Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by TCEast, Jun 4, 2001.
Barclaycard Ring™ Mastercard®
No annual fee, No balance transfer fees, No foreign transaction fees, Low interest!
CREDIT CARD WITH NO ANNUAL FEEBarclaycard Ring™ Mastercard®
Credit One Unsecured Visa®for Rebuilding Credit
Credit card for people with bad credit to rebuild credit!
BAD CREDIT CREDIT CARDCredit One Bank® Rebuild Credit
First Access VISA® Credit Card
Access to credit even with bad or limited credit! Reports to 3 major credit bureaus and accepted wherever you see the Visa® sign. Get application response in 60 seconds.
CREDIT CARD FOR BAD CREDITFirst Access VISA®
Green Dot primor® Visa®Classic Secured Credit Card
Credit lines available up to $5,000! Reports to three national credit bureaus; perfect card for reestablishing credit.
SECURED CARD FOR REBUILDING CREDITprimor Secured Visa Classic
Credit One Bank® Unsecured Visa® with Cash Back Rewards
Get cash back on every purchase. Unsecured credit card with monthly monitoring for credit line increases. Improve your credit history with responsible use.
CASH BACK UNSECURED VISACredit One Bank
WHAT EVER YOU DO...GET IT IN WRITING...
You can take try to do business with the original creditor, but might say they sold the account...if you deal with the collection agency they have probably bought the account for ten cents on the dollar, so they are willing to dicker...
ONLY PAY AFTER THEY HAVE AGREED WRITING TO COMPLETE DELETION OF ACCOUNT OR PAID IN FULL/NEVER LATE/ACCOUNT CLOSED BY CONSUMER.
Thanks George. I never thought of asking them to completely delete the account That is a very good option to consider in negotiations.
A letter in writing is not always a guarantee that it will come off. SO you have a letter, they DON'T remove it. You dispute, it comes off........ then they put it BACK ON NEXT MONTH.
Of course I can't help but ask the question of....Why should they remove them? That's your credit history. You haven't paid for 3 years, you aren't paying in full, and you are late. The history should be correct. But that's me
Well, it's probably been mentioned a zillion times before in this forum, but you should remember that if you pay one crying dime, that starts the SOL all over again and you wear the bad credit rating for another 7 years. If you make payments on any of them, each time you make a payment, that is just 7 more years before it comes off your credit report.
No, they are not stacked, but rather just moved forward on that account.
So each time you pay them, you are just whipping yourself some more.
That's why I advocate never to pay them a crying dime. You might consider it if they agree to re-instate the credit cards after you have paid on them or paid them off, but that's the only way it would be worth it. But it's highly unlikely you can get that kind of agreement out of them and make it stick, even if you get it in writing.
Better off to pay them nothing and fight them down to a nubbin.
You gain very little by paying them, financially speaking.
If you think it might make you feel better about the whole thing, that's your personal problem.
If they won't delete or make the accounts positive... ask them to unrate them.
That way the account will at least be neutral.
I agree with you: don't pay unless you get your way! I'm not at all legally savvy, so correct me if I'm wrong. I may have this confused with other legal mumbo-jumbo. You mentioned that paying would "renew" the date of activity...I know that used to be true, but wasn't there a law that was passed which states that the 7-yr. clock is from the date of the account's first delinquency and that it cannot be reaged, etc. even if a payment is made? Please, someone, anyone help me clarify this. It was something to do with accounts starting in 1997 or something. It's late guys...I can't make the wheels in my head turn anymore!
Thanks Bill and Marie. Believe me, I have no intention of paying a dime unless I get a written agreement removing all negative statements from my account. Like Penguin, I am curious about that reaging being restarted.
Oh, wait...I think I just had a surge of brain power! O.k., let me try to explain this correctly (Bill or anyone help me on this). I think what Bill meant was that if you pay on the account, it restarts the time on the statute of limitation (the time the creditor/collector has to file a suit against you). This SOL is dependent on your state of residence. The law I was speaking of previously applies to the 7-yr. reporting rule, which says that a delinquent account cannot be reported more than seven years from the initial date of delinquency. Two separate issues, but I get them confused all the time!
What state do you live in, and did your debts originate from the same state? I lived in MI and my debts originated there, and now I live in CA. MI's SOL is 6 years on credit card debts, CA is 4 yrs. I spoke with a credit attorney, and she said that even though the debt came from MI, California's SOL takes presidence. Keep in mind this varies from state to state. Hope this helps.
Well, I'm not a lawyer or any kind of legal beagle either, But there has just been too much discussion in here of late where those who are legal professionals state that if you pay on the account, that legally "reages" it and the 7 year statute starts all over, and when I read the law, that's what I get too. And paying on it would be "last activity", would it not?
I read the same thing Bil,l and that was the way I understood it to read also. Payment on the account is activity. New activity starts a new date. You pay us on July 1, 2001, and 7 years from this date it will fall off.
If we are understadning this wrong, please let me know. I would love to hear differently.
What I was bringing up was that a letter from a CA SAYING they will delete with a 50% payment is not worth the paper it's written on. So they don't remove it. You have to dispute, that takes 2 months, door to door. You might get it off all three, maybe not. They put it right back the next month. Equifax has a nasty habit of not accepting letters from comsumers as proof on an account. They say you can forge them too easily.
This could go round and round until one of you stops. Don't think that a CA or creditor is going to keep their word about ANYTHING.
I and just about everybody else around these parts would just love to prove you wrong about their not keeping their word on anything, but I'm afraid that simply isn't going to happen. Oh well, things are tough all over.
The law is after 1997, from the first date of delinquency, if the debt has been charged off, you can pay them and the 7 year SOL for reporting goes back to the date of first deliquency. But if you pay them while it is in collections and they have not charged off the debt or you reopen the account, the clock starts all over again, check out your credit reports , especially Experian they are pretty good about that, they give you the date of when its scheduled to come off from the date of first delinquency.
I hope that clears up the confusion.
As far as the settlement letter is concerned make sure you get is on their letter head and someone with authority to sign it not some collection rep. and make clear that if they breach this agr., they may be subject to liability under the laws of your state.
You have to make sure you get that clause of liability, because it will be enforceable in court as a contract.
They may balk at it but it is definitely worth a try especially if you can prove they violated federal credit laws. More bargaining power for you.
From the FCRA as amended in 1997
(c) Running of reporting period.
(1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6) ** of subsection (a)
shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or
by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to
any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the
commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity,
charge to profit and loss, or similar action.
Oops...sorry, here's the correct link...
And here's a link to a written opinion by the FTC regarding how long a charge off can be reported. There're a couple of links within that letter to click on that refer to two other FTC opinions for further clarification.
I think that website pretty much clears up the confusion.
If Equifax refuses a letter from the consumer as proof, and the CA/creditor keeps verifying/reinserting the trade-line, I'd think that would be an easy win in court. But that necessitates suing both the creditor/CA and Equifax.
Once you have that letter from the CA/creditor, you're pretty set legally to have it removed. It's just a matter of how much you want to fight for it.
I think Equifax is nuts to refuse letters from the consumer. When I have my letters, I always call them and demand (very angrily) that they do phone verifications or face lawsuit. It works everytime.
Don't forget that a collection agency may agree to modifying your credit history in exchange for payment, and they may even honor it.
However, such an agreement has no bearing on what the original creditor reports.
Most institutional lendors such as banks will not alter what they report, no matter how much you offer to settle. They set their policies and live by them.
In reference to resetting the clock as discussed earlier in the thread. There are two clocks. One is the SOL for the creditor to sue you. The second is the clock for your negative credit information.
The FCRA regulates the negative credit history. In your case, you debt falls under the new rules (since 1997) and can not be reset if you settle or make a payment.
However, if you reaffirm your debt and enter into a new payment agreement that you break, the new delinquency will usually be reported. So don't lock yourself into any payment plans you can't honor.
I don't have any advice regarding the SOL clock. It depends on your state. I would pay for legal advice on such a matter before proceeding with any action. Telling a Judge that you thought you were right cause of something you read on the WWW won't hold up in court.