pay for delete question-

They wont take a paid for delete, because they are in the buisness of rippng of debtors.

If i pay in full, the debt should be deleted becuase the debt is paid.

Instead, it is "paid, but refused to to continue to pay for nothing in return."
"Balance ....The same as before but you owe us more"

 

What about if the CA says it will state, "settled in full, disputed, zero amount due"?

 

How old are these debts? Are they are out of SOL for your state ?
Are they original creditors or collection agencies? Are any medical bills?

If they are out of SOL and collection agencies you may want to look into disputing & validating instead of going straight for a PFD. Even if they are original creditors if the acct is out of SOL it may warrant disputing them first.
From what I've heard they may fall off with just a dispute or two.

If any are within SOL proceed with caution because they can try to sue, esp if it's a larger amount of money. I kinda look at it like waking a sleeping giant. Be very careful when working with these kinds of debts. Be prepared to cover yourself.

I am going to PFD a Verizon acct that is within SOL. I hope it works, if it doesn't then I guess a paid collection acct is better than a active bad debt. But I did dispute it first and it came back verified and appears to be reporting correctly. So I felt like a PFD was my best shot at getting it off my reports.

But I am still new to this I am just spouting off some things I have learned. I am no expert by any means. Just trying to share newbie info.

Good luck!
Tegleg

 

That sounds like a restrictive endorsement. Not all state laws allow that. In the states that do, some require a specific procedure to be followed for it to work. In some states you may restart the SOL by doing that, causing more problems if they decide to sue.

 

In my situation, the CA just offered me a settlement for 80%.

If they are able to offer a restrictive settlement then the consumer should have the same right. So i should be able to make a counter offer in New York State?

Anyone familiar with restrictive endorsments in NYS?

 

I agree you can negotiate any settlement terms you like. But, that is not the same as sending a check for 50% of the balance and writing "paid in full" on the back. That is what many states do not allow. In the states that do allow it, there may be a specific procedure such as a legitimate dispute of the balance due, or prior notice of the restrictive endorsement before mailing it.

 

It appears that a restrictive endorsement is not valid in NY, at least according to this article.

http://www.winstonandwinston.com/

 

Uhhh...are you serious? A debtor went and charged up thousands of dollars, for example, and took their sweet time in paying it off, years later usually, and now want to be rewarded for that, like it never happened? Like someone who has excellent credit who actually pays off their accounts on time/early, who actually takes care of their financial obligation, and now they feel they should be entitled to that since they finally got around to paying off their account a few years later.

 

Exactly, if i pay the debt in full with all the added 30% interest rates and exorbitant late fees, then yes, i should be treated the same as the person who paid on time, after all, i have fulfilled my obligation of the contract.

Banks, CRA, CC companies, and CA are
in the business of taking advantage of consumers.

They do not want you to pay off the balance in full, because it hurts their profits.

 

Maybe you should have thought about all the fees and interest that you would be charged if you quit paying. A debtor shouldn't be treated the same as someone who works hard to make sure their bills are paid on time. Just because, typically speaking, a debtor is now looking to get a new car or more credit or a house they have to pay off all these debts to possibly get better rates or to even qualify for the loan. A debtor shouldn't have the best interest rates just because they finally got around, at their time frame, to paying the past due obligations.

 

I agree, a scam artist should never have the upper-hand.

However, if the fees and interest apply to the actual debtor who is not attempting to scam the system.
Then we have a problem here.
Predatory lending is a lucrative business right now.


I think more ppl are innocent than guilty, the lenders and
CA are thriving off a scam within a scam, i know its only business, but
a lot of ppl get hurt in the crossfire.