settlement deletion

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by newbie, Apr 3, 2001.

  1. newbie

    newbie Guest

    All right, guys and gals, it's me again with another question. Associates offered me a settlement, which I can pay, but they will not budge on deleting or unrating the listing. The account is really late, but it's not yet charged off. They are using an outside collection agency who I've been communicating with. Associates always refered me to the agency in the past, when I tried to talk to them directly. Should I go ahead and pay this and take the "Settled in full", with a zero balance (with the hopes that I will be able to delete it later through dispute), or is there a way for me to get a better deal? I don't have as much leverage because the account is still fairly new (not c/o). BTW, the rating is R5. Please help!!
  2. newbie

    newbie Guest

    The amount owed is about $2600; they are offering $1600. I made the mistake of not disputing it or challenging it. I wrote them a letter saying that I would accept their offer if they would delete the listing, but they won't budge. I tried again, and they say that's the best they can do. I goofed, didn't I? Oops, I'm new at this! Would this be something Junum can help me negotiate? I just don't seem to be good at it.
  3. Saar

    Saar Banned

    If you do nothing, there's no doubt they'll place a collection entry on your report sooner or later.

    Paying the collector w/o deletion is your worst option. In fact it's not an option at all, because you'd be spending money, and get a very negative credit mark in return.

    One way to avoid a collection entry (or easily remove one) is to pay the original creditor (Associates) in full. They won't talk to you directly, fine. But they may very well cash a check, if you send them one (of course you'd have to write your Associates account # on the check). What good would this do?

    1. It would stop all collection activity.
    2. It would prevent placing a collection entry on your report.
    3. You would avoid the risk of having the original account rated R9.
    4. An account paid in full is usually much easier to remove by way of disputing.

  4. marci

    marci Well-Known Member


    I had a charged off account with Associates for $88 (I know it's a huge
    difference). I paid in full last summer, and in November I called the
    department that reports information to the credit bureau. It took a lot
    of work but I finally tracked it down.

    The rep I spoke with is named Debbie (the only Debbie there) and she told
    me to fax in proof of my name, address, account number and social security
    number and that department would have it deleted.

    Some notes: I did pay in full, even though ANB offered me a settlement, but
    of course the amount was very small.

    I got the feeling ANB does this regularly, since Debbie said that anyone in her
    dept. would delete my entry.

    I don't have that department's phone number now, but I will try to get it
    tomorrow. It's the dept. with Associates (not Citibank) that reports to the
    CRAs. Again, the amounts are significantly different, so I can't say that
    it will work. But it doesn't hurt to try.

    Feel free to e-mail me to remind me to get the number, if you want to.
  5. Saar

    Saar Banned

    lizardking wrote:
    "But Saar, is it worth paying in full? $2600 is an in full payment, versus the offer of $1000."

    And how would that offer benefit him or make his credit situation any better? The Associates account would show R9 and the delinq. section would show a settled collection.

    "Frankly, since I am just the bastard that I am, I would ignore it until it is in charge-off status. Then have that money to hire Junum or Lexington."

    And who's to say they'd be able to remove an unpaid/ settled collection as well as the "R9" account? This could irrevocably trash his credit for years. Whereas if he paid Associates now, his account would show R1. Once paid off, he may even be able to remove the "late pay" notation and keep the "R1" account. And he would certainly have much better leverage when he calls this Debbie, who may actually do it FOR him.

  6. Tracy

    Tracy Guest

    Re: A few ideas

    Another option would be to pay $1000, get it in writing that that is paid in full. Wait a few weeks and then send them a validation type letter and request proof of the reported account belonging to you in the first place. After sending those letters, dispute with the CRA's all at the same time, to have the entry removed. This has worked for a few people I know. I don't have this letter in front of me but I know someone who has a contract, which is used for the sale of bad debt to a collection company. What this contract does is keep the seller of a debt from ever talking about the account again. I know you are able to use this when money is exchanged.

    Which reminds me that when creditors claim they will not delete the entry you can always offer to buy the account and using one of those contracts, you would then be the only person who is able to report anything to the CRA's in regards to the account. This is what all debt service companies do once they have purchased a bad debt. Sometimes disputes don't come back answered or they take a while because the CRA's will send a transmission to the original creditor and the original creditor can only forward that request to the new debt owner and can not talk about the account with the CRA's or anyone.
  7. Saar

    Saar Banned

    Re: A few ideas

    "I thought that once a collection agency has it, the account is closed. If they are talking settlement of 60%, I doubt they will let him keep his charging ability and report it as R1."

    That's exactly the point! Ignore the settlement offer made by the collector and pay the original creditor in full. He said they didn't close the account yet. If he pays, they must re-rate it R1.

  8. Tracy

    Tracy Guest

    Re: A few ideas

    An account can stay open up to 120 days past due. After that a bank has to right it off as a charge-off.
  9. Saar

    Saar Banned

    Re: A few ideas

    That is plain wrong, and I'd be happy to see a legal reference that can support your statement.

  10. Tracy

    Tracy Guest

    Re: A few ideas


Share This Page