Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by redline, Jun 18, 2001.
There is a way to make that dog hunt, and I have done it on several occasions, but not with the big 3 because of the way they screw things around. With them, you can't get the argument in crosswise, at least I've never been able to do it yet.
With the little credit bureaus that have not yet been bought out by one of the big three, yes, it can work.
And let's say, they do....then what does one do? I mean, if they send your validation letter back, all filled out, etc. Where does one go from there?
I totally agree, make them prove it. Are they going to show up to court waving a computer printout!
All in jest!
No I don't see the moral argument because I don't classify CA as the moral victim, mind you some of these CA purchase the debt for pennies on the dollar and if they get you to pay the full amount or even more than half, they get away like a bandit, because most times, companies will have written off the debt after its aged to certain point and it becomes uncollectible, the CA scavenger hunt for the debts and pay the creditor, so in some cases the creditor is taking a tax -write off and still recover some of the money.
Assigning is a whole other discussion that would take days for me to explain, I will leave that for another day.
Am I making a safe assumption that if the CA doesn't return the completed letter that I can have the CRA delete the item in question?
Well, that may be why some folks use the validation letter, but it's not the way I use it.
The way I use it is as the start of a process which will end up one way or the other not only getting rid of the debt itself but to get it off the report as well.
That's the intention when I start out. Get rid of the debt entirely once and for all and make them forgive it totally and completely. Either that or pay for it out of their own pockets instead of mine. All depends on what the situation is at the time. But either way, my goal is to get rid of the debt and the creditor and his hound dogs
Nope! Not a shot!
Just the fact that he does not answer will get you nowhere at all.
It just isn't that easy most of the time.
That is a very good qn. However, I cannot think of an agency, who has done everything perfect and not violate any FDCPA laws, but this is tricky, because if you are within the SOL, they may sue you.
I would suggest negotiating for a lesser amount, pay it if you can and then dispute it later with the CRA unless can you get them to delete in exchange for payment. As you can tell form the board, that is quite a chore in itself.
If there was fraud involved, fight it!
I agree that it is risky to make such an agreement with a collection agency, and I don't think I would do it (due to a questionable contractual status).
BUT - with the original creditor, from what I understand, you are amending an agreement with that piece of paper, and this is legal, and to my knowledge will stand up in court. It's perfectly legal to amend terms of any agreement as long as both parties agree.
It isn't part of the FCRA that CRA's have to report ANYTHING - and most of the act concerns what they can't report. (In otherwords, I don't remember anything that says "if someone is late, you MUST report them late.)
Not after the first time. Read the saga of LizardKing and his debt validation methods. He had success.
Yes, that is the way to get the credit listing from a CA off of your report, definitely. That's what I was referring to. I will make myself more clear. Most of the time, though, the original creditor's listing is still on your report, so you need to do both.
If you have sent a validation letter and the CA has not responded in a reasonable time, obviously that would lead to some doubt as to the accuracy of the debt.
That is what you want, that the CA or creditor cannot validate the debt, therefore I believe the CRA should or must remove the item because it would appear that the debt is not 100% accurate. Send them a copy of the letter that you sent by registered mail, hopefully.
Bill you must give the CRAs a little more credit than that, they can't be all that bad.
Remember they are the deep pockets, if you have a reasonable case against both the CRA and the CA, who do you think most people are going to sue?
I am sure they are aware of this, if prodded right, they will do what you want them to do.
I totally agree with you. There is nothing in the FCRA, that says negative information has to be reported. It basically says if you do report it must be accurate.
What really burns me is when a CA or a creditor says that they must report the debt for 7 years, that is bogus, the statute says up to 7 years. Which means it can be reported for one year or up to 7 years. I wonder how valid those secret agreements CRAS make with the CA or creditor to have them report it anyway. Of course if it really exists. I wonder if that would hold up in court. and if it in someway is violating the FCRA laws. It seems funny that the one who is supposedly just reporting the facts can also control how, when and for how long the facts can be reported.
Something to think about!
Never was an entry from the original creditor,no entry has ever been added, nor have I ever been contacted by them.
Bill, to be blunt, my remarks were not meant to be considered moral or legal. Just simply my thoughts and what my experience has shown me thusfar. Shoot, I can't think that complicated!
Thanks for answering my questions gals. The reason I'm asking is because I've been fighting with this situation for a while. I have a $145 collection bill...not much. I debated back and forth about if I wanted to send a validation letter first or just settle. I owe...that's no question. So I sent the settlement letter. I guess I didn't want to get into a serious legal battle early on if I could just get them to delete with payment. BTW, I'm paying IN FULL. It's not being reported by the original creditor.
I'm hoping this will work because if it doesn't, I don't know WHERE to go from there.
I have one other collection that's actually being reported by the original creditor. I'll work on them next.
And an aside note...I had one collection bill from way back. This is PRE creditnet. I saw it on my credit report. I paid the bill and wouldn't you know....without me asking (because I didn't know to ask at the time), they deleted it! What a NICE CA...LOL
Shantel, good luck. Please post your results, I would love to hear about it.
Cyprigirl, nice meeting both you and Shantel. This is a great board.
Good Luck, Shantel.
Your thought about they may sue you is almost like the moral-legal argument.
You catch them doing wrong and they go to court and sue you?
Well, they just might get that stupid, but what if you come back with a counter suit over having violated FDCPA or FCRA or other law?
And if they sue you and you go to court, present your side of the story before a jury, how they broke the law, who do you think the jury is likely to favor, that nasty collection agency???????
Wow are you reading WAY too much into a post. I have made no assumption here and make sure that I try to use the correct pronouns to include everyone generally. You seem to be the only one making assumption about ME. When did I ever say I had a gripe about someone settleing for less due. I think I said I would be glad to give anyone his due if they got the deal to work.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about how much people settle their charge offs for. This discussion isn't about how much they settle for or whether they choose to pay or not. This is about whether an agreement is worth the paper it's printed on. All I have tried to point out from the beginning is that it is unwise to believe a smarmy collection agent when they tell you on the phone that "sure" they will delete everything off. Even with a piece of paper that says that.... it might not happen. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. It wouldn't be the first lie out of their mouths.
I just want people here to be prepared for whatever happens. If it comes down to court, YES, it may be hard to stand in a court room and expound on the virtues of keeping an agreement when you never kept the first one you had with the original creditor. That's just the facts.
That's putting way too much faith in some chump sitting on the phone trying to collect your money.
Fortunately, the trial and tribualtions of Wopner and Judge Judy are for the entertainment of the viewers. It is called entertainment value and that is what neilson ratings are all about. Now, I have a scenario for you:
Godaddyo is in business selling widgets on the web. He purchases widgets at a set price under contract from Judyputy every time he needs to refill his order. The PBM down the street sells widgets for half the price of Judyputy. So Godaddyo decides that he would like to buy widgets from PBM and increase his profit tenfold. Well, Judyputy has Godaddyo under contract stating that he will only purchase his widgets at a set price from Judyputy for the next 3 years. Judyputy feels that he must fullfill his obligation to buy more widgets from Judyputy. Godaddyo says "Ok Judyputy have your way, I will buy one widget from you every month, but I am not required to purchase one widget a month from you, so I will tell the PBM that I want to buy as much discounted widgets as I can from him. Now, Judyputy is scared to death that she will lose the chance of a constant passive income from godaddyo. Not willing to lose his business, judyputy creates an amendment to the previous contract. The new contract states that "Godaddyo will recieve widgets from Judyputy for the New discounted price". A new agreement has been accepted by both parties. It is a valid agreement that is held up in courts across this great land....
How does your scenario have anything to do with contractual agreements to pay a certain price for something. If both parties agree in writing and our sound of mind, what is your background in contractual law that disputes what will and what wont hold up in the court room. Above is a scenario of an agreement between two parties. All though simplified it is an agreement none the less. Thank God that Judge Judy wont be seeing any of my future cases....lol
If the terms of the agreement do not reflect an obligation stating that the debt is yours or if there is no reference to you admitting business with this company previousily, then there is no reason for your scenario to ever be brought to the courts attention. It has no bearing on the case....