1900$ bill from a law office

ok Hawg,

Me too, paid every last penny -- Point well taken!

I will remember that not everyone's intent is the same as mine or yours, nor should it be assumed to be.

Yep, I think, removal of the line itself via failure to validate or any other means, also removes some of the leverage of a creditor to collect.

Thank you for the reality check.

Sassy

 

The problem is if you pay the stupid debt the CA often turns around and reages it for another 7 years. If someone changed it around so this would happen then a CA would be paid alot more. As it is now it is easier to wait out the 7 years and not pay then pay and reage.

 

It's validating the debt w/ the collector here. Opie doesn't seem to remember too much about the debt so it's quite possible that he's being charged too much for this debt. I look at validation as proof of a debt and the accounting of the debt. To me, if you're going to try to collect a debt, you should be able to prove that the person owes the debt and exactly how much they owe. Otherwise, I can claim that you owe me $10,000 and put an entry on your CR that I won't remove no matter what you say or do (even if you pay me $10,000.)

 

I'm not arguing the point of validation. Yes, Opie has the right to validate the debt and the creditor should not be able to charge Opie or anyone else for products and/or services more than what he is legally obligated to. However, it is obvious by Opie's own admission that he owes this company money...what it is, remains to be seen. And informing Opie how to take care of his debt is honorable. Helping Opie to avoid his obligations is not.

That said, I will ask the following question (and I hope some of the regulars attempt to answer it candidly):

If I'm Opie and I owe this debt, what is the best way for me to (1) protect my credit going forward, (2) protect the interests of the creditor, who is obviously owed money and (3) make payment to said creditor (installment agreement? if so, when in the process is it appropriate to discuss this?) so it does not stifle my recovery from past debt and credit problems?

While Opie did not ask the question this way, I think that's how we should be answering it. Am I all wet?

Hawg Hanner

 

Frankly, we all come into this process with differing perspectives on the morals and ethics involved in the repayment of debt.

I believe in paying what I owe. The advice I give I sometimes preface with the disclaimer that paying what I owe is the perspective I come into this with and that others may have a different feeling about the matter. But here's the key --

With every thread posted on Creditnet, I have a choice as to whether or not to post within it.

Sometimes I don't post because I don't know enough about the subject. Sometimes I don't post because I'm afraid it will take more time than I have to devote to the topic. Sometimes I don't post because I'm not particularly interested in the topic. And occasionally I don't post because I think the poster may just be trying to get out of an obligation and I don't feel my help is appropriate under the circumstances.

It's a judgment call. It is my right to make that determination, whether it is right or wrong. It is my choice to participate in a particular thread or not to participate.

What I don't do is rag on those who see things differently than I do. As I said, my judgment about what they're doing may be wrong and I don't know these people, I don't know the shoes they've walked in. I simply participate or I don't. I don't make a big deal about it.

It's simple. I don't inflict my choices on others, I don't deliberately try to hurt anyone's feelings, I don't cause wars, I just participate when I choose to and I don't when I choose not to.

The folks who post here are adults. They make their own decisions and I don't feel a particular obligation to provide a lecture if someone happens not to share my perspective.

End of lecture. (LOL)

DemPooches

And a P.S. - We are ALWAYS entitled to validation. My points are NOT relating to validation.

 

That's fine and I respect your opinion DemPooches, but as parlimentary procedure dictates, I believe silence gives consent. And as you put it, that's where I come from.

Hawg Hanner

 

Hawg,

The reason why validation is important is to make certain that the numbers on the "bill" are correct. What if the amt. owed is 100$ with the remaining 1800$ as "fees". Another thing is to make this CA prove that they are indeed legitimately able to collect on this debt. Most likely whatever money this CA were to get from opie would stay in their pockets and none of it would go to the original OC. If opie were to pay this CA and then find out they were bogus (s)he would still owe the OC the original amt.

You've got a lot to learn about collection agencies and their tricks.

 

In most cases I would agree with the fact that silence is implicit approval, BUT I am not approving of everything posted on this board because I don't go thread by thread and make sure my opinion is always included there. As I posted above, I have MANY reasons for choosing not to post.

Others also have many reasons for not posting and I would never imagine that every creditnetter who chooses not to reply to my post agrees with it.

DemPooches

 

AMEN MandyB and DemPooches!

Hawg, I do not judge honorable or dishonorable, I choose to respond or I don't respond.

1. To protect your credit you should validate.

2. I could give 2 flying ones about the interests of the creditor and it's questionable without validation whether the money is owed or not owed and the amount. None of us are responsible for protecting the alleged interests of a creditor.

IF they choose to report, then they choose to be subject to the rules of reporting.

Why do you insist validation is anything other than an attempt to have a debt and its amount proven? That is what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

3. I can't fathom why one would make an agreement to make installment payments -- ok, maybe after complete and thorough validation and with a bullet-proof agreement in writing.

Installment payments would only bring current the date of last activity and once something is in collection, payment doesn't improve the tradeline, paid or unpaid -- the result is still the same unless you get lucky and someone is doing a manual review.

The truth is once a tradeline is in collection, charge-off or the like, payment won't improve it.

You are stifled with past debt and credit problems, save deletion of the line, whether you pay or don't pay.

Sassy

 

I think Hawgs is not trying to attack the premise of validation, nor is he indicting people who use validation as a way to clean up the credit. I think what he's getting at is people should use the FCRA and FDCPA for their intended purpose... to correct and protect one's credit.

Opie states he doesn't want to pay a debt he acknowledges as his. So really he's not asking about validation to clear up credit, hes asking about validation as a way to get out of paying for something he acknowledges is his responsibility.

This is just my opinion, but I'm under the assumption that the reason this whole board exists is that we as a group hold the collective ideal that our credit scores don't define a true representation of our ability to pay or re-pay debts. We acknolwedge the powerful ability of a FICO score to affect our lives, so we take measures guaranteed to us by law to ensure our credit reports are accurate, and that unsubstantiated information is removed from the report. I didn't think that we engaged in this effort to steal, which is what Opie is really doing by not repaying a debt he owes.

If we use the FCRA and the FDCPA to screw others like we've been screwed, we become the bad guys. Some merchant out there is out some sort of money and Opie comes here and asks us for help in methods that although are related to credit repair, are really aimed at not paying what he owes. I just didn't think the board members condoned using the legal rights we have to do an end-around on paying a legitimate bill.

Let me throw this out as well.... if people DO use the FCRA and the FDCPA to get out of paying legitimate bills, it gives fuel to those out there that would like to weaken those statutes. Get enough small businessmen calling their local representatives about how the FCRA and the FDCPA are being abused, and the statutes will get watered down. Sure, it will take more than Opie to do this, but if people start using the statutes for that purpose, the chances grow Congress will tighten those regulations.

Opie... c'mon man, pay your bills. Correct your credit, I'm all for that, but there must be a way to honor your obligation AND clean your credit as well. Maybe pay the original creditor after you've gone through the validation process, something. But please man, please... don't abuse the statutes... you'll only end up hurting others that try to correct legitmate errors on their credit reports.

OK... I'm off my soapbox now.

 

You're only proving my point, Opie. I'm going to try very hard not to make this personal, but your attitude makes my blood boil. The definition of credit is:

1.) Belief or confidence in the truth of something.

What you are doing is not truthful and it is not honest. The company that you used for your own gain and service was only in business because people paid them to do so. If more people had an attitude like your own, that company would not be in business -OR- those of us who used their service(s) would be paying more. Why should I pay more for goods and services because you lack any responsibility for your actions?

2.) A reputation for sound character or quality.

Your statement above is testament to the fact that you lack any character. Is the fact that you will not have character and you've tarnished your name worth the $1900 you owe? I would hope not.

3.) A source of honor or distinction.

It is not honorable to tell someone or a company that you intend to make good on a debt and then purposely defraud that person or company. This country was founded on credit and credible individuals. We all run into difficulty from time to time, but to avoid your responsibility smacks of dishonesty and is just plain wrong.

4.) Reputation for solvency and integrity entitling a person to be trusted in buying or borrowing.

The advice given herein is to give individuals who either fell on bad luck or made poor decisions in their life the ability to rebound from that so they can again be a upstanding and solvent member of society. Your attitude as you expressed above only means that you will have a far greater propensity to fall into debt and lose your upgraded credit rating in the future. Taking responsibility for your actions, in my honest opinion, is one of those steps to securing yourself and your family for the future. It is one of the key steps to solving your credit problems. If you merely take advantage of the system for your own gain, the U.S. government will grow tired of consumers who do so and will in turn make it more difficult for the honest people who could use a second or third chance. What if everyone had your same attitude? What if every American owed $1900 to a business? Our economy would suffer a $5.7 billion loss. I don't know what kind of work you do, but how would you like it if your customers said they didn't have to pay you? What if you boss told you that they were laying you off after two weeks worth of work and told you they didn't owe you that money because they fell on hard times? You may be able to sleep well at night, but I seriously think you should do some personal reflection and think twice about your attitude. I doubt it will do any good, but you attitude, in my honest opinion, is far more likely going to spell problems for you in life that the piddly little $1900 you owe now (plus interest, compounded daily--in both cases).

Hawg Hanner

 

You need to make sure the debt is valid, there is alot of "padding" a credit card company can do in 8 years time.

If you remember only owing them $600.00 and now they are requesting $1900.00 are you just going to pay them as a matter of being good and honest??

I for one would not mail a check until they accounted for every cent they are claiming I owe.

Once they prove this to me we can then settle on how the debt is to be paid and how it is to be reported.

No one on this board advocates or administers advice on not paying one's debts.

For the simple fact that most creditors and collections agencies cannot validate an account or debt is the reason why they do not get paid what they claim we owe.

In the process of collecting their debt they then decide to violate state and federal laws in doing so.

In the end they claim you owe $1900.00, I now claim you owe me $3100.00 for your willful violations of my rights.

$5000.00 = FCRA/FDCPA State Violations

$1900.00 = Claimed unvalidated debt

_____________

= $3100.00, make that check payable to Tac,


Thanks!

Tac

 

This whole thread is ludicrous. Are you dolts saying nobody here uses the fdcpa and fcra to get out of legit debts. Of course they do. I have a hard time believing out of thousands of members here only opie is trying to renig on a debt. Duh. How many times have I seen people dispute valid debts or use any means possible. The credit game is anti consumer. It does not care if you do the right thing or not. 7 years especially on a paid bad debt is ludicrous and any moronic CRA or CA employee who tells you a paid chargeoff is good is either retarded or a bad liar. I cannot tell you how many times my settled 5 year old cc has kept me from credit EVEN with scores above 700. I am starting to smell a troll or trolls here and it stinks. Keep your high and mighty attitude and shove it. I assume the 2 of you are perfect and have never done wrong in your life. No lies have escaped your lips eh? You have never screwed someone or been selfish? My responsibilties lie with my wife and my kids. Everyone else comes second.

 

And it is my opinion that you are not doing your wife or kids any favors by teaching them by example that one does not have to fulfill their responsibilities. But that's the choice you have to live with. So be it.

Hawg Hanner

 

Hawg,

The FCRA requires that only accurate, complete, updated and verifiable information be reported.

Those that CHOOSE to report are bound by those requirements.

I hope no one ever slams the door in the glass house you're living in.

Sassy

 

hawg=troll. Are you telling me you are perfect? Go back under the bridge troll.

 

Why is Hawg a troll for merely pointing out people should be responsible? Why does the idea of paying off a debt one rightfully owes so incense some people here? By the reactions of some, one would think that paying off legitmate debts is a ludicrous exercise bordering on the heretical.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I still feel that honoring an obligation is the right thing to do. No one forced Opie to make the decisions he made. In one of his last posts he almost makes it seem its the lenders fault for giving him the goods in the first place. Instead of taking responsibility and asking questons like 1) I just found out I have an old debt, and I want to pay it yet protect my credit, how do I do that?, or 2) Is there anyway to find out the exact amount of an old debt without tipping off CAs that I wan't to pay it... he comes here and says something to the effect "I have an old debt I don't want to pay, what tactics can use to accomplish this."

Can he do it? Sure, the methods are posted all over this board.

Is it right? In my opinion...no.

What I don't get is why people are defending his desire to use the system for a less than honorable purpose. Unless some don't have a moral issue with just bailing out on an obligation.

Picantel... people with different opinions aren't trolls. I respect your opinion, although I don't agree with it, and I'm not even sure I understand it completely. I also think a discussion like this is needed once in a while to make us check our motivations and collective moral compass. A debate like this is healthy for the board. Sometimes we get so caught up in the "how-to's" of credit repair we forget about the purpose behind the effort.

Wichita