... working really hard here to get rid of a collection on my cr's (on all 3 <sigh>) .... haven't wanted to pay in full the collection because the debt collection agency has now twice said they will NOT delete the collection from my records and they do have some valid debt evidence (still could be challenged in small claims court methinks though ) .... However, today I received a phone call from them telling me if I paid by the end of the month, they would delete the collections ... since I don't trust them to do as they say and only have this as a verbal agreement , I was planning to send the check CRRR and include a letter that states: 1)I still disput the validity of the debt even though I am paying 2)deposit of my check and its clearance through the bank constitues verification of our verbal agreement that they will delete the collections from my records as soon as my check clears. What does anyone think??? Would this hold up in court if they fail to do as they say? Stacy
I found some sample restrictive endorsement info along with what states it works in (and which ones it doesn't work in) at: http://www.faircreditmovement.org/alternatives.htm Good luck! Dancer
I fully agree with lbrown59! Get it in writing. I was just offering the website as a source of information. Dancer
Lizard.... Wouldn't it be a better move to "not" request that they update the account as being in dispute? That way, if they don't update it (and they probably won't), it could be used as even more ammo to get them to delete? That's what I did with Credit Store and they caved almost immediately after I threatened to sue because they failed to update.
Maybe better yet: Early in your letter, use the phrase "I dispute the accuracy of your records" or some such phrase and then: don't ask them to update. that way you can prove to the judge that you we're disputing it and they were too stupid to read the letter. It may just be semantics, but it checks the right legal blocks..... Thoughts? Dancer
