RE: NEVER deal w/Collection Ag "Dave you are correct! Assignment of a debt and sale of a debt are two different things. When a collection company is assigned a debt they are very limited as to what they can do. However when a debt is sold to a collection company, they become your new creditor no matter how old the debt is. Also the same goes for judgments. I have read about someone who buys Credit card bad debt for a living at 2 to 3 cents on the dollar, becomes the new creditor and then collects 20 cents on the dollar from the debtors he can. When he purchases the old debt, the creditor (such as Citibank) will forward all history and any original contracts that may still be around, to him. The thing is that almost all credit card companies destroy most apps after 2 to 3 years. They will tell you they have them in storage on microfilm but most likely they have been destroyed. He also buys Judgments and does the same. He has the right to and has many times seized bank accounts on debtors and attached liens to real property after being awarded judgments. Really people the best way to say good-bye to debts is to pay them off (even if it's Pennies on the dollar) and then work to remove it from your reports. After all it is you who spent the money and not the bank right. Next time you get a letter in the mail telling you that your mortgage has just been sold to XYZ Financial, I highly suggest you keep paying the mortgage. LOL!" Yeah, but even if a "Junk Debt Buyer" buys your debt from the original creditor, or even a different Junk Debt Buyer, they legally cannot change the original date of delinquency; yet many find that these collection agencies/Junk Debt Buyers often do. They also like to tell the debtor that since they bought the debt, the date of delinquency is the date they acquired the debt; a trick which works on many unknowing consumer/debtor. Ironically, even if you have documentation of the ODD, even the CRA's hesitate to correct the re-aging, unless you threaten with filing of lawsuit. It sucks that the CA's & CRA's are "right" and the consumers are wrong' they verify unvalidated disputes and ruin ones credit wrongfully. At least that is my personal knowledge and experience....
RE: NEVER deal w/Collection Ag Have you checked your state's statute of limitations? I understand every state have a limit of time that a creditor can try to collect a debt, after the statute of limitations runs out you no longer owes the money legally! So if your debt is from 1997 its been about 7 years now, I now some states are 5 years only.
RE: NEVER deal w/Collection Ag Have you checked your state's statute of limitations? I understand every state have a limit of time that a creditor can try to collect a debt, after the statute of limitations runs out you no longer owes the money legally! So if your debt is from 1997 its been about 7 years now, I now some states are 5 years only.
I'm sure you're just talk. If you actually tried this you would know that before you even have a chance to send a second letter the debt is sold off to another CA and you're back to square one!
Re: Re: NEVER deal w/Collection Agency I'm not sure if Stephen's comment was meant to mean that Marie is "just talk". But if it was, I'll be the very first to offer my sincerest gratitude to Marie for all she has done for us all. There was a time when NONE of us really knew what we were doing. The tactics you all use today were all hammered out the hard way, by a very small group of courageous pioneers, who'd "had enough". Furthermore, it began here, on CreditNet. To offer ANY form of disparagement, especially to one of those pioneers, on a thread which was started 3.5 years ago, when we could hardly find our respective butt's with both hands, is ... well just plain silly. Additionally, it is really amazing how spot on accurate Marie's comment was, when considering how long ago it was actually made. Many have asked over the years "why don't/can't these people validate". They can't do it today because they've never had to. And still don't, at least in 99.999% of their cases. They merely need to get us to open our big mouth and bingo, self validation is complete, and recorded, for all eternity. So - my advise - follow Marie - every time.
Re: Re: NEVER deal w/Collection Agency Butch wrote: "Many have asked over the years "why don't/can't these people validate". They can't do it today because they've never had to. And still don't, at least in 99.999% of their cases." I guess I'm just chicken. If I knew that they can only validate less than 1% of the time, I would start cleaning up my credit now. I thought it was usually recommended that you wait until the SOL is up before sending VODs, to make sure you don't wake the sleeping giant. Are there any rules of thumb on how old a debt is, or which credit card companies are better/worse than others, to use when deciding when to send a demand for validation?
Re: Re: NEVER deal w/Collection Agency Hi DL. There's a lot goin on just in this one question. It isn't an all encompassing recommendation that one wait until SOL's expire before one begins work on clean up. Each case must be taken on a case by case basis. Much depends on the amount, the newness, your records (or lack thereof), must be considered. And then, and perhaps the most important thing is your adversaries mind-set. Here ONLY YOU can answer this question. Some DF's are easy to co-operate, others wish to punish and destroy. I think your question would be better addressed if you take each of your TL's and begin a thread for it. That way you can get focused attention.
Re: Re: NEVER deal w/Collection Agency Thanks Butch! I'll start reviewing my CRs and decide which ones to focus on first and start posting info on one at a time. I appreciate the help.
So Marie is saying to send these letters: Debt Validation - experts please help thread 32878 Debt Validation2 - experts please help thread 32879 No Debt Validation=Remove trade line letter thread 32991 But I only see two of them in the samples letter thread... but there are these: Debt validation Debt validation 02 Debt validation 03 | 30 days later Debt validation 04 | 60 days later which ones do I use? And the last one talks about a $5000 in damages -- is there a letter for that in case it comes down to that?
Much of what you are seeing here is old nonsense. In the first place all the talk about how you don't have to deal with a debt collector is really rubbish. Sending 3 valdiation letters is also nonsense. One is all you need and there is no requirement in FDCPA that they answer that or even acknowledge they got it, let alone do anything about it. They can ignore you completely and do nothing further about collecting the debt and they have violated no law. And the part about the $5000 damages is also pure nonsense. If you sue them your damages are normally anywhere from $1.00 to $1000 depending on what the court will allow you. If you hire an attorney you can get attorney fees on top of that and you can get your filing fees and court costs back too if you win. You can get more but you have to prove damages to get it. You aren't likely to find an attorney willing to take your case so you have to learn how to do it yourself and that means you have to know how to prepare your case or it is not going to fly. I do all I can to encourage people to learn how to file lawsuits but you have to understand that it takes a lot of work and study on your part to learn how to do it. You have to do it point by point, expound at length on each point, back it up with case cites, evidence, rules of procedure, rules of evidence or whatever applies to each point you make. You can't allege a million dollars worth of damages unless you can prove them with a preponderance of the evidence. I was contacted last night by a lady who lives in Colorado about a federal case she filed using an attorney who has all but lost the case. She asked me to look it up on Pacer and see what I thought. She is suing a debt collector who has a garnishment against her. Her attorney did a miserably poor job of presenting his case and as it stands now he will lose it because he simply did not do anything but make vague and unsupported claims. The defendant's attorney presented his arguments in great detail explaining each and every elemet of his defense and backing it up with case cites and statute law. Who is going to win the case? Not hard to figure that out at all. The lady's attorney has agreed to work with me at her insistance so I'm going to see whether I can pull her fat out of the fire for her. She has just one thing going for her that neither of the two attorneys thought of and that one thing stands a somewhat slim chance of getting the thing done for her but it isn't going to be easy. The defendant's attorney has two basic arguments and right now I don't see how one of them can be defeated. The other one will be easy to defeat so there is that slim chance that the judge will listen to that argument and if he does then there might be a chance. The other argument may or may not hold up and defeat her. I don't have all the facts in to know about that yet. The Rule 26(f) meeting is scheduled for Aug. 10th so we will see what happens then. If she don't have a solid argument by that time the judge will most likely dismiss without even letting it go to a 26(f). The defendant has offered her a $5,000 settlement to get rid of her case and that may very well be the best route for her to go.
Exactly, whether "proper" or not, they have to be dealt with. As with any issue, it must be taken to closure. Again correct, at most two letters would fulfill the philosophy of the "prudent man" approach in court . Sending three letters only adds to a position of weakness, (hinting that you do not want to step into legal action). In fact, the more cases that show up like this only hurt the chances of success in winning an award. Interesting case, what is very interesting is the preponderence of examples of attorneys that handle these cases poorly. You are almost better off taking on the case yourself.
Marie's name, rubbish and nonsense do NOT belong in the same thread. Her post is as valid today as when it was posted. Baba, good on you for hunting through the archives, they are a true treasure trove of wisdom. You can't go wrong following Marie's advice, even today -- though some of the sample letters on this site are a bit dated, her advice is still sound. Shame on you, Cap1sucks and bizwiz. Sassy
Shame on us for what? (Cap1sucks, please excuse me for speaking for you here) Trying to temper discussions with some reality and prudence? I don't mean to lash back, but this hit a nerve which has been getting more and more exposed. The process has changed in the last few years; what was effective even two years ago, simply does not work as effectively now. We "repairers" have changed the game also. CAs and DFs were not going to sit back and not react. The original post has some good advice on the process of dealing with a collection agency, but the message that "they will just go away" is dangerous. Validation letters do not make a debt go away. Again, the original posts contain good information on how to deal with a CA, but promoting a concept that they "will go away" is not reasonable. Per my time on this forum, I have become troubled at the promoted spirit that all debt can be made to "vanish", and that all derogatory credit history can be eliminated. I worry about many posters getting false hopes from some of this information. There are several "vets" on this forum that try to give the best advice they can, but it is frustrating to see requests for the "magical answers to getting a clean report almost overnight". It just doesn't happen that way, and often times, just can't be done. The true repair work must be done on the root cause of the larger problem. Our posts try to add some insight into the realities of credit repair and issue resolution in this day. It is easy to say "..sue their as.. off", but quite another to win the case. More recent law cases are setting new precedents which impact "our processes of repair". It takes a much more sophisticated approach now, and many could hurt themselves by diving in blindly, or proceeding on limited knowledge. I do not beleive Cap1sucks and I are putting down Marie's original post, in fact we subscribe to the thesis of the process, but.."the devil is in the details", and those details have changed. An ITS letter simply does not work anymore, even small claims court is losing its effectiveness. But the original posts contain a misconception that the "debt is not legally there", it is there, and selling, transferring, and collections efforts are allowable. I don't think there is a poster on this forum, who if they held bonds in their 401K, would just "take it" if the original borrower sent them a "DV" and said, "sorry, we don't owe you that money now". Let me make it clear that I am not condoning any illegal or unethical behaivor of CAs. There are many sleazy businesses out there, but more that try to adhere to the legal process. Realistically, there are different processes for dealing with a debt that is TRULY "not yours", and one that is. As an "educated consumer" now, I am going after a sleazy CA that sent a notice to my wife for a completely bogus debt. Years ago I would have been content to just "clear it up", but now I see an opportunity to make money, and take out one of the "scammers". The laws we leverage were intended to protect us in these types of situations, not as an avenue to avoid our debts, and "clean us up". Again, no disresepct is intended here, but I fully affirm that Cap1sucks and I are trying to educate and advise to the best we can, based on present day precedents. I also feel we are trying to help with realistic advice, that there are no "magical answers or tactics, and that there is a lot of hard work, and risk involved.
I'll throw in my "new-person" thoughts here. Nearly everyone on this forum who appear to have been around for a long time, have made comments that collectively have improved my dealings with my debt. I'm already stunned at what a validation and C&D (other than US mail) letter can do. Phones stop ringing, and quiet prevails. A year ago, I was convinced that a chapter 13 was my only way out of trouble. Then I realized, for me, I was just handing my life to to someone else and giving up control to a trustee. Here it is a year later, and I've learned to deal with collections as they come up, a few judgments I'm slowly paying down, and realizing that when you are a high wage-earner with no assets other than a paycheck, one can live with wage garnishment. Its brutal work when one gets themself into a mess such as mine. I call dealing with my creditors and CA's my other "full-time" job. Some people watch television 2 -3 hours a night. I write letters. Thanks to each and every one of you.
A collective "your welome", glad to hear you're having success and an improved quality of life. The road back can be painful, but it is worth it.
What worked years ago is now almost a thing of the past. Validation letters are nowhere near as effective as they once were but are still a valuable part of the process. Indispensable as a matter of fact. Credit repair tricks are almost totally out the window now, at least most of the old ones are even though they are still an indispensable part of the process. The very first thing that people need to learn, understand and believe is that it is always better to be a plaintiff in a federal court than it is to be a defendant in any court. With that concept firmly in mind one then moves on to use validation letters, credit repair tactics and all the rest of the "old school" techniques as evidence gathering devices which can and will be used laterr in federal court. You must learn the law, your rules of procedure and rules of evidence and use them properly and at the right time in the case. You must also learn the rules of procedure for your local federal court as they also contain valuable information that you must comply with. You must learn how to write motions and briefs and you must learn to cite cases correctly in your motions and briefs. You must learn to make a point then discuss it thoroughly and use case cites when and where they are necessary to back up your discussion. Then move on to the next point and do the same thing. That is called "arguing with specificity" and is absolutely imperative to a successful conclusion of the case. It simply isn't good enough to make some statement, cite a case and move on. You also have to discuss it in depth. Most attorneys never learn how to do it properly. In most cases they simply refuse to do their homework unless they can see where they are likely to win a huge amount of money for doing it and even then maybe they will and maybe they won't. The only answer is to learn how to become a pro se litigant and do it right. The only problem with that is the fact that you will not find anyone anywhere on the internet willing or able to post lessons teaching you how to do it properly. What you can easily find on the internet is a lot of people more than willing to post bunk legal theories such as "they never risked any of their own money so we don't owe them a thing" or "consolidate your debts with us" or some corny debt elimination scheme but nowhere on the net will you find anyone willing and able to post valid pro se lessons step by step. The reason you won't find that is very simple and that is because most people who are knowledgeable and able to do that are afraid they could be prosecuted for the unauthorized practice of law and the additional fact that it took them years of work and study to learn how to do it right and they expect to get paid something for their time and effort. The bottom line is that you should never believe anything you see posted on any web site or blog or message board unless it is an official government web site or the official web site of some court of law. While you do need to study what is said on various message boards such as this one you should never take what is said as being the ALMIGHTY TRUTH. Use it as a starting point and do your homework from there. I spent several hours on the phone with a lady from Ocala, Florida last night. She also joined us to some friends of hers in Texas who had spent $4,000 with a scam artist known as Jeff Owens. His "help" consisted of sending them some letters to use to dispute with the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and was going to have them complain that the banks didn't loan them any money nor did they risk any of their own money in making the loans. Jeff Owens is widely known on the internet in many places. He talks a good line and lots of people really believe in him but he is nothing but a scammer. Others believe in Richard Cornforth and spend several thousands of dollars going to his seminars and his so called HELM SOCIETY LAW SCHOOL. While Richard is one of the best out there he makes an awful lot of mistakes in his teachings. His law school is two weeks long and costs $3,000 just to attend. After that you have to pay for transportation to wherever the school is being held and your hotel stay plus your meals and anything else you might spend money for. The next one coming up soon will be held somewhere in Durango, Colorado. If you live reasonably close it might be worth going to but if you have to travel half way across the continent to get there I doubt that what you will learn would be worth the cost and even if you spent the money and the time you still couldn't trust what is taught. An excellent course is provided by a man named Frederick Graves, also of Florida. He has a web site called Jurisdictionary. Dr. Graves is a retired attorney with a lot of experience and has practiced before the United States Supreme Court on many occasions. Dr. Graves is a good friend of mine. He has courses that you can buy to help you learn the law. His most expensive course costs $219.00 but he also has less costly courses. His $219 course consists of 4 CDs and some small amount of printed material. Dr Graves also travels the country putting on one day seminars. Last time I talked to him a week or so ago he was in Maine but I have no idea where he is now Dr Graves also has a large number of chapters of his Jurisdictionary Club scattered about the country and maybe there is one near you. They are always free to attend and you are under no obligation to buy anything. He constantly checks with his Chapter presidents to see that they are not teaching garbage theories. But even if you buy his $219 course you still won't know anywhere near enough to be able to file your own lawsuits and prosecute them effectively. He just don't give that much information and he won't actually give you any one-on-one instruction. If he did he would be giving legal advice and he just don't do that. The old credit repair theories just aren't enough these days. It takes study and hard work to win and it won't be free.
