Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su That was directed at George, and then the following, directed at Doc: Rudeness to both George and Doc in the same thread!!!!!!!!!!!! humphhhhhh SHAME on you, teech, you have lots of homework to do. Sassy
GEORGE, that's fine and dandy, they didn't pay on time, then 7 yrs bad credit if it's verifiable. But don't trick people into reaging the account because they didn't go after it during the SOL.
Mitchra, Your previous post is in black. 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. ok nodding, agree 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. ok thank you. This is what I was misunderstanding then. I understood there to be 1. The old tradeline and 2. the new tradeline -- and that the new tradeline wouldn't be negative unless you again paid late or defaulted. So what they do then is really list the old tradeline in duplicate. The second being under their name and reage. It would look rather like a charge-off that one was making payments on yes, if reported accurately? Once this fake line is paid in full (or paid timely for 6 months per kittie), is that when they will delete the negative information, as happened with kittie? They are saying then they would remove the charge-off notation from the fake line that shouldn't have been reported as a charge-off in the first place. Really you are ending up then with 2 bad tradelines, that stay negative, and per the new agreement would become positive as long as you paid it in full. However, the whole payment period time, though the payments should be reflected, you would still have a new negative tradeline. 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. ok, I'm understanding what you're unhappy about. You thought they updated the old, I thought they created a new tradeline, but that it was positive -- so you'd end up having the old one showing as a paid charge-off with a new positive tradeline as long as it remained current. Each one working to balance the other out in the great scheme of tradelines. 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. Nodding, if there's a new tradeline (that I thought was positive), it shouldn't be charged-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. Understood. They are taking the tax benefits of the charge-off immediately while not really charging-off. You get the warm fuzzies for making right on your old debt that was legally uncollectable, a negative tradeline for 6 months, and the carrot is at month 7, the negative information would be removed, all under the guise of an unsecured card. Sneaky. Sassy
NO LATES NO BK NO OVER-LIMIT NO COLLECTIONS 24+ YEARS Is that what you want??? I WANT TO BE HERE...you don't like it...FINE... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...and teech33 your "CLAIM TO FAME" is what??? And why are you here???
Sassy, I am rather surprised you and some of the other respected longtimers are unaware of this, infact this is the main site where I learned I had recourse on this issue. But here if the FTC opinion on the matter taken directly from the FTC staff opinion for A. Amason. "2. Is the reporting period extended if (A) the original creditor sells or transfers the account to another creditor, (B) the consumer responds to post-chargeoff collection efforts by making a payment on the debt, or (C) the consumer disputes the account with a CRA? Does it matter whether the 7-year period has expired when any of these events occurs? No. In enacting the new provisions discussed above, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- 180 days after the start of the delinquency that led to the chargeoff -- to begin the obsolescence period. It did so to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from later events under the original FCRA. Enclosed are two staff opinion letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99; Johnson, 08/31/98) that discuss the impact of these provisions, and the legislative history relating to their enactment, in more detail. Because the commencement of the seven year period is now described with some precision by the statute, it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you listed -- sale of the charged off account by the creditor, or a payment on or dispute about the account by the consumer -- changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a chargeoff." Although the staff opinions do nat carry the weight of law, they are the entity charged with enforcement, and their opinions do carry some weight in the courts.
I'm understanding the letter, mitchra, what's tripping me up is the new agreement. The opinion letter supposes there isn't a new agreement to pay. Sassy
OK Sassy, We are almost there...lol. I do not have any idea what deal Kitty got. the deal I got was a brand new paid charge-off that will not go away until the 7 yrs is up. Doesn't matter whether I pay in full or not. I got a brand new positive tradeline for my good payment history. Plus I had the original charge off from the OC. Cap1 stated (in writing) they would update the original charge off to a paid charge off, yet they gave me a new one and left the old one as is. Luckily I was able to dispite the old one off my profile, but I am unhappy because the new negative tl is re-aged and I would have to wait an additional 7 years for it to go away (the positive TL is ok). Were it not for this board, I would never have disputed the old tradeline and I would be stuck with two negative tradelines with different DOLA's for the same account and a positive tradeline for the new agreement. I either want CAP to report accurately by changing the date to the orginal date of delinquency and changing from revolving to installment, which it was, or delete it alltogether. Cooke blatantly told me what they are doing is correct and legal. I asked him if he ever read the FDCPA or FCRA and he indicated he had. Apparently he has read a different version than the one I read...lol
They are reaging it for their protection of giving you a lower interest rate, hence increasing their risk A LOT. They also think that what they report is a positive tradeline which is where the educated consumer will disagree. That is where I see the main problem because if it was truly viewed as a positive tradeline, then I would agree to the reaging and reporting. Also if they did want to be fair, they should delete the old derog. And noone is trying to defend but explain. It is actually stated in the paperwork that the debt is being rebought and reassigned as a new tradeline which does mean reaging. And your signature is required. When I called up the person at Midland she did answer that the debt would be reaged. I'm sure that in the court of law the judge would side with the CC/CA being that there is a contract and agreement involved.
Even if the new agreement said, "we will add an imaginary charged off account to your credit profile, and re-age it" which it does not, it would be null and void as it is violation of the law. An agreement in violation of the law is null and void on it's face.
PS Sassy, I wish I knew how to change the color of my font like you did earlier. That is pretty neat trick.
They are reagging to keep you at their mercy as long as possible. Adding negative items to your credit report keeps you subprime. How does adding negative TL's affect the risk of you defaulting all over again with them, or mitigate the risk of a lower APR. Explain further please.
NOW I gotcha and that is different from what happened to me. That "new" charge-off definetly doesn't sound "right". OC in my case was Cap1 also. I'm gonna have to go back now and read from the beginning since it's clearer now. Go get 'em mitchra!
Sassy, I did get a credit card with A $2300 balance (this is the positive TL I mentioned). They were even kind enough to raise my limit to 2500 after 6 months of on time payments. In fact, when I got the card there was even a $100 open line on it that I could use. I was so excited, it was my first CC. I had never even looked at my credit reports and had no knowledge whatsoever of credit repair or this site. The problem started when I learned of my rights and the importance of regularly checking your credit reports for accuracy. I then realized that they added the bogus information. There was nothing in the agreement about inserting a new negative TL. It's like they said, ok here's a new maxed out cc for you and an opportunity to improve your credit by making regular payments, but we are going slap you in the face while we are at it by issuing an additional negative TL to you just for funnsies. Hey, I made red...lol
Re: Spoke with Mr Cooke today-he su The real lesson here is to talk to and deal with creditors. You're still a customer. And they want your business. I've found that, even when you're broke and can't pay the minimum balance, you can always work something out. I simply don't buy this notion that everyone is being screwed over by secret handshakes and backroom deals when it comes to credit.
Responding to the RED Yep, everything else aside, the date is wrong and you've an extra negative tradeline. Inaccurate is inaccurate is inaccurate. Mitchra did speak to Mr. Cooke directly, Freddie. Sassy
BTW. No I don't think they ever actually charged it off and took the tax deduction. No accountant in his right mind would chrge off a debt two weeks old, unless it was an error. I think they are bold faced lying on my credit report. I asked Cooke if they charged it off and he said no. They are simply reporting on behalf of the OC out of a "moral obligations" as he put it. Well he can pay me some money for a legal violation as a result of his moral obligation as far as I am concerned...lol
