The bank is responsible, but it has the right to entrust the collection company to collect debts. It is common to collect overdue credit cards. In reality, there must be some individual collectors who do not comply with the regulations when collecting, but violence is really rare, and there are too many methods available. For those who owe more than 5, principal, they are suspected of credit card fraud and can be criminally filed. I really won't use violence for that commission.
In this supplementary criminal law, banks are not responsible as long as they violently collect sentences, including covering all aspects, gluing doors, brushing slogans, threatening terror, insulting personality, kidnapping, etc.
So they give the collection business to outsourcing companies. The bank's collection mainly focuses on the 9-day overdue stage, more accurately speaking, it is not collection, but informing and urging cardholders to repay as soon as possible. The attitude is relatively mild. After 9 days, the bank pushed the list to a third party for collection without paying a penny.
why is it pushed to a third party? First, the bank has limited staff, so it is impossible to spend too much experience on asking for 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 repayment of principal in installments. If the bank will not accept it, it will push it to a third party. The third party can't help it. If it doesn't score a cent, it will push the bill back to the bank. Therefore, cardholders often receive collection calls from all over the country. You want to sue them, you don't even know who to look for.
When have you ever seen a bank have the responsibility
The bank entrusts a third party to collect debts, which is not explicitly prohibited by law. 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 knowing that it is suspected of illegal operation. If violent means are used by the debt-collecting company, if serious consequences are caused, both the debt-collecting company and the bank will be investigated for criminal responsibility.
Just like hiring a murderer, he should be the principal offender, and the punishment should be aggravated.,,,,,
Whoever hires a murderer is guilty of the same crime as the murderer.
I am the owner of Ghost Rain Cave 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 relevant joint and several liabilities. However, in reality, it is difficult for the victim to give evidence. The reasons are as follows:
1. Any collection company does not use a fixed real-name telephone when collecting money. Even if you use recording, you can't actually prove that the collection person on the other end of the phone is an employee of a third-party company entrusted by the bank. Therefore, it is suggested that all strange calls should not be answered.
2. Even if the collector indicates 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 none of the above three points is true, you can't sue the bank or collect the company. Do you understand?