Not trying to be argumentative, but in response to Re: Insist on paying original creditor? spyguyjim get a kick of people who think by paying the original creditory, they are somehow screwing the collection agency out of their cut. Trust me, they get theirs and then laugh all the way to the bank. So does the original creditor - Remember the whole idea is to get the bill paid. The original creditor has already written off agency fees as a loss, or their collection fees have been tacked on top of the original balance (if there is a contract or promisary note between the consumer and the original creditor that allows such fees). Keep in mind that collection agencies can buy accounts from the original creditor. This is a totally separate scenerio than an agency who collects ON BEHALF OF the original creditor. In this instance, dealing with the original creditor is not an option. As for credit reporting, all the law requires is that the collection account be shown as a paid collection once it has been fully paid. When you pay the original creditor directly, all they do is report the payment to the agency, and the agency updates the credit report to reflect the paid status. Bypassing the collection agency has no bearing on the collection account listing on a CR. Please explain to me WHY I need to pay arsehole collection company 3X the amount of original debt owed, when I am willing to pay the OC original amount plus some fees, not some hick-jacked amount? I think that once you pay the OC, no matter the circumstances, CA needs to disappear. If CA can make life a mess, then I am in the wrong profession!
and by the way, I am suppose to pay CA this high amount that OC sold for 10 cents or less on the dollar. So OC received little to none of the bad debt, but CA gets some huge profit and I get a bad trade line in return? Do NOT tell me that is the price of doing business or some other crap.
I'm not here to argue with anyone. I've got better things to do. I read and occasionally participate here because I am interested in learning from people in the know, rather than from the many ill-informed and largely uneducated collection reps I've had the displeasure of working with. I've worked in many areas including collections (creditors and third-party agencies), repossession, finance, and in many different areas of investigations. Through the experience, I have gained some great insight into how "the system" works. I'm willing to share and help where I can, but I'm not here to start defending big corporations or collection agencies. Or for that matter argue with anyone on the merits of paying ones debts. Likewise, I'm not about to get up on a soapbox, as I've been on both sides of the table. Unfortunately, I've been through a devastating divorce and bad financial times. My credit went from stellar to rock bottom worse as it gets terrible, and now is getting back to where it once was. You name it, I've probably had some experience with it. Anyway, back to your question. It doesn't sound like you can deal with the Original Creditor since the agency bought the debt. As I said, once the account has been purchased, you have to deal with the company that owns it. Your debt is 3X higher due to interest, late fees, over limit fees, collection charges, and the like. It probably is quite aged since it has been purchased outright, and time has created a mountain of a mole hill. Look, agencies don't just tack on fees at will (if they did, they would be criminals). They tack on everything legally permissible and demand Payment In Full. That doesn't necessarily mean that PIF is what they expect to get in return on every account. They buy accounts usually for pennies on the dollar, roll the dice, and hope to come out ahead of the game. They've put money out and want to recover it, and make a profit at the same time. That does not always happen and sometimes agencies loose big on charge-offs. Once the account is totally theirs, they can negotiate anything. If you want to try and negotiate settlement, then do it in writing and demand they put any settlement offer in writing. Don't deal with their calls - that is a waste of time. You can read the board and see examples of settlement offers. Always make it clear you will only deal with them in writing, and demand they stop making calls to your work and/or home (not the same as a C&D). Trying to negotiate deletion of credit information while trying to settle the debt is difficult, though it can be done. You are better off disputing the items once they are paid, but waiting a reasonable period of time. The OC tradeline would probably come off right now with one dispute letter. Hope this helps. Good luck.
1. Demand complete and full validation. If they can't provide that pay nothing unless they will delete TL notation. 2. After the charge off date they can not add charges until they take you to court and get a judgement and the Court oks additional charges.
I have some questions on this, as I am in similar circumstances with Amex. CA does not list on my CR (I believe the debt has only been assigned). I have written a letter to Amex to ask that I be taken out of the CA hands and deal directly with Amex. The way I figure it, I am nipping the bad TL with CA in the bud as I am getting away from them before they report. Am I completely off base here?? My issue is not really cutting out the CA cause their fees etc... I just dont want the hassle of having to dispute them off- I am trying to be proactive here. Is this a possibility? I am still awaiting a response from Amex. PNWMAN- you say the CA cannot assign fees or the OC until they take you to court? So all the interest and fees that they say you owe are not enforceable until they go to court and get a judgement/ruling on it? Thanks for any info, I am off to research assigned debt.
If they can't provide that pay nothing unless they will delete TL notation. Pnwman ======================== Why pay anything on something you don't owe and can't be proven? The END ************************* LB 59
Re: Re: not trying to be ... Where did you get that information? Of course they can add on charges ie: interest, late fees, over the limit fees etc, if the original contract contained those provisions. § 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f] A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.
Re: Re: not trying to be ... A collection agency that purchaces the debt may charge interest unless your state's law specifically prohibits it. Gib
Re: Re: not trying to be ... I am currently dealing with a CC lawsuit. In the Plaintiff's complaint they specifically are taking the amount from date of charge off and asking that they be allowed to add attorneys fees and interest from date of judgement. I am sure they would not be doing this if they could ask for more. The attorney seems to only do creditor lawsuits. The state laws here are very creditor friendly. It may be different in other states but I would take this as my starting point and if they want to charge $400 on top of a $200 bill let them explain that to a jury.
Re: Re: Re: not trying to be ... Once again, if it is written into the original agreement, they can charge it. I just showed you the law. I would bet the interest they are asking for is interest on the atty fees, not the charged off amount.
Re: Re: Re: Re: not trying to be ... Thanks for the reference and I believe your point. However, they are suing for the original charge off amount as of x/99. They are not suing for charge off amount plus 3+ years of interests and fees. This is a standard cc account so it includes all of the standard language about interest charges and collection costs. The attorney specializes in collections and I am sure all the paper work was boiler plate. Please don't take anything I have written as being argumentative. I just don't believe anyone should roll over for $400 worth of charges on a $200 debt.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not trying to be ... They do it all the time, many times in violation of the law, while trying to collect. What they try to collect and what they sue for can be two different things. If no one challenges what they sue for, all they have to do is fill in the amount owed when they fill out the form. The court does not ask for any justification for the amount. If the defendant never shows up (most don't) the judgment is granted for that amount. Once a judgment is granted, state law kicks in and puts a limit on the interest charges. Just read through these posts on here - people with a $200 charge off and the CA says they owe $1,300 - it's everywhere. As far as CA's obeying the law, some do, a lot don't. Who's stopping them? Every now and then the FTC sues one of them, that's about it. They do what they please. That's why these boards exist and are so popular.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not trying to be ... I presume the account is within SOL? Sometimes, depending on the State, there are provisions in their finance laws that would enable an earlier date of default than the first delinquency prior to chargeoff.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not trying to be ... Plaintiff is claiming a charge off date of 1/00. CR shows a date of last activity of 6/99. They have an affidavit from 04/01 which has my name, acct number, some managers name, no address, no soc security or other identifying info. Apparently they have no other supporting evidence (signed agreement). I am counter suing for some shaky violations, but really am seeking to settle. So far they have failed to answer admissions and interrogatories which I have answered to them. Next step is to call to see if they want to settle or to seek a motion to compell them to answer Admissions and Interrogatories.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not trying to be ... I think you should move for dismissal with prejudice. They can't prove it's you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not trying to be ... Oregon, SOL on cc is 6 years. What were you getting at with saying date of del. might be earlier? Any ideas or help appreciated. I am considering Breezes suggestion. Again, any thoughts appreciated.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not trying to be ... OREGON OREGON STATUTE OF LIIMITATION AND CAUSE OF ACTION SIX YEARS 12.080 Action on certain contracts or liabilities. (1) An action upon a contract or liability, express or implied, excepting those mentioned in ORS 12.070, 12.110 and 12.135 and except as otherwise provided in ORS 72.7250; shall be commenced within six years. CAUSE OF ACTION 12.090 Accounts; accrual of cause of action. In an action to recover a balance due upon an account, the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued from the time of the last charge or payment proved in the account. Interest, financing and carrying charges shall not be deemed such a charge. [Amended by 1973 c.204 §1 When was the last time you paid the ORIGINAL creditor on a regular monthly statement? Never mind what the credit reports say about "charge-off" dates, or date of last activity. The CA has to PROVE by a copy of a statement of account when your last payment or charge was. Also, were you IN Oregon when you first defaulted on the account? Or were you from another State.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not trying to be ... Hi Whychat Thanks for the post. I am at work so I have to be brief. In Oregon the whole time. At this point, I do not know they can prove any date beyond the affidavit they have produced. So fat they have not answered discovery. At this point I need file a Motion to compell, another Motion, or settle. I think I want to see any other evidence they have as I don't believe they have any. Thanks again for the post.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not trying to be ... Am I missing something. You want to settle on something they cannot seen to prove? they are ignoring your discovery. I somehow think a judge would not go for that.
