Thoughts On LPR Staging In The Recovery Industry
Thoughts on LPR Staging in the Recovery Industry
After spending more than 35 years in the auto recovery industry, I’ve witnessed firsthand the evolution of our tools, tactics, and terminology. One topic that’s been weighing on my mind lately is the growing practice known as LPR Staging. While the term may sound innovative or harmless on the surface, I believe it represents a repackaging of a long-standing issue: double assigning repossession accounts.
Throughout my career, I’ve stood firmly against the practice of assigning the same account to multiple agents. The risks have always been significant, and in today’s environment, they’re even more pronounced. When more than one recovery agent is sent after the same piece of collateral, especially without coordination—it sets the stage for confusion, confrontation, and potentially dangerous outcomes. Imagine two agents arriving at the same location, unaware of each other’s presence. What should be a routine recovery can quickly escalate into a volatile situation involving the debtor, law enforcement, or even the public. These are not just hypothetical concerns, they’re real, and they happen more often than many realize.
Recently, I had in-depth conversations with two of the most respected attorneys in our industry. Both expressed deep concern over the legal liabilities that LPR Staging can introduce, not only for the agents on the ground but also for lenders and forwarders who may be unaware of the risks they’re compounding. As our work becomes increasingly scrutinized, we cannot afford to normalize a practice that endangers the very people doing the job and exposes all parties to avoidable liability.
Beyond the safety and legal aspects, there’s also the matter of fairness. It’s disheartening to see hardworking agents invest time, resources, and skill into locating a vehicle, only to have the case abruptly closed because someone else grabbed the unit after an LPR hit. The effort that goes into traditional recovery methods—boots on the ground, investigative skip tracing, relationship building—should not be disregarded just because an automated system got a ping.
This isn’t to say I’m against LPR technology. In fact, I genuinely admire its capabilities. When used correctly and within the framework of a clearly defined recovery plan, LPR can be a powerful asset. But like any tool, it must be applied wisely. LPR should not be used to override or compete with traditional skip tracing in real-time. We must advocate for a more disciplined approach: choose one recovery strategy per assignment and follow it through. If one method fails, then—and only then—should we shift gears to another.
Our goal as professionals should be to promote recovery practices that are not only effective but also safe, sustainable, and ethically sound. Chasing volume at the expense of common sense or agent safety is not a strategy for long-term success. If a business model doesn’t generate revenue in a responsible way, then it’s not worth pursuing.
I truly believe there’s a place for both LPR and old-school skip tracing in our future. Each has its strengths, and when used at the right time, they can complement each other beautifully. My hope is that we can encourage our clients and peers to adopt smarter, more strategic approaches—ones that value timing, safety, and professionalism above all else.
Let’s aim to build a future where technology and tradition work hand in hand, not against each other.
Kevin Carter
Collateral Consultants
