This matter involved a charged-off credit card. I negotiated a settlement with the CA for the account to be marked "paid-in-full" and for the CA to cause the OC to delete the tradeline from my credit report. I received a deep discount on the debt in settlement. I was stupid because I sent them the money before I had anything signed by them in writing, but they of course told me they couldn't send me anything until I paid. Because they wouldn't send me anything in writing first, in the letter accompanying my payment (and in an earlier letter), I memorialized the terms of our oral agreement. In that letter, I stated that the payment represent my "payment in full" of the alleged debt, and that as a term on the settlement the CA would cause the OC to delete the tradeline. I also stated that by depositing the money orders I sent to them, they were acknowledging their obligation to mark the debt "paid in full" and to cause the OC to delete the tradeline. I just received today (a month later) a letter which, to simplify, states that they received my payment and the account is now "settled in full," not paid in full. No reference is made to the agreed upon deletion. I called them and now they are claiming that was never the deal, the matter is closed and that I am the bad guy. They said they have all our discussions on tape, which, if they are kept, would prove my side of the story. Any suggestions of what to do? I am completely ready to inform the AGs of my state and their home state and to sue for detrimental reliance and fraud, among others. Any NY lawyers out there want to contact me for more details can consider it an initial consultation, because I am ready to take whatever steps necessary, even if they are unlikely to be successful.
The CA cannot force the OC to delete a tradeline. The OC will report their status, no matter what deal you make with the CA.
This is qhat i don't understand if i have someone under contract and i sell that contract i give up all rights to that contract so why are they allowed to still report it?
It's just the golden rule. The one with the gold makes the rules. But technically, I think it would go like this.... a) OC has account and reports it accurately as required by law. b) customer stops paying their bill c) OC reports increasing delinquency d) OC gives up after a while (as required by some law) and reports it as a charge-off e) OC sells the bad-debt to JDB/CA and reports it as sold/transferred or whatever they call it. f) OC now leaves it like that on the credit report for the next 7 yrs when the CRA has to take it off. But, if you request verification of the tradeline, the CRA will ask the OC, is this correct? i.e. did you sell it? the OC will say "we sure did!" and it's now been verified. They aren't reporting anything, just verifying that the information the CRA is reporting is accurate. Now they could "not respond" to the request for verification which would make it fall off, but that might take additional effort. (if there's even a human involved in the process) but why on earth would they care about you any more? After all, to them you just ran off without paying your bills.
In most cases thats true however in my case we were making payments under a agreement with them then without notice they chargedoff about the same time they were bought by wama and i did have a signed agreement with them.How would you handle that?
Let's face it, folks - we the consumers are always dealing with a criminal enterprise,cartel, cult, or whatever you want to call it when it comes to this OC, CA, CRA trio.
I understand that the CA has no control over the OC to get it to delete the tradeline. But what about the CA's promise to have the account reported as 'paid in full' as opposed to 'settled in full' as they are now allegedly going to report it. Also, although I know if I can't get the tape recording of our agreement it may be hard to prove, don't I have a case against the CA under the FDCPA because they made misrepresentations to induce me to pay the debt? I might allege 2 misrepresentations, 1 that they would cause the OC to delete the tradeline, and 2 that they would report the debt as paid in full - that, in addition to detrimental reliance and fraud. Perhaps that would get them to go back and get the OC to delete the tradeline, or if not maybe I get some damages under the FDCPA. Thanks for the responses.
