Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by steff45, May 17, 2001.
Barclaycard Ring™ Mastercard®
No annual fee, No balance transfer fees, No foreign transaction fees, Low interest!
CREDIT CARD WITH NO ANNUAL FEEBarclaycard Ring™ Mastercard®
Credit One Unsecured Visa®for Rebuilding Credit
Credit card for people with bad credit to rebuild credit!
BAD CREDIT CREDIT CARDCredit One Bank® Rebuild Credit
First Access VISA® Credit Card
Access to credit even with bad or limited credit! Reports to 3 major credit bureaus and accepted wherever you see the Visa® sign. Get application response in 60 seconds.
CREDIT CARD FOR BAD CREDITFirst Access VISA®
Green Dot primor® Visa®Classic Secured Credit 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
Credit One Bank® Unsecured Visa® with Cash Back Rewards
Get cash back on every purchase. Unsecured credit card with monthly monitoring for credit line increases. Improve your credit history with responsible use.
CASH BACK UNSECURED VISACredit One Bank
Helllloooo.....is this thing on?
Do a search on Creditnet for validation or verification and I'm sure you'll find plenty to choose from.
Or you can try the Yahoo groups:
for sample letters. You do have to be a member, though.
A "validation" letter is what you would send to the CA. They can't "reage" an account (anymore). Read the Fair Debt Collections Act. I would always send a "cease and desist" letter to any collection agency, and tell them you are only obligated to pay the original creditor not them. Most of the time, they will just drop it and move on to someone who does not know their rights.
Unfortunately youâ??re incorrect to certain degrees, because an account can in deed be re-aged under certain situations. For example; if a consumer were to pay on an obligation that falls within the 455 day rule, a reporting term could be reset. (I suggest you read the FCRA, specifically, the latest amended version; NOT FDCPA.)
Well, again in this caseâ?¦ Sending a C&D in the context you mention above, considering Steffâ??s situation, would be inappropriate. For one thing if the debt falls under the 455 day rule, indicating any responsibility for the obligation could reset â?? irrespective the C&D. Secondly, collection agents are far less wimps than youâ??ve indicated and arenâ??t generally intimidated by C&Ds or those who assert alleged remedies. Simple because a consumer knows of certain rights, doesnâ??t equate to a position of strength.
Lastly (and please donâ??t feel like Iâ??m picking on you), a consumer IS obligated to pay the collection agent, whether the agent is under assignment or owns the debt. Thinking otherwise is risky business.
1. Hmm, I did read the FCRA, specifically section 605 (a) (4) of the FCRA. The 455 days after the Enactment of the CCRRA of 1996 has nothing to do with this case.
2. I forgot to add NOT to pay anything to the CA or the reporting of the debt can be reported, but the date of last deliquency does not change. I do state this on my other posts. My fault. I also mentioned the FDCPA since this is in regards to actions by a Collection Agency. No other intent was implied.
Hmm, a C & D letter is perfectly legitimate and is mentioned in the FDCPA. It in no way, shape, or form implies ownership of any debt or obligation. I, my wife, and I am sure thousands of others have used this effectively. Again the 455 days is not applicable here.
Read section 811, specifically 811 (b) of the FDCPA. When you hear of a court case in which a consumer is ordered to pay a collection agent that does not have a signed contract for the unsecured debt, let me know. I will begin to worry.
Also, when I sent a C&D letter to a collection agency, they said this was their last letter, and that they were recommending that the ORIGINAL CREDITOR file a suit against me. Hmm, that seems to back up section 811 of the FDCPA to me.
Exactly what is this CreditDefense site going to sell? Hmm.
You said this was from 1993?? Do you have any prior reports that state this date?? If so send that in with your letter disputing this account as obsolete to the CRA.
I too am having this problem...but if you check the posts from subject "Credit Clean Up 101 Help" or just search posts under my name I think you will find a ton of valuable information there.
Feeling a lot stronger now...thanks creditnet friends!!
You're Still Incorrect!
While I respect your right to voice an opinion, my comments were issued simply to point out some inaccuracies; certainly not cause a controversy. Be that as it may, irrespective the possibility of further misunderstanding, I must continue to (respectfully) disagree. Your statements are inaccurate as are your interpretations of law, Iâ??ll explainâ?¦
(CCRRA..?) Excuse me; but the 455-day rule has everything to do with the context of Steffâ??s issues. You see while 15 USC 1681c(a)(4) specifically states, in relation to reporting requirements: Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years. That section is interpreted differently due to 15 USC 1681c(c)(1&2) as amended, which indicates:
(c) Running of reporting period.
(1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (5) of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.
(2) Effective date. Paragraph (1) shall apply only to items of information added to the file of a consumer on or after the date that is 455 days after the date of enactment of the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996.
Although the Act was amended in 1996, it did not take affect until September 30, 1997. 455 days from this date puts the reporting limit at December 31, 1998. This means that any debt reported on or after 31 December 1998 would fall under the strict 7-year reporting rule, but those reported before DO NOT. Case law indicates that even if a debt were not strictly reported in-full before the termination date (12/31/98), but was nonetheless incurred prior to the effective amendment engagement date (30 September 1997); it nevertheless can be re-aged and the reporting period extended as appropriate.
Mike I clearly didnâ??t state a C&D wasnâ??t a â?legitimateâ? tactic, only that in context with Steffâ??s stated issue; it is â??inappropriate.â? Because unquestionably you suggested in relation to contacting the collection agent: â??â?¦tell them you are only obligated to pay the original creditor not them.â? Frankly, any admission of liability can (and is often) construed as an acknowledgement of the debt, and could reset the SOL and reporting period. This could happen if Steff were to follow your advice as stated.
Additionally, all a C&D is likely to accomplish is to alienate the CA making it more difficult to deal with if Steff were to attempt negotiating a credit redress. I presume, after all, the objective would be to remove the item not take such measures as to keep it reporting longer. Therefore, Steff may want to first seek cooperation not issuance of hastily thought remedies.
Granted, Mike, C&Ds are effective tools when used properly but they are not an end all solution. I tend to think of them as means of last resort that should be coordinated with other strategies, not an end unto themselves, not a quick fix for touchy situations.
Regardless, in case anyone questions my reasoning further? Below are links to appropriate sites where my views can be verified:
FTC Overview of FCRA
PS: Since you asked what CreditDefenses.com is going to offer..? Letâ??s just say the above-info is just an inkling of whatâ??s to come. [;-)
Re: You're Still Incorrect!
When I first started repairing my credit, I used a book that had the FCRA, FCDPA, FCBA, all posted in the back of the book. I didnt realize that the laws had changed in 96. I almost screwed myself royally. Thank goodness, a copy of the entire acts came in my mail the day I was getting ready to mail out my letters. The ftc sent it to me because I had filed a complaint the preivious month. Now as far as cease and desist letters go, they only seem to work in very special situations. For instance they can be used in a validation letter to cease all communication except in regards to the debt validation. Also, they can be used to stop harassment or to build a case against someone who just might be breaking the law. It is your right under the law to communicate with a cease and desist letter, but sometimes it leave the ca/creditor little room but to take legal action even if that was not their original intent (this would of course only be in a situation that the money owed would justify the means)
Re: You're Still Incorrect!
If a debt became delinquent before the latest FCRA changes, and a consumer never restarted the clock (making payments, etc) it still must obey the 7 year rule. It doesn't matter if the debt was incurred in 1993 before the latest FCRA changes. It's still beyond the 7 year reporting limit. No collection agency can legally report it as current if indeed you haven't made any agreement or payments. I know of a case already against NCO for this reason. I don't know who this credit defenses guy is but he is wrong. Are you an attorney and what case law can you site that shows an old 1993 debt can be reaged like you describe?
The law is clear on reporting limits. 7 years and no longer allowed. The only real change is that the CA or Creditor now must report to the CRA's the actual date of delinquency whereas before they didn't. But that in and of itself still doesn't change how old the debt is. If it is 7 years old or older, then it cannot legally be reported anymore. Regardless of when a CA decides to report it.
Could We Reason IN CONTEXT?
Here again everyone is entitled to an opinion, the difference being is that (aside from board posts) I get paid for mineâ?¦ By attorneys, creditors and collection agents of course. Nonetheless if youâ??re going to disagree with me, at least do so in context with the thread?
Steff originally stated/posted: â??They are listing the last activity as 3/2000â?¦â? Clearly the collection agent has some reason to report such activity, even if itâ??s inaccurate or with harmful intent. Irrespective, a report of this nature poses probable grounds for the reset of reporting period. Did you even bother to read the FCRA via the link or the actual cites I provided above? I mean, it is what it is, right there in black and white.
No foul, however, because 15 USC 1681c(c)(1&2) as amended (above post) are clear and specificâ?¦ Thus only requiring enough intelligence to read my post (where I cited the authority) to determine whom is incorrect. Mind you I have not stated that Steffâ??s report is neither legitimate nor accurate for that matter, only permissible under the Act as amended.
Do you have a "old credit report" laying around with the original "date of last activity"? If so,dispute with the old report -vs- new report. Using a "old report" to dispute with has really helped me here with my credit-repairing and have had quite a few items removed.Good luck!!!!!
Excellent idea! Although gaining old reports isnâ??t something everyone can easily do, unless of course a current full-factual is run (which is the deal if Steff canâ??t find any old reports). Because you see, I believe where some folks are getting distracted here? Is by the assumption that the collection agent hadnâ??t reported prior to the amended deadline in 1998. Believe me itâ??s a pretty safe bet they have, but still not a sure thing.
But the only way to factually determine this is for Steff to do as youâ??ve suggested, and obtain a prior report to sustain or deny the original insertion. Hay if the collection agent hadnâ??t reported by the amendment date, then Steff has all sorts of grounds upon which to attack the reported itemâ?¦ Not to mention the collection agent!
Re: You're Still Incorrect!
BTW, the CCRRA that you question is the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 which is the 455 day "rule" as you call it.
Section 605 (a) (4) specifically says NO ACCOUNTS placed for collection or profit and loss may stay on your record past 7 YEARS (student loans excluded). THERE ARE NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS HERE.
And Mr smarty pants, the section (c) (2) that you call the 455 day rule, is only an exception to the previous paragraph ONLY, not the one I just cited. Go read it again, and again, and again.
Re: You're Still Incorrect!
All I know for sure is that Experian specifically states how long the item will stay on record. They have all my 1996 and 1997 charged off/ collection accounts scheduled to come off 7 years from the date that the orginial account went 30 days late for the last time. Here's one example:
Repossession as of 4-1997
Charge Off as of 5-1997
60 days as of 3-97
30 days as of 2-1997, 10-1996
Status Details: This account is scheduled to continue on record until 2-2004
Don't know what dates the other credit bureaus are using.
Re: You're Still Incorrect!
Listen, if a CA or Creditor is reporting a debt beyond 7 years and you know you have made no payments or agreements to reset the clock then you have the right to demand the debt to come off the credit report. Granted, it may take a lawsuit to make CA's or Creditors to post correctly or luckily just a few letters, but the point is still the same. They are not following the law and from what I read on the opinion letters from the FTC, I am right. The CRA's even say the same thing in black and white!
CA's will reset the clock automatically, break the law, and hope you won't understand your rights. Most don't. There are some CA's that do follow the law btw. But if a debtor comes up with some cash and an attorney to assert his rights, they have a problem. But how many people do this. That's the biggest problem right now. People in debt have no money, no ability to hire the attorney even when their right to a fair credit report is abused. Also the law hardly allows for a just punishment to the abusers, no incentive to sue. Why should Congress or law makers care about the deliquent debtors, we have more important things in this country to worry about. And I agree to some point. But the bottom line is the 7 year rule is not complicated and if a CA tries to make it that way, they better hope the debtor has no money to sue and they usually don't. C'est la vie.
So basically this credit defense guy is no attorney, no case to site, just a blank web page. Ok. You sound well educated but that doesn't show me enough. What law school did you say you graduated from?
Re: You're Still Incorrect!
MikeB & Completeru:
Okay, folks you winâ?¦ Iâ??m not here to argue nor to prove any particular point, especially if youâ??re bent on proclaiming that the sky is falling opposing evidence to the contrary. Albeit never ceases to amaze me why people come to a board seeking sound advice, get it then reject whatâ??s stated as folly; when evidence has been provided? Well, to each his/her own I suppose.
Take care. [;-)
Having read your original post (including legal citations), I think there's a valid point here, and would appreciate if you could address it, for the benefit of others here. Thanks.