"Faked" payment arra

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by MOCAFEEN, Aug 23, 2000.


    MOCAFEEN Guest

    Hi, folks! I haven't posted here for a long, long time (but I have been reading along with the class) because I've been so busy, but that's a longer story than you want to hear. :)

    Anyway, I recently received two letters from a collection agency who has an account of mine that is old and I've basically decided to wait out and let drop off. The first letter said something along the lines of "this letter is to confirm your payment arrangement to pay (insert amount here) per month..." I had made no payment arrangement. As a matter of fact, in the six years since this agency has had this account I have never, ever contaced them in any way. They have never spoken to me at all. Anyway, fearing that this was just some kind of scam to get me to make a move that renewed my seven years of waiting, I did not respond to the letter. Two weeks later I received another letter stating that I had missed my first payment on these so-called "arrangements" and needed to contact them.

    So, ladies and gents, what would you folks do with this situation? Should I continue to just ignore these, assuming it's all a scam to try to trap me into a stupid move? Or is it possible that they truly have made a mistake and think I have set up some kind of arrangements? If so, how would I let them know...well, basically to drop dead...without saying or doing anything to jeopardize my situation?

    Love to hear your opinions!

  2. Rob M

    Rob M Guest

    RE: "Faked" payment

    Simply ignoring this collection agency won't prevent them from reinstating the debt on your credit report once the 7yr window has expired. Because they own the debt, they have the legal right to continue reporting the status of the debt on your report until it's paid. You might consider settling the debt for 60 cents on the dollar in exchange for reporting nothing to the CRAs if the item has already expired so has not to reage the debt.
  3. steve

    steve Well-Known Member

    RE: "Faked" payment

    Send them a dispute and cease and decist letter.

    Tell them that you do not believe the debt is yours - That you want them to provide evidence.

    Also tell them that they are no longer allowed to contact you - except to provide evidence or to inform you of legal action that is being taken against you.

    You only have 30 days to send the dispute letter from their first contact - so send it out quick. Fax it, send a copy via regular mail, send a copy via certified mail, and send a copy to yourself via regular mail (don't open this one - save it for evidence later)
  4. JustMe

    JustMe Guest

    RE: "Faked" payment

    Sounds like this debt is not collectable. I'm in Texas and creditors only have 4 years to collect a debt. The account remains on the credit report for 7 years but after 4 years it's uncollectable. The 4 years is the SOL to collect and the 7 years is SOL to report to credit reporting agencies. What is the SOL to collect where you live? If it's expired then there is absolutely nothing the collection agency can do unless you make payment arrangements!! If you do, then you start the SOL to collect all over. Send them a letter stating not to contact you by mail or phone. Do not make any payement arrangements! Let the account fall off when 7 years end.
  5. John Debto

    John Debto Guest

    RE: "Faked" payment


    Ignore their letters, they can't do anything. You did exactly the right thing by ignoring their sucker bait. Obtain your reports from the big 3 to make sure they are not falsely reporting the dates. You might send them a cease and desist letter, but I wouldn't bother myself.

    I feel that when the original creditor charges off the debt, that is the moral end of it. Why should you owe a dime to some slimey company that paid 2 cents on the dollar for your old debt?
  6. Steven Z

    Steven Z Guest

    RE: "Faked" payment

    "this letter is to confirm your payment arrangement to pay (insert amount here) per month..."

    Mo, this is the latest scam tactics of a number of collection agencies (gee, perhaps you have been gone a long long time:)). Their LYING, you, I and everybody else knows it.

    Since the debt is 6 years old already and the maximum SOL in any state is 6 years they have no legal right to sue you (besides if it were worth it the original creditor would have long since done so).

    While its true they can still report it for another year and "attempt" to collect it after that their options are extremely limited.

    Like most everybody else says just ignore their 'lying' letters and empty threats, once they see that you have not taken the bait they will in all likelyhood give up. In the very unlikely event that they will call you or keep attempting to contact you then you can inform them to cease and desist from further contacting you else you will complain to the relevant autorities.

    As for the possibility of illegaly and fraudulently re-aging your account, if that was their intention (as is the common practice of the worst one's) then they would in all likelyhood already done so in an attempt to extort you.

    As for future illegal re-aging, you should have no difficulty having this removed from any CRA (even Experian:) else they are liable to be sued, the same goes for the collection agency who always lose anyways but I doubt it will ever reach this point.
  7. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    Respond Or Be Tagged

    While youâ??ve received some valid OPINIONS, all in error to some degree, albeit you must respond to the collection letters; hereâ??s whyâ?¦ There is a collection principle known as â??Acknowledgement of Debtâ? which can reset the statutory limit on litigation, which is far different from the reporting limit. Under law throughout every state there is also the principle of presumption, meaning it is presumed you in fact made a payment arrangement because the collection agent documented such. That is unless otherwise contradicted by supporting facts.

    So if you fail to respond and simple ignore the issue, you could be tagged with a reset of SOL â?? not necessarily the reporting limit! Remember an SOL does not prevent a collection agent from collecting; they can do this forever if so inclined. The statute of limitations Iâ??m referring to stems toward permissible litigation, whereby a reset makes you vulnerable to suit and hence a longer reporting period by judgment extension.

    Granted the letters youâ??ve received could be a clerical or computer error, or the result of a lazy collector who purposely flagged his/her queue to make it appear as though they were working. (Itâ??s called computer collecting, a collector trick used to fool management into thinking theyâ??ve a set â?? arrangement â?? perhaps to achieve a bonus or make a quota). Notwithstanding cause, if you donâ??t respond you may have a heck of a time dealing with this issue later. Doing so now is clearly youâ??re best bet for substantial results.

    Additionally, it would be a tactically foolish move on your part to issue a C&D (Cease & Desist) letter. One reason being is that such letters, when sent inappropriately as in this case, convey a message that youâ??re scared and refuse to deal effectively with the issues. C&Ds also limit what the collection agent can do, and in many cases cut off more effective options. Sending a C&D in a situation like yours may also cause the collection agent to get more aggressive, perhaps filing suit if it is authorized to do so. Please take my word for it; issuing a C&D is NOT the fix all most folks believe, but rather a match to fuse in far too many instances.

    Hereâ??s what I suggestâ?¦

    1) Compose a courteous and business-like letter disputing the alleged payment arrangement(s). Be specific but not too detailed, documenting the facts as you see them, allowing at least 15 days for the collection agent to respond to your claim â?? your version of the facts;
    2) Make a copy and put it in a file or other place for safe keeping;
    3) Send the letter Certified Mail, with a return receipt request;
    4) Attach postal receipts and return slips to you copy when available;
    5) Follow-up with another Certified Letter if the collection agent fails to respond within the 15-day period. This writing should simply document the fact that they refused and/or failed to respond, and that you presume (use the word â??presumeâ?) they are in error; and,
    6) Lastly, archive this material for as long as it takes until the actual item drops from your CR.

    Now if the collection agent responds refute itâ??s position again, also by Certified Mail. Each time allow the agent ten (10) to fifteen (15) days to respond, and follow-up when they donâ??t. If you keep this up sooner or later they will back off, because itâ??s not always worth a collectors time to engage a resistant debtor when statute is at issue. It really boils down to a test of wills, yours against the collection agentâ??s.

    Keep The Faith,
    Anthony Villaseñor
  8. Steven Z

    Steven Z Guest

    RE: "Faked" payment

    You know Rob it was almost identical statements from a very misinformed rep that enabled me to bring Equifax to my side and embarass a creditor enough to grant me my first credit card.

    The FDCPA Act has very specific regulations regarding this, may I suggest CardReport.com's site, specifically http://www.cardreport.com/credit-problems/collection-faq.html
  9. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    Six Year Statutes?

    I know what you meant but just FYIâ?¦ Many states have a longer statutory limit than six (6) years (on contract), for example: ILLINOIS: 10 years â?? INDIANA: 10 years â?? IOWA: 10 years â?? LOUISIANA: 10 years â?? KENTUCKY: 15 years â?? OHIO: 15 yearsâ?¦ Just to name a few. ;)

    Keep The Faith,
    Anthony Villaseñor

    Steven Z wrote:
    Since the debt is 6 years old already and the maximum SOL in any state is 6 years they have no legal right to sue you (besides if it were worth it the original creditor would have long since done so).
  10. Steven Z

    Steven Z Guest

    RE: Six Year Statutes?

    I stand corrected.

    I have seen posts too numerous to mention stating the 4-6 year average but that is no "defense":) for the actual facts which you have readily available at http://www.CreditDefenses.com/statues.htm

    One thing is for certain I will not be in too much of a hurry to move to any of those states or especially Rhode Island!
  11. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    More FYIâ?¦

    Thanks for not taking my correction harshly; I just thought to let you know in case you ever quoted such to a creditor (Yikes!). Because you certainly know how much poor and inaccurate info floats around about credit dealings, plus as an agent of the courts Iâ??m sort of bound to help clear things up when I can. In any case, glad you took my heads-up in good spirit. ;)

    Keep The Faith,
    Anthony Villaseñor

    PS - Yes, stay out of Rhode Island! :))
  12. RichGuy

    RichGuy Guest

    RE: "Faked" payment

    They have no such legal right. You are doing serious harm by asserting such nonsense. Steven Z nailed you and you were too dumb even to notice.

    MOCAFEEN Guest

    RE: "Faked" payment

    Thanks to all who responded to my question! While I truly appreciate all input, please allow me to narrow down the "conversation" here to the real question at hand, just so this topic doesn't get too far off into left field. I am truly not concerned about this creditor suing me or continuing to try to collect (see the last paragraph here and you'll see why I don't think they'll bother). Also, I know the rules and laws, etc., etc., etc. in my state and I'm not sweating, frankly. My only concern here was whether this is a tactic used by a collection agency to renew the seven years on my CR illegitimately. Claiming I had made a payment arrangement when I never had seemed pretty clever. I wonder, if this works, why it isn't done all the time! I mean, who is to say that I did or did not call this place? You can't prove a negative, after all, so if the CRA's accept the word of a slimey collection agency I would think this sort of thing would be rampant! Unless I hear some really good arguments against it here, I am leaning toward the idea of ignoring these letters. After all, I have never spoken to these people...ever...and I don't think I want to start now. They can't even prove I ever received these letters, since they weren't sent certified. I'm just finding it really difficult to believe that all a collection agency has to do after six years of no contact is claim that someone called them, and "BOOM", they can start that seven years over. If I am wrong, though, feel totally free to correct me; I am all ears (or eyes...haha).

    And by the way, for those who may be concerned that I am trying to blow off a legitimate debt, this was never money that I "borrowed", anyway, nor was it a credit card; we are talking about late charges to a Wherehouse Video rental place six years ago with a whopping total of around $35.00. I made the decision about a year ago when I discovered the record of it on my CR (the only way I even knew of it...they'd never contacted me) that it was better to let the time run out on this one than to renew to seven years and wreck my credit further over $35.00.
  14. Steven Z

    Steven Z Guest

    RE: "Faked" payment

    $35!! YEESH, and I thought my $94 for a cable bill was ridiculous. Still awaiting the day when somebody comes on here and says he's got an R9 for $5 or less!!!

    As far as the CRA's taking the word of the collection agency? They do so 100% of the time and for that matter any other SUBSCRIBER . Pay them the $$ and they'll report ANYTHING, regardless whether they know for a 100000000000% fact that the information is false. In fact this is done many thousands of times a day by crooked and unscrupulous creditors, collection agencies and collection lawyers.

    The CRA's will retain it there unless or until the VICTIM proves his innocence wherein they will remove it because they then become liable.

    The collection agencies KNOW that only a very small minority will sue them (and of ourse win) and that it will take a tremendous amount of complaints (that could take years) to the FTC before they will take any action. In the meantime they will continue to profit from those they are able to extort to pay and care less about all the people's credit histories and livelyhood's they damage and destory.

    Actually considering the amount in question its almost surely a totally automated operation. Not that it would happen in a million years (at some point a 'real person' well take a look at this totally profitless account) but imagine if they would attempt to bring this to court, most any judge would promptly proceed to throw the book at them. It would be quite humourous.
  15. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    All This Over A $35 Dollar Bee

    While I donâ??t aim to come off condescendingâ?¦ The next time you wonder why you canâ??t get decent loans or why your credit is shot. Ask yourself how many creditors will loan money to one who canâ??t (or wonâ??t) address a $35 dollar issue? Hopefully youâ??re NOT that hard up you canâ??t (or refuse to) take care of a $35 beef? Geezers pay and be done with it! ;)

    Keep The Faith,
    Anthony Villaseñor
  16. Steven Z

    Steven Z Guest

    RE: $35 or $35,000,000 their i

    Aw c'mon Anthony surely YOU must realize that the amount in question (nor even the age of the charge-off for that matter) has absolutely, positively no relevance, ESPECIALLY for an online application.

    A charge-off is a charge-off is a R9 is an automatic rejection whether it be for $1 or $100,000 and the current credit system many times penalizes you for paying a collection or charge-off while the benefits are virtually nil.

    The is a telling example of increasingly automated systems that on one hand will report you for any amount and turn around and attempt to collect for same.

    No better example of this is the many millions of individuals that have learned the very hard way with ChexSystems where your $25 overdraft or recurring bill when you change banks/accounts will net you the same 5 year 'sentence' as bouncing a check for $25,000.
    There are no bank managers tut tuting and shaking their heads over "why doesn't this individual pay his $25 due" the "harsh reality" for the majority of those 80% of banks that subscribe is your listed on the system your automatically rejected end of story.

    Now as far as Mo is concerned you seem to make the 'presumption' that this $35 charge-off is the sole negative mark on her credit history, she may very well have several other charge-offs and considering the scoring system penalizes you just as much for one charge-off as 100, same goes for the credit grantors, its only relevance may be the fact that a collection agency is currently attempting to collect on such and 'may' attempt to illegaly re-age the account.
  17. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    A Matter Of Diligence

    I understand your argument and when considering credit card applications, it makes sense. My primary point to Mo was that he/she seems to be going through an awful lot of trouble, simple to cover a $35 issue. I mean if the matter concerned a $3,500 dispute then I could wholeheartedly get behind a delay of six (6) years, but stale payment over such a small amount does not demonstrate reliability.

    Hereâ??s the thingâ?¦ Having resolved more credit disputes than Carterâ??s got little pills, Iâ??ve seen the patterns. Those who cannot show good faith in the small matters, often do the same in larger ones. Now Iâ??m not preaching morality here, but rather an effective tactic â?? diligence. Certainly over the course of six (6) years such a small debt could have been paid, even paid under removal terms if need be.

    Irrespective, the amount of controversy in deed bears relevance. But I suppose itâ??s all a moot point at this stage, considering the item is about to drop from reporting status anyway. ;)

    Keep The Faith,
    Anthony Villaseñor
  18. lisa

    lisa Guest

    similar situation

    Recently my husband called a collection agency that was attempting to collect a debt that is almost 7 yrs. old. This agency has never called us but we periodically get letters. He called to see what they would consider as a settlement amount because we were considering trying to settle if the amount was reasonable so we could get a mortgage. Well, they said "oh, we see here that you have already made payment arrangements". This was the first time we had ever spoken with them. When we told the woman that this debt was old, past the sol, etc. she got really rude and told us she would send it to an attorney and that she'd see us in court (yeah, whatever). Well, we then got a letter from them saying we defaulted in our payment arrangements and that we need to send in the balance or at least our "past installments". We have never made payment arrangements and we have never sent them any payments. After reading this post we sent them a letter telling them we never made arrangements. We will see what happens. Does anybody out there actually know for sure what it takes to restart the SOL (sending payment, talking about arrangements, making arrangements?). Thanks.
  19. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    What A Reset Isâ?¦

    Good for you, sending a letter disputing the alleged payment arrangement was a smart move. Although to answer your questionâ?¦

    Resetting of an SOL can differ from a reset regarding the reporting period; itâ??s important to distinguish the two. So I presume for the sake of this conversation that youâ??re referring to general statute, not the reporting period. In this case a collection agent could reset based on an alleged set (an arrangement to pay), but itâ??s a risky move.

    A reset of statute is more commonly, and effectively, done when a writing or cash equivalent is tendered FROM THE DEBTOR in actual consideration. Although some courts have held that a mere â??promise to payâ? can constitute consideration and thus make the reset effective, the burden of proof still rests with the collection agent (if they litigate). Itâ??s a very heady argument for a collection agent to make, whereas the cases when the court has upheld the â??promise to payâ? contention sustained some proof of actual contact stemming FROM the debtor â?? expressly to pay.

    Since, as you state, no actual â??promiseâ? was issued from your side, itâ??s safe to presume for the time being that the collector was bluffing. So my suggestion is to continue documenting everything in writing, especially the next time the collector states something like; â??Weâ??ll see you in court.â? An unreasonable delay in actually engaging litigation (generally accepted as 30 days) may give you some ammo to fire back with, if a lawsuit is eventually filed (against you) beyond thirty days.

    Keep The Faith,
    Anthony Villaseñor

    MOCAFEEN Guest

    RE: All This Over A $35 Dollar


    Let me clarify something here. I mentioned this in my other post, but you seem to have missed it. I did not even *know* about this collection account until I discovered it on my credit report about a year ago. As some people here know from when I used to post, any "shot" credit that I have goes back to a previous marriage, as does this. I didn't rent the movies, I didn't know about any late charges, and this collection agency has never contacted me before. Perhaps they did not have an address for me until recently when some updating was probably done on my credit reports. That's entirely possible, since I haven't lived at the address that was on our old Wherehouse movie card for over five years. Anyway, when I discovered the collection account it was five years old. Now, this is where I believe that the whole collections industry has really screwed themselves: at that time I would have been glad to pay the $35.00 (I mean frankly, I don't give a tinker's damn about $35.00), but because of the way I could risk damaging my credit further by doing so, that would not have been a wise decision. Thus, they aren't getting paid. Too bad they have those seven-year rules, huh? Their loss. And if I felt any moral obligation to cover my ex-husband's late movie charges, it dissolved as soon as these slimeballs started fabricating payment arrangements in order to try and intimidate me. Would have been smarter on their part to contact me and promise me they'd wipe the whole thing off if I paid them the measly $35.00. Then they would have gotten paid; now they won't. I do not respond to intimidation. Never have, never will.

Share This Page