Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by ED, Apr 21, 2001.
Barclaycard Arrival Plus® Credit Card
Earn 40,000 bonus miles after spending $3,000 in the first 90 days; that’s equivalent to a $400 statement credit!
CREDIT CARD WITH BONUS OFFERBarclaycard Arrival Plus
Credit One Bank®Cash Back Rewards
Credit card for people with bad credit! 0% intro *APR for 15 months on balance transfers. $0 intro balance transfer fee for transfers made in first 60 days.
BAD CREDIT CREDIT CARDCredit One Bank® Cash Back
Barclaycard Arrival Plus®
2X miles on each and every purchase. 5% miles back with each redemption!
primor® Secured VisaClassic Card
Credit lines available up to $5,000! Reports to three national credit bureaus; perfect card for reestablishing credit. Guaranteed approval*!
SECURED CARD FOR REBUILDING CREDITprimor Secured Visa Classic
Barclaycard Arrival Plus® World Elite Mastercard®
Pay 0% interest on balance transfers for 12 months*!
How did you get a cell phone account if you never signed a contract?
It was done over the phone....at that time they did not have contracts.
I dont recall signing a contract for my sprintPCS account either. I applied over the internet.
I dont recall signing or returning a contract for my home phone or Sprint long distance services either-MCI or AT&*T for that matter.
A lot of utlities do not require a contract to be signed especially when they are setup over the phone.
How do I get the collection account deleted....Do I pay pay Sprint and then validate with OSI collections?
Yes. Either that, or call Sprint after your payment was posted and ask them to pull your file back from the CA, since they're collecting on a debt that doesn't exist.
OTHER way around!
I'd validate first w/OSI and get it out of there before paying it. Use the validation letter and then 30 days later use the second letter. They never will be able to validate if you didn't sign a contract and OSI will HAVE to remove all credit info.
Technically, even if you pay the original creditor right now, the collection agency will get their portion (it's in their contracts). Then also, technically, OSI has to update your account to a 0 balance. starts the clock again. now you eat the OSI listing for 7 years from your paid date.
Let me explain why:
If you've never validated w/OSI they have the legal right to assume the debt is valid... and they still have the right to report (actually, they'd then have the OBLIGATION to report the 0 balance) even if you paid Sprint not OSI. the DEBT is now paid.
It's just safer to get OSI out of the picture first, then make arrangements w/Sprint to pay. If you pay Sprint then you just have to beg for them to recall the account. weak position. Validations are STRONG positions. you'll win. you'll see.
I've actually had this happen to me, which is why I post the warning. It's safer when an account is JUST with the original creditor.
there's no listing on your report directly from Sprint, right? I'm guessing no. Most utilities don't place info on CRs... they let the collection company do it.
1. Send OSI validation letter
wait 31 days
2. Send OSI followup letter...
wait 15 days (IF YOU HAVE TO: there's a 3rd letter that's a "you haven't validated... remove the credit info or I sue")
3. Confirm the account has been removed from your reports (try to get an OSI letter confirming they're removing the tradeline from your credit reports) and then confirm yourself w/all 3 CRAs that there's no trace of OSI
Then and only then.
4. Safely pay Sprint and be done with it.
HONESTLY, don't pay Sprint until the OSI listing is off. And DO NOT mention to OSI in any form that you're going to later pay Sprint. Don't talk to OSI on the phone anymore... just use the letters.
Send them certified, return receipt requested.
If you want more info on this technique: it's free at
Re: OTHER way around!
"Then also, technically, OSI has to update your account to a 0 balance. starts the clock again. now you eat the OSI listing for 7 years from your paid date... If you've never validated w/OSI they have the legal right to assume
the debt is valid... and they still have the right to report (actually, they'd then have the OBLIGATION to report the 0 balance)"
Marie, those were 6 incorrect statements. They have no legal right to assume anything, and no payment re-sets the 7-year clock, ever since the 1997 FCRA amendment was ratified.
Re: OTHER way around!
even though sprint may not be reporting now,
couldn't sprint upon payment, then report the account as a paid collection? Should the payoff terms be negotiated?
Reread the post. "If you've never validated... then...
If the debt gets paid then of course they have the right to assume it was valid. And paying it would become a novation anyway (but that's another argument).
AND, if it's not challenged, it's valid and will continue to report. The FCRA says you don't lose your right to validate if you don't do it w/in the first 30 days..
but if the request for validation is never raised... and the debt is paid (regardless whether it's paid to Sprint or to OSI) then it will stay on his report by OSI.
AND, practically speaking; the theories of what SHOULD happed vs what WILL happen are vastly different. The CRAs mostly go by last date of activity when determining the 7 year mark unless you contest it because it's likely that OSI would report it as their. OSI won't report it like Sprint would... OSI will likely not even put the first date of delinquency (and may redate it illegally). We all have seen that happen more often than not. That's why you get OSI out of the picture before dealing with any payment issues.
"call Sprint after your payment was posted and ask them to pull your file back from the CA, since they're collecting on a debt that doesn't exist"... seems contradictory.
Paying it confirms its existence... and even without a contract a payment would be considered a novation (new agreement) which would make the debt now exist even if it didn't legally in the past.
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings but out of experience... telling someone to pay Sprint and then just try to get them to recall the account is a weak strategy. I don't want new people to be confused.
Show me any law or any reason why paying Sprint and then ASKING them to please recall the account makes any sense???
I just don't see it. If you have some other information that makes this a good solution then I truly would like to hear it... but I am just not aware of any law or logical reason why, after paying a creditor, they would be compelled to recall the account and also clear the tradeline.
Re: Clarification please
"And paying it would become a novation anyway (but that's
No. Paying a debt does not restart anything.
"but if the request for validation is never raised... and the debt is paid (regardless whether it's paid to Sprint or to OSI) then it will stay on his report by OSI."
We've had numerous cases here where upon payment, the original creditor pulled back the file from the collection agency. If there's no debt with the original creditor, no collection account can legally exist. They bought the debt ASSUMING a debt indeed exists. Otherwise they bought nothing, and would have to take it w/ the original creditor. They have no right to collect or to keep reporting a collection account for a debt that doesn't exist. If the creditor refuses to accept payment, that's another story.
"Paying it confirms its existence"
Paying an original debt does not confirm anything pertaining to a collection account held by a third party.
"and even without a contract a payment would be considered a novation (new agreement) which would make the debt now exist even if it didn't legally in the past."
A late payment is a new agreement? Is that some kind of a new approach to contract law? It does not re-age and does not "novate" anything.
"telling someone to pay Sprint and then just try to get them to recall the account is a weak strategy."
It is a stategy that has worked successfully multiple times here, including times before you came to this board.
"Show me any law or any reason why paying Sprint and then ASKING them to please recall the account makes any sense???"
Show me the law that "reset", "restarts" or "novates" the debt. You can't, so it makes perfect sense. You're not "asking" it as a favor. Your asking it because, having accepted your payment for a full satisfaction of the original debt, they have to make sure no further collection efforts are made concerning that debt, whether in-house or by a third party acting on their behalf.
Re: Clarification please
Frankly, I don't have much elso to say except I believe on this case you have contradicted yourself so much that this has just become silly. and I think you've forgotten the main point is not just paying the debt but also erasing all trace of the collection agency's involvement from the credit report.
Most collection agency/creditor agreements have a clause that, within xxx timeperiod of the assignment of the debt to the collection agency, whether the debtor pays the original creditor or collection agency, the agency will receive its commission. period. I have friends in the industry so I know this to be true. Also, once you pay the debt (regardless of whether it's to the creditor or to the collection agency) the account will be notated as - balance. And as such, since the collection agency involvement hasn't been contested (you simply paid the creditor and ignored the collection agency) then they would have every right to KEEP THE COLLECTION TRADELINE ON THE CREDIT REPORT BUT JUST AS PAID, NOT UNPAID.
By the way, as I said before, YOUR strategy MAY work...it's just a very weak strategy. Especially since you don't even get an agreement in writing as to the reporting of the collection agency tradeline.
Certainly paying an original creditor and begging the collection agency account be recalled can happen.. and certainly the collection agency could not continue to collect on a paid debt BUT nothing you've stated deals with the collection agency's tradeline on a credit report.
And as another aside, before I came to this board (and I give a lot of credit to Lizardking of course) the only real strategies I saw were just paying debts and trying to get the info deleted. A very weak strategy when no agreement is made prior to payment. A reasonable strategy with written agreement prior to payment... but you didn't suggest that one. anyway
I brought the idea of validation to light here... got a lot of flack for it... and then the idea got credence when others used it and also got positive feedback.
and by the way...
"It is a stategy that has worked successfully multiple times here, including times before you came to this board." is totally childish and uncalled for. If it weren't for the decent grammar, I would have thought that comment came from one of the immature, pissed-off-at-the-world-and-I-have-to-prove-my-manhood-here guys...
So I certainly would appreciate it if you would resume your normally more mature posts... I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and I will continue to think the best of you anyway. You must be having a bad day.
I'm done with this post
Re: Clarification please
I would rather do Marie's methodology because it is much more proactive than being reactive.. making sure you are in control of what is going on and enforcing and pushing through what you want done seems more reasonable to me. I am sure there are many methods in getting it done, just which is more effective is the question..
I also see facts being questioned.. does paying any amount, reage the SOL? Or does it not?
Re: Clarification please
Actually it is you having an "immature" day.
You are unable to participate in a serious discussion without resorting to name calling and unbased accusations that you stick to, even after proven wrong. You seem very bitter, insecure and unable to rationally respond to arguments without attacking those you disagree with.
As for my English, granted, it's my foreign language, but your proficiency in English, being your mother-tongue, is really nothing to brag about.
Re: Clarification please
And as for supposedly "contradicting myself so many times":
apparently, not enough times for you be able to come up with a single example, and try to rationally explain how so.
When you pay it's not supposed to start the clock again. However, we're talking a COLLECTION AGENCY account, and collection agencies are notorious for using the payment date as the last date of activity and thus, artificially restarting the clock. They also love to just boldly redate the account and make it look new and hope you have no clue what the laws say.
Also, most collection agency accounts don't look like original creditor accounts. You often times don't see an "account history" but instead just a last date of activity. Since they usually are incomplete entries, disputing the "first date of delinquency" date +180 days as (per the 1997 revision of the code) is difficult b/c they don't list the first date of delinquency. so how do you determine the real 7 year credit report penalty??? The CRAs then go by the last date of activity.
The bottom line, regardless of the nice little "discussions" going on here is this: if you can remove the collection agency out of the picture, do it. and do it first.
And the best way to remove a collection agency from your life is by using a validation letter. Especially in this case when there's no contract.
And, in the worst case scenario: if the situation ever went to court then you have a line of defense.
And making a payment either before or while you're trying to rid yourself of a collection agency is just crazy. It complicates the issue and you lose your leverage.
Getting tradelines removed after payment is a crapshoot. Where's the leverage???
After all, if you paid the original creditor, and they told the collection agency the debt is now paid, mark the credit report 0 in balance... and stop collection activities on the debt (b/c the collection agency will get it's commission regardless of who gets paid as long as the collection agency contract is in force with Sprint)... then, what would you do??? the negative tradeline is still on the report. THEN
The only recourse is to dispute via the CRAs and hope it isn't verified. But being recent, there's more of a chance it will be verified. likely the collection agency will be mad since you purposefully tried to subtrovert them (and their commissions) by paying the creditor directly. Only more incentive for them to verify the account with the CRAs and NOT to remove the collection agency tradeline.
I guess maybe Saar's real recommendation was to hope that Sprint would truly recall the account, not tell the collection agency it was paid, tell the collection agency to remove all tradelines... and just violate their contract with the collection agency and not pay commissions on the account collected. And some creditors will do that.
I just won't put myself in that kind of a very weak bargaining position when there are better alternatives.
Validation of a debt (and subsequently getting the tradeline removed when a debt isn't validated) are based on your rights under the FDCPA and then the FCRA. I'd much rather go a route where I can assert my legal rights if I have to then just a defense of "but I don't want an accurate but negative tradeline on my report after I've paid my debt".
And honestly, if there's this much controversy over what must or should be done with an account, and we're just on a silly board, can you imagine the fight you get to have in real life with real collection agencies?
Ok, I'll bite. One last message.
"You're not "asking" it as a favor. Your asking it because, having accepted your payment for a full satisfaction of the original debt, they have to make sure no further collection efforts are made concerning that debt, whether in-house or by a third party acting on their behalf"
Yep, they tell the collection agency it's paid, please mark the debtor's tradeline with a $0 balance and stop collection efforts. Done and Done. Sprint will send OSI the commission and the matter is concluded.
How does this, in any way, eradicate the negative OSI collection entry on his credit report??? It doesn't. It just stops active OSI collection activities. Since OSI's participation was never challenged, the bad credit still hits him just with a $0 balance. Now he can beg Sprint/ OSI to remove the tradeline from his reports but he now has no leverage b/c the debt is paid... or he can dispute with the CRAs and hope the tradeline isn't verified. weak weak weak.
You're logic is just off here. Just because a debt is paid doesn't automatically delete the negative history or the collection agency participation on the account.
And to continue:
"It is a stategy that has worked successfully multiple times here, including times before you came to this board." was the first shot fired. Nice. I actually reread the post b/c I thought it must be from an imposter. didn't realize I'd usurped your turf Czar... Saar.
"If it weren't for the decent grammar, I would have thought that comment came"... means your grammar is fine, if it hadn't been reasonable I would've thought the post was from Bobby. I actually thought it was from Bobby for a minute. There was no insult to your grammar... you missed the point again.
And lastly, to add to the pleasure of the night.. you jumped to the big conclusion that:
"You are unable to participate in a serious discussion without resorting to name calling and unbased accusations that you stick to, even after proven wrong. You seem very bitter, insecure and unable to rationally respond to arguments without attacking those you disagree with."
Interesting, not accurate, but interesting. I believe I have gone through this, at great length, to explain to reasoning behind the validation approach. again for your edification as well as for others.
"As for my English, granted, it's my foreign language, but your proficiency in English, being your mother-tongue, is really nothing to brag about."
You have no clue who I am, where I am from, if English is or is not my mother-tongue... again, the logic seems to be failing tonight and the jumping to conclusions is rampant. But if the last slams make you feel more like a guy, then enjoy it while it lasted.
Re: Hey Saar
"But if the last slams make you feel more like a guy, then enjoy it while it lasted."
If profanity implies sexuality, you're an all-American diva.
These assertions are based on pure speculation (what if their contract states X, what if the law re-ages the debt, what if they re-age anyway), whereas mine are based on real people's experiences.
Nevertheless, that particular comment I made was not really necessary and I take it back.
If hope the future will prove that adult Regs are, after all, able to discuss things rationally, without provocation and profanity, and without using sheer slogans ("weak strategy") or making conclusive assertions about a law (re-aging debts) they know little about. Time will tell.
Have a nice day,
Re: Hey Saar
"And making a payment either before or while you're trying to rid yourself of a collection agency is just crazy. It complicates the issue and you lose your leverage."
I just had to jump in here. I have done this no less than four times, and it has worked every single time. When debt is paid, the fact is there is no collection issue, period. Your payment is opened by a mail opening machine and processed thru an automated system. As long as you have your account # on it, (and if you are lucky, a payment stub) it is going to be cashed, no questions asked. It looks pretty bad for the creditor to still have you in collections when they took your money, so they yank that account right back..
Also, I got a response to a post about validation a year ago. It wasnt a new concept then, nor is it now. A lot of us have read Kielsky, and a lot of us were doing a lot more than "paying and requesting deletion." I just wanted to point that out.
Hope I havent offended..
Re: Hey Saar
Agreed, if that strategy works. I had a few collections that were undoubtedly mine, and they sent the proof. I just meant that in that scenario, it was worth a try to me to pay it while disputing it, and it worked for me. It is not always possible to get a deletetion for payment agreement, and for me this was the ticket.
My point being, it is possible to resolve it that way, especially for me, since i had no other option at the time. I owed the debt, and I wanted the collection agency off my back. Worked for me.