Experian had lost almost all of my tradelines last month. Just pulled my report and all my positives are back and MOST of the negatives but there is one exception- NONE of the 3 accounts (which was actually just 1) that the US Dept of Ed was reporting are back. I had disputed these right before my report got screwy. You know what, I'd rather have my report the way it is now with the 10 negs and 8 pos than the just 1 pos it was reporting. Now that the US Dept of Ed is gone, the only negs I have left to work with are collection accounts and a BK from 1996. EX is STILL showing my score as 660 (took a slight dive with that Macy's application) but I'm anticipating it going back to the 550ish level once they realize all those negs are back.
That dept of ed might be gone but you will still have to pay it if you haven't. Same with those 10 negs. That could conceiveably amount to 11 judgments against you before its all over. While that is extremely unlikely it can happen and if it can happen it probably will and at the worst possible time. If not, I would start to worry about it because a new judgment will stay there for the 7 years unless you can get lucky and spam it off or go to court and get it voided. Have you thought of that? If not you might just want to do so.
Bill, I most certainly have thought about it. I am currently in a loan rehab program with the US Dept of Ed- my 12th on time payment will be in May. I'm not messing the with Dept of Ed- anyone that can garnish my wages or my tax refund without a judgment catches my immediate attention I will continue paying them until it is paid off. But, I fought them with the way they were reporting the loan. I took out 1 loan for 1 semester in 2000- they were reporting 3 different TLs and they all showed "120 days past due". I am not 120 days past due- I have been making payments for almost a year and wanted my credit report to reflect that- obviously they wouldn't so EXP did me a favor and deleted them. As for the collections, I see your point. At this time I'm not paying any of them until they can provide me validation of the accounts. They, again, have been unable to do so. In the event that they do, I will offer to pay for deletion. If they refuse to delete, I refuse to pay. I get no added benefit from having a paid collection on my reports. Most of these accounts are for less than $100. Two for $1000 for a private college loan that I'm currently working out a settlement with.
Why would you do that. Just use proper debt elimination proceedures and get it over with once and for all. The way you are going at it they could sue you and then what would you do? Then you would have to learn how to vacate the judgement and that takes extra work and expense.
What do you mean by "proper debt elimination procedures"? If you mean, pay them off and get over it- I disagree. It's not a matter of not being able to pay these debts- I am in a much more stable financial situation than when they accrued. It's a matter of principal for me- I pay them off and they can still ruin my credit for another few years? No thank you. I sincerely doubt I'll ever see a judgment for these debts, either. We're talking $17, $32, $164 etc very small amounts. Also, the SOL has run out on quite a few of them, as well.
I would disagree with that too. Again, I agree wholeheartedly Then it certainly isn't worth putting up some kind of big fight over them unless you just want to do it for the fun of it which I doubt. The expenses of putting up a big fight would be far too great. What you need is a simple solution and I believe the simple solution is the westcap endorsement. Very inexpensive.
bbauer, I've read over some past posts about the Westcap Endorsement. Few questions... #1 I reside in Illinois, not one of the states that enforces restricitive endorsements. What recourse do I have if after cashing a check or money order, the CA or OC refuses to remove the negative tradelines? #2 You mentioned in one post that by itself, the Westcap approach wasn't very strong. But, pair that up with an impending lawsuit due the CA's violations, and they are more likely to agree to it. Do you still believe this? That post was rather old. #3 Would you suggest using this approach only after a CA validates a debt? I am intrigued by this method but still leary. My fear is I end up with just "paid collections" on my report.
Do contractual agreements work? Westcap is a contractual agreement not a restrictive endorsement nor is it an Accord & Satisfaction. If they cash the check they have agreed to the contract. It is a unilateral agreement in exactly the same way that if they offer you a credit card and send you an agreement which is created and agreed to at the moment you use the card. So if their unilateral agreement will stand up in court why won't yours? That is the theory. That is the logic. I have no idea. The jury is still out on that. And it will be until we get enough reports back to see how well it works. I suppose that if you feel that the debt has been properly validated you now have no other choice but to pay up then using that approach would be a fairly good idea. However I no longer believe that their having validated the debt means that it is all over but the paying as I once did. As we grow in knowledge new avenues and new ways of viewing them open up to us. It has not been all that long ago that had I received a copy of a signed contract as an answer to my demand it was all over but the crying and the paying. Then I learned that it was not any such thing. Then the light dawns that sending nothing more than a signed contract would actually constitute yet another violation of the law. Well, that is the result that you would end up with if you didn't use it too, isn't it? So nothing ventured, nothing gained. So what have you got to lose?
I might give this a try on one of the accounts with a small amount due... I'll see how it works. If it does, great- it's a win-win situation for both I and the collector. They get their money, I get the listing off of my report. If it doesn't, I'll keep going with my original plan. Let the CAs hang themselves and then force them to delete when they violate. Your suggestion is preferable due to the fact it does get rid of the debt and the negative TL because of it. Don't have to worry about judgments in the future. But, again, I'm still worried I'm just going to be adding more headache to my repair plan. I can see all these CAs cashing these checks and then refusing to remove the TLs.
