Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! forget it. i'll send validation and no more payments until they validate. if they do, settlement letter that basically lets me to continue to pay at the same rate with the agreement that nothing will ever touch my credit report. i wonder if they are hardasses or what?
Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by lbrown59 Like i said why pay an un validated claim? Don't let your morals or emotions get in the way of common sense because in doing so one usually gets screwed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1*The only problem that I see with this approach is that IF they validate then you are legally on the hook. 2*but as I said before, a debt that I know that I owe is a debt that I pay. 3*The way that you get screwed is by doing nothing, 4*Don't get me wrong lb, I agree that you shouldn't pay anything that you don't think is valid, 5*but are you advocating that you don't pay debts that you truly owe? 6*Sure, you can force the validation, and keep it off the CRA reports (if they can't validate) but you still hold yourself open to a suit if the CA is finally able to validate 7* If they bought the debt, you'd better beleive that they have an interest in getting paid! 8*Sure, with validation, it stays off the report, but you still have to pay what you owed, plus now you add legal and court costs. tiger ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/fcolor] 1*That's a big if.Also if you just pay it with out validation aren't you on the hook anyway? 2*But if you do it the wrong way it can really hurt you! 3*Or by doing something the wrong way. 4*Right. 5*I advocate that The CAs are to obey the law. 6*Then there is no excuse for not providing it when asked. 7*No they prefer moving on to easier pickings. 8*Ther is still no excuse for not proving it when asked. THE END**LB 59 ```~~~```
Re: Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! So if they obey you owe and if they don't then you don't owe? To me, and only to me, that's the equivilent of stealing. Understandably, the whole premise is based upon technicalities of the FCRA (let's not kid ourselves here) but what you owe is what you owe. If I walk out of a store with merchandise and I don't pay, then I owe. Sure, I could argue that I was never informed properly that I was shoplifting, and that could be the basis of a defense, but nonetheless I owe. Don't get me wrong, I'm a staunch advocate of your advice and guidance, but the issue here is that I think that some might interpret your comments to mean that it's ok to owe valid debts and not pay them if you can catch the CA on violations. Am I misunderstanding something?
Re: Re: Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! The issue here is to get the CA to pay your debts for you by providing the funds. The CA violates FDCPA, I collect $1000 and pay of $1000 of my debt. Could that be any simpler to understand?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! So, according to you, now if I go to the store and steal an item, don't get charged with shoplifting correctly, then I sue for not only the item, but 3 more on top of it? Get real!!! The point that I'm making is that I think that the forest is getting lost for the trees, and sure, fixing your credit is important but not at the expense of skating out of something that you truly owe.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! i hope that at this point that you all are discussing your philosophies and approaches to credit repair. i have stated that i was already paying and will continue to a pay once they respond to my validation request. i just want to make sure that i have protected myself from having this on my report, since i didn't know to make that sort of arrangement in addition to my payment arrangement. that said, continue with your discussion!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! I couldnt agree more!!!! I have CA's pay my debts all the time!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! Well, I guess that I'll just walk the earth, collecting debts and having my debtors pay for them, and all will be right.
Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! In a message dated 8/6/03 7:27:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, LBrown59 writes: << So if they obey you owe and if they don't then you don't owe? To me, and only to me, that's the equivilent of stealing. Understandably, the whole premise is based upon technicalities of the FCRA (let's not kid ourselves here) but what you owe is what you owe. If I walk out of a store with merchandise and I don't pay, then I owe. Sure, I could argue that I was never informed properly that I was shoplifting, and that could be the basis of a defense, but nonetheless I owe. Don't get me wrong, I'm a staunch advocate of your advice and guidance, but the issue here is that I think that some might interpret your comments to mean that it's ok to owe valid debts and not pay them if you can catch the CA on violations. Am I misunderstanding something? tiger00 =============== There is a right way and a wrong way for them to do business. Also why should a consumer be screwed with trashed credit reports tanked FICO scores and get gouged with overcharged insurance premiums and jacked interest rates for paying what he owes? The trashed reports and scores last for 7 years;but the price bilking never ends. Too why does the creditor deserve to fatten their wallet over such events? Also why should Bankers and insures who had nothing to do with a defaulted account deserve to fatten their wallet over that occurrence? The fact remains the whole credit reporting and scoring thing is as crooked as a barrel of snakes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! And whose fault would that be, yours for enforcing the law or the CAs for breaking it? THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! Again, I agree that a CA that doesn't follow the law should be held to task for their non-complience. But, the point that I'm making is that many times there is a LEGITIMATE underlying debt that exists, and this is why the CA is involved. If the CA validates a legitimate debt, then you are on the hook. If the CA doesn't validate a legitimate debt within rules of the FCRA, you can get the item removed from your CRA report, but you still owe this legitimate debt, and provided that it's within the SOL you can still be sued for the debt. I just think that it's important that people understand this point.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! Shoplifting is a criminal matter Failure to pay a debt is a civil issue. You're comparing apples with oranges here. You cannot protect yourself against the corrupt system using moral issues as they have no force of law. Your only protection is the consumer laws. When a creditor breaks one of those laws who should pay the creditor or the consumer? This is not a personal attack on you. I am just trying to show you some of the other angles that you might have missed. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! I understand the difference, my example is for use in understanding the obligation that a consumer has to pay a debt that is legitimate. I prefer comparing it as Washington apples to MacIntosh apples HAHAHA!!! Agreed. But your morals cannot, and should not be ignored. True enough, your protection as a consumer is the FCRA/FDCPA and CA/OC/CRA must be held to ensuring that this is followed. The remedy for them failing to do so is the membership of this board with ITS's in hand LOL!!! If you would, however, take one step back, and understand that the creditor has taken a chance on you by allowing you to have goods and/or services in lieu of your immediate payment. What I don't get is how you can accept these goods/services without problem, but when you fail to make good on the payments you immediately hold the creditor to task on reporting correctly. As I said, sure, you can get it off your report, but when you owe, you owe. What is interesting is that when an account reports negatively the approach is not to have it report correctly, but rather not report at all. 4 - 180 day lates stinks as bad as 2 - 180 day lates, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone here to fight for that status, even if this is the correct reporting status. Not taken as such, as I have respect for your opinions, and this is really a good conversation for me. Please, don't take offense to my rebuttal as well.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paying a collection...HELP! The more input the bigger and more complete the picture.
1*Again, I agree that a CA that doesn't follow the law should be held to task for their non-complience. 2*But, the point that I'm making is that many times there is a LEGITIMATE underlying debt that exists, and this is why the CA is involved. 3*If the CA validates a legitimate debt, then you are on the hook. 4*If the CA doesn't validate a legitimate debt within rules of the FCRA, you can get the item removed from your CRA report, but you still owe this legitimate debt, and provided that it's within the SOL 5*you can still be sued for the debt. I just think that it's important that people understand this point tiger00 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 1*Right. 2*That is the purpose of demanding validation to determine from a legal standpoint if the debt is LEGITIMATE or not. 3*This is the time offer a settlement for delete in writing. 4*95 to 99 % of the time a CA cannot validate a debt because they either don't have the information or cannot obtain it. It is for this reason that you do not receive validation when you request it.5*Due to this getting sued is a remote possibility and even if they did sue their chances of winning are pretty slim; after all its pretty hard to win a suit without proof. Usually when they do win it's a default judgment because the defendant failed to show up in court. To prevent a default judgment always answer a summons and appear in court. If you ignore it or don't appear it will come back to bite you in the butt. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
The way I see it, if she's been paying this long, they're going to say that she has validated the debt. I believe (although I'm not a lawyer) that they could make a good case of this in court. In fact, if she has an agreement and now stops paying, they may consider her in breach. If you've only made one or two payments, you could say that you just realized you didn't know what this was for. But after a good bit of time has elapsed, to me it's a different matter. If it hasn't been reported, I'd try something more along the lines of a goodwill letter. You know-- "I've acknowledged that I owe this money and demonstrated that I intend to pay. Since you've never reported this on my credit reports, would you agree to continue not reporting?" Now, I see one possible problem here. The one of waking sleeping dogs. It's possible that it hasn't been reported because of some sort of glitch and it was never entered into the database they send to the CRAs. When you mention that it's not reporting, maybe they realize their mistake and start reporting. But as far as validation goes, I'd be a little leery myself. I really think if she's been paying for a while and suddenly decides she needs validation, they may not be as cooperative on the payment plan.
well, i sent a validation request, but i set it up as a "you haven't been accepting my payments for months...is this debt even mine?" situation. i know it is and they will validate (probably), THEN i will negotiate the same settlement but i will get it in writing (i didn't before) and add the part about the CRA.
1*Not taken as such, as I have respect for your opinions, and this is really a good conversation for me. Please, don't take offense to my rebuttal as well. 2*I prefer comparing it as Washington apples to MacIntosh apples HAHAHA!!! 3*What is interesting is that when an account reports negatively the approach is not to have it report correctly, but rather not report at all., but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone here to fight for that status, even if this is the correct reporting status. tiger00 ==================== 1*None taken 2*L O L 3* 2 - 180 day lates stinks as bad as 4 - 180 day lates Reason for this could be because they don't cut you no slack. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
