Something to think about.You know, people make mistakes and it's unfortunate. There are times when things get out of hand, things you can't control (loss of family members, job, illness etc.) I agree that there is some true deadbeats out there. Hell, they've becomes professionals at it. No doubt about it. It's a cost of doing business, it's a risk that creditors take. When a waiter drops a party of 10's dinner, who pays for it? The restaurant takes it on the chin. (i realize that it's included in the price of everyone's meal just as we all pay for the shoplifters, but that's another story, another point). But the point is that the credit extenders have already included the cost of loss in their interest rates. It is no suprise to them and it was bound to happen to some of the customers they take on = the risk factor. But what truly appalls me, is the way some collectors do business. Picture for a minute, the owner of the above restaurant running out into the dinning room and screaming at the waiter in front of everyone. Now everybody knows that the kid is a shmuck (or that's how the owner portrays it). Is that fair to the kid? The kid is embarrassed. At this point he just wants to make it right, but the bill for the plates and Surf & Turf are more than he has in his pocket, savings etc. How will he ever pay for this? The owner will only take the money all at once, but "may" take payments once he calms down and they can agree on what's acceptable. The best part of this story? The kid was working his way through college and really needed this job, but he got fired because of this and since there is a data base reporting information regarding past work history, he can't find employment any where else. Why? Because the owner reported him as a incompetent employee and this now makes him un-hirable for next 7 years. 7 years!! Does that seem fair? The kid pays for the plates/food but still can't get a job for 7 years. All because of what is being reported about him. No matter how much he pleads with the owner to remove it, he tell's him there is nothing he can do (rules are rules you know) but it's been 3 years. When he finally can obtain employment, it's a minimum wage job because he is being penalized for a small mistake that he made, but corrected as quickly that he could. And for those of you that I have confused completely, my story is not a true one. I was merely trying to show in a different light how if we treated similar situations in our lives like the way creditors/collections treat us, then it really would be unfair, illeagal and counter-productive. There would most certianly be anarchy. Noone would ever stand for this. Why should we? I'll give you the money you say I owe. You give me back some dignity by "giving in" on my credit report. Is it REALLY that important for you to screw me for that long? Really!!? I'm paying 22% interest for a car loan because I had a family member turn very ill and then passed away. I loved this person with all my heart. Nothing will ever make the pain I feel, go away. Nothing else in my life mattered than this person. Doesn't seem fair to me. Thanks for listening. Author Uknown
Best post I think I've ever seen form you IB. This letter might be good to include with a settlement offer for deletion. Keep up the good work.
I have more respect for the casino industry. At least, in a casino they want the customer to know what the odds are and not feel cheated. In fact, the house doesn't need to cheat. They know the percentages are in their favor. Yet with the banking/credit card industry they hide as much as they can from the consumer. Only in the very fine print will a cardholder discover that payments will be applied to that part of the loan with the lowest interest first. Only in very fine print do they "notify" you of a change in the agreement and interest rate. Usually in the form of a tiny insert mixed in with the junk mail enclosed in your statement. Wasn't it in large bold print that the original agreement boasted a low "fixed" interest rate for the life of the loan? Only in very fine print do they tell you the enclosed "convenience checks" will be treated like cash advances with the higher interest rate and fees. Yet in large print they urge you to transfer high-interest balances using these checks. Only in fine print do they tell you the interest on the shipping and handling for those "free gifts" will be at a higher interest rate. And then "buried" beneath your balance at that great fixed rate. Only in very fine print do they tell you they may charge the penalty interest rate if you have any adverse information on your credit report - which they may check monthly. In even finer print they tell you they reserve the right to change the agreement for "any reason". Which is why a cardholder with a high FICO score, a perfect payment history and no adverse information on any credit reports may still get hit with a change in terms to a higher interest. It has nothing to do with the credit score and everything to do with the debt balance to available credit ratio. If they think they have you over a barrel and you can't move the balance to a lower-interest card, they will jack up the interest rate. If they think you are trapped they will move in for the kill. If you move your balance and close the account, they beg you to come back. "We would hate to lose you". "We promise not to mistreat you again", they plead. "Well, at least, not until the next time we mistreat you". Sort of like the cost of plywood as a hurricane approaches or the price of gas right after 9/11. They do whatever they can get away with. We need real consumer protection and real credit card/banking reform. In what other industry would a prevailing business strategy that seeks to first deceive then trap the customer be allowed? I mean besides the Carinval. anonymous LB 59
I think this "story" has some good points, but my personal take on the issue is a little different. I have no problem with the idea that truthful facts are reported about me. What I really take issue with is the way those facts are in turn reported by the CRA's, and the way those facts are used against people by the industry in general. For example: 1. Why is a paid charge-off no more "valuable" to one's credit worthiness than a non-paid charge-off? A person who eventually pays his of her debt is, in reality, less of a "deadbeat" than a person who doesn't ever pay, but his credit rating will not reflect that. 2. Why is information on a delinquent account reported for seven years from the date of last activity, as opposed to the date of the delinquency? Say an average person (not aware of the details of credit reporting) falls on hard times and has an account become delinquent. He may choose to "do the right thing" and pay the account off slowly as he is able. Let's say he takes five years from the delinquency date to pay the debt. By doing so, he ends up with a total of 12 years of bad credit, as opposed to the 7 years he would have had if he'd ignored it entirely. Thus, he is penalized for his attempt to be ethical, and is also discouraged from paying off the debt. 3. Why are collection accounts that did *not* result from loans or other extended credit allowed to be considered in relation to one's credit worthiness? For example, unpaid traffic tickets or medical bills. It is one thing to consider how one handled a debt he incurred intentionally (i.e. applied for and promised to pay); it is quite another to consider those that were imposed, sometimes just by life's unfortunate happenings, upon a person who never *claimed* they'd be able to pay in a timely manner. In my opinion, those items should not be included on a "credit" report at all. 4. Why are non-credit-related civil judgements considered a derogatory comment upon one's credit worthiness? A perfectly responsible person can be considered "unworthy" because they were involved in a dispute over a neighbor's fence or because they were sued for a car accident. 5. Why are creditors allowed to view a different "version" of a person's credit report than the person can view themselves? Every single detail that is shown to *anyone* on a credit report should also be available to the individual whose information is being shared. These are just a few of the things I find unacceptable, and they all have more to do with the reporting agency and the use of the information than they have to do with the entity who actually reports it. I don't mind that someone reports truthful and relevant information about me; what I mind is how that information is handled once it's reported. Just my two cents. Sigh.
Author: ? All states will issue a Certificates of Authority to a company doing business in their state. A certificate of authority is not collection agency specific but is required for all types of foreign corporations doing business in a state other than their home state.
Having just one SOL would make it simpler for all concerned. I can well understand your thinking there but such simplification is not always in the best interests. If such simplification as you suggest were a valid argument then it would follow that all laws should be the same everywhere and that no state be allowed to deviate from the federal law in any way. Then it might be perceived that it would be much simpler and cheaper just to have one government and that the federal government, of course. Less taxes, less confusion, less of everything. ========================= Many states laws are based on or within federal guide lines. I see no difference between when it comes to the sol than say other federal provisions contained in FDCPA FCRA and other federal consumer protection laws. Any SOL over 3 years is ridicules. If the creditor can't get his rear in gear and make his best effort to collect within 3 years legally void the debt.Why reward the creditor with another 5 10 15 20 or more Yrs. for setting on his fat arse all the while unnecessarily hounding the debtor for an excessive period of time. Lets get the d*** debt.problem solved and move on to something else so everyone can get on with their lives!
A*They are masters at taking positive and neutral information and twisting it around making it appear negative to be used against you. 1*To artificially lower scores. The law needs to be changed to require Neg. information removed once the item is paid. You only agreed to pay the debt and once it is paid the debt and agreement is terminated. At no time did you ever agree to be held accountable for it after you paid it therefore reporting it after it's paid is a breach of contract. 2*See #1 3*There is no excuse for reporting Collections Liens Suits & Judgments as that is trying you for the same thing more than once. The worst thing you can do is fail to pay. You have already been tried convicted & sentenced for that when the debt was charged off. Why put a man before the firing squad after he has already been hung? 4*See No. 3 5*To more easily deceive you. What are they trying to hide? 6*I think mishandled is a better word.
Ah.. an informed consumer is a dangerous consumer! But a partially informed DEBTOR is only a danger to themselves.
