Creditor agreed to remove all info.

Well, I'd have to see how the agreement was worded to be able to tell you much, but in general, you would want to have a penalty clause in it that would cost them something worthwhile if they failed to perform, say the refund of all monies paid by you and any and all monies owed by you on the account now or in the future.

And you would want it sworn to and signed before notary public.

If you cant get something pretty close to that, then you don't have much of an agreement.

Of course, they may come back with something like "What's the matter? Don't you trust us?

Well, you already know the answer to that one.
I'm sure you trust them about as far as you can throw them.

 

As a collector you may not like my response. I have had customers request from me agreements in writing. I inform them that I am offering them a settlement and they can take advantage of it or not. I work thousands of accounts and if they think I'm going to spend time typing them up a letter (and a notary? get out of town!) they may as well just keep on paying toward the full principle. There is enough typing going on just documenting the conversation.

I don't tell you this to discourage you but ask for what you want but go easy on it. I have had people demand it in writing. When debtors get demanding I tell them to disregard as its too much of a hassle. Less than 10% of customers take advantage of a settlement which doesn't warrant a personalized letter.

Good luck with your situation,
PuuOoPaul

 

Candi,

Sorry I was a little off the mark there shooting off my mouth and not reading your question fully. If the collector has put it in writing that should suffice unless he is willing to get it notarized for you. My point still stands that if one keeps making a collector jump through hoops, he may just renege his offer.

Good luck,
PuuOoPaul

 

Although you may do as you say you will without a letter stating as such, many collectors will not do as they promise without getting it in writing. You may say it's too much trouble and not worth the hastle, but if it is me, I wouldn't pay a penny until I had an agreement in writing stating removal upon payment.

 

LKH and all:

Paul states that so many people renig on their agreements that it isn't worth the time and trouble to get an agreement notarized and junp throgh hoops to get the job done.

I can certainly sympathize with his position on that and I must agree that if he has to do all that, it's simply not worth it.

On the other hand, those who are on the other side of the fence are in exactly the same boat. So many collectors fail to keep their end of the bargain even when agreed to in writing that it simply isn't worth the effort to have to jump through their hoops either. Seems to be a catch 22 situation for both sides. I'm sure it's going to continue to be that way until some laws get changed to either eliminate or alleviate this 7 year bad rap for paying your bills off gets some federal attention and positive action.

Until something positive happens, I'm just going to have to stick by my guns and tell people that once a situation has eroded to the point where it's called a collection by the creditor and they start sending you mini-miranda notices or send you to a collection agency, the time for paying is over and done with and it's time to get out the battle gear and get the show down the road in an effective manner, and firing off round after round of disputes to a credit bureau who actually has very little to say about an adverse item that is absolutely true and correct in all it's parts is not the best way to get to the promised land of good credit any more than paying the collector is.

And Paul's statement that he isn't willing to jump through any hoops to get a collection accomplished is absolute proof that collectors are not about to take a chance of ending up in serious legal actions against them for violations of the law either. Lizard King and many others have proven that time and time again, and if their postings are not enough to prove the point, I have actual letters from big collection agencies and attorneys on my website that prove the point in no uncertain terms. I've just received a copy of another letter from an attorney who just didn't want to take any chances of getting sued and sent the claim back to the creditor and I've got copies of lawsuits that were actually filed and won against veteran attorneys who thought that those who filed against them ought to go get "competent legal counsel" before they ended up in real trouble.

Credit repair isn't hard if you go at it right. If you don't go at it right, then it's a frustrating mess that seemingly has no end.

But the whole point here is that although I personally hate to see government meddling and mucking around in our lives and our business, it's got to happen and in cases such as the collections and credit reporting industries, the sooner the better for all concerned.

 

The issue regarding the authority of the person signing the contract is not resolved by the use of a notarized signature. Period. A notarial acknowledgment does not prove that a person has the authority to execute an instrument on behalf of the organization for which he/she is signing, rather it merely proves the identity of the person signing the instrument. A notarization is clearly not what is needed is here. Will it hurt to have the person's signature notarized? Of course not. But what is needed to solve the authority issue is language in the contract or agreement which states essentially as follows:

"The person executing this Agreement on behalf of XXX Collection Agency has been properly authorized to sign on behalf of and bind XXX Collection Agency in connection with all matters pertaining to this Agreement and the performance thereof, and such authority is evidenced by all necessary resolutions and/or authorizations."

If I were you and I was concerned with the issue of authority, I would simply include the above language in the contract/agreement. If you want to go the added step of getting the signing party's signature notarized, then that's fine. But just know that the notarial acknowledgment alone will not prove authority of the signer to execute the document on behalf of his/her company.

 

Paul, Bill, etc.

Would it help to expedite the letter if you actually drafted a letter that that basically had a check yes or no place (as to whether the agreement is accepted) and then a place for a signature with the statement that Chris suggested and sent it in with your letter? Please advise. Thanks.

 

I recently tried that. Am still waiting to hear back. I drafted a neutral letter. In other words, I did not load it with admissions and other things that would make them not want to sign. I gave them a hard copy and a copy on a disk typed in Word so they could put it on their letterhead. It is worth a try.

 

The CA's promise to not report is worthless. It is the original creditor that is reporting the negative information and it is with them that you need to strike an agreement.

Any CA will agree to this because it doesn't cost them anything and it does nothing to fix your credit.

Don't fall for it.

 

Trying to fiddle around paying them once the deal goes sour for whatever reason ALMOST always leads to grief.

They don't ever want to cooperate after they got your money.

Why should they? I guess they figure that by messing you up for the next 7 years they are getting their pound of flesh for your failure to pay them in a timely manner.

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by bbauer

"And Paul's statement that he isn't willing to jump through any hoops to get a collection accomplished is absolute proof that collectors are not about to take a chance of ending up in serious legal actions against them for violations of the law either." [/QUOTE]

I totally agree. There are other factors beyond a collectors control that signing may cost him his job. He would need to keep meticulous records of every settlement and he would need to keep those records for years. He would have to track all confirmations from all parties and keep these on file. And what for? Just so the modern savvy debtor doesn't come back to sue him! What motivation would I have in offering a settlement? Sorry there are higher bonus structures for getting payment in full and a lot less chances of getting sued.

This leads to my next point. The creditor is dealing with the same CRA's that every one else is dealing with. Some people on this board seem to think that CRA's grovel at the feet of creditors. I cannot count the endless times that I have updated or corrected credit reports, gotten confirmation from the CRA's of the correction and then to have the customer call up a month later asking why it was not done! I've gone back into the report to see that it indeed had not been corrected or had been reverted back to the original status. Sorry, I don't find the CRA's that reliable that I would sign such a document.

I am not saying that its all the CRA's fault either. Yes there are lazy collectors out there that do not live up to their word. Yes there are collectors who quit after making an arrangement with you. Its a very high turn over profession, figure why! There also are very lazy debtors who don't keep the same calendar. Collector have quotas and deadlines to meet. If the settlement isn't in by the 31st as agreed, those same $'s are worthless to him on the 1st when he is on report for not performing the month before. When making an agreement be most impeccable in paying on the very date you say and not minute later.

I work for an in-house collection department. The word "lawsuit" is an everyday word and more so in ca's. If you have a letter signed by someone guaranteeing you such information you are quite lucky. Not quite so for the collector or the ignorant ca. To devise such a letter that would protect both the collector and agency would be longer than the original contract and would require an attorney. So to reiterate my comments earlier, "It's not worth it."

Thank you for letting me share.

Mahalo,
PuuOoPaul

 

POPaul:

Your last post give me a lot of food for thought as well as teaching me a couple of things.

So much so that I really can't properly gather my thoughts sufficiently to make some of the comments I might like to.
Maybe it's just too early in the morning. Or maybe I'm just better off in my current nearly speechless state. (LOL)

I can certainly sympathize with the problems collection agencies and their employees have and the kinds of people they have to do business with in the first place. And then you come up with fruitcakes like me who not only refuses to pay under almost any conditions once a debt goes into collections but runs around teaching others how to do the same and get away with it even after "your kind" has gone so far as to file suit, get the judgement and maybe even the garnishment, you got your debtor by the nape of the neck and the seat of his wallet and you are marching him down the road to debtor's hell and maybe there are 2 or 3 more like you on the guy like dirty diapers and all of a sudden he gets on some computer forum and learns how to turn around and bite you hard from some jerk like me.

Or you successfully conned him into paying you off in full by scaring the bejesus out of him with incessant phone calls , nasty letters and whatever else so after he paid you off you reported it to the credit bureaus that he paid and the guy learned from me or someone like me that he could successfully sue the hell out of you and get a big cash settlement for your having libeled him, violated his rights, denied him his due process rights or whatever other grounds might be available to him.

Just had a fellow out in Arizona emailed me last night and told me he had just won a big settlement out of a collection agency for having violated his due process rights. He claimed he got more money out of the collection agency than all his bills put together amounted to. And I didn't even know the guy existed until he emailed me last night.He said he had learned enough from this board and some other boards to do what he did to the collection agency.

So your job is going to get a whole lot rougher in the future, not easier.

But then, who knows. You might learn how it's done and then take the proper steps within your own company to make sure things like that can't happen to you.

About like the companies who make police radar units and the scanners the public buys too. They invent a new police radar that will fool all the scanners, sell them to the cops and then come out with a new scanner that will detect the new radar they just sold to the cops. A never ending battle.

Gonna be a lot of fun for both sides, I'm sure.

See ya.
Have a nice one

 

I have to agree with Bill. It seems to me that it is definately not in my best interest to pay a debt owed, especially the SOL has run. Yeah, I may have crappy credit for the next 3 years but after that it's gone. While some might argue that one should live up to their debts, I'm not about to be held hostage for 7 more years once I pay up. I personally think it's assinine that if I settle a debt, I'm in effect in worse shape than if I had just left it alone.

 

kbelle72

I have to agree with Bill. It seems to me that it is definately not in my best interest to pay a debt owed, especially the SOL has run. Yeah, I may have crappy credit for the next 3 years but after that it's gone.

Not quite right here, kbelle72. You are (supposedly) going to live with the crappy credit for the next 7 years and that's true wether you pay the debt or not. So that's not even the issue. What is the issue is the fact that once you have paid the debt, you are no longer provided the protections of the FDCPA because it is no longer an item in collection. Without the protections afforded by the FDCPA, your only hope to get it removed is to file a suit for libel in court against the collection agency or creditor, whoever put the hickey on your credit report.

No then, don't ask me if you can actually do that or not because IF I made any statement that I had actually done so or even had any knowledge that it could be done successfully, I'd be lying through my teeth. I don't have the foggiest idea that a libel suit for that grounds would work or not.

I'm looking into that possibility right now, but don't have the foggiest idea at this time. I have some of my legal staff looking into that now and I will just have to see what they come up with.

My whole point is that there simply has to be some legal remedy for the defamation. Only time will tell what that remedy may turn out to be.

While some might argue that one should live up to their
debts, I'm not about to be held hostage for 7 more years once I pay up.
********************
OK. then you do know it's 7 years and not 3. Sorry I jumped you on that one above.
*******************
I personally think it's assinine that if I settle a debt, I'm in effect in worse shape than if I had just left it alone.

Isn't it though!! OUGHTTA BE A LAW AGIN IT!!

Maybe there is and we(I) just don't know it yet.

 

Bill,
In many of your posts, you advocate not paying the debt when it is "too far gone". What does one do when looking for a mortgage and this unpaid debt surfaces? All lenders want to see that unpaid accounts have been satisfied. Just curious to what your stance on this would be.

ledo

 

That is largely going to depend upon your time constraints.

One lady was tight on time and she had to go ahead and pay the bill because she had to get clearance on her mortgage quickly. So they left her no choice even though she had the item under dispute and if memory serves me correctly she even had proof that the debt was either not hers or flawed somehow.

Nothing she could do about it but pay it and hope to fight it later.

I do say never pay an old debt, but there are always some situations in which it is not possible to adhere to what one would like to be the case.

What is your situation time wise?

 

My time situation is quite flexible. I am looking to purchase a home within the next 6 to 12 months. I definitely would like to get a better rate that having great credit would get me.