That is not what the other tradeline states - it states pays as agreed never late. Now has a zero balance. Infact I did pay on time and I paid the bill in full every since CAP1 acquired the debt. The problem is they added this other imaginary account that never existed and decided it was their duty to report for the old creditor. Why not let the old creditor report for themselves. Plus they disguised the whole deal under the guise that they were going to help me rebuild my credit. If it were not for them I would have 0 derogs next year. But, we will see what they do in court.
From last week's thread:http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=34561 just know what you're doing: http://www.mylawyers.com/articles/r..._old_debts.html Sassy Old Debts Q: I have a debt collector attempting to collect a very old debt from me. I had heard that if a debt is too old that it might become uncollectable. Is that true? A new practice has arisen in the debt collection industry. Old, charged-off debt is being packaged sold to other financial entities for as little as a penny or less for a dollar of old debt. These debts are old often barred by the statute of limitations which limits the period of time during which a lawsuit may be filed to collect the debt. Thus, a time barred debt is one which can no longer be collected by legal means due to the passage of time, e.g. -- lawsuits, wage garnishment, liens on real estate, etc. These buyers of old debts are "debt collectors" covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The federal law, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), protects consumers from abusive or harassing, false or misleading, /or unfair practices of third party debt collectors or attorneys attempting to collect debts incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. Business or agricultural debts are not covered by the FDCPA. The FDCPA does not apply to creditors except when they obtained the debt before default. However, the buyers of old debt obtained the obligation after it had fallen into default , therefore, they are debt collectors covered by the FDCPA. Illinois has not enacted a similar statute. Sometimes the collectors of old debt offer a new credit card if the consumer will transfer part or all of the old debt to the credit card; other times they simply request payment. These collectors of old debt often fail to inform the consumer that if he or she transfers part or all of the balance of the old debt to the new credit card, acknowledges the old debt, or makes payment toward the old debt, that debt is renewed the owner of that debt may once again sue use other legal remedies to collect the debt. The collector of old debt may use this technique to trick the consumer into renewing the old debt. This may be an illegal collection practice in violation of the FDCPA. Courts have held that a lawsuit filed to collect a time barred debt violates the FDCPA. However, the collector in the above example does not sue, it merely sends a letter asking the consumer to transfer the balance of his or her old debt to a new credit card. The deceptive misleading aspect of this practice is the failure of the collector to inform the consumer that if he or she transfers part or all of the balance of the old debt to the new credit card, acknowledges the old debt, or makes payment toward the old debt, that debt is renewed the consumer may once again be sued ( use other legal remedies employed) to collect that old debt. The courts have differed in their rulings on this practice. Some, including the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, have found that the above described conduct states a claim for violation of the FDCPA. Yet other courts have held that it does not dismissed the consumer's lawsuit. This legal issue remains unresolved with the fight continuing in various courts around the country.
Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su This whole idea that other people shouldn't attempt to collect their debts really speaks to our society's collective narcissism. It's all about me, me, me, me, me. How DARE Capital One try to collect money I borrowed. How DARE they come up with a creative solution in which: 1) Someone is given the opportunity to pay back an old debt which, last time I checked, is still the honorable thing to do. 2) Someone is given the opportunity to qualify for a new credit card which may well be a welcomed event for at least some who have outstanding old chargeoffs. Bonus: the new card results in the addition of a whole new positive tradeline. 3) Someone is given an opportunity to have an R9 changed to an R5, courtesy Mr. Cooke. To my way of thinking, you're halfway there. R5 is an improvement over the R9; the next move would be to dispute and pester and PFB and nutcase and dispute some more and argue (etc.) the R5 right off of the reports. It's been done (search the board). Instead, what do we hear? Righteous indignation that they would ask someone to repay money they spent on stuff. Accusations of Mafia tactics. Anger that an R9 wasn't changed to an R1 right on the spot just because. Maybe somebody can help me to understand why this isn't just another example of what shrinks call "entitlement" or what my grandma would call "spoiled." For the life of me, I can't figure this out at all. Doc P.S. When collectors break the law, they deserve what's coming to them, and it's true that so many of them are indeed scum. This credit card offer from Capital One hardly seems to fit the "scum" mold. It's certainly not going to be attractive to everybody, but it will be for some. No big deal. Give 'em a yes or a no.
Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su That would be fine doc, but the indignation comes from the old tradeline reported as a charge-off. A new imaginary tradeline re-aged as a paid charge off, and a positive tradeline. I would be happier with only one charge-off, rather than a charge off (I-9), a paid charge off, (R-5), and a (R-1). Afterall I only screwed up once, why do I have to pay for it twice? It is simply not fair, nor is it legal. I only want them to follow the law. They refuse to acknowledge that the law applies to them. When our rights are trampled, are we to be happy about it?
Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su Dear PSYCHDOC The reason you don't understand why we're "whining" (I'll help you say it) about our credit woes is because you don't know that this whole "CREDIT" business is basicaly a "stacked against the consumer business". It's ALL about money and manipulations by the creditors and the consumers. Rules are written ,mostly by the creditors because of their power as political circumstances permit. I have seen from working in the auto industry that Ford credit GMAC and other financial institutions COMPLETELY disregard how a consumer pays on his "plastic" or anything else and gives them credit to buy a new car if they pay their auto loans on time. Ask any auto related finance company "paper buyer" as we called them when they are a little drunk and they'll admit it. The converse of this argument is also true. The system can be and is manipulated everyday by both sides. Ask and thy shall sometimes will receive is a time proven adage. So why not?
Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su Uhhh, dear Teech33, how do you know what I do or don't know? You're very new to Creditnet, so before you decide that I'm anti-consumer I would suggest you spend at least a whole half-minute reading this board. I've personally brought successful lawsuits against all three major credit reporting agencies. (Note: thanks, Lizardking, lol.) And, young Teech33, I have helped many people here with their credit repair efforts -- especially in the area of removing paid chargeoffs from their credit bureau reports. You, my new friend, have no idea who I am, thanks. That said, I stand by my remarks. You do sound like you're whining. Cap One made you an offer. You don't like it. No biggie. But their offer hardly smacks of the heavy-handed stuff that we so often see emanating from the rancid halls of debt collectors. Doc
Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su Yeah, Doc. I was a little taken aback by teech's post as well. I was quite nervous replying to you myself in my previous post in this thread...considering my short history here...lol We will have to agree to disagree on this one though. I don't care how nice Cap1 thinks thier offer is, it does not justify violating federal law, IMHO.
Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su Mr Doc Imagine that you were mr prominent citizen and you always paid your bills until some disaster struck you and you no longer had an income and the "sisters of mercy" hospital slapped you with a humongous hospital bill. Then imagine that 3 years or so later you got a job and you wanted to get out of debt without going to BK because you only owed $8000 worth of "other than hospital" bills but then you found out that those $8000 were now about $20,000. What would you say about our "credit system?" You coudn't borrow money because you're a credit deadbeat and you can't stop being a credit deadbeat because you can't get credit to pay off your bills. We're all whining about one thing or another here, you're whining about me aren't you? I also stand on I said about the credit system in my last post. My hat goes off to you on your acomplishments but please don't preach to me about my perception of fairness.
Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su I was waiting for this thread to explode into flames as soon as I saw the subject line. It's actually been better than I expected, and some really useful information was passed out. Analogous situations: Snake oil isn't for everybody, give 'em a yes or no. Penny stocks aren't for everybody, give those brokers a yes or a no. A car the dealer knows is a lemon, or the dealer knows is outrageously overpriced (and Mr.Cooke has to know this deal is not good for many of the people it is offered to), give 'em a yes or a no. The drug dealer who offers drugs to an addict. Well, the addict could walk away if he or she chose. The addict could just give 'em a no. The list goes on. The same logic can and is used to defend all sorts of unscrupulous deals. Just because the consumer can walk away from something doesn't remove the responsibility of the person who offered the deal in the first place, and just because Mr. Cooke's generous offer isn't illegal, doesn't mean it is morally OK for him to make an offer he knows is not in the best interest of many, probably most, consumers. If Mr. Cooke, and Cap One, were to fully and clearly explain the consequences of this deal, a lot of people who have accepted it would have laughed in his face instead. Nobody dares laugh in the face of the mafia, so I suppose the mafia comparison isn't exact, but the general outline holds true. I've never dealt with Mr. Cooke, but judging from the people who have, he seems to be a fair person, to a degree. But if he had offered this deal to me and tried to pass it off as "good," I would certainly have a different opinion of him. He is, at the end of the day, an employee of Cap One, and as such, he has to shill their products, has to toe the company line.
There is no legal way for an old charge off to be re-aged. The law clearly states when the seven year obsolescence period begins, as stated earlier in this post. If you have records of the old charge-off, and the original date of delinquency or date of charge-off, than that trade lilne can only be reported for seven years plus 180 days from the date of delinquency, or the date of chargeoff (if placed on your reports before 12/31/97). If this account has been re-aged, whether Capital One bought it or not, then you have a case. I would sue them for FCRA violations. I paid off an old charge off two months ago that wasn't even appearing on my credit reports, and last week the creditor placed a paid chargeoff on my Equifax report with a DOLA of 8/02 making it look like it just happened. Screw that! I am disputing it with them now, and if they don't delete it, or at a minimum, report it correctly, than I will definitely sue them for illegally re-aging the account and for defamation since there was no business purpose to report me after we had already settled on the account. If anyone thinks differently, I would like to know...
WOW, someone sees the light. That is what I've been saying here for the past hour. I know it is illegal, I have an attorney taking it to Federal court. He thinks it is illegal also.
Bravo Mr Bunter! I liked your post. (sincerely) But only I and a few others out here in this credit wasteland have to walk on the raggedy shoes we walk with. At least we're putting the "legendary" Mr Cooke , the man who never refused to help any person that was in the "700 or so club" with his credit in his rightfull place among these posts.
Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su A couple of years ago after disputing my Cap1 charge-off (which was verified, and correctly I might add) Cap1 sent me a similar offer to have the old debt transefered to new unsecured card and I took the offer for the following reasons: 1. The charge-off was not past the SOL at the time I was trying to get it off my report. I didn't know what SOL was back then so I thought I'd owe it for at least the 7 reporting years. 2. I didn't think it was a horrible thing for them to want me to pay them a debt I owed, which did include late and over the limit fees. Total was about $600. 3. I got an unsecured card which did help my credit repair process a bit. 4. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT reason for me was that the offer said that if i make on-time payments for 6 months they will remove any negative information from my credit reports, WHICH WAS DONE with the exception of TU and 2 years later and after finding this board and a call to Mr. Cooke, he had it removed. Over all I was happy with the outcome at the time. Of course, if Cap 1 is really doing something illegal... then sue.
Cooke , the man who never refused to help any person that was in the "700 or so club" with his credit in his rightfull place among these posts. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I get out of this that NOBODY in the 700+ club should EVER be helped by MR COOKE??? He should ONLY help people in the 350-600 club???
Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su Here's the really funny part. I have talked to Cooke about the issue, and he has refused to remove or correct the invalid information in the imaginary tl. So I took the "litigious mindset" hired an attorney, and sent a validation request. Cap1 completely ignored the validation request, as they know it will prove what they have done. What they apparantly do not know is I am a CPA, and we are known for keeping meticulous records (with the exception of a few former Andersen Partners...lol). I have everything I need to prove exactly what they have done. Including statements from the original creditor, from when I was in college, the charge off letter from the OC dated. The initial offer agreement from Cap1 including all phamplets and contract, all statemetns showing perfect payment history, and every correspondence between me and them on this matter, They are screwed, I can't wait for my day in court!!!
jdog and mitchra, That's not true when you are creating a new agreement. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that's what I thought the cap one offer created, a new agreement. The tradeline for the old charge-off would be updated to read paid charge-off, that doesn't change the commencement of delinquency date though, or shouldn't, is that what I'm missing? That is what they are changing? The new tradeline would include the old debt and begin from whatever date the agreement was signed. Sassy
Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su from my readings about him, he is just like every other person at credit card companies, and YES I am going to generalize here. Some people just take up for him more than others because they got their credit line increases and whatnot from him. Probably from no act of his goodwill, but in fact based on your credit not being so bad, or a computer spitting out something that says you are worth it this one time. Or some kind of quota based structure where they are allowed to <insert seemingly kind favor here> 10 times a week for random folks. But it seems he has the power to do what he pleases with your account, and that is proven by the fact that he can change rates and make or deny approvals, change status from PAID to PAID AS AGREES, etc. Yet he wont remove items from your credit report and claims his hands are tied..no way, he could remove the stuff if he felt like it, he just doesnt want to. It is his 'power' over you. Im betting if there were 5 people in his group who shared the workload, 2 out of the 5 would somehow be magically able to circumvent 'policy' and remove items such as this one in question from your report. yes, im going to get flamed for that, but I've seen this soooo many times in my past. it's a power-trip.
Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su Nodding with kittiekat, Is what kittie posted not what it indeed is, they aren't honoring their agreement? OR, are you saying with is being offered is different than what she experienced? Sassy
Sassy, If you are creating a new agreement then it is a new agreement. It should only be reported in a negative light if you default on it. I never defaulted on it. In fact, I paid it in full, and closed the account out of anger at them. I could care less about the old account, it could read paid charge off or whatever else. It was about to expire anyway and had already passed the SOL for my state. The problem is the new intermediate TL they added, or the imaginary account, as I refer to it. It has a brand new account number, it is reported as a revolving credit card account, when the original debt was an installment loan, and it is re-aged and stated as a paid charge off. It looks like I defaulted on a credit card with them, they charged it off, and then I paid it, from a potential lenders vantage point. Cap one never charged off anything concerning this debt, only the original creditor did. They are infact lying. The agreement they sent me stated they would update the old account to paid charge off, not create a new one with a brand new date. I was tricked, and lied to. Furthermore, it would be a violation of GAAP, or poor business management, to purchase, or factor debt, then immediately turn around and charge it off. Why in the hell did you purchase the debt if you were going to charge it off within two weeks. This would smell of tax manipulation to an IRS auditor, because you purchase the debt for penny's on the dollar, then get a tax write off for the face value of the debt. I want to see their records where they actually charged it off. Then I want a valid business explanation of why they purchased the debt and charged it off within in two weeks of the purchase date. Needless to say, they have not provided any such records. We will see how they react to a subpoena.
