If the letters don't work, consider an accord and satisfaction letter, coupled with a restrictive endorsement. I used this on a TX collection agency and it worked great. The premise is, write a letter stating that you want to settle for the full amount for complete deletion. State that if they don't agree, they can't cash check. Research the accord and satisfaction letter, it's out there. Put in a check that says conditional endorsement enclosed. Send it CRRR and get a notary stamp on the doc . If they cash it, you have them. Texas is one of the states that strictly enforces conditional endorsements even with restrictions such as "without prejudice." This is not a good method for all states. TX is a OK, but others have specific legal rules about doing this. CA is a good example of a state that has special rules about sending a "pre-letter." Do your homework.
Okay, but this is pre-1997 amendment. Don't those go by date assigned to collections? Or are the CRAs sort of just going by the amended FCRA no matter what?
Ooooh, creditman! LOL I like the way you think! I don't think I can pay it and then sue them, though...can I? I think I'll just point out to them how much they could owe me, and then say, but hey, for $50, I'll go away if you will. Hm...?
Well, u never said I don't owe the money. They broke the law, not you. Paying it does not release them from liability. These laws were put in place to keep these guys in line. but if u can get a trade, take it!!
Hmmm... I realize that you haven't read the rest of the information in my original post or prior posts. That's cool...There are a million stories on this board! LOL Refer to "Done passing the buck" post, if you're interested. I understand that you feel I've made a mistake; however, I am going by the law in TX, which gives just a little more protection from CAs. Texas Finance Code Section 392.202 says that they have 30 days after receiving written notice of a dispute from the consumer. If they cannot prove within the 30 days, they must delete the information from the CRAs. Agreed. I do have proof...the postmarked envelope. It's worth about...oh...5K or so. LOL Seriously considering that. I won't take less than deletion, though.
It never goes by date assigned or date reported. August 31, 1998 Mr. Clifford A. Johnson 1917 Surrey Trail Bellbrook, Ohio 45305 Re: FCRA §§ 605(c) and 623(a)(5) - "Commencement of the delinquency" Dear Mr. Johnson: This responds to your request for our views concerning the calculation of the period for which a consumer reporting agency ("CRA") is permitted to report accounts that have been charged off, placed for collection, or subject to similar action, under the amended Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). You report that the following series of events occurred with respect to one of your credit accounts: "My last payment was received by the creditor 12/96. My payments were due monthly and I missed the 1/97 payment and all subsequent payments culminating in a charge off. This creditor does not report to the credit bureau until the account is 90 days delinquent. . . . The creditor contends that the delinquency did not occur until 3/97 because that is when they first reported it." Section 623(a)(5) requires a creditor that reports a chargeoff to a CRA to notify the agency (within 90 days of reporting the account) of "the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded" the chargeoff. Section 605(a)(4) provides that the credit bureau may report the chargeoff for seven years. Section 605(c)(1) provides that seven year period begins 180 days from that date. In the scenario your reported, it is our view that the delinquency that led to the charge-off "commenced" in January 1997, the month the first payment was missed. Thus, that is the month and year that the creditor must report to the CRA, and that the CRA must use to calculate the time period dictated by Section 605. We are not in accord with the contention that the date "when (the creditor) first reported" the chargeoff to the CRA constituted the start of the delinquency. Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) were recently added to the FCRA to correct the ineffectiveness of the previous FCRA, under which the date that started the seven-year period was uncertain or under the control of the creditor.(1) The legislative history of these provisions makes it clear that they were designed to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from delayed creditor action: Current law generally prohibits consumer reporting agencies from including in a consumer report accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years. The Committee is concerned that this seven year limitation is ineffective. In some cases, the ... action occurs months or even years after the commencement of the preceding delinquency. ... Consequently, the consumer report may contain such information even if the delinquency commences more than seven years before the date on which the report is provided to a user. The Committee bill specifies that the seven-year period with respect to information concerning a delinquent account charged to profit and loss . . . may begin no more than 180 days after the commencement of the delinquency immediately preceding the ... action. S. Rept. 104-185, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 39-40 (emphasis added). Thus, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- the start of the delinquency -- to begin the obsolescence period (now seven years, plus 180 days).(2) The alternate view stated to you (that the date of reporting controls) is at variance with both the plain language of these amendments, and the intent of Congress in enacting them. In sum, we believe that the phrase "commencement of the delinquency that led to the action" in Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) of the FCRA should be construed according to its normal meaning. If a consumer falls behind on an account and never catches up, the delinquency has its "commencement" when the first payment is missed. From that point on, the account is past due and thus delinquent. The opinions set forth in this informal staff letter are not binding on the Commission. Sincerely yours, Clarke W. Brinckerhoff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 (Title II, Subchapter D, of Public Law 104-280, signed into law on September 30, 1996), made many other changes to the FCRA. 2. The additional 180 day period accords a measure of flexibility to credit bureaus whose furnishers may provide them with the wrong date. However, the expansion of the time period that Section 605 allows chargeoffs and similar actions to be reported accents the desirability of treating the "commencement" of the delinquency as the first missed payment -- not some later date that would further extend the period.
I'm confused. I thought that date of chargeoff and date assigned to collections were the same? Not trying to argue the point...just trying to get this clear in my mind so I can be clear in my arguments with a judge (if necessary). Thanks...
They could be, but usually the assigned date is well after the chargeoff date. And, the dola is usually several months prior to the chargeoff date. The assigned date is the date that the ca was given the acct., and that is usually well after the chargeoff date. The chargeoff date is usually 120 - 180 days after your last payment..
Whatever you do, don't tell them you are applying for a mortgage...lol. Had one lady at CCB ask me if I was applying for one and I said no, why and she said that's usually when people start calling desperate to take care of things. Naturally that gives them a lot of control. L
Butch, Yes, they most likely would. However, the chances of a CA validating a debt 12 months later is slim. If the OC cannot provide validation to the CA within the first 30-60 days, what would make them be able to produce it a year down the road?
Okay, I got that. In this case, the date of service was 10/95, and it was assigned to the CA on 3/96 (150 days later). So perhaps it was charged off as early as Jan or Feb of '96? They sure didn't wait long, did they?
LOL Thanks, whyspers. I'm hoping I have the upperhand in this one, after their violations. 1)They never marked the acct as in dispute with the CRAs. 2)They validated after the 30-day period (per TX Finance Code) was over. 3)They sent a letter which said, "This is an attempt to collect a debt, etc" the day after I had faxed the cease-comm to them. #2 and #3 are proven by the postmark on the envelope, no matter what they've backdated their letters...
Quasar, I had replied to your post, but it disappeared in cyberspace! LOL Do you have a good letter? I have a couple of links to good letters, but one more to help me morph a letter of my own wouldn't hurt. Thanks...
Here's the letter I have so far... Please help me with the proofreading of this. I morphed it out of several letters that I found with the Search feature. I want to make sure that I don't fall into any legal loopholes that will allow them to try any more funny business with this acct. Also, am I making a reasonable offer? I mean, in the eyes of a judge, if it goes that far? Thanks, Creditnetters! Future1966 --------------------------------- Dear Sir/Madame: On the evening of May 23, 2002, I faxed a letter to you regarding this account that is showing on my credit reports. In that fax, I gave you thirty (30) days to validate this account per the FDCPA and the Texas Finance Code. On June 18, 2002, I sent a reminder that the 30 days were due to expire soon. On June 19, 2002, I received a fax from Ms. Stewart. At the bottom of the fax cover sheet, Ms. Stewart wrote the following: â??We do not have database here at SARMA. You must write Transunion at Transunion, P.O. Box 34012, Fullerton, CA 92834.â? This was confusing, at best. At worst, my request for validation was ignored. The thirty (30) days expired on June 23, 2002. On June 26, 2002, I then faxed you a letter informing you that since you have been unable to sufficiently validate this account within 30 days, you must cease all collection efforts. This includes deleting the notation from my credit reports with all credit bureaus no later than five (5) days from June 26, 2002, per my rights under both the Texas Finance Code and the FDCPA. However, on Saturday, June 29, 2002, I received an envelope that was postmarked June 27, 2002. Although the items in the envelope (presumed by you to be validation) were dated before the June 23 deadline, the fact remains that your company did not even send them until June 27, 2002. This is fully four (4) days after the 30-day deadline had passed, and the day after I had faxed you the final letter requesting that you cease collection activity. Your company has violated my rights under the FDCPA and Texas Finance Code in the following manner: 1) Violation #1 â?? to neglect to note this account in dispute with all credit bureaus. 2) Violation #2 â?? to not validate this alleged debt within the 30-day time frame given in the Texas Finance Code upon receiving written notice of a consumer dispute and request for validation. 3) Violation #3 â?? to continue to attempt to collect the alleged debt after I notified you in writing to cease all collection activity once the 30-day period had expired. I will attempt to amicably resolve this matter. Although your company has violated my rights, I will agree not to sue you for these violations ($1,000 each under law) if you will accept my offer by July 10, 2002. Here is how I analyze the situation: You would like to collect monies from a very old account that is currently not collectable since the statute of limitations in Texas has long since passed. Your company has committed several provable violations during the collection of this debt, over which you very likely do not want to be sued. I would like this debt to be removed from my credit reports. This offer affords both of us the desired result. This is not an admission of liability for this debt nor is it a renewed promise to pay, but rather it is a restricted satisfaction offer only. If you agree with these terms, please acknowledge by signing and returning a copy of the attached sheet to me. You agree these terms are confidential and affirm that you have the authority to make such decisions. Upon receipt of this signed acknowledgment, I will immediately send through priority mail a money order or cashier's check in the amount of $50.00 (fifty dollars) with restrictive endorsements as full satisfaction for this debt. No later than 72 hours after receipt of payment of $50.00, you will delete the entire disputed debt trade line from each and every credit bureau to which you furnish information. Please confirm in writing by July 10, 2002, agreeing to these terms. If I do not receive confirmation by that date, I will assume that this offer is being rejected, and no further offers will be made. In the event that you should fail to confirm by July 10, 2002, I reserve all rights under the law including the right to pursue legal action against you beginning July 15, 2002, for your violations of the FDCPA and Texas Finance Code. Sincerely, Future1966 ------------------------------------------------------- This is not a renewed promise to pay but rather a restricted satisfaction offer only. The following is an agreement between Future1966, a resident of MyCounty, STATE, and San Antonio Retail Merchants Association (SARMA), a company doing business in San Antonio, TX. This agreement is an offer to amicably resolve Account #XXX/OC. It is not to be construed as an acknowledgment by Future1966 of liability for this debt in any form. Future1966 will pay SARMA the amount of $50.00 (fifty dollars) as full satisfaction of this account. If SARMA accepts this agreement, Future1966 will mail a money order or cashiers check for the full satisfaction amount of $50.00 in exchange for permanent and complete deletion of all references regarding this account from the credit profile of Future1966 by SARMA and Radiology Associates, and full satisfaction of the debt. All references to the debt are to be deleted from the credit profile of Future1966 at all three credit bureaus, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union or the bureaus the above-referenced companies regularly report to in the course of doing business. This agreement is confidential and binding. If SARMA fails to follow through with the required deletions within 72 hours of receipt of payment from Future1966, SARMA agrees to reimburse Future1966 for any attorney fees or related expenses incurred by Future1966 in the enforcement of this agreement. This is a final offer. Since the statute of limitations for collecting this debt has long since passed, if SARMA declines to accept this offer by July 10, 2002, the offer will be rescinded and no future offer will be made. If SARMA accepts this settlement agreement, it is to be signed and dated below, no later than July 10, 2002, by an authorized representative of SARMA and returned to Future1966, Address. Upon receipt of the signed agreement, Future1966 will promptly mail a money order or cashiers check to SARMA in the amount stated above. Within 72 hours of receipt of those funds, SARMA will permanently delete all references of this debt with all credit bureaus. Notice: This agreement is restricted. This is not a renewed promise to pay but rather a restricted settlement offer only. If not signed below by an authorized representative of SARMA, SARMA agrees that the debt has not been renewed nor has any written agreement been exchanged. Sincerely, Future1966 ---------------------------------------------- I, _____________________________________________(print name), certify that I agree with the above stated terms of this letter. In addition, I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I am of the authority to accept said agreement and follow through with said terms. Signature _______________________________ Phone #_________________________________ Date_____________________________________
Re: Here's the letter I have so far... <bump> Should I file a complaint about the violations to the BBB and the AG now, or just wait on that?
Re: Here's the letter I have so far... Future1966, My opinion is that the BBB is a total waste of time. I would insert the FTC instead, and if you want send a cc: to your Congressman/woman. Charlie
Re: Here's the letter I have so far... Thanks, charlie! Does the letter look okay? I was careful not to use the word "settlement."
They ignored my letter No response from the CA on this letter. They had until July 10 to respond. I waited until today just in case they responded by USPS, but nada. *sigh* Is it time to send the intent to sue? I've never done it before, but I feel confident that I have them on violations. Should I re-send the A&S with the intent to sue letter...as a "gesture of goodwill"?
