1*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 legitimate debts is a ludicrous exercise bordering on the heretical. 2*Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I still feel that honoring an obligation is the right thing to do. 3*Is there anyway to find out the exact amount of an old debt without tipping off CAs that I want to pay it... 4*What I don't get is why people are defending his desire to use the system for a less than honorable purpose. Wichita ============== 1*Mainly because we haven't seen any proof that opie owes it/ 2*There is no proof that opie owes anything. 3*That's one of the reasons to demand validation. 4*Because These laws are for every one not just some folks. LB 59 ************************** I take exception to what Opie is trying to do, not with Opie himself. Wichita ================= And I take exception to your argument that the law should be for some but not for others. If opie doesn't have the right to use the laws then neither does anybody else. LB 59 ************************** Sassy? Seems to me he's pretty explicit in his desire to "get out" of his obligations. Wichita ========== So this forfeits his legal rights correct? Where is the legal proof he has such an obligation? LB 59 ************************ 1*But when we are recognized as a cohesive group with considerable power to protect our credit, and lawmakers get enough complaints from people saying we abuse the tools. 2*I'm sure most of you recognize there is constant pressure on lawmakers from the credit and collection industry to weaken the FCRA and FDCPA 3*I don't want to give the impression that there are more than just Hawg and I out there beating this drum. Wichita ========= 1*It's the power that will cause this not consumer abuse of the laws. To much power means a cut in their bottom line. To protect it they will lie about consumer abuse to weaken the law. Even if there wasn't any consumer abuse this would be their claim. Just as they are deceitful in their dealings with consumers so also would they be deceptive in getting the laws weakened. 2*The drum you're beating about paying debts out of morality when there is no legal obligation would not lower your cost of goods and services.If anything it would have exactly the opposite effect.By doing so you are encouraging them to continue their unethical behavior as you are actually rewarding them for it. While at the same time making it more difficult for consumers to fight illegitimate claims of amounts due. lb59
LBrown, Opie said himself he owed the money. Sheese...why are you on this soap box all of a sudden? Hawg Hanner
I want to see the legal proof that he owes it . It doesn't matter to me what the collector claims is owed or what Opie thinks he owes.
What is the problem with exercising that protection? Sassy ================ Good post Sassy,Even though you weren't wearing your foil hat and hadn't read the green cards> LOL LB 59
hey everyone hawg is saying to pay all your debts no matter what the age. I think we have a CA employee here.3 days of posts. spy spy picantel =============He do sound more like a CA than A CA do = do he not? LB 59
Excellent conversation. And yes we should have it once in a while. Here's my question: Scenario; #1 Debt collector decides to put a fake $1000 debt on your credit file and will go through all manner of contortions to force it's collection, even knowing you don't really owe it. Scenario; #2 Debtor really does owe creditor $1000 and will go through all manner of contortions to evade the responsibility, even though you know you really DO owe it. Which of these 2 scenarios do YOU find most repugnant? Butch ================ Must be # 2 because I haven't seen any one of the 3 Stooges say any thing condemning #1 . LB 59
What about the morality of trying to make a $1890 profit on a debt the attorney knows is beyond the SOL but instead chooses to lie and deceive which btw is against the FDCPA. picantel =========== Witchita lets hear your moral pitch for this guy. LB 59
<<QUOTE--Fact is, debtors abuse the privilege of dispute. Primarily because so many agencies, mine included, work volume accounts assigned electronically without written back-up. And rarely is the written back-up (media) available. Signed Collection Agent.--QUOTE >> ========================== What this agent is saying is collection agencies rarely if ever have any proof that any of the debts they are trying to collect on are valid. This being the truth of the matter is good reason to demand collection accounts be removed from ones reports as the CA is reporting inaccurate or false information to the CRAs. Also in light of this no one should ever pay a CA. L B 59 ************************* Based on this collection agents confession it is doubtful that Opie owes the $1900.oo. HawgHanner & Witchita : Like somebody else posted you have a lot to learn about Cillection Agencies L B *********************
Butch, It depends on which side of the wall you're on. If you're the consumer, scenario 1 is worst. If you're the creditor, scenario 2 is worst. mitchra | ================== Pretty much tells you what side of the wall the three musketeers are on don't it? LB 59
1*The biggest part of the problem is not coming from debtors, it's coming from creditors and their CA's. 2* They REFUSE to help with this element of fairness, so what are we to do, in your opinion? Butch ========== 1*Where is your moral rant against them for this? Which of you care to go for it? Witch,Hog,Gary.? 2*How about an answer from one of you 3?
Sure, I'll answer you LB. I've read most of your comments. Most of them are taken out of context, and its hard to extract some kind of logical thought out of one line responses to snippets of others posts, but I think I see where you are going with it. Essentially, you are making the point that because CAs and CRAs are nasty, dirty, under-handed businesses, a person can exercise any and all rights guaranteed them by law to fight the CAs and CRAs. You are correct in that assumption. But I think you've missed the whole point of the debate. What a person CAN do is sometimes much different than what a person SHOULD do. I also think you ignored the fact that people engaging in credit repair do sometimes try to modify their files so that truth is distorted. Let me ask you this LB. How long do you think Congress will let that type of activity go on before they tighten the regs? Who do you think has more pull in the Legislative branch of this country.. us poor creditnetters? Or big companies with lots of money to spend on campaigns? Congress did something they normally aren't known for... they gave a powerful set of tools to the masses. In this instance it was to help them correct false data on their credit files. It put the burden of work on the CAs and CRAs (deservedly so), and its costing them oodles of money to try to comply. So here's the next logical step in the process. The CAs and CRAs go to Congress and beg for some relief. They'll claim the regs are being abused by people trying to remove legitimate derogatory entries. They'll claim that the balance of power is skewed too much in the favor of the consumer, and regs need to be adjusted to something more equitable. As evidence they'll point to sites like this, the number of file entry verifications requested versus those actually modified, etc., etc., and Congress will probably do it. They'll most likely remove some of our power or limit it in some way. My singular point, in case you missed it in one of my posts, is that by trying to use the regulations for purposes Congress didn't intend, we risk having those tools taken from us. Your point it seems is that the CAs and CRAs are bad, so we can be bad too. Which is the same as situational ethics. Its a flawed philosophy, but this board perhaps isn't the right vehicle for long dissertations on philosophical logic. Essentially boiled down, the premise of defense against situational ethics is summed up by something you learned in kindergarten... two wrongs don't make a right. Now, if you'd like to continue the debate, I'm more than happy to oblige. However, extracting a line or two out of a post and then posting a one-line response isn't much of a debate, or at least its not the type of debate that gets anywhere. Its a waste of time. If you'd like to put some reasoned, cogent and structured thoughts out here on the board, I'd be more than willing to address them. Gary aka Wichita
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.) MandyB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fact is most if not all of the debts being perued by CAs don't legally exist. BUDGET HOMES CO.
Bunter, It's already started. Go to www.clla.org and scroll to FDCPA legislation. I'd also point out that the death of Sen. Wellstone and, the decision by Rep. Lafalce to not seek re-election has removed the 2 most pro consumer legislators in Congress. I think Gary is right. Once the bk bill is resolved the next assult will be on the FDCPA and, the FCRA.
I seriously doubt that the BK reform bill was started because of a few people disputing items on their credit reports.
