Curious how successful arrangements are for a pay and delete of debt. I have about 5 lines that are past SOL in California but are seriously dragging our scores down. I need to get rid of them so we can purchase our first home. I am willing to negotiate payment for the removal but wondering if this ever really works. thanks,
It works quite well most of the time to separate you from your money with no visible results unless you use one of my methods which I haven't known anyone to use for a long time now. That's probably because I haven't talked about it for a long time either. In fact, I didn't even think about it until I started writing this reply to your question. >br/> Of course, you can find out all about the Westcap method of Pay for Delete by clicking on my google docs link below. I didn't invent the method. It was originally posted here on Creditnet about 10 years ago by a poster named Robert Paisola. Of course, trying to find posts 10 years old is about like trying to find a needle in a haystack. That's why I developed my Google Docs links and put it in my signature line so people can find the links to great programs, legal briefs, court cases and lots of other great research material far too numerous to mention in any forum post. Anyway, anything posted on this or any other forum quickly becomes part of a very large haystack and nearly impossible to find. My signature line takes care of that problem very nicely. I've never used the Westcap method myself but hundreds if not thousands of people have used it over the years and a few of them have reported back to me with their results. Most had good luck with it although as is to be expected some debt collectors and creditors simply won't go along with it so there is no way to predict whether it will work for you or not. All you can do is give it the old college try and see what happens. The method suggests that you buy a rubber stamp to use but that costs about $40. You can get the same results if you want to spend enough time trying to set your printer up to produce 6 point type and put it in the right place on the check. You will want to cut some sheets of paper the size of a large business size check to practice with first and then when you get it down pat you can save it to your hard drive and use it as many times as you like. Good luck.
It still works. I wish I could actually give you specific stats for success rates, but unfortunately I can't. There are different ways to go about it. I happen to like the route that suggests convincing the CA to sign a non-disclosure agreement in return for payment. Then when you dispute the account after paying, the CA will not respond (per the non-disclosure) and the CRAs will have to delete it.
I sort of like that idea too. Then all you have to do is sit back and wait for them to violate and sue the pants off of them for violation of the contract. You don't even have to dispute with the credit bureaus that way. Just wait for the next month's report to come out and then go nail them.
.This could be a tough statistic to track. Because if you use a nondisclosure agrement to work the pay-for-delete method described by Joshua, neither the consumer nor the CA can acknowledge the agreement. The good news, the CA can't confirm the account for the CRA verification. The bad news is, the consumer can't tell others about whether the deal worked.
If the consumer merely says it worked for them or it didn't work for them without revealing any specifics then the nondisclosure agreement would not have been violated. On the other hand, a simple rewording of the Westcap method would only bind the other party, not the consumer. In the type of non-disclosure agreements normally used in federal lawsuit cases against debt collectors both parties are bound but even there their usefulness is limited. For instance, if I had sued Love, Beal and Nixon LLC. attorneys at law (which I have not yet done) I can list the case number but can't give any details about the terms and conditions of the settlement. The case can be looked up by anyone who has a Pacer account and it can be looked up without any account numbers on Justia.com. I would also be unable to call up the local news media and get an interview about the win on Oklahoma TV stations such as Channel 9 news or Fox news. I would also be unable to post about the terms and conditions of the settlement on any forum or web site after the date the agreement was signed. For instance, one of my students recently won a nice settlement from a debt collector. The case was settled out of court. A non-disclosure agreement was agreed to by the parties. My student does have a web site and he had put recordings of phone calls on his web site and they made him take them down as well as any reference to the defendant debt collector. Of course, that agreement would only be effective against the recordings linked to on his web site but would not be effective against any recordings I might have copied and put on the web months before the settlement was reached. I did copy those recordings but have not put them on any web site nor will I in the future. Even if I did I would sanitize them so nobody would be identifiable. Another student who shall also remain nameless has 6 consecutive wins against debt collectors in federal court and a few more in local courts in at least 2 or 3 states. Some of those have non-disclosure agreements in effect as well but he lists those wins by case numbers on his web site too. He spoke about them constantly on my Friday night conference calls and of course I have recordings of just about all of those and I've posted them on some of my web sites and blogs. Some people on other forums like to say that he didn't actually win anything because if he had the outcomes would be on Pacer but since none of them ever actually went to trial the outcome does not show on Pacer. They just say "settled out of court" or something to that effect. That's the way we like to do it because nobody actually wants to go to a full blown jury trial. It is simply too expensive for the defendants and pro se litigants aren't really equipped to deal with a full blown jury trial in a federal court so it is highly advantageous to both parties to get the matter settled out of court. In the process, one or both parties want non-disclosure agreements in place. The problem with that starts when the Defendant demands a non-disclosure agreement and the plaintiff demands a very heavy penalty for illegal disclosure. I like to see the penalty start at $15,000 and I always recommend that number for starters knowing the defendant isn't about to agree to that. (LOL). I also like to see a statement that any disclosure not ordered by a court of law would constitute a violations of the terms and conditions of the non-disclosure agreement. Then dispute with the credit bureaus and see what happens. (LOL). Problem with getting so wordy when demanding non-disclosure in a Westcap endorsement is that you have to keep the number of words down to a bare minimum or it would get too big to fit on the back of a check. Your space is pretty limited there. Also, when using the Westcap endorsement one needs to include a cover letter with that same wording on it so they can't claim you tried to pull a fast one on them.
