Hi all, A friend has a $2k chargeoff listed on her account from Cap1. We're pretty sure that it's been assigned to TriAdvantage since they call her regularly, but she has talked to them or received any letters from them. They are not listed on her reports. I've done extensive reading here for her & it looks like a hopeless endeavor to get Cap1 to delete derogotory info. There doesn't seem to be any advantage to dealing with the CA since they aren't reporting, nor will they change Cap1's listing. In dealing with them, she'd also have to worry about them selling the remainder of the debt after settlement. So... it seems the best option is to contact Mr. Cooke via PFB and deal with him. I do have a few questions though: 1. I've read Cap1 usually makes you work with the CA after an account has been charged-off. Is dealing with Mr. Cooke a way around this? 2. I've seen that most people generally settle with him for 25%-30% of the amount due. Is this his standard offer, or will she need to haggle in order to get this offer? 3. Also, I've seen that he'll usually update the account from r9 to r5. Is this also a stock offer, or will she have to haggle for it? I'm hoping to get her a settled account with an r5, and then work on the CRA's to delete the listing at some future date. Seems to be the best option. Thanks!
Oops... typo: A friend has a $2k chargeoff listed on her account from Cap1. We're pretty sure that it's been assigned to TriAdvantage since they call her regularly, but she has talked to them or received any letters from them. They are not listed on her reports. should have been this: A friend has a $2k chargeoff listed on her account from Cap1. We're pretty sure that it's been assigned to TriAdvantage since they call her regularly, but she hasn't talked to them or received any letters from them. They are not listed on her reports. ...she has not talked with them yet.
Also forgot to mention an assumption that I'm making. I wanted to make sure this was correct. I've read that a "paid" charge-off is no different from an open charge off in regards to how it affects your score. I'm assuming a "settled" charge-off would have the same score impact as the other two. Is this a valid assumption? Thanks again!
You should search for the article "what is validation". Cap1 and the majority of Ca's are pretty bad at providing strong validation documentation that would hold up in a serious impartial courtroom. I have requested validation from Cap1 Ca's and cap1 themselves and they were not able to provide this proof. Most creditnetters believe in first and foremost exhausting the validation process before talking settlement with any OC. Cap1 will not improve your trade line in any significant way and you'll be out a lot of $$. You won't even get any peace of mind so stay away from cooke. He's a company man. If you had an account in good standing with Cap1 he would help but a charged off account won't even get you the time of day with him.
Ah... I was hoping he could help out with her charged off account. As for validation, I didn't think it would be worthwhile since this is a very recent account - was charged off at the end of last year. Strange that he seems to routinely settle accounts (which I guess are still open) for 30%, but won't work with a charged off account that's been assigned to a CA...
Won't work with a charged off account that's been assigned to a CA... e557373 ---------------------- ----------------------------- How do you know it was assigned?
validation, I didn't think it would be worthwhile since this is a very recent account - was charged off at the end of last year. e557373 CREDITNET | Straight Talk | | Cap1 / Mr. Cooke question ============================ Why wouldnt' Val. be worth while? What does recent have to do with it ? Didn't know a debt had to be Old before it could be validated! Sure is a new one on me and I've been here for over 2 years.
I tought that it would likely be very easy for them to validate since the account is so recent. Isn't the kicker with validation the fact that they sometimes cannot produce the proper paperwork for older accounts?
1*I thought that it would likely be very easy for them to validate since the account is so recent. 2*Isn't the kicker with validation the fact that they sometimes cannot produce the proper paperwork for older accounts? e557373 =========== 1*99% of the time CAs cannot val.old or new accounts. Also ease of validating is not the only factor to consider. One rule in validating is never decide wither the CA can validate or not. = Leave that decision up to them!! 2*I don't see 99% as being sometimes. There are more kickers to validation than hoping that perhaps if the account is old enough there is a slim chance it won't be validated. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I think there is more to val.than most people see; especially for folks who have never heard about it before. Did You Read the link in my signature about validation. It's real easy to find. See the green words in this post = just click on the blue link by the green words. THE END ** *** ** LB 59
I'm in the same situation with Cap 1 and have been following this thread closely. I have an unpaid charge off and have the money to pay, but Cap1 ignores my validation letters and OCs don't have to validate. They even ignore my offeres to settle. What advice do you have for this situation? I too thought of going to Mr. Cooke, but sounds like that wouldn't help either. I've been reading the "What is validation" thread to help me with understanding how to get the OC, but I don't know how to apply it to my situation (to make Cap 1 delete or settle) without going to court.
Sorry to hear that others are in the same boat - it sucks. Anyway, she received the letter below, and I wanted to ask a couple of questions... 1. With validation, the two 'good' outcomes would be either: a) They can't validate, in which case it would just go back to Cap1 and they'd send it to someone else, right? b) The rack up violations during the validation period in which case I have leverage in that I can sue them for each violation. Since they don't own it, it would still keep the debt live with Cap1, right? 2. I've read that many agencies send out these settlement letters and then, after receiving payment, turn around and sell the remainder to another agency - what kind of letter do I need to prevent this? I realize that paying this will result in her having a "settled" account on her CR, but given Cap1's adamance to not removing derogs, I don't think I can do much better anyway. I figure we'll deal with it via disputes, etc after it's closed. Anyway, here's the letter: Thanks! *************************************** TRIAdvantage Credit Services Inc. For the next 30 days, our client has authorized us to reduce the balance of your past due account by 50%! Our client will accept $700 as a settlement. Please follow the instructions outlined: 1. Make check or money order payable to our client. 2. Document your payment as "settled" Upon receipt of your payment, within 30 days of this letter, we will immediately cease collection action and notify our client that you have satisfied your account. If you have any questions or concerns please call... This communication is from a debt collector, etc...
TRIAdvantage Credit Services Inc. For the next 30 days, our client has authorized us to reduce the balance of your past due account by 50%! Our client will accept $700 as a settlement. Please follow the instructions outlined: 1. Make check or money order payable to our client. 2. Document your payment as "settled" Upon receipt of your payment, within 30 days of this letter, we will immediately cease collection action and notify our client that you have satisfied your account. If you have any questions or concerns please call... This communication is from a debt collector, etc... e557373 ================= Did they send this before or after getting a validation letter? THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
Re: Re: Cap1 / Mr. Cooke question Before... she hasn't sent them a validation letter... e557373 =================== SEND it now. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
Re: Re: Cap1 / Mr. Cooke question I've read the thread on validation letters and I'm still a little unclear on it - seems like theres a good bit of arguing going on in there. Anyway - If she sends a validation, they may not respond in which case it would simply go back to Cap1 for them to send it out to someone else right? If they call or try to collect without answering the validation first she could sue them for $1000 per incident, but that's really the only upside right? If they do validate, aren't they going to be MUCH less likely to settle for less than the whole amount since they could easily sue & get a judgement since they have validated already? Seems like by doing this, she really be rolling the dice and may end up having to pay the whole amount, or even more if they sue. I know that theres a chance that they may not validate, or even rack up violations, but in her case right now, the stakes are more important than the odds... Right now she can get out from under it for what she actually charged to the card by eliminating most of the late, over the limit, interest, etc fees. What I really need to check on is this - Other than the following, what does she need them to agree to in this settlement to cover herself? a. TriAd agrees not to list on CR (they are not currently) b. Cap1/TriAd agrees waive any rights on collecting the other 50% or selling it to another collection agency. One thing that concerns me is that the check is to be made out to Cap1. Doesn't money have to exchange hands to make a contract binding? ie, the penny cd deals? If she doesn't actually pay TriAd anything, is the agreement they send binding? Thanks!
Re: Re: Cap1 / Mr. Cooke question 1*If she sends a validation, they may not respond in which case it would simply go back to Cap1 for them to send it out to someone else right? 2*If they call or try to collect without answering the validation first she could sue them for $1000 per incident, but that's really the only upside right? 3*If they do validate, aren't they going to be MUCH less likely to settle for less than the whole amount since they could easily sue & get a judgment since they have validated already? e557373 ==================== 1*Who owns the debt? 2*Could be an important one though. Could also avoid having to pay it. 3*99% of the time they fail to validate. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'""""""""" PS. Validation must reads Per Humblemarc http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=343640#post343640
Re: Re: Cap1 / Mr. Cooke question ==================== 1*Who owns the debt? 2*Could be an important one though. Could also avoid having to pay it. 3*99% of the time they fail to validate. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'""""""""" 1. Capital one still owns it. 2. Since they don't own the debt, She'd actually have to get a settlement from them and then send the money to Cap1, right? Seems a little harder than just getting the single owner/collector entity to waive the debt... 3. Even in the case where it was just charged off as recently as 6 months ago? It just seems really unlikey to me that they couldn't provide the info on so recent of an account (opened in 2000). Thanks!
