Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by kenc_69, May 21, 2001.
Barclaycard Arrival Plus® Credit Card
Earn 40,000 bonus miles after spending $3,000 in the first 90 days; that’s equivalent to a $400 statement credit!
CREDIT CARD WITH BONUS OFFERBarclaycard Arrival Plus
Credit One Bank®Cash Back Rewards
Credit card for people with bad credit! 0% intro *APR for 15 months on balance transfers. $0 intro balance transfer fee for transfers made in first 60 days.
BAD CREDIT CREDIT CARDCredit One Bank® Cash Back
Barclaycard Arrival Plus®
2X miles on each and every purchase. 5% miles back with each redemption!
primor® Secured VisaClassic Card
Credit lines available up to $5,000! Reports to three national credit bureaus; perfect card for reestablishing credit. Guaranteed approval*!
SECURED CARD FOR REBUILDING CREDITprimor Secured Visa Classic
Barclaycard Arrival Plus® World Elite Mastercard®
Pay 0% interest on balance transfers for 12 months*!
Anything that shows up as collection on your crdit report is very negative, whether it is paid or not. Best to get it removed then let it sit there..
thanks but what I need is the info on if its already charged off, when they sell it, can the purchaser of the debt if not paid, put that on your credit report also.
ONLY ONE COLLECTION AGENCY CAN POST "ONE" DEBT...
Sometimes you can dispute as "duplicate" and the will remove both...BUT ONE OR BOTH MAY EVENTUALLY REAPPEAR!!!
also since this debt has been charged off which is written off as uncollectabe right? how can someone else claim the right to be paid?
You should just send a validation letter to the CA and go from there to even see what they respond. This will force them to send you proof that they even own the debt. This puts the burden on them.
Ender, that's exactly right. And after 30 days plus 5 business days with no response, you should follow with the estoppel letter.
Then go from there.
where can I get a example of a validation letter
I posted some letters a few days ago. Look for the thread titled something like: " These are the letters I have. any others?"
Hope this helps.
Ok, I can't find it. I'll post one tomorrow. I promise.
There are a lot of them posted around on various websites and on this forum as well.
Most of them are all bluff and bluster and have no real substance to them at all. Even so, they seem to work fairly well. Also, because of all the huff and puff, they tend to be quite long. Most experts will tell you that a validation letter should be no more than 1 page long.
The most important thing is to know how to use them once you have them. That's what I've never yet seen posted anywhere.
Lexington Law Firm, for instance has on their website the reason why you don't see good validation letters or instructions on how to use them and they state that the reason is that Credit Bureaus are very quick to find and learn to spot such form letters and then simply chunk them in the trash and forget about you, so if one is published that is good, it won't be long before it's worthless.
Their reasoning is quite valid. That's why I never post mine, but save it for my customers whom I teach how to deal with Collection Agencies and Credit Bureaus.
I agree with that statement.
Bill, aren't you forgetting that validation letters are sent to collection agencies not Credit Bureaus?
Not at all, Erica. I'm not forgetting that because it simply isn't so. I send almost the same exact letter to both.
And why wouldn't I? After all, isn't it the same exact result that you want from both which is to get them to validate the debt? Prove that the debt is real and does exist and meets all standards of law?
So if I want the exact same results from both, why would I not use at least basically the same letter to both??
It's after you have sent the validation letter to both where the split comes and the procedures are no where near the same. The validation letter is nothing more or less than a means to start the dispute in either case. In other words, the validation letter is nothing more than the Reeses Peanut Butter with which you bait the rat trap. Then, if the rat does not spring the trap, you must change the bait after a certain specified length of time and see if the rat likes that a little better. But you got to get the rat in the trap somehow.
I really like this kind the best of all.
I can run them around Robin Hood's barn so hard they'll never stop panting.
Actually Bill, don't CRA's only verify a debt, they don't have anything to do with owning or validating their authenticity. The purpose, as I understand it, of the validation letter is to force either the CA or the original Creditor to prove that the debt is both valid and legitimate. If they are not able to provide the required "proof" and validation, then they are required to remove and no longer report said in-validated debt to the CRA. If that occurs then it would be a simple matter to then "dispute" the information with the CRA and when it cannot be verified, the CRA must remove and there should be no or very little danger of it being re-reported.
Again Bill...shouldn't you Validate with a CA and Verify with a CRA?
Just my thoughts
Actually Bill, don't CRA's only verify a debt,
In actual practice, yes, that is sadly quite true.
They don't have anything to do with owning or validating their authenticity.
Weeeeeelllllll now then that just depends which shade of glasses you might wish to wear to look at that! -0)
The purpose, as I understand it, of the validation letter is to force either the CA or the original Creditor to prove that the debt is both valid and legitimate. If they are not able to provide the required "proof" and validation, then they are required to remove and no longer report said unvalidated debt to the CRA.
Yep! That's what it's SUPPOSED to be used for, in theory at least.
If that occurs then it would be a simple matter to then "dispute" the information with the CRA and when it cannot be verified, the CRA must remove and there should be no or very little danger of it being re-reported.
Excuse me, I don't mean to be critical of you here, but WOW! You twisted the wording of last sentence a few wraps too many for what I suppose to be your true intentions to convey were. That's OK. I think I get the drift of what you actually meant to say..Let me pick that snake apart.
If validation occurs, then they (the CA or original) would have the right to report the debt as valid and it would remain. You lose.
If validation does not occur, then they have no right to report that it is a valid debt and any action to the contrary would be illegal under FTC or courtroom type rules.
If it could not be validated, then it's not a legal debt.
If validation does not occur within the "legal" time limit, it might get removed, but if it then later gets validated, it probably will get put back on your report.
Again Bill...shouldn't you Validate with a CA and Verify with a CRA?
Again, NO! Emphatically NO!
Now then, let's look at the actual truth of the matter. Credit Bureaus are not held to the same high standard of validation as are CA/Creditors. I know that, I'm quite certain you know that or else you would not be questioning me over it and that's the truth of the matter.
Now let's get down where the cards actually get dealt and the game gets started. I guess you at least have some idea of how to play Poker, don't you? Ever hear of the player who won with a bluff?? I thought so. And although you don't often hear of the player who lost after bluffing that happens quite often too. But what did the bluffer have to lose? He was gonna lose anyway, wasn't he? In this particular card game, we will change the rules a little whether they like it or not. After the bluff is called, we still have an extra ace up our sleeve(s) which we can pull out and bring into the play to see if they will fall for that too. They will quite often, especially if you also make them believe that you just might actually sue them over the issue. Sometimes they will call your bluff all the way down the tubes, sometimes they will just ignore you, and sometimes they give in. As Kenny Rogers sings in his old song, "The Gamblin Man", you gotta know when to hold 'em, you gotta know when to fold 'em, and you gotta know when it's time to cash in the chips."
But again, the best actual use of the validation letter is not to get them to validate the debt. That's the last thing on earth you want them to ever do. If they actually get the validation completed, you are dead meat. If that occurs, then you are going to have to either pay up or force them to take you to court by whatever hook or crook you can conjure up. You might even have to wait till the SOL has run out before you try to force them to court. I've never seen one really get validated yet. I've had them come back and say they talked to the creditor and claim the creditor reported back to them that the debt was vaild. That's when I lowered the boom on them. If they are stupid enough to do that, then they are going to be easy pickings anyway. They will probably fall for just about anything.
But never let them actually get the validation done if you can help it before you whang them a good one. The validation letter is nothing more than the peanut butter you bait the trap with and that's all it's any good for.
Just my thoughts, but they are extremely effective if you do it right.
A collection agent is under no obligation, whatsoever, to perform by validation within a certain time frame. Given this your theory regarding estoppel principles has a rather large hole, because obligated performance is a prerequisite to alleging an estoppel prohibition. Of course one who puts him/herself in a disadvantaged position by asserting some right that is nonexistent, cannot then claim protection by estoppel.
It seems to me, and I could be mistaken here, that your tactic attempts to raise some Estoppel in Pais defense; yet does not. Again, the primary issue to bear in mind is that the collection agent has no real duty to perform in a certain time frame â?? even if the consumer demands such.
Certainly a consumer may issue demand for certain performance but one to respond within a certain time limit when there is otherwise no responsibility to do so, does not create estoppel.
When I recieved by accident the letter in the mail to the bank I was surprised as to what it was and how it was sat up. It did not ask the bank to provide them(Trans Union) with the information. Instead it was a postcard type thing that said I was disputing this item, then listed what the CRA had on file. It had a place for them to sign and a box to check if it were correct or not. It ask the creditor to make any corrections. I thought that was just too easy for the creditor to just sign the card and send it back. One wouldn't have to look a thing up, just sign on the line and be done with it. I really thought that the creditor would have to provide the information.
Re: No Estoppel
You know that, I know that, and if they don't, OH WELL.
Re: No Estoppel
So, Crdt Dfnse , what do you suggest a person do when a validation letter sent certified is ignored?