My question is " are collection agencies obligated to respond to an investigation on a paid item?" I was reading the forum for the collector hacks and after reviewing it, these morons really don't understand their leverage position when they offer either a pay for delete or a non-response to an investigation on a paid collection account. If I was a collector, and I was able to negotiate a payment in full with understanding that I would not answer an investigation from a CRA, I would take it in a heartbeat. Is there a letter that can essentially scope a proposal for either not responding to an investigation of a paid item? I am working on some old items that are still within statute, but are keeping my scores down. Thanks in advance for the input.
To me it doesn't make sense to take it. You racked up the bill, took your sweet time in paying it back, and now you want to pay it off and make it go away, just like it never happened. I personaly have never and will never accept a PFD, nor has our company. I'd rather not get paid, let it rot away on the credit report until it falls off than accept it. If it was a person thats a real pain and makes a big deal about it, I'd rather sue them, even if I couldn't collect a judgment just to make things more difficult. I know this doesn't sound very nice but many agencies are like this.
It's late so I won't go into my rant about the true nature of the Credit Industry. Suffice it to say that the key words in your post are CA and Idiot. You really need to understand the mindset of a CA so you can move on. PFD is possible, but you need to work with the CA to help them understand why this is a win-win situation. Go here for more info, http://www.debtorboards.com/smf/index.php?board=50.0 Argento
I'm sure there are a set of cases that are worthy of Collectman's moral judgement. Unfortunately, there is all manner of grey area in the colleciton business from the mistaken identity, fradulent charges, negligence by the creditor on the one hand to deadbeats and cheats on the other. Much of this is hard to tell from the file the CA gets and I'm sure the collection agents have heard it all in spite of whatever the file says about the debtor and the debt. In the end, however, isn't the success of a collections operation judged simply by the amount collected? Where does the moral righteousness fit into that equation? I mean if you want to tell the client that the debtor won't pay and it's not worth the effort to litigate that's your business. Nevertheless, whatever happened before the file ends up on the collector's desk is pretty much irrelevent (FDCPA requirements notwithstanding) and, at the very least, impossible to change. At that point, it's either a money or no money. If the collector wants to butt heads with the debtor and use that as evidence that the collection agent is morally superior to someone, OK, fine, you can pat yourself on the back that some deadbeat's credit will be dinged for the next 7 years, but what's gained for the bottom line?
Sounds like you're taking your cases personally. As ccbob asked, where's the sense in it? I have a CO right now with Dell for over $2000. I've offered full PFD's multiple times, they keep saying no. So where's my motivation to pay it? I know you'll say because it's the right thing to do since I racked up the debt, but does your answer change if you learned that the computer needed $600 worth of repair before a year was up? That one of it's two hard drives failed for no reason? And due to this, I lost 2 months worth of family photos and videos. And that by the time the computer was 18 months old, it was fit only for the scrap heap? Would you take $2000+ off your family's table for a product that obviously did not live up to standard expectations even though it was supposed to be a high-end machine? If I ever hear back from Dell, I will continue to offer PFD's, at least until either the CO hits 7 years of age or my scores hit 720, at which point, I would only consider a PFD for 40% or less of the full amount. I'm just glad I live in a state with no wage garnishment and that all of my savings go in my 401(k), which can't be touched by anyone but the federal government. Essentially, I'm judgement-proof. And you might care to rethink your position on PFD's. You hit a few more debtors like me, and you'll be out of business real fast...
I'm awestruck at how spiteful collectman is about these accounts. I would think that since the collection industry is a BUSINESS, it would all be about the bottom line. Take the PFD, remove the tradeline for the money, add to the bottom line, and move on to someone else. And heaven help collectman if a bill of his gets lost in the mail and he gets turned over to a collection agency or gets a 30-day late on his report. I think by taking these things personally and just trying to punish the consumer instead of working with them, collectors cut off their nose to spite their face.
Collection is a business..but it is seems like the monkeys are in charge I went to the collection board and read over their chief complaints on collecting on questionable paper, losing in court due to informed consumers and savvy consumer attorneys, and not being able to validate the debt. It would seem that if a person offered to pay the item for whatever reason, I as a collection representative would get the money, never respond to the cra and just let the matter drop. This is also a good strategy when leveraging on a customer who legitimately wants to pay without further repercussion. Also, on that board, the people were moaning and complaining about how ACA set too many restrictions (apparently some just ignore them) on how to collect. Maybe I am just putting too much logic in the process. Oh well, back to nutcasing the paid collections off. I find this approach more fun anyway.
On the one hand, I can see that in the interest of having an accurate credit report would require that if an account went into collections, that it should stay on the report as an indication of the person's history with credit. The idea, valid or not, being that credit history is a reaonable predictor of credit behavior in the future. I'm sure that for the vast majority of the cases that bears out, or FICO wouldn't stay in business. Sort of the once a deadbeat, always a deadbeat notion, (again, however valid). However, there are more (and I'd bet a growing number of) "fringe" cases that would benefit greatly from PFD. For example: - Mistaken identity - Junk debt (e.g. out-of-statute) - Medical bills with insurance confusion - Changes of address - temporary unemployment and other debts that end up in Collections due to spurious circumstances as opposed to outright neglect or malevolence. Those, would seem to benefit both the consumer and the debt collector if they did the PFD. The consumer would be motivated to pay because they've recovered from whatever it was that set them back and they want to clean up their life (and their credit) and the Collector and client would end up with some comparatively easy money. The credit report would also be "accurate" in terms of intent, anyway, because these people would normally be inclined to pay their bills but, for whatever reason, suffered some span of time in the past where they couldn't. Instead, it turns into a pissing match where no good deed goes unpunished. The CA says "Pay up, deadbeat! and after you pay me, you'll have this ugly scar on your credit report for the next 7 years! (deadbeat!)" So the consumer is faced with: pay and have a scar or don't pay and have a scar. Hmm.. Backing your opponent into a corner doesn't seem to me to be a constructive strategy. OK. So, Mr. Self-righteous CA goes to court and rolls over the debtor. Great, now the CA has had to front the money for litigation and the debtor, who probably won't show up anyway (remember, they are deadbeats) has a collection and a judgement. Well, they'll proabably need a garnishment as well... But what about the guy/gal who wants to clean up their act? They might put up a fight, now the costs go up and the chances for success go down (depending on the case). For high-dollar debts, this might be worthwhile, but for things like utility bills, etc. what's the point? The CA will now run up several thousand in legal fees with maybe a 50/50 chance of winning when they could have settled all this with a phone call and a letter. Every case is different, but I think there is a large set of cases where PFD would be win-win and not corrupt the whole philosophy of Credit Reporting.
Very Well Said Very well said. This would meet the logical intent of clean life, clean report, but as you stated, no good turn goes unpunished.
I'm not taking anything personal, just explaining a position on the other side of the fence. It just doesn't make sense to agree to something like that on my side.
Eh . . . you're in business to make money, right? So, then yes, it makes perfect sense to do PFD because you are getting paid. Unless you are a non-profit debt collector, not accepting payment is illogical because, again, you're in business to make money.
That street goes two ways. The Collector violates, gets sued and what do the attorneys ask for? They will pay the Grand for the violation but they want a NDA. Now, if that's not a PFD, what is? No PFD, No NDA.
Hmm. You clear their entry, they get another loan, it goes to collection and you get another shot at em. How is this, in a business sense, bad? (Yes, in a moral/ethical sense it is, but when have morals and ethics ever got in a CA's way?)
What would make me actually think that if they go out and get another loan they would actually pay that one on time? Nothing at all will make me think they have suddenly become responsible and now have morals. The only reason they are paying this off is because they want something else, not because its the right things to do.
What would make me think that after being sued by me for violating FDCPA that they would actually learn from the experience and stop? Absolutely nothing would make me think that being called into court to defend their indefensible actions would make them start complying with the dictates of law. They have to be sued early and often, and that's why I spend so much time and effort teaching others how to do it. They built these losses into their business model, let's make sure they use them, because it's the right thing to do.
What do you care if they are not borrowing from you? It would seem to me that, at least from a business perspective, you would hope that they don't pay it on time as that just means more business for the collection industry. It would seem to me that collection agents have as much or more interest in getting the debtor's record clean so they can go back and get into more trouble. (Repeat business is where the money is, right?) I mean if everyone paid their bill on time, CA's would go out of business. Likewise if people didn't overextend themselves, then bank cards couldn't make a killing on late and overlimit fees. A big chunk of the money in that whole cycle comes from the "deadbeats."
There is nothing illegal with refusing to accept with a PFD. You'd never get me in court for anything, ever, so get over it.
Why would anyone want to deal with the same idiots over and over. Yes by now they are idiots if they have 2-3 accounts in office and have 2-3 come later down the road. Haven't they learned how to be responsible yet? Guess not...
You are right - there is nothing illegal about refusing to accept a PFD, but lying about the reason is a FDCPA violation. Calling the refusal "illegal" is a lie - it is not a matter of law. Just say "I don't want to accept a PFD" and you are safe.
