Ok , I know you guys have read a million similar posts, but i am a newbie and need some more specifics, thanks. Been reading and now know enough to know that I've done EVERYTHING wrong and need good advice fast. Here's the deal: I have a cc charge off on my credit that is from a deliquency at least 9 years old. The collection agency contacted me last year after at least 9 years of NO payments and scared me into setting up payments. I have now sent in 3 batches of pre-dated checks for them to cash every month to start to pay off debt. #1 question-why is this still on my credit, have I re-started the SOL for a negative credit report item by paying or have I restarted the SOL for repayment for paying or both? #2)they have my bank info!! what should I do? I disputed with experian (the fact that it's old-not that it is incorrect) and am waiting to hear back.#3 I'm confused about SOL and am I totally screwed? #4 a can collection agency charge interest? #5) I stupidly just sent money w/o verifying the original debt amount and have no records of original credit card statements. course of action?? thanks much ANYONE for help. Oh and my credit score is listed as 629 with experien.
Whew! This is a tough one! The best advice I can give for your situatio now is: 1) You have two separate items here: a) the "old" tradeline of C/O b) the "new" CA activity I assume your objective is your credit report and FICO score, so.... Divide and conquer Go after the CRAs for removal of "old TL" by being past REPORTING SOL. This should be easy, unless you did make some payment somewhere which started the "clock" again. As for the CA, well..your best bet is to negotiate NO reporting of this to CRAs, and perhaps pay this off. You have "restarted the clock" on this debt WITH THE CA by paying. Nothing we can do about that now. Since you have not paid it off completely, I would try to negoatiate NO reporting of this. If they start to play hardball, then threaten to stop payments on checks given, and stand your ground that they cannot SUCCESSFULLY sue you because SOL has expired on debt. This is a bit of a bluff, but try it. You don't mention whether they had notified you in writing regarding this account or not. I will assume they did. Also, an important detail is did they "sell" this debt to CA, or are they "agent". I assume they have sold this account due to its age. Most likely for a very low price. So, you have some leverage in that they can still make good $ off our payment. So, in summary, first decide what your main objective is here....no reporting on CRs, not paying the debt, etc. Then pursue the appropiate action, I think you may be able to get them to not report THEIR TL, and the old should be off your CRs now anyway.
Thanks for responding, I haven't been able to get back to check replies until now, but thanks v. much. that really bites about the re-starting of the clock. I guess my main objective would have been to forget about this debt. But now I would like to settle it for the least amount possible and get it off of my credit report. When you mention standing my ground if they threaten to sue-- even though it's bluffing do you mean that they could easily win if they took me to court even though the debt is so old? Does this hurt their chances at all of winning or do they have a good case because I have made payments? Thanks again
Whether or not you have restarted the SOL clock depends on your state law. That is a separate issue from restarting the 7 year CRA reporting period, which is based on FCRA. The 7 year CRA reporting period starts from the original date of delinquency from which the debt has not been brought current. Based on this, the TL is obsolete and should be deleted from your reports by the CRAs, regardless of whether the OC is reporting, or the CA is reporting. Payments on the debt do not reset this date, and if the CA is reporting a newer date to the CRAs, they have illegally reaged the account. How did they scare you into making payments? What did they threaten or tell you?
Nonsense!!! If you want help with this I suggest you get on the ball - NOW!!! OT, watch that Old Time calculation rule for TL's reported prior to Jan. 1 1998, as outlined at my site www.awesomecredit.com This MIGHT affect the situation. Although the majority of these CA's are clueless this one may know what they're doing. Have OP memorilaize all that has happened so far and start disputing, via CMRRR. KUTGW : )
At 9 years delinquent, it shouldn't be on reports under either old or new rules. Making payments does not reset FCRA reporting period. Is this TL the original OC TL, or a new one from the CA? Direction: Re-aging, FDCPA violation, misrepresentation of the status of the debt and/or threatening to take action that cannot be legally take. Possible basis for invalidating payback agreement, if one is needed. Does CA have bank information only via sending of post-dated checks, or was specific authorization given for electronic transfers ("phone checks").? If only the former, would make any attempted unauthorized electronic transfers more blatantly illegal. Does this CA have an existing record of FDCPA violations, including possible consent agreements?
The old calculation worked like this: Evidence, if you will, the change they made in 1996. Recall the OLD wording: "accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss that antedate the report by more than seven years" So - what I'm saying is this CA may be under the impression that whenever an account is placed for collection, it could be reported from that date, because that's how it used to work. I agree OT, that OP could successfully argue the TL off her CR. Any account which was "placed for collection" could be reported for 7 years. This CA having just recieved this account may be laboring under an ill-concieved notion of how FCRA works. : ) In other words - it's not unusual for a CA to labor under an ill-concieved notion of how consumer protection law works. See what I mean? Do we know what state she's in? ???
Then ill-concieved or not, the basis for getting it in front of a judge, or subjecting the CA to other sanctions thru regulatory complaints, would be these FDCPA violations: "illegal re-aging": "(2) The false representation of -- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; " and "(6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to -- (A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or (B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this title. " That clause under the earlier FCRA rules implies "whichever comes first", or "whenever one of these is true", not "whichever the CA chooses" (this is a consumer protection law), otherwise even under the old law we have nonsense. The intent of both old and new law was to put a determinable upper bound on the CRA reporting period, hence the requirement that the CA notify the CRA within 90 days of this determining date: "(5) Duty to Provide Notice of Delinquency of Accounts (A) In general. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the date of delinquency on the account, which shall be the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency on the account that immediately preceded the action." Note that the CRA, not the DF, is required to enforce removal from reports after 7 years, and the DF is required to provide the date above, "the date of delinquency on the account" which is based on when it first went unpaid, and involves no issue of transfer or sending to collection, so that the CRA can comply. The providing or using of a "date sent to collection" as a "date of delinquency on the account" is the FDCPA-violating re-aging and FCRA-violating posting of erroneous information. Despite the alleged ambiguity of the other wording, the date to be provided to the CRA by the DF, the CA, is unambiguous, "the date of delinquency on the account." This date does not, and cannot, legally change with each transfer to a new CA. I know I am preaching to the choir, but with some CAs turning "Chaudry" on its head, its no surprise they might turn "7 years" on its head too.
