This is such a good debate..... Who came up with 7 years? Why is someone who was 30 days late just as "guilty" as someone who has filed Bankruptcy? LB- Opie has said without a doubt the debt IS his, but he *thinks* the amount is incorrect. Yes, he has options, if he had only one option I'm sure he wouldn't have come here asking for opinions. The way you come off is, to me, that NO ONE should EVER pay a CA. Personally I think that is wrong, but this is just my opinion. I have been paying a CA for the last 11 months and I have NEVER had a problem with them, I knew I owed the bill, I know I'll probably be paying on it for another 2 years but hey the last thing I needed was a $3300 hospital bill on hubby's report. Going off track here.... There's no need to argue over someone else's opinions. There's no need to call Hawg or anyone name's just because they don't agree with you. If everyone on this board agreed with each other I assure you there wouldn't be 4000+ members.
KHM.. I agree wholeheartedly.... this is a good debate. Its bringing out a lot of issues that tend to get overlooked in the crunch and grind of credit repair. Sometimes we get so caught up with the "how-to", we forget about the purpose and intent. What is disappointing though, is the misconception by some people that because I have a certain view on this topic, I get labeled a troll. Oh well. No biggie. I also wonder if people truly do think its ok to misuse the system. For a while, I thought that perhaps I wans't being clear in my position. But over time, its become apparent that there is a wide spectrum of thought on the topic, with some that won't misuse the system, and some that will abuse it like a red-headed stepchild, and most falling somwhere inbetween. Some here have also construed my position as some kind of attack on the rights and of consumers to protect their credit and fix flaws in their files.... thats simply not true. I guess some don't beleive... or maybe don't want to beleive, that misuse of the system will get the system changed. Thats all, nothing really more to it than that. Not really a hard concept to understand or accept, and plenty of examples to back it up. Bankruptcy proceedings... a lot tougher now on the consumer is one good example, and I don't think that system was even manipulated to the extent this one is. But,... I never underestimate the power of self-delusion and rationalization. I think those two phenomena should be ranked up there with electromagetism and gravity as fundmental forces in the universe. I think the horse is pretty much dead now. At least I've beat it every way I know, and some I don't, and it ain't moving much. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. But for all our sakes, I hope most of you are right, and I am wrong. Cheers! Wichita
So, just to satisfy my curiosiy, and to add some depth to this discussion, what, in your opinion, constitutes "misuse of the system?" And since you say you are pro-credit repair, and yet are against things like CHOD and using the SOL to escape old debts, what is your definition of non-abusive credit repair? These are the questions you aren't answering that make you look like a troll. If you are against those things, what are you for? How do you suggest someone with ruined credit go about the task of fixing it, when you feel that the tools that can work are all immoral? Your position seems to contain self-contradictions.
? These are the questions you aren't answering that make you look like a troll Bunter ================= Hawg & Wichita Never answer any of our questions . What are they trying to hide or side step?
Buntar.. I'll try to answer your questions as they pertain to me. Firstly, I'm not against using any tool for legitimate credit repair, including CHOD. In fact, I intend to use it myself in the attempt to remove an erroneous entry in my credit file. (Student loan was listed as late pay, but the loan was never paid late). I also used the tools here to fix a fraudulent entry on my wife's credit (victim of identity theft, resulted in charge-off and CA activity... the tools and methods here allowed me to get those derogatory file entries removed.) So, for me, I use the tools to fix bona fide false entries in my credit file. And when I say false (because I know this can be a jump point into semantics) I mean the entry is patently false, has no basis in truth or shows activity that never had anything to do with me (like the identity theft). I also think that using the FCRA and FDCPA to correct any mis-stated information is ok. Like correcting dates that list incorrect late payment dates, correcting EQs notorious $0 balance, yet 120 days late. All of that stuff is fine in my opinion. Actions I find to be abusive are: challenging correct information in a file (this is actually a gray area for me because its admittedly difficult to put a definition around "correct"); removing a legitimate address in the file so that one can challange BKs or judgements associated with that address (to me, this is fraud... a person is lying to the CRA to get the address removed so they casn challange the listing); and challenging listings for legitimate debts just to "get out" of the debt. Those are essentially the biggies for me. And those are the activities I think are going to garner the most attention when the other side makes its case to have the regs tightened. Hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from. Although I think you're just gonig to use the information to attack me personally instead of attacking my views. Wichita
1*I suspect they are bitter because at some time or other they have loaned money and never got it back. 2*The system they are speaking of is more like A tool the industry has developed so as to enable them to abuse consumers. --------------------These two are correct about there being abuse,however they are misguided on the type of the abuse and who's doing it..---------------- The so called system is the abuse not the consumer. LB 59
LB- 1*Opie has said without a doubt the debt IS his, but he *thinks* the amount is incorrect. 2*The way you come off is, to me, that NO ONE should EVER pay a CA. 3*There's no need to call Hawg or anyone name's just because they don't agree with you. KHM ===================== 1*If he request proof of it and they can't provide it to him he is not legallly required to pay it.Morally that's up to OPIE. 2*My position: I won't pay without complete accurate legal proof.This goes for anybody CAs included. 3*Ok -I'll give you this one- sorry about the NickNames. LB 59
1*Actions I find to be abusive are: challenging correct information in a file (this is actually a gray area for me because its admittedly difficult to put a definition around "correct"); removing a legitimate address in the file so that one can challange BKs or judgements associated with that address (to me, this is fraud... a person is lying to the CRA to get the address removed so they casn challange the listing); and challenging listings for legitimate debts just to "get out" of the debt. Wichita ============== 1*What I find abusive is using the information listed on reports as an excuse to line their pockets. Refusing to grant credit due to negitave entrys is one thing - using such information solely as an excuse to overcharge folks is another thing. LB 59
An alternate ending The Congressmen (and women) on the committee take this information and study it carefully. Several of the committee members, including the Chairman, suddenly realize that this information could help their son/daughter/wife/mistress or even themselves clear up that nasty credit mess they got themselves into. That night, they log onto experian.com, equifax.com, and transunion.com and dispute everything on their credit reports. The next day, they are approved for a gigantic new credit line. They begin readying the follow up letters for any items that end up being verified. That night, just before they drift off to sleep, they all share the same thought, one many of us have had; "I hope not too many people find out how to do what I just did. That could ruin it."
hi everybody, i sent out verification letter to the law office. this is what they sent. this is what i sent to them: To Whom It May Concern: I have been the victim of identity fraud, and I believe this debt is and was falsely taken out in my name. This letter is being sent to you in response to your attached letter. This is not a refusal to pay, but a notice that your claim is disputed. Under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), I have the right to request validation of the debt you say I owe you. I am requesting proof that I am indeed the party you are asking to pay this debt, and there is some contractual obligation which is binding on me to pay this debt. Below are a few questions to answer which may help you to resolve these mistakes. You should also be aware that reporting such invalidated information to major credit bureaus might constitute defamation of character, as the negative marks on my credit report harm my credit and prevent me from enjoying all the benefits of good credit. I'm sure your legal staff will agree that non-compliance with this request could put your company in serious legal trouble with the FTC and other state or federal agencies. n addition to the questionnaire below, please attach copies of: · Agreement with your client that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt · Agreement that bears the signature of the alleged debtor wherein he agreed to pay the creditor. · Any insurance claims been made by any creditor regarding this account · Any judgments been obtained by any creditor regarding this account Best regards, Debt Validation Form Questionnaire to be returned to me for Account #<insert account number here> Original Creditor's Name: Name of Debtor: Address of Debtor: Balance of Account: Date you acquired this debt: This Debt was: assigned purchased Please indicated any credit bureaus to which you have reported negative marks: Experian ______ Equifax ______ TransUnion ______ this is what they sent back, enclosed is a verification of inbedtness. accordingly , our client has authorized us to proceed with this action. they sent a judgment decree from jan 1995 for 900$+300$ attorney fees. I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS JUDGMENT. SO WHAT SHOULD I DO NOW? OBVIOUSLY I NOW KNOW I NEVER OWED THEM 1900$. I HAVENT READ THE LAST 50 POSTES YET SO LET ME CATCH UP.
I believe your creditor is a victim of fraud if you send that letter. Hawg Hanner =============== Why so?
Because Opie already admitted here in this forum that he used the services provided by this company and didn't want to pay the bill. When he says in his letter, "I have been the victim of identity fraud, and I believe this debt is and was falsely taken out in my name." he is lying and engaging in a deceptive practice intended to avoid paying this bill. That, in my humble opinion, is the quintessential definition of fraud. Hawg Hanner
He also now says he now knowes that he never owed 1900- so it now seems his orginal admission could have been in error. Another point where is the validation of a 1900 dollar debt from the law office?
I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS JUDGMENT opie ============== Looks like he was never properly served. BUDGET HOMES CO.
I have been the victim of identity fraud, and I believe this debt is and was falsely taken out in my name." Hawg Hanner ================== I agree he should have left this statement out of the letter as he could have gotten the same results without it.
Opie, if you don't know about this judgment, then you most likely were never served. You need to get a copy of that court file ASAP - if you can afford it, get yourself an attorney to keep them from taking any legal action against you. At this point, the judgment is valid, and they can take any money they can find, unless you do something now to stop them. As far as the amount they say you owe, your state does allow 8% interest to be added to a judgment (assuming all this is occurring in the same state). If you were never served, then they did not legally obtain the judgment and you can get it vacated.
If he was going to dispute it, it should have been on SOL grounds. Looks like the judgement is post 7 years as well. I'm assuming the judgment is somehow related to the original debt of course. I'm wondering if they (the CAs) now have a case again if they can show that opie's claim of identity fraud is a non-substantiated defense. Or if he can just raise the SOL defense as well. Question: Are judgements supposed to fall off the reports after 7 years? Or do they have longer? Wichita
Witchita, at this point none of this is relevant. Back in 1995, the OC took legal action against opie, and was awarded a judgment. The judgment is good in this state for 20 years. However, if they did not properly serve him, the judgment was obtained illegally. If they did properly notify him, those of you who believe he should pay will be satisfied, and most likely you can all stand around and say "I told you so." The issue now, is, did the OC obtain this judgment legally? If they did, generally speaking, he has to pay the debt plus interest from 1995. Judgments can be reported for 7 years from date filed or the statute of limitations (20 years). Unless I totally misunderstand, after he pays, they can still report this judgment as a "paid judgment" if they choose, and keep opie in credit hell for another 7 years. I hope this makes you guys feel better. Personally, he has my sympathies, and "there, but for the grace of God, go I."
