paid a CA a hunk of cash for deletion in October, waited patiently..today i see they've updated my TU report with: "Settled for less than balance" intent to sue letter ala Butch being sent as we speak. I want to sue them...I'm fairly certain I'll win due to several signed letters from them, one that I wrote and asked them to sign and another that they wrote on their own letterhead and signed. All of which stated they'd delete upon payment. bah.
ewwwww mark!! I'm going to tackle that same thing myself after the holidays.... gonna send a goodwill/settlement.... I expect I'll get the same thing you got.... promises and then deceit.... keep us up to date...
Mark, Don't be a softy! If you have a letter from them saying that they would delete and they did not, SUE THE BASTARDS! They lied, they violated a contract, they caused injury (and damgages if you were denied credit) by further degrading your credit. You acted in good faith, did the right thing, and they did not. Any judge would throw the book at them. Go to small claims and file against them. Sue them for the original amount of the debt plus whatever FCRA & FDCPA damages you can think of. Attach a copy of your suit to a "Notice of Intent to Sue" letter explaining why you are about to sue them. I'd demand that they remove the account immediately plus pay you $1,000 in compensation for damages. If they don't comply or show up for court, you will get a summary judgement. You can then use that plus the letters from the CA to have the CRA's remove the account. Then you should hire your own CA to collect from the CA you succesfully sued. Now that would be justice!
I just got a fax from their legal department, asking me to call them..I replied via fax and told them either comply or be sued. I actually tried to call stupidly and got vmail luckily...told them that in the fax then told them Im fed up with trying to call. Told them to put any future correspondence in writing.
ruh-roh..guess which wittle bitty CA isnt bonded to collect debts in the GREAT State of Texas....THIS ONE! yay! wish I'd have checked beforehand. more fuel for the fire..
LOL Mark, crap indeed! I think they owe you money AND that deletion. You tattled on their wittle bitty illegal butts to whoever enforces bonding in your GREAT state? Sassy
Im waiting for them to respond after letting them know this. If they dont respond favorably then I will file the complaint. Hell, even if they do respond favorably I might file the complaint anyway, just because they are breaking the law and they have caused me grief. which begs the question, since they werent legally able to collect in texas, shouldnt I get my money back? hmm
nweston@sos.state.tx.us she handles statutory documents for the state of texas. collectors are required by state law to have a bond on file for $10,000 in order to collect debts legally in texas.
Now this is interesting: § 392.201. Report to Consumer Not later than the 45th day after the date of the request, a credit bureau shall provide to a person in its registry a copy of all information contained in its files concerning that person. One might take "all" to mean ALL. As in not just the stuff they let you see but all the hidden things as well - items that are blocked, those that have aged and don't show but are still on file somewhere, their own csrs' notes... Give it some thought. 0
since they werent legally able to collect in texas, shouldnt I get my money back? hmm mark =============== Yes :You are not obligated to pay an illegal entity ! skinderflirt
It's the truth, though. You DID settle for less than balance. The entry is factual. That's the CRAs reason for being.
What about the truth that they sent a signed agreement agreeing to delete upon payment of a certain amount which was paid? What about that fact? And what about their morals?
As my mama said, God rest her soul, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Having said that, they reneged on an agreement and should pay the consequences.
He didn't settle for less than anything, the CA can't legally collect. How can something be factual that comes from an illegal source? You may be right about the CRA's reason for being, reporting something as factual that can't be. Sassy
What is wrong with deleting upon payment? Do you think it is fair for a consumer to be punished for 7 years after they PAID? I certainly hope not.
No, actually I do not think it is fair for seven years...maybe six months to a year would be sufficient...and then removal or paid as agreed notation. That's my thought, anyway...Then it would be a factual report, but not unduly punishing or restrictive. After all, if you just walk away from the debt it eventually (should) in the best case fall off unless the CA was breaking the law. You're right, it would be no better off paying, and you're right, as it stands, it's a flaw, and not fair. Unfortunately, that would require a change in laws. If there were laws broken by the OC, CA, CRA or consumer of course, all bets are off.
well if they dont reply by the end of today, i've got about 600 ways i can sue them, I just have to nail down specific statues and laws, which Im confused about at the moment. The supposed debt is from texas, i have always lived in texas. the CA is in Washington, so I'm not sure which laws apply, Texas or Washington, or both. this is for the restrictive endorsement portion of the suit.
