Imagine them going to court against you. You produce papers that say they accepted your payment FROM YOUR DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WITH THEM TO BE TRANSFERRED TO YOUR LOAN ACCOUNT WITH THEM and the date is days before the account is 30 days past due. Do you really think that they would stand up in court and say something so ridiculous as "We give receipts, but you can't count on them to mean anything"? Their internal inefficiencies are not your problem. Send the receipts to the CRA and demand the corrections. That's what documents like that are for. If we ignore the documents, arbitrarily, the whole system falls apart. The more I hear these cases, the more I think about the Judge Judy show: Just show me the papers. Let the CRA be the judge, you don't need the bank's cooperation. And don't make phone calls. Get it all in writing. And save money.
Their internal inefficiencies are not your problem. Greg Fisher ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Great point and great post Greg . Don't be surprised if some who can't understand it think you have your head where the sun don't shine. LB 59
First, I would like to apologise if my post seemed to be mean spirited. I shouldn't have been judgemental. However, just because I adopted an unpopular view, does not make that view wrong. The key here is location, if the address the payments are to made at is the main branch, and payments were made at a sattelite branch, then the FCBA is not going to be of help getting this resolved. They have legal standing for payments not being posted the day they are received at a branch office. A goodwill letter is the best option in my opinion. Good luck on this sandie, I do hope you get these lates removed. Gib
Well thanx Gib. I just knew somebody would be bringing this up. Don't forget that Sandie is the least sophisticated of the unsophisticated consumers. (for our purposes anyway). The law should be interpreted in her favor. She trusted what the CSR told her (or failed to tell her) when they accepted pmt's at the offsite location. THE OC EITHER TOLD HER OR ALLOWED HER TO BELIEVE THAT THE PMTS. WOULD BE CONSIDERED TIMELY. The Goodwill seeks to elicit a FAVOR from the creditor out of the creditors warm and fuzzy heart. An inappropriate approach in Sandies case because she has a legitmate beef. The litigious nutcase letter would be more suitable. If it were my account and assuming everything else has been tried, including Greg's advice, I'd be sending a notice of intent to sue and accompany a resolution offer. Sandie might lose this case. But from the creditors perspective they won't want to expend legal fees fighting such a silly misunderstanding. Sandie, if you expect this to be resolved out of the warm and fuzzies from the OC I think that's a huge mistake. Haven't they already demonstrated a TOTAL lack of concern for you? jmo.
Butch Sandie, if you expect this to be resolved out of the warm and fuzzies from the OC I think that's a huge mistake. Haven't they already demonstrated a TOTAL lack of concern for you? Butch, I agree 100% with you. Also, for the past 2 hours I have looked through the closing papers and nowhere does it state the payment must be made at the main office.
ohnostuck If you are doing credit repair you should know that the FIRST step is to get your ass in gear and get your finances together. My ass is in gear, I have been paying my bills on time, without late charges for the past two years now. ohnostuck In short paying a bill on the 28th that was due on the 1st is not responsible. Then why are you here reading this board, if you have such a perfect payment history? Oh, is this why? Ohnostuck Sure, I have made many mistakes in the past...none of which I would do today I, like most others came to this board for help, and you have the audacity to criticize me when in fact you had credit problems yourself. How dare you? And you mentioned in an earlier post that you have a husband. God bless him, he must be a saint. I think you should help him out with the billâ??s (to keep your perfect payments) by getting a job at one of the CRAâ??s, you would fit right in with them.
Well Gib really is technically correct. The OC has an address to which pmts. must be made, technically speaking that is. Incredibly, some OC's are winning cases like this because the pmt was not in the furnished envelope. ppfff. It also is a requirement that if they expect to use the correct pmt. address issue against you, which is what they're doing, that information must be VERY conspicuously displayed and easy to find. The fact that you've spent 2 hrs. looking for it further bolsters your position. Look in your pmt book, if there is one, to see if it's in there. This is gonna take a little time so be patient. You just can't always go by the letter of the law. Section 609, Validation of debt REQUIRES that one notify the CA in writing of the dispute. But recent court AND FTC cases state that this is not necessary. You can notify them by mail, phone, electronically or any other manner for that matter. Just remember us peeon consumers are too dumb to figure all this out on our own. LOLOL Ya know come to think of it Fla-tan would be a good one to hail on this. I think he keeps his email on.
5-7 days after due date should not show 30 days late. ohnostuck ================= Correction 5/7 after date paid.
So on or about the 27th day I would bring the payment to their branch. sandie511 ===================== So then you have a receipt for 27, but where is their proof it was paid on or after the first. Didn't any of this ever show up on any of your monthly statements? LB 59
LB...I was told this by the CCC. Is it legal and can they do this mysti_summer ======================= That's what I figured & I believe everything a CA or Creditor tells me. LB 59
The payment was there BEFORE 30 days past due. sandie511 ================ Right and your receipt is legal proof of this no matter what the creditor says about it.
Let's see if I have this straight. (1) You disputed an account. (2) Equifax corrected/removed incorrect info. (3) Months later same negative info was REINSERTED. This database BELONGS to Equifax. They are responsible for the information it contains NOT the creditor. Now I'm assuming Equifax sent you a letter within 5 days of this REINSERTION stating they were going to reinsert, correct? No?? Then send certified, return receipt mail to them stating they have made this error and ask them to remove, pay you $1,000 for this breach of the CRA AND cloak to keep this from re-occurring. Give them a two week deadline and then Sue them if they refuse to comply (Equifax). Your credit report will get worse. It's a tactic the CRA's use to attempt to stop us from pursuing our right to a clean report, but it is always darkest before the dawn. Ignore them and keep going forward only demand they PAY you for their violations of the CRA.
Their is an understandable misconception on the creditors side here. Most aging reports list items in the following categories: current 1-30 days late 31-60 days late 61-90 days late 90+ days late. I think some creditors think that if it is between 1 and 30 days late, it can be reported as 30 days late on credit reports, when in fact, if it is between 30 and 59 days late it should be listed as 30. It will be a hard argument to convince them otherwise since it is industry standard. I would stress to whomever that the credit reporting agency does not report the same as an aging report. On the CRA reports 30 days means between 30 and 59 days late not 1-30 days late.
Check your state laws too on the counting. Here, under the statutes relating to Consumer Reporting Agencies (and Fair Credit Reporting), the statute defines that the counting begins from the date the payment was due until the payment was received. The number of days late can be no more than 4 days from THAT specific date. Sassy
Butch, I am sorry, but you are just plain wrong. The term "least sophisticated consumer" is language from the FDCPA concerning communications to consumers from CAs. It has no bearing on this. You can't take language from one law and apply it to another. The FCBA is completely seperate. Gib
LOL. I am not looking for a cat fight. And HOW DARE YOU to tell me that I would fit right in working for a CRA. In your quotes you have left out my question..I will repeat it for you if you wish....IF you paid on the 29th some months (you said you did) if that month had 31 days you were in fact 30 days late. Also, it is is any of your business I came here because of inaccurate reporting....not because of my not paying my bills. With 2 exceptions...bills that I was not aware were owed (medical lab fees never billed for etc) and I also had a Citi charge off reporting because they have failed to maintain records (charged 1109.58 for a big screen TV bought online that I NEVER ordered. It was delivered to a empty business 2600 miles away). And 1 mortgage late (have copy of check cashed on the 4th). So I don't know WHY you are here but there is my story. Don't talk trash to me honey....I am not the one.
ohno IF you paid on the 29th some months (you said you did) if that month had 31 days you were in fact 30 days late. I did not answer because it makes no sense to me. If I paid on the 29th and there were 40 days in the month, I still paid on the 29th. 29 days after the 1st of the month. I do not want to make this a cat fight. I never told anyone to get their 'ass' in gear, as YOU put it. I came to this board to learn not argue. So my discussion over this with you is over.
Good point and again technically correct. The term "least sophisticated consumer" (FDCPA) has been judged to mean the same thing as the "unsophisticated consumer", and are interchangable. Unsophisticated consumer is applied to a LOT more than the FDCPA and has been around a lot longer than the enactment of the FDCPA. It may even have roots in common law. The average citizen is not expected to be as up to speed on the law as one who's attended law school, never has been. And that concept is probably thousands of years old. Goes back WAY before either Butch or Gib got their law degrees from the International House Of Pancakes. There's some decent reading material on this on the edcombs.com site. Since the 2 expressions are interchangeable I probably should have used unsophisticated consumer instead of least sophisticated consumer. BTW - This is why Consumer Protection law (ALL OF IT) is supposed to be interpreted in favor of the consumer whenever an ambiguity arises. But, who's arguing?
