Couple of quickies for the vets or better knowledged than I. Q: Can a CA sell it's debt to mulitple CA's? Seems like I've gotten two or three agencies trying to collect on a single debt. What's the best strategy for this one? Q: Is a paid chargeoff or a paid settlement TL that has an oustanding balance past due legit? That would seem like a re-age issue. Q: I want to begin to daily check my CR and FICO's on all 3 CRA's. What, in most peoples opinion is the cheapest and most accurate route to do so? Q: Once I dispute with a CA or a CRA (I know, it's validation with a CA and a dispute with a CRA) -- do they each, individually have 5 days to annotate that the TL in question is 'under dispute' on the CR? Who, in other words, has authority to mark 'under dispute'. If both of them (I validated CA, got greens back, and now [today] am disputing with CRA) -- won't that be like a double-dispute marking? In the end, they only have 5 days to mark it as disputed or I get a violation vacation, right? Heh
Two or three collecting at one time?or has it been moved from agency to agency? [QUOTE[Q: Is a paid chargeoff or a paid settlement TL that has an oustanding balance past due legit? That would seem like a re-age issue.[/QUOTE] We have debated that, and if I remember correctly didn't come up with a clear cut answer. You might search here, the post was recent, maybe I'm wrong. The DOLA is the driving force, nothing else. If that changes, then it could be reaging. I use credit expert (EX), which allows unlimited pulls -Credit watch (EQ) recently changed. I think people are going to a 3 in 1 service. Privacyguard maybe is the name? I'm not sure where you got the 5 day thing from. Nothing in the FCRA or FDCPA. Now, the CRA's have 5 days to notify the furnisher that their is a dispute. Maybe thats what you are referring to.
No, they cannot sell an asset more than once. The corollory would be if you sold your car two or three times. They can and often do assign it to multiple collectors. The best strategy for this is to demand validation of all of them as soon as they contact you demanding payment. It is legit and is not a re-age issue. Well, I'm not most people but I currently think the offer put out by privacyguard.com is certainly something to be considered. I don't know. I would assume that if one marked it disputed they would not put a second notation on the listing. I believe that is so.
NextLevel, I just wanted to correct Bill on one thing. While the situations you describe are not examples of re-aging, they are examples of incorrect (and thus illegal) credit reporting. If a creditor reports a past due balance on a chargeoff that has been fully paid, that is absolutely incorrect and a violation of the FCRA. If a creditor reports a past due balance on a settled account where they agreed to consider the account paid in full, that is also absolutely incorrect and in violation. -HDAlex
Since I know comparatively little about credit bureaus I guess that is what I get for making statements about that which I know little about. There is one advantage however and that is I get corrected by those who do know and therefore hopefull learn a bit. That is helpful of course even though I seldom ever fool with credit bureaus since they are not usually the source of the problem but rather the reporter of it. I consider that fooling with them is nothing more than an exercise in futility anyway.
