newbie: need help with COLLECTION..

If she wants to settle it, have her try to get a deletion for settlemnt. This should get it off of her credit and the CA/OC still gets paid...its win win. Just make sure she gets everything in writing.

 

Re: newbie: need help with COLLECTI

Actually, and I could be wrong here, but you would WANT a deletion for settlement. You want it OFF of her credit period. The OC would have to abide by this as well. This is only my thinking and I could be wrong like I say. I DO know that a paid chargeoff os as bad as an unpaid one, so deletion for settlement would be the way to go.

 

Re: newbie: need help with COLLECTI

Well, I could be wrong too but I highly doubt that they would have to abide by that as well.

The collection agency isn't likely to force or even attempt to force the OC to do anything at all.
Why should they? Its no skin off their nose either way and they aren't likely to try to tell their "boss" what to do or how to conduct their business.

That's the way I look at it right or wrong. I think that the debtor would have to force the issue and simply paying up isn't likely to get the job done.

 

Re: newbie: need help with COLLECTI

Like I said, I could be wrong...Im not an "expert".

 

Re: Re: newbie: need help with COLL

Well, there has been a lot of talk the last few days about how some people send the OC a cease & desist letter which they hope will cause them to return the account to the OC. Grendel and some more claim that once it goes back to the OC they can use the Fair Credit Billing Act to force them to give up.

Might work, I don't know. I've never tried it. I'd be scared to death that they would be more likely to sue for the money than they would be to send it back to the OC. After all, they are hired to collect the debt and if they fell for that and gave up very many times the OC would probably figure out that they weren't much good and never send them any more business so I'd tend to think that they would be more likely to sue just to prove their point. CAs are supposed to be mean and agressive and if they throw up their hands and give up they sure aren't going to be seen as mean and agressive for very long are they now? That's my thinking.

But if that's what you think is best then I guess you will just have to go for it and see what happens.

 

Re: Re: Re: newbie: need help with COLL

Inquirer asked what she should do about it Bill.

You gonna help her or just continue to practice your typing skills.

???

 

Re: Re: Re: newbie: need help with COLL

Well, Butch, every time I try to tell somebody what I think about how to fix problems I seem to get a volley of loose cannons shooting off about how I'm wrong and I'm just trying to sell something or spamming the board or anything else they can find to holler about.

That's why I've started my own newsletter now. I'll take the most common questions most newbies need answers to and once I get it set up and running I'll just refer them to the index page and they can see which newsletters have the discussions about subjects they are interested in and see my answers to those questions and then they will know what the answers are.

There will be a wide range of topics after a while and I'll be presenting the opinions and answers of others as well so they can see what others think too, not just my own answers.

Sort of a compendium of answers to all sorts of questions and not just from this board either. I skim through bunches of boards every day so it won't take too long to get it all put together.

That way they don't have to search through a zillion posts to get their answers quickly. One or two evenings and they will be able to find the right answers to just about any question they migh have.

The newsletter is being nationally distributed all over the internet and small announcements about it will soon be carried in huge numbers of other newsletters that cover almost any topic imaginable so it will get picked up by tons of people who were looking for other interests but also just happen to have debt and credit problems as well.

Then all I have to do is give the newbies a link to the index and they will get whatever info they need much more quickly. Threads won't get hijacked and there should be a lot less bickering going on.

Should help improve things a whole lot, but I'll bet a dime to a donut some will figure out that there is something wrong about that too.

(LOL)

 

Re: Re: Re: newbie: need help with COLL

Um, Bill...I'm not trying to get into your business or anything but wouldnt it be SPAMMING the board if you use a post by a newbie to direct them to YOUR newsletter that YOU produce that will inevitably have links to YOUR business and make YOU money? I'd call it spam...and wouldnt that last post be considered SPAM as well by advertising your new national newsletter? Of course, again, I COULD be wrong.

 

.

 

The first thing you need to do is get your friend to come here and join the board. It's always best for her to get first hand info.. She can't blame any mistakes on you that way.

Second, you need to start eliciting some violations from the CA as we go along here. Once the account is settled and no longer a threat we will then turn around and use those violations to force a complete deletion.

Third, hope as much as ya like. When the account is paid, it will show a paid account from a collection agency.

IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A REMARK FROM A CA TO BE RENDERED POSITIVE, NO MATTER WHAT IT SAYS.

The mere fact that a CA is on the report is BAD NEWS.


Step #1 - Send them a certified letter stating that no further payments are to be deducted from the account. STOP IMMEDIATELY. Bring your letter here before you send it so we can take a look.

They will ignore this of course = violation #1.

Step #2 - When you get that stopped - send in 2 POSTDATED checks separated by 2 weeks as per the tactic outlined on this thread;

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39764&highlight=tactic

violation #2,

and so on.


PS. For further assistance you have no choice but to join MY newsletter. That way I'll capture your email address to send MY sales message at regular intervals.

~

 

Re: Re: Re: newbie: need help with COLL

Spam is unsolicited email. If they ask for help then it is hardly unsolicited. May I respectuflly suggest that you learn the meaning and proper usage of words?

It is absolutely no different than people who go to other boards and refer people from those boards to this one. Do you understand why? Creditnet isn't for free as most people here like to think it is. Creditnet has all those advertisers links all around the message area and those advertisers pay big bucks to Creditnet hoping that some of you will click on their links and make money for them. So when you go out and refer people on other message boards to this one you are spamming that board in net effect. Yet you want to accuse me of spamming?

Yes, I'd call people running all over the internet posting links back here and coming over here posting links to their message boards is spamming. Posting links to privacyguard and any other money making enterprise is also spamming if you want to get techinical about it.

I didn't post any links to it, I didn't offer it to anybody. I didn't suggest that anybody ask me to get the links to it. I just said I was going to do it. It isn't a bit different than saying I was going to get a house and anybody wants to come visit me will be welcome. They can either come visit or click on the links when and if I post them or whatever they want to do.

Could be.

 

Now there is a loose cannon statement prime example. The newsletter I am working on is web based so no email is ever given to anybody by anyone and is never involved in any way. As a matter of fact that is why Paul Mayes developed the system the way he did. Too many spam complaints from email newsletters, too many problems getting email around the spam cops, too many problems with email addresses getting harvested. To much trouble unsubscribing from email lists once you get on them. With a web based newsletter you can either look at it or don't. The choice is up to the viewer as usual. But the viewer never gives out his email address to anybody for any reason.

So your loose cannon shot hit just exactly nothing at all. Nice try though.

 

Lots of flawed logic, ifs, ands and buts in that one too. First of all banks are not required to observe the dates on checks any more. If the check hits the bank it is assumed to be presented for immediate payment and one either has the funds in it or they don't. If they don't it generates an NSF charge which in some banks now runs as much as $40. A bounced check on a new account and expecially a rather large check gets the account closed immediately. If that happens and they present it for payment again as usually happens and it goes back as "account closed" then it isn't NSF charges that one is facing any more. Its a felony charge.

That would not happen if one put all the money for both checks in the account immediately upon opening it, but if one just put in enough money for the first check and decided to put the money for the other check in at a later time closer to the date he put on the check he could be opening himself up for a felony charge. Prosectors won't usually accept a NSF check from a collection agency for action by them but a "closed account" checi is a whole different ball game.

To make matters even worse, when you open the new account you also have to pay for new checks which is going to cost about $20 or more extra and the bank is going to want their service charges whatever they may be. If the account gets closed either by them or by you before they get their fees they will turn you over to Chexsystems or Telecheck and probably will put another hickey on your credit report as well.

On top of that, FDCPA was designed as a shield and not a sword. It would be very easy for them to claim you did it to set up a trap for them with the sole purpose in mind that you tried to mis-use FDCPA.

Another one you didn't think about is that your two violations are all related to the same thing. One arose uut of the other, the same trap. So that would most likely get lumped into just one violation and not the two you hoped for. So they would be very likely to still claim it was just an honest mistake that isn't likely to be repeated and FDCPA specifically allows them to make that claim and prevail.

In order to be sure of a win you need 3 or 4 or more violations. Then they can't hit you with that defense.

I know you will vehemently disagree with me, of course.

 

Re: Re: newbie: need help with COLLECTION..

 

That is exactly correct and that is exactly why most prosecutors won't take NSF checks from collection agencies.

You didn't say that and there are those who might not understand that.

Yes, it does. But the bigger question is who does the paying? The debtor or the debt collector? If the debt collector breaks the law then it should be him who does the paying.

 

Continued.

Let's not get silly with this.

No Butch. Most collection attorneys are very well attuned to this. The Spears case and many more of them have awakened them to the possibility and even the likelihood that they can and are being blindsided by knowledgeable debtors. The collection industry is very well aware of the dangers that lie in failing to watch out for and circumvent getting blindsided and they are busy researching these message boards all the time looking for ways that debtors can and do attempt to blindside them and they are working on ways to prevent it and strategies to defeat such attempts. And this information is talked about on message boards all over the internet that are frequented only by attorneys. And they are talking about it in books.

Any thought that we are original geniuses and that we are the only ones who are smart enough to figure these things out is just plain ignorant. The "Holy Crap" is that they are on these message boards like two hip pockets. Most of them have far more training and experience than we will ever have. We are not dealing with Miss Cleo or any other stupid people. We are dealing with intelligent people who have a lot of money to spend on figuring how to keep us in line.

I'm not trashing your recommendations at all, Butch but rather trying to point out the weaknesses in it and hoping that others who want to use it will realize what they are and be sure they take steps to insure they don't get hurt.

And if they don't and let you take it to court and then stomp all over you?

You darn well better believe I'm talking about winning in court if need be. I don't go about taking chances that they might just call my bluff. You know why? I'll tell you why. The reason is that if I file suit on them and I lose the chances are very great that the opposing attorney will demand that I be sanctioned and that is a possibility no pro se litigant even wants to hear about. Do you know what happens if a pro se gets sanctioned in court? He has to put up a huge cash bond of usually at least $10.000 and possibly up to $50,000 to ensure the court that he won't go around filing any more frivolous law suits. And he will go to jail and he will stay there until he does put up the cash bond. And another part of the sanction is that he can't file more than one law suit a year and that has to be done by an attorney.

These birds don't play silly games Butch. They play for keeps and that is something that is not mentioned on these message boards by the so called strategists. Best you and everybody else thinking about filing these law suits stop and think about.

You just did.

And I know that you are better than this too, Butch. Far better.

I do it all the time Butch. People send me email and they call me on the phone, even late at night, on Saturdays and Sundays and I spend lots of hours talking to them, giving them ideas and suggestions and helps. My phone number is all over the internet and anybody is free to call me at just about any time. And I don't try to charge them a crying dime either. And I've spent hours talking to some of them on my cell phone on weekends when I've got unlimited time on my cell phone.

I'm not about charging people at all. If I got paid for everything I do for people I'd be rich and I could do like all those internet marketers like to claim they do which is to let their so called schemes earn all the money they could ever desire and spend their days lolling around on some sunny beach.

I do what I do because I like to do it and if I can make a few bucks once in a while to help pay the bills then what is wrong with that?

I tell far more people that I don't want their money and won't accept any from them under any circumstances than I do that I'm going to charge them for what I do.

I'll help them all I can for free.

And just to prove that point let's see if we can't take your idea and really make it sparkle.
We just might be able to do that.

My thinking is that if we could add the westcap contractual endorsement to your idea then it would have a whole lot more bite. Or maybe the westcap contractual endorsement is good enough all by itself. After all the whole thinking behind it is to pay them off and make them take it off the credit reports and do it within 10 days after they cashed the check.

I'm really dismayed that you would accuse me of just wanting to trash ideas other people have Butch. After all, that's how good ideas are made better. We take an idea and we look it over and we pick it apart and then once we know what is wrong with it we can take steps to perfect it. Then once we think its really great we test it in actual practice and work out any remaining bugs. Its the only way.

So let's quit worrying and fretting about whose ox is getting gored and start working together to make good ideas better if possible and if not make sure its properly presented so people don't go astray and get burned.

Answer me this. What will your idea do better than the Westcap endorsement will do?

There is another thing to think about too. What about the cap that your punitives can't be more than 9 times your actual damages? What are you going to claim for actual damages here? Or will that actually apply? Some courts have ruled for a long time that under FDCPA one does not have to prove actual damages but under the new Supreme Court ruling punitives can't exceed actuals.

In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, No. 01-1289, the Supremes have handed us a whole new can of worms that must be considered and we are unlikely to see any more $5.5 million damage awards nor even anything remotely resembling the ones for $2.2 million or even $250,000.

Now we have got to do a whole lot more thinking in order to bring our potential cases in line with the new 9 times ratios imposed by the Supremes and the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell case will obviously have a lot of impact on how we end up doing things.

Certain aspects of the State Farm opinion do have direct bearing on the outcome of FDCPA and other similiar cases.

But due to the dissenting opinions

there is apparently also room for further contention and litigation which is sure to come as well.

Any way, let's see what can be developed other than disparagement.