and sold at exchanges called stock markets, and bonds at bonds markets. A bonds market is typically very different from a stock market. If you were looking to invest in stock, or sell the stock you have, you would hire the aid of a stock broker who would charge you a commission for completing this work for you.

Generally, unless you already own stock from the company you would like to purchase from, you are going to need some sort of a broker to help you do this. The same goes for bonds – you are going to need a dealer. Now that we have the very basics down, let’s go over mutual funds. See my article “Mutual Funds For Beginners Part Two!

Mallory Megan works for Rapid Recovery Solution and writes articles on commercial collection agencies.

In the middle of a recession, consumers seem to be racking up more and more debt and getting ahead of themselves financially. There are numerous reasons why credit cards could hurt you financially, but a debit card could be what is putting you over the limit.

A sound routine is to go to the bank, take out enough money to last you a week and then attempt to live on those funds. It is believed that relying on paper money in the wallet instead of plastic will increase budget discipline and reduce impulse purchases. By relying only on ten, twenty or even fifty dollar bills, you tend to buy only what is necessary as opposed to what you think you want or need.

Debit cards can be beneficial. They can prevent you from going overboard with a large purchase like you can with a credit card. It also keeps track of where and how you spend the money, but a small book for a dollar at the local pharmacy could become your new budget book.

What it comes down to, is that anything that makes it simpler to spend cash means that whoever has it will in fact spend more money. Evidence illustrates that people spend more when using debit cards in place of cash. While they may not go overboard with big purchases, they do go overboard with small purchases. Also, debit card users are more likely to overdraw their bank accounts. A story in the New York Times revealed that banks earn billions in overdraft fees that were sparked by small debit card purchases.

Debit card processing fees are quite expensive for retailers. However card issuers claim that the higher sales from consumers make the expense worth it. Many retailers, mom and pop stores in particular, are starting to protest debit card processing fees and asking customers to pay in cash.

Mallory Megan is employed by a debt collection company. She also writes articles on business and finance, consumer spending and collection agencies.

Last Thursday, a man who ran a debt buying company in Florida was sentenced to six years of federal prison time for the crime of selling debt portfolios that he did not own. Steven Goldberg, of Golberg and Associates in Boca Raton, took the heat from the District Judge who slapped him with 71 months in federal prison followed by three years of supervised release. Goldberg pled guilty to one count of mail fraud and eight counts of wire fraud.

Authorities say that Goldberg would turn over falsified files and fake evidence that he owned the files to other companies. To add insult to injury, Goldberg also sent buyers fake transaction numbers and other bogus financial information. All in all, debt buyers were taken for more than $3.3 million. Investigative reports showed that many well-respected accounts receivable management companies were hoodwinked.

Parties involved were the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Boca Raton Police Department. Federal criminal charges against Goldberg have been satisfied, but there are still many many civil cases pending against him.

Although the federal criminal charges against Goldberg have been satisfied, there are still numerous civil cases pending against him. An official from a major collections company weighed in with his opinion.

“Our industry doesn’t do a great job of policing itself,” he said. “Debt buying companies should be more vigilant when they screen members for criminal backgrounds. Goldberg had prior convictions, including felonies.”

The debt collection industry can do many things to protect itself, experts believe. Publishing a list of any lawsuits that one member files against another member, or requiring criminal background checks would be good ideas. Either way, Goldberg has a long vacation in jail scheduled, and when he gets out, you better believe that any money he owes in Civil Court will be aggressively collected.

Mallory Megan is employed by a debt collection agency. She also writes stories on business, finance, consumer spending and collection agencies.

Last month, Manuel and Luz Fausto won one of the biggest collection awards documented in the last couple of years under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against Credigy Services Corporation. A California jury awarded the Faustos $500,000 in damages derived from harassment by Credigy collectors. Of the sum, granted $100,000 was for actual damages the Faustos experienced, while $400,000 was in punitive damages, granted for malicious and reckless disregard of the couples rights. According to one of the Faustos lawyers, David Humphreys of Humphreys Wallace Humphreys, P.C., and the case derived from a debt on a Wells Fargo charge card opened in 1992.

Humphreys stated that the Faustos consistently paid the account balance on the credit card, but the balance kept increasing. The Faustos then requested that the account be frozen, but their request was declined by a local Wells Fargo branch. Humphreys said the Faustos received assistance in paying the balance from a local business that promised to negotiate a discounted payoff of credit card balances. The Faustos were under the impression that the debt owed to Wells Fargo was paid off with two money orders in the late 1990s. In 2006, Credigy contacted the Faustos with a demand of almost $17,000. Humphreys noted that a Brazilian affiliate of Credigy made over 90 threatening calls and sent numerous letters to the Fausto home, even after a cease and desist notice was sent to the company.

Luz Fausto recorded the last phone call made by the debt collectors, which documents false claims that threatened the Faustos livelihood. Credigy counter sued the Faustos on the basis that the debt collection call was confidential. Humphreys said that Credigys collection efforts did not end until a lawsuit was filed. Humphreys claimed that the jury award was the largest given to a consumer in a case brought under the FDCPA.

Manny Newburger, an attorney for debt collectors fears that consumer lawyers may make the false assumption that all juries will award large damages because it was awarded in this case. The Fausto case is fact-specific, Newburger stated. In the vast majority of cases there is little or no evidence of actual damages presented by the consumer. This is one reason why other debt collection lawyers are not willing to let the verdict in this case affect their evaluation of other cases, he noted.

Newburger said that the defendants in this case sued for invasion of privacy, a standard defense but also, a theory that is asserted in a lot of the cases filed around the country involving alleged collection abuse and the jury ruled against the defendant in the invasion of privacy claim. According to Newburger, the verdict was based on state legislation. This is a California specific case, he said.

Newburger argues that the only thing the Fausto case means is that the consumer won. He does not think the size of the award will entice more consumers to sue debt collection agencies. I think this verdict is indicative of what this jury thought of this particular case, but not of anything else, Newburger said. As for the size of the jury award, Newburger said that he had heard of greater rulings in FDCPA cases.

The ruling for the legal penalty is still undecided. Once decided, a judgment could be granted for any sum up to $1,000 for Credigys violations of the FDCPA. It is unknown if Credigy will appeal the ruling. The lawyers for the debt collection agency could not be contacted.

Mallory works for a debt collection agency. She also writes articles on business and finance, and collections. .