I have 3 neg accounts that are currently charged off. I am in process of agreeing to settle these accounts. They are new co's (last 6 months) and are all low original balances. The first company i am dealing with is Household Credit Services - (Orchard MasterCard). They are collecting this debt driectly, not through a collection agency. When I told them I would pay, in return for trade line deletion, they informed me that it was illegal for them to remove the tradeline. That they were legaly obligated to keep the line on the CR, and keep the last 2 years payment history on there as well. Is this accurate? I have seen numerious cases where the only acceptable return for payment was deletion? The other accounts are Cap1 through CA's. Again, these are new ChargeOffs (6 months), and Cap1 will not deal with these. I am dealing with CA's. The CAs are not reporting on my CR, but Cap1 is listing the accounts as CO's. Can I negotiate with the CA's for account deletion? Or anything better than Paid CO? Thanks for the imput, the help that I have found here has been invaluable. These are the last neg's on my report, and I would have been lost without the guide i got from this board! Thanks again, Brian
There is no law that says any OC or CA has to report. The law says that if they report, they have to report accurately. As far as the CA's you're dealing with, I'm sure they can't agree to remove the OC's TL, and if you pay the CA's, they'll most likely report paid collections. That does you absolutely no good.
I'm sure they can't agree to remove the OC's TL, jlindseyjr ==================== I wouldn't be to sure of this if i were you. When we (Re CA) make the purchase or servicing transaction, we receive a power of attorney that gives us the inherit rights under the original cardholder agreement. We have the ability to "bind" the original creditor in certain situations. This gives us the right to settle an account and REQUIRE that the original creditor, such as Citibank, MBNA, Household etc. remove the original trade line and OURS. WestCap =========================== Some one was asiking a while back about getting the oc to delete in addition to The CA. Don't know who the poster was or on what thread they posted but here is your answer ! This gives us the right to settle an account and REQUIRE that the original creditor, such as Citibank, MBNA, Household etc. remove the original trade line and OURS. The END ************************* LB 59 ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
-Kinda makes more sense now that I know lbrown is a debt collector -As far as the collection agency "forcing" the creditor to remove a tradeline... THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FDCPA/FRCA OR THE CONSUMER. THIS IS A CONTRACT TO WHICH A CONSUMER IS NOT A PARTY. THE CONSUMER CANNOT "REQUIRE" THE CREDITOR TO REMOVE ANYTHING VIA THE DEBT COLLECTOR. -ADDITIONALLY, IF THE CREDITOR DELETED THE TRADELINE BASED ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLECTOR AND THE CREDITOR, THE CREDITOR CAN BE IN VIOLATION OF FCRA FOR NOT REPORTING "ACCURATE INFORMATION" ACCURRACY HAS NOTHING TO WITH WITH POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE -DELETION IS NOT ACCURATE IF THE ACCOUNT ITSELF WAS THE CONSUMERS. -A consumers credit report CANNOT be a "pawn" in the negotiations of an unrelated 3rd AND 4th party
Forgot to add.... -A consumers credit report CANNOT be a "pawn" in the negotiations of an unrelated 3rd AND 4th party
Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing LB got that info from a debt collector named westcap who posted in another thread years ago. LB? use the quote button! its not that difficult, lol. I'd search it out, but i have dial up and don't feel like it. now i've really heard it all. what is that supposed to mean anyway? deletion is deletion. deletion is not accurate or inaccurate.
Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing From FTC Staff Commentary on FCRA: Section 605 4. Use of Shorter Periods The section does not require consumer reporting agencies to report adverse information for the time periods set forth, but only prohibits them from reporting adverse items beyond those time periods. They can delete any time they want. Section 607 7. Completeness of Reports Consumer reporting agencies are not required to include all existing derogatory or favorable information about a consumer in their reports. (See, however, discussion in section 611, item 14, infra, concerning conveying consumer dispute statements.) However, a consumer reporting agency may not mislead its subscribers as to the completeness of its reports by deleting nonderogatory information and not disclosing its policy of making such deletions. Again, no requirement to report. Section 611--Procedure in Case of Disputed Accuracy "(a) If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in his file is disputed by a consumer, and such dispute is directly conveyed to the consumer reporting agency by the consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall within a reasonable period of time reinvestigate and record the current status of that information unless it has reasonable grounds to believe that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant. If after such reinvestigation such information is found to be inaccurate or can no longer be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete such information. The presence of contradictory information in the consumer's file does not in and of itself constitute reasonable grounds for believing the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant. After a settlement, the tradeline would almost certainly be incorrect. The Settlement could contain language that the CA would not verify any disputes through the CRA, thus deleting the tradeline through no action. The settlement could further specify that the CA would take reasonabla steps to avoid re-reporting the tradeline. This is where a "liquidated damages" clause would be nice to have. If they report the tradeline again, they pay the consumer a set amount, say $5000.
Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing THINK OUT OF THE BOX PEOPLE! "-ADDITIONALLY, IF THE CREDITOR DELETED THE TRADELINE BASED ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLECTOR AND THE CREDITOR, THE CREDITOR CAN BE IN VIOLATION OF FCRA FOR NOT REPORTING "ACCURATE INFORMATION" ACCURRACY HAS NOTHING TO WITH WITH POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE -DELETION IS NOT ACCURATE IF THE ACCOUNT ITSELF WAS THE CONSUMERS." Take a deep breath, and think. This is a quote from a Mn court: WHARRAM v CSC "CSC also argues that Wharram may not complain about information not appearing on his consumer report. The plain language of the statute suggests otherwise. The statute states, â??[w]henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.â? 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) (emphasis added). Deleting the entire tradeline did not assure the maximum possible accuracy of information relating to Wharram because it failed to convey the positive credit history Wharram established with Wells Fargo prior to the instant dispute. Maximum accuracy, under the statute, applies equally to favorable information as it does to unfavorable information. The Congressional mandate and intent underlying 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) is clear, which is to â??require consumer reporting agencies to adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information ."
Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing man, I don't even know where to begin with that. that's your way of 'thinking out of the box'? out of the box, straight into a bin...a loony one. sheesh. talk about twisting the law (or opinion, commentary, etc) to suit your point of view. I'm sorry.... I like that you bring debate, and a different point of view because it makes us think and learn, but this last post makes me worry about your mental state. seriously dude.
Re: Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing they can, and will remove credit lines even if they are valid. you just have to get to the right person. regardless of any law on the books and whether it is ethical, or whether the alignment of venus keeps them from agreeing to this, or whether they killed your badger, etc..CA's do this all the time. Their main goal is to get your money, at all costs. law be damned. don't pay if it they wont remove it, otherwise it isnt helping you one bit. a paid charge-off is just as crappy as a unpaid one in the eyes of FICO. some places just flat out wont remove. then you are screwed, just keep trying them every few months or wait for them to either sell it off to someone else or get desperate and deal with you. 'im not admitting this is mine, but to save myself and you the hassle, I will pay this for $x amount if you send me a written agreement stating you will delete this item and not attempt any further collection, nor will you resale this debt to anyone else to attempt collection' something like that..
Re: Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing no, not at all. BUT, I have gone to battle in court with them and know a lot about them. Unless you know what your enemy is thinking, or going to do, how can you really be prepared to do battle against them? The "ifs", "ands", and "buts" are what you have to prepare against. But responding to them by saying "I know, or think" or name calling, isnt a way to refute these. If you can imagine some of the responses by LK, and others, to my comments being repeated in court, what do you think would happen ? I have actually been in court against Macy's when they told the judge they could not just delete the tradeline (as opposed to fixing it) because it would be "inaccurate information" because I actually had a Macy's account. PS- Yes they actually said that and I didnt hear it in my head while I was in the loony-bin
Re: Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing My reply to Macy's would be to submit to the court 1 FTC opinions that they are not required to report anything 2 FCRA statutes that show no requirement to report 3 FTC statistics showing 70% of credit reports have incorrect information 4 all of my personal accounts that do not show up on my credit report because the CRA's policies prohibit small businesses from reporting because of costs. The CRA's are also starting to require accounts to be submitted in large numbers only, prohibiting smaller businesses from reporting. This all leads to the fact that your credit report is not an accurate portrayal of your credit, therefor removing the account would not change the accuracy of the report.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing sheesh, I just read this page again, and i have to say, I'm really sorry for my comments. I was PMSing really bad yesterday (I know, too much info, and not a good excuse either) and I was mad at the world. Seems my husband wasnt the only one to be on the receiving end of my mood yesterday. My comments really were uncalled for, and I feel pretty stupid. Hiding is to be commended for responding to my idiotic post in such a decent way. He couldve been rude, childish, or shallow (like I was) but he took the high road. Again, I'm sorry. still don't agree with ya, but I'm sorry! lol. maybe i should work on telling you exactly why i don't agree, like the 'grown-ups' here do.
Re: Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing man, I don't even know where to begin with that. that's your way of 'thinking out of the box'? *out of the box, straight into a bin...a loony one. *LOL
Re: Re: Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing 3 FTC statistics showing 70% of credit reports have incorrect information. ======================= This is why FICO works like a sack of marbles.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing Crowmom....nothing here is taken personal by me, but thanks for the comments anyways AND the "looney bin" comment WAS FUNNY ) I TRIED to leave it at "lets wait and see what happens in court"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing DELETION IS NOT ACCURATE IF THE ACCOUNT ITSELF WAS THE CONSUMERS. hiding90 ================= So then according to this not reporting it in the first place would also be in accurate rite! ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Settlement Offer Confusing DELETION IS NOT ACCURATE IF THE ACCOUNT ITSELF WAS THE CONSUMERS. hiding90 ================= So then according to this not reporting it in the first place would also be in accurate rite! ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
