Collection Agency Reaging old

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by ineedhelp, Aug 21, 2000.

  1. ineedhelp

    ineedhelp Guest

    I need some clarification. When I was younger, I had some debt that was charged off. One was a retail account and another was a gas card. This was in 1992. I asked the CRAs a while ago to remove them from my reports because the 7-year SOL had expired, and they did. I am now getting letters from a collection agency who is trying to settle with me, saying they will update my credit files and classify the accounts as paid. Can they report this old debt? The date of last activity on these accounts was in 1992 at the latest - maybe earlier. Here is my understanding of the SOL from a previous post:

    "On accounts charged to profit and loss or placed for collection PRIOR to 01/01/98 seven years from the date of last activity.

    My fear is that they will begin to report the debt again as new debt and stick the info back in my credit reports. As far as I know, they are not reporting this - I have appled for 2 credit cards in the last month and I got both of them. Is there a sample form letter where I can tell them that if they attempt to re-age this debt, they are violating the FCRA and I'll sue them? Or should I wait until they actually report (if the do - I'm not sure they will - they might be using a scare tactic)?
  2. Pat

    Pat Guest

    RE: Collection Agency Reaging

    Tell the collection agencies you dispute the valdity of the debt, because the statute of limitations has expired.
    There is no such thing as the legal reaging of a debt. If the charge off date was 1992, it can't be listed, period. If it is listed, the CRAs have to remove it. If they don't you can sue them under the FCRA in state court (federal law allows state or federal court), but you can't sue the collection agencies under the FCRA- it is written expressly for the CRAs, and it is their responsibility (by statute) to remove outdated info.
  3. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    Collection Agency Conduct

    If I understand your post correctly you shouldnâ??t threaten to sue the collection agent, because in all probability they wonâ??t take you seriously; not until they are served after a complaint is filed. That is especially if you cite noncompliance with FCRA, even if they were/are in violation of reporting standards. (And YES, one can litigate against a CRA subscriber under certain circumstances.)

    A superior tactic is simply to document the instances of (what appear to be) noncompliance with FDCPA, without mentioning anything about a lawsuit. As you may know a collection agent cannot threaten to take any action that is prohibited by law, or that is not within the course and scope of permissible collection activity. Yet by threatening suit you essentially damage any potential case, seemingly by making it appear you WANT a lawsuit â?? which could be construed as bad faith. Keep in mind litigation is more about tactical maneuvering, stemming possible defenses of the other side, than justice. (Sad, but very true.)

    Additionally, your understanding of the SOL as it relates to FCRA is a bit misplaced. The 7-year limit is not a statute of limitation per se, but rather a presumptive bar against certain action. Almost the same as a traditional SOL yet nonetheless different, whereas confusing the two when dealing with the collection agent will diminish your creditability (hence, the likelihood of gaining results).

    In light of these issues, I suggest you compose a courteous letter documenting the facts and forget about them reporting. By attempting to cut a deal the collection agent is clearly aiming to reinstate the debt, perhaps to reset the SOL related to permissible litigation; making it possible to sue YOU for recovery. The latter is subjective, however, based strictly on the limited info youâ??ve provided â?? so please donâ??t jump to any conclusions.

    Keep The Faith,
    Anthony Villaseñor
  4. John Debto

    John Debto Guest

    RE: Collection Agency Conduct

    YOu must understand that Pat is the litigator here on this board. He always wants to sue. All I want is to be given the credit I deserve and to be left alone.

    I would suggest doing nothing at all. But if THEY call, tell them never to call again. Ignore the letters. Monitor your credit reports to see if they post information with false dates.

    If they continue, you can get them in court, but I think it's very unlikely they will continue. Enjoy your new cards!!!!
  5. Steven Z

    Steven Z Guest

    RE: Collection Agency Reaging

    You have to remember that even though the period has past where CRA's can keep this information on your credit report and your SOL has long passed regardless of which state you are in this does not prevent 'some entity 'from being able to continue to "attempt" to collect on these indefinitely.

    What they CANNOT do is either report you or attempt to sue you so at best they are little more than a nuisance that will quickly go away if either you ignore them or tell them that they can't do squat and we all know it if they do attempt to call you.

    As far as re-aging your account this is a practice done mainly by the sleaziest, dirtbag collection agencies and disgraced attorney's. Who, by the way, would have already fraudulently done so.

    "IF" that where the case, or if in the event that were to happen in the future would you then have to take the appropriate actions.

    To set your mind at ease, if worse comes to worse in this type of situation the collection agencies ALWAYS lose in court.
  6. RichGuy

    RichGuy Guest

    One Simple Issue

    One simple issue not mentioned so far is that the pre-1998 account can be re-aged IF you make a payment on it. So the corrupt credit-report-collection industry is virtually forcing you not to pay anything. If you need a compelling reason to ignore them and refuse any contact with them, that's it in a nutshell.

    That all seems too easy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Share This Page