Court Processes Complicate Consumer/Collector Relationships

Following up on yesterday’s Top Story (“Where Does the Responsibility Fall When the Creditor’s at Fault?“), I’m drawing your attention to this blog post from Seattle’s weekly alternative paper, The Stranger:

“The Bicycle Ticket That Won’t Go Away”

It’s another example of how a collection agency can sometimes be put into an awkward situation with a consumer because of the actions of the original creditor (in this case, a municipal court).

The language is a bit salty — so if you’re troubled by any of George Carlin’s Seven Words, you can just rely on my recap:

• Brendan Kiley, the blogger, got a traffic ticket for $103 in 2010 for a biking infraction.

• “Obviously, this ticket chapped my hide. But I did the good-citizen thing, wrote my check, mailed it in, and paid it. Done.”

• A couple of weeks ago, he reports, he received a letter from a collection agency alleging that Kiley owed the municipal court $52 plus a $13 fee.

• Kiley calls his bank to make sure he actually wrote a check two years ago. (He did.) He calls the collection agency, tells them he paid the fee, and the collection agency suggests he call the court.

• Ultimately, what Kiley learns is that “the extra $52 was for not paying the ticket on time.” However, what becomes unclear — and frustrating for Kiley — is what “on time” actually means.

• The check was dated “around two weeks after I’d gotten the ticket” he writes — within the allotted time to pay the ticket. However, “The court, it turns out, goes by when it gets the check.”

So, Kiley is inconvenienced by a collection agency for a debt he paid because of bad processes on the court’s end.

In this specific case, fortunately, Kiley’s ire isn’t directed at the collection agency for doing its job. It’s directed at Seattle and its practices of handling these kinds of fees. But not all consumers are going to be so understanding, or even know to be so understanding.