Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry Here's a great discussion on the "Reasonable Person Standard" as the MI Legislature argues about what exactly is a motorcycle helmet, and who decides. http://www.atch.com/abate/cdl/approved3.html Also discusses the "SHALL" means "MAY" controversy of The New 7.5 Year Reporting Period thread. Sure wish I would'a had this discussion then.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry hey butch are you getting paid overtime for this lol j/k man you are awesome where do you find the time and energy? thx for the post
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry the problem is, theres an inquiry. (I'm referring to my dad's situation.) Now, if a CA noses thru your reports (hard inquiry) and then starts calling and sending letters, (threatening to sue!) claiming that this debt is valid, and then 'disappears' when confronted with a legal (within the 30 day validation period) validation request, I see a huge problem. A CA should not be able to harrass someone, to the point where they're having sleepless nights, and then just say 'nevermind'...leaving an inquiry on his reports. I'm sure they've violated the law a couple of times already, and will continue to do so, but I was just hoping that it would be yet another violation if they didnt respond. The FDCPA requires CAs to put this in their letters: (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. They're saying "if you dispute, we'll obtain verification and send it to you." Well, we dispute and then they dont provide what they already said they would provide. That tells me, they never had it to begin with. if this is the case, what gave them the right to view all our private information?? Wouldnt any reasonable (there's that word, lol) Judge agree?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry and ya know what fries my butt about all of this...is the FDCPA wording here: (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED TO ATTEMPT TO COLLECT ON A DEBT IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE VALIDITY IN THE FIRST FREAKING PLACE? They should have a verifiable/valid debt to begin with. This part of the law is ridiculous. It gives a green light to the scavenger debt buyers to behave like bullies until they're stopped and THEN they are able to just 'disappear' into the night....on to the next victim. ARGHHHH.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry just a thought have you tryed disputing the hard inquiry with the CRA yet? I have had 7 inq removed this way as I have claimed I have no knowledge of who it is, some came off in a few days the others took almost the 30 days as the CRA needed to verify the info.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry the problem is, theres an inquiry. (I'm referring to my dad's situation.) ================================= One solution is to out law hard inquires ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry no, not yet. He just sent the validation today. It would be better to wait until we know the CA received the validation request, and then dispute the inquiry w CRAs, i would think. But I'll make sure he does it as soon as he gets the green card back.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry I don't think it's a good idea to outlaw hard inquiries. They do have a purpose--to show the potential creditor that you have been "shopping" for credit. While it may mean that you're looking for a better deal, in many cases it DOES mean that you are desperately looking for something because you're in trouble. Even though we hate them, I think they are a valid element of the risk assessment. (Notice I didn't say the ONLY element--I said A valid element.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry I agree, inquiries done by creditors, or potential creditors, are fine... BUT, inquiries done the way theyre doing to my dad, and thousands others....are basically invasion of privacy, and SHOULD be outlawed. This woman called my dad and left a message today...they havent gotten the validation request yet, so she's lucky. Those people have such "Holier-than-thou" attitudes. When this is all over, I'm calling her and cussing her out and hanging up on her.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry I agree that what they're doing to your dad is wrong. Don't call the lady and cuss her out--get her name and include her in the lawsuit for harassment. In other words, name her as a party to the suit.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry oooo...I like that idea.... >
: Help--Hurry When this is all over, I'm calling her and cussing her out and hanging up on her. crowmom ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' So you're gonna give them a swearamony . lol
: Help--Hurry What will become apparent, as we go along, is that filing suit will be a necessary credit correction component in a considerably larger number of cases. Butch ===================== ======================= That's ok they should not get off the hook for violations simply because they fix the problem. They don't let us off the hook when we fix the problem by paying- instead they screw us for 7 years. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
: Re: Help--Hurry *I don't think it's a good idea to outlaw hard inquiries. 1*They do have a purpose--to show the potential creditor that you have been "shopping" for credit. 2*While it may mean that you're looking for a better deal, 3**in many cases it DOES mean that you are desperately looking for something because you're in trouble. 4* Even though we hate them, I think they are a valid element of the risk assessment. (Notice I didn't say the ONLY element--I said I don't think it's a good idea to outlaw hard inquiries. They do have a purpose--to show the potential creditor that you have been "shopping" for credit. While it may mean that you're looking for a better deal, in many cases it DOES mean that you are desperately looking for something because you're in trouble. Even though we hate them, I think they are a valid element of the risk assessment. (Notice I didn't say the ONLY element--I said A valid element.) Hedwig ======================= *At least outlaw them for the purpose of rate jacking 1*The other purpose is to falsley lower scores so the lower score can be used as an excuse to over charge for insurance and loans . 2*So why should #2 get screwed for the actions of #3? 3*So what's wrong with trying to fix the problem? 4* While the element may be valid the way it's used isn't. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
