debt resold

Regarding the BK13

Maybe this will help...you are disputing INCORRECT information...you should not be afraid or keep you from validating/disputing. Just because they say it is SO, does not mean it IS so.

No the SOL does not change for the selling of the account.

I would make the all of them (CA/OC/CRA) prove it to me before settling or paying it, so I would begin with validation and disputes, and I would work on settling and only if nothing else works. Also if they prove it, while you owe the money you have all the leverage...once you pay you lose this advantage. Make certain you check here before sending the settlement letter.

Good Luck.

-Peace, Dave

PS ARE YOU ANY RELATION TO GEORGE??? LOL

 

Jessica
I feel for you .
In this discussion board there is a section call Sample letters and there is a letter for debt validation.Make sure you send the debt validation letter to CA and in the same time send a dispute letter to CRA. I tried this method and it worked. You may have to dispute with CRA few times.

Hope it help

 

Jessica,

1) No the SOL begins at a time when YOU take action not the OC's, CA's, or the account itself. Othewise they would simply sell the account to an affiliate over and over again.

2) I assume you are referring to re-aging an account so that it appears to have a more recent DOLA (Date of last Activity) thus allowing them to threaten a suit or continue to list the derogatory information on your report. Well the dates (such as the DOLA) are defined, and they can not change, they can only change what is REPORTED and the reasons they do that number in the hundreds (I will not cast any dispursions). The bottom line is that ACCURATE and COMPLETE information must be reported and INCORRECT information can (and should) be disputed.

3) The age of the account does not really matter. The date the "action" for the deorgatory listing occured is what matters. The 7 year date that is discussed refers to the time a derogatory listing remains on your report.

4) See the Sample Section... ALSO read the rest of the FAQ

5) Can't we all. I could use a little help getting the mechanic restoring my convertable to finish the job before winter...2006

6) There is a search button where you can search for text, as well as USERNAMES. Do a search on Username=George and you will find roughly Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty One posts to peruse at your leasure...EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDERED and SEVENTEEN of them are COMPLETELY IN CAPS. The rest of them are defending his right to use CAPS because of some kind of bizarre obsession he has with CAPITALIZED PASSWORDS LOL )) ROFLMAO (I crack myself up) I love you GEORGE!!!!

-Peace, Dave

 

To answer one more of your concerns...

A BK13 stays on your bureau 7 years. A BK 7 stays 10. It used to be 10 for both, but the creditors realized that it was unfair to BK13s since they paid their debts when a BK7 did not. This changed only a couple of years ago.

 

A chapter 13 that has been DISMISSED stays on for 10 years.

 

Dave,

You mentioned:

2) I assume you are referring to re-aging an account so that it appears to have a more recent DOLA (Date of last Activity) thus allowing them to threaten a suit or continue to list the derogatory information on your report. Well the dates (such as the DOLA) are defined, and they can not change, they can only change what is REPORTED ...

How do you know if a CA has re-aged the account, assuming they decide to list it with the CRB?

John

 

Well the only way I would know is if it WAS listed with the CRA (otherwise you would never see it). I have noticed this in several ways:

for instance:

1) You have an old report with DOLA X and you get a new report with DOLA Y

2) One report (Experian) has a listing with a DOLA X and another (Equifax) has DOLA Y

3) You dispute an entry and rather than correcting the mistaken entry, they update the DOLA to a newer date.

You get the idea...there are many ways this can be noticed.

-Peace, Dave

 

Dave,

I understand, however that re-aging of the account whether paid-off or not paid-off is illegal - correct? But why would they do it, if the account is not out of the SOL time frame yet?

John

 

Yes it is illegal. They do it to appear to extend the SOL...to frustrate you...out of spite...your guess is as good as mine. I would think if you raised the SOL as your defense, and had your own DOLA and proof (cancelled check or original default notice etc), that they would have to prove the date they were using is the DOLA.

-Peace, Dave

 

Great question John,

One I've pondered often. There seems to be only 2 reasons to reage an account.

1) sheer stupidity.

One might think that would account for many of the reages since we know how incompetent they are.

The problem I have with that is; If it was accidental then one might expect the DLA's to change equally from forwarding the date AND backdating. In other words the DLA's would be dated later AND dated earlier pretty much in a 50 50 proportion.

BUT WE DON'T SEE THAT! When they are dated wrong it's almost ALWAYS dated forward, which brings me to the second reason; vindictiveness.

Fact of it is that these people are not only STUPID but they are mean, vindictive and love to punish.

Since the obsolescence period begins from a certain date they move that date forward so the negative will remain on your file longer.

 

a Sold debt shouldn't even be reported, If they don't own the debt why should we be penalized for something that no longer exists? If they sold the thing to someone else and we paid it. what happens? we get two bad marks for one debt? Thats just plain idiotic.

 

I agree. That's why we have the right to validation. However, as we all know, most CA's don't give a hoot about the law and will leave the collection account on your report(s) until you take legal action against them.

We need stricter laws and harsher punishments for CA's.

 

No truer statement has ever been made.

 

Well what about an OC that sells the debt to a CA? What do you do about that?

 

Butch,

Thanks for your ideas - sounds like you are right on!


Kiyi said:

Well what about an OC that sells the debt to a CA? What do you do about that?

To that question I would like to further say, how can you tell that an OC has sold the debt to a CA? Is it obvious by looking at the CR?

Or better yet, if an original debt from the OC was $1,000 and now the CA sends you a notice to please pay say $500, without you having had any previous contact with them (validating or negociation), would that be a sign that they have purchased the debt since they are asking less for it to begin with? I would imagine that a CA would try to collect the full amount if it is assigned to them and then get a commission for their efforts out of that amount, but if they purchased it, there is a chance that they might not get the full amount from the start. am I understanding this correctly?

 

They will ALWAYS try and collect on the full amount of the debt either way, assigned or sold. They may settle on $500, but they'd always start the negotiation high, right? Something else is going on if the original amount were $1000 and you got a collection letter asking for $500.

-Peace, Dave

 

JohnOG,

My basis was stating that if a OC sells the debt to another person(define by law) How could they report it as a negative item if the said debt to them was paid for by some other person? They no longer own it.

To answer your question, yes its reported on the Credit report as Transferred/Sold or Sold to another Lender etc. The minute that status comes up, it should be deleted. How can they report the debt if they don't even own it or have authority to collect it anymore?