Penguin - bill bauer here

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by bbauer, Apr 27, 2001.

  1. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    Caught your message where you were trying to reply to me and could not get the job done due to apparent malfunction.

    I am quite sure that this, like any other new program will take a while before the last rat is killed.

    I guess the only answer until they do get their rat-killing done is to take it to email. I'll take the email because I can filter out any nasty comments easily and I already get hundreds of emails daily anyway, so flames will quickly go into my delete bucket, never to be seen again. So what have I got to lose?

    If you don't know how to set up your delete bucket, in Netscape at least, it's Edit>message filters. and a whole new screen opens up where you can set up all kinds of traps to delete or do whatever you want with your email.

    I don't even see the stuff from spammers once I put their email in a message filter set to delete. For the few that can't be trapped out, Shiftkey>deletekey does the same thing.

    Bill Bauer
  2. penguin

    penguin Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the tip! I think the administrator zapped the "reply" bug at least 'cuz now it's working.

    Anyways, my question was (and I've asked this before but never got a clear answer) whether or not both the original creditor AND the collection agency can report to the credit bureaus on one debt. What's legal and what isn't?
  3. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    Depends On The Situation

    The answer to your concern depends on the given situation, such as whether or not the debt was sold to the collection agent. For the sake of conversation, however, Iâ??ll presume youâ??re referring to a collection agent that has purchased the debt (so you may want to take this into consideration).

    If the original creditor reported a debt then sold the account, it could not then go back and report any other item(s). Since a culled (sold) account would entail relinquishing all rights to that obligation, including the right to report any issue other than the sale. Reporting ancillary material would be inappropriate, and frankly, a waste of the original creditorâ??s time.

    Correspondingly, it would do one little good to refuse cooperation with the collection agent â?? thereby going back to the original creditor to workout a settlement. That is because if the collection agent acquired the debt through purchase, it would have full right and control over all issues.

    More directly, the original creditor AND collection agent could not legitimately report simultaneously. But in the event the debt were only assigned to the collection agent (meaning the CA didnâ??t â??ownâ? the account by purchase or otherwise), then both could report issues concerning their dealings.

    Keep The Faith,
    Anthony Villaseñor,

  4. Erica

    Erica Well-Known Member

    Re: Depends On The Situation


    I have a specific question regarding this issue.

    On my reports, Discover is reporting that my charge-off with them has been sold to Midland Credit Management. Midland Credit Management also is reporting this tradeline, under a different account number. This is the same exact account. Who has the "right" to report this debt? Discover? MCM? or both?
  5. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    I never worried about the legality of it. Maybe I should. But I think the right answer is that both can do it because they both sure get away with it.

    If I'm wrong, hope somebody sets me right because it could be a valuable tool if they can't

    Bill Bauer
  6. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    Re: Depends On The Situation


    In order to prevent any misunderstandings here, let me thank you for your good information which I do not disparage or attack nor impune in any way shape or form in this reply. O.K.?

    Look at what you posted very carefully. I think I see a potential trap (possibly useful to us) in what you have said. Look it over and see if you see what I think I am seeing.

    Bill Bauer
  7. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member


    Keep in mind that when weâ??re talking about reporting rights here, I mean in the context of a sold debt (as stated in my prior post). I mention this because it gets sticky from here, as the distinctions are important to make clear. Because while (in your case) Discover has a right to report the account as being sold to Midland, THATâ??S where its rights technically end!

    Midland could also assign the account itâ??s own (internal) number and report that for reference, and is within compliance to do so. Now donâ??t worry about other creditors confusing the issue, and thinking you have two (2) poor accounts â?? when factually only one exists. Most (if not all) credit managers and underwriters can tell this is a slight file variation, and NOT two (2) separate trade-lines.

    So in essence, yes both could report but Discover could not report additional material after it culled (sold) the account to Midland, because it no longer has a legitimate reporting purposeâ?¦ So the distinction lies in the sale factor, not assignment â?? two differing concepts.

    Keep The Faith,
    Anthony Villaseñor,

  8. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    I Have No Clue

    I havenâ??t the foggiest notion what you could be referring to, and certainly wouldnâ??t take your comments (as stated) as an attack or provocation. Nonetheless, I sense you may feel there is some contradiction in what Iâ??ve advised, and if so please be specific in any reply. Albeit, before doing so you may want to glance over my post to Erica? Any confusion should be cleared up there as to reporting rights and appropriateness.

    Keep The Faith,
    Anthony Villaseñor,

  9. penguin

    penguin Well-Known Member

    Crdt dfns

    Crdt Dfns,
    I understand your distinction between the technicalities of sold accounts to collection agencies. Thanks for the information. However, you say that most credit granters will be able to see that these two listings are one in the same--what about our credit rating? If, in fact, both entities have the right to report that one debt separately, wouldn't each listing effectively bring down the credit score (a double whammy)? Do you think the credit bureaus took the time to program their scoring device to weed out these listings? I'm doubtful that it can differentiate them.

    Can anyone point me to the section in the FCRA which details this right?
  10. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    The Double Whammy

    Yes, unfortunately, IF the collection agent who purchased the debt reallocated a new account number; for whatever reasons including internal ones. Then the CRAâ??s systems wouldnâ??t necessarily pick-up on the distinctions, and correspondingly report so as to favorably affect oneâ??s score.

    One redress for this instance could be to bring the matter to the CRA(s) attention, and demand a deletion of the old account (from the original creditor). That is, only in the event one could sustain that one of the trades in fact harms an overall score; and is prepared to litigate to prove the pointâ?¦ I say â?prepared to litigateâ? because a threat under any other circumstance is a roll of the dice, as the CRA(s) could call the consumerâ??s bluff.

    Since CRAâ??s are required under FCRA to report only factual information, one could argue that the first trade adversely (and falsely) affects the scoring model. From here we get into some pretty heady arguments, oneâ??s better suited for review with counsel. Thus, if you find yourself in this situation, obtaining a lawyerâ??s opinion would be well worth the effort. Because, here again, one should never risk their opposition calling a bluff, unless they have the guns (proof) to back it up.

    Keep The Faith,
    Anthony Villaseñor,
  11. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    Re: I Have No Clue

    absolutely no contradiction(s) whatever do I even think I see in your post. 100% pure solid gold all the way.

    I guess my thinking is that if one can catch some collection agency in violation, it should be "Katy, bar the door".

    One would just have to have those distinctions firmly in mind and the references at hand to know if the situation had arisen or not.

    These collection agencies pull some of the dumbest stunts sometimes. And it's often easy to stick one's foot out in the aisle as they go rushing by and watch them fall down and go boom!

    Knowing and keeping abreast of things like the finite differences you just brought out are often just the ticket, too.

  12. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    Re: Depends On The Situation

  13. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    Knowing The Angles

    On balance using leverage in a methodical, amicable, manner gains far more effective results. So I agree with your statements and base my comments on many many years (more than I care to mention) in the collection biz, recovery consulting, asset management, and debt resolutions (ADR methods). Which is to say, my experience dictates that by tactically maneuvering the situation (CA/creditor mistakes or outright negligence) in the proper way; a consumer can achieve more profound results. Iâ??ve seen it happen time and again.

    Without question, often times (CA/creditor) mistakes like those you suggested are more negligent than anything else. Collectors (whether working for an original creditor or agency) only think tactically to the degree such acquires them money, and seldom further. So the probable odds are always with the educated and savvy consumer, providing such knowledge is used appropriately.

    Besidesâ?¦ Nothing ticks a collector/creditor off more than when a consumer out-guns at their own game, generally speaking of course. And therein rests the fun (if any is to be had) in contending troubled credit situations, out maneuvering oneâ??s opposition. Whereas an old saying rings true in this regard: â??â?¦the best defense is a strong offense!â? Especially when used strategically.

    Begin to see why our website project is called, â??Credit Defenses?â?
  14. CYA

    CYA Well-Known Member

    Re: Knowing The Angles


    Thank you for your useful comments.

    I have a question regarding your information.

    If the account is sold to the collection agency (after the original creditor charges it off), then there is no way to remove the charge off (original creditor) if one negotiates with the collection agency for a deletion? That is unless you dispute it? If this is the case, what motivation would we have for paying a settlement?
  15. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member


    I believe one answer to your question stems toward the consumerâ??s particular credit goals. If one is seeking to refinance or pull equity from a home, for instance, then FICO becomes more of an issue. For a major (credit related) purchase, on the other hand, such as a car or home then a lowered FICO may not be such a big deal â?? generally speaking of course.

    As in the case of wanting to refi a home, it would be tactically more suitable to dispute the original creditor hit first. Doing otherwise would be risky if payment to the collection agent is involved (and it generally would be), without assurance that the related (original creditor) hit will be removed. So in this sense one would have little motivation for paying the collection agent, while not having dealt with the original creditor first.

    Other major (credit) purchases, such as homes and cars, arenâ??t always so FICO sensitive. Which is to say one may have a motivation to negotiate with the collection agent, nonetheless. If that item were updated to reflect a paid-status, then it would be obvious to a lender or underwriter that the accounts are one in the same â?? irrespective FICO. But of course weâ??re talking about the human factor, which is far too often overlooked in discussions on this and other credit card related boards.

    So as you can see, objectives SHOULD dictate tactics and bear upon oneâ??s motivations.
  16. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    Re: Motivations

    Anthony, just went over and looked at your website.
    I guess I'd been there before because I remember seeing it.
    Looks real nice, but when do you plan to make it more than the one page that it is now?

    What kinds of things do you do?
    I've seen your posts of course, but still not all that familiar with what you do.

    You sure do seem to know what you are talking about when you do say something.

    Can't say I've remember your ever having said anything out of line that I've ever seen.

    So what is it that you do?
    Where do you plan to go with your website?
  17. penguin

    penguin Well-Known Member


    A good point was made: why pay the collector if the listing of the original debt can't be removed by the collection agency? If my goal is to clean up my credit reports, what do you suggest is the best method? If the collection agency bought the debt, does it mean that the cease and desist letter is ineffective, since the debt won't be reverted to the original creditor? I hope this question makes sense!

    After reading your thoughts on the legality of double listing, I'm left a little bit discouraged. The process seems impossible! Maybe riding out the 7 years is the best bet. I screwed up when I was young...
  18. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    Re: Motivations


    I have some thoughts and questions about the FCRA especially dealing with section 601 that I'd like to take up with you in private email if you would be willing to do so.

    Bill Bauer
  19. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member


    If your objective is simply to clear your CBRâ??s just for the halibut (excuse the play on words), then Iâ??d suggest attacking the original creditor trade first. Since the debt was sold and the creditor really hasnâ??t any active interest, your chances of obtaining a deletion are that much better.
    Not at all, you see, itâ??s a general misconception that issuance of a C&D automatically reverts the debt back to the original creditor; when in reality (in the real-world of collections) thatâ??s not the deal at all â?? especially in the case of a purchase. Sending a C&D where a purchase is concerned MAY only provoke the agent to take more aggrieve action, depending on the dollar amount.

    Personally, I donâ??t recommend sending a C&D letter unless there is a tactical motive behind it. For example, if a collector were to threaten legal action on a stale dated (out of statute) account, and one aims to call their bluff. Or if some agreement had been reached directly with the original creditor (under assignment to the collection agency), then stemming contact using this method would be wholly appropriate. In short, C&Dâ??s should be used cautiously and only as a strategic tool.
    Well please take heart, because issues are seldom that cut & dry or bleak. Unless youâ??ve applied all other avenues, cheer up! There are plenty of folks on this board (and many others) that have won the fight, so donâ??t throw in the towel just yet. Besides, Iâ??ve only given you the technical aspects and probabilities based on my experience. Your dealings could be much different, as not every credit redress case is alike.

    Here again. You may want to consider attacking the original creditor hit first, which leaves you more negotiating leverage (room to operate) when dealing with the acquisition creditor (the agency that bought the debt). Once the original creditor trade is out of the way (think positive now), youâ??ve that much more to gain by cutting a deal with the purchasing CA.
  20. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    Re: Suggestions

    Outstanding advice, Anthony. I really like it.
    I use the C&D much more agressively than you seem to indicate that you apparently do.
    What you said about each and every case being different is so true that it cannot be stressed enough. And cases can be like chamelons, changing "colors" in the middle of the fight. I like dealing with the creditor/collection agency who bought the debt. I use the C&D like a "pick & hammer" combination, the C&D being the "pick" and the hammer is what hits them when the goof up. I feel that I have to get the situation on well defined ground before I ever get that far, however.

    The whole thing is about like a chess game. You have to be able to look and analyze several moves down the board and know how to lead the situation down to the end game and checkmate right from the git-go in order to come out winner.
    If you aren't expert at dealing with that type of situtation
    It's best not to step off into it because the collection agencies are not fools and if you make the wrong move, they will cut you to shreds. All it takes is one mistake.

    Excellent post, Anthony.
    Outstanding in fact.
    Bill Bauer

Share This Page