|
The 30 day window is what the credit bureau has to verify if you dispute. It's arguable that if the debt collector verifies with the credit bureau before they verify with you that is collecting activity in violation of the law and the more violations you have against them when you sue the better.
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
fordan posted:Assuming they fail to verify, you can then challenge it on the credit reports. Is this no longer the case or not the recommended strategy?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
seacat posted:If you have a $191 debt sold to rear end in a top hat Collections, Inc by Time Warner, for example, you wait 6 years and 11 months, and decide to pay ACI the $191, that tradeline won't drop off after 7 years. It will continue on file as "Paid in Full" for 7 more years. So that is 14 years of a douchebag collections agency on your credit reports. Please stop telling people things that aren't true. FCRA Section 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports posted:(c) Running of reporting period. As you see here, collection accounts are based on date of first delinquency, not date of last action.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:So if I decide to pay off a $129 collection account that was opened in 2009, it'll switch to Paid in Full and still roll off my record in 2016? Should be seven years from when the original account went delinquent. Some collection agencies don't accurately report the date of first delinquency, and that can be a violation for which you sue them for. Generally if you are going to pay something off in full it is in your best interest to negotiate a pay-for-delete. It's basically better for it to not be on your credit report at all than it is to be on your report as a paid-in-full collection account because collections are fundamentally derogatory. It doesn't cost them anything to agree to delete it once you pay, so save yourself the couple of years of waiting for it to fall off.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Yeah, wait at least 90 days!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
revmoo posted:7 years from the date of last activity. I don't think this is correct.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:I thought it was 7 years from when the debt first defaulted... For student loans, I believe it would be the most recent default, but that is still not the same as last activity.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
100 HOGS AGREE posted:I'm sure your phone records from your provider will be enough to just prove they called, since they include if it's an incoming or outgoing call and how long it lasted. It wouldn't have record of any additional things they did that broke the law during the call though. It's very easy to change outbound caller id. Debt collectors routinely do this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
mishaq posted:Just FYI, what you see on Caller ID and what call records from your phone provider show are two different things. Getting actual phone logs from your provide will/should reveal their actual number no matter what they're doing with their Caller ID. This is not correct. Phone numbers are more properly known as DIDs, for Direct Inward Dialing. You don't actually need to have a DID at all to place outbound calls, because their purpose is routing inbound calls, so there is really no such thing as "their actual number" in cases such as that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
mishaq posted:Whatever you see on caller ID comes from a CNAM database entry which in theory can display anything, but in practice usually is at least directly related to the line or lines the number calling you is related to.  mishaq posted:While spoofing or altering this information to deceive people is illegal, it doesn't stop scummier people from at least trying to bend the rules and making the information displayed at least not helpful mishaq posted:For billing purposes, the originating call must come from SOMEWHERE, as the source caller is paying for the call, and the call cannot be billed properly without some information. There is a higher chance (nothing is guaranteed) getting your actual phone records will give more information than what the Caller ID says, especially if you suspect foul play. mishaq posted:For example, a company that operates multiple call centers around the US might send only a single unified 1-800 number for its Caller ID info, but to specifically know if someone from the Louisville, KY call center called you, your phone records can (but not necessarily will) demonstrate this to you, irrespective of what your Caller ID actually said. mishaq posted:Disagreeing with what I said earlier about it being potentially helpful to get actual call records from your phone company vs simply recording what numbers you see on your caller ID says is incorrect and not helpful for people in this thread. mishaq posted:but if you insist... Sub Rosa fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
mishaq posted:A debt collection agency loving with their outbound lines set to whatever they want would be shut down/found out fast. Considering the willingness of debt collection agencies to flounce the law, I doubt that has changed. The takeaway for people getting harassed by debt collectors is record your calls and try to get them to identify themselves and their company. I'd then suggest telling them that you choose to conduct all business in writing via mail. Then if they keep calling you, and keep identifying themselves, you are catching them in violations, so long as you can document the ID of the caller, which again in my experience results in them calling anyway and hanging up as soon as you inform them you are recording (which I'd only advise if you are in a two-party state) or asking their and their company's identity.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:'Legit' collection agencies won't do pay for delete. It's against the credit bureau's rules.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
It should still fall out 7 years 180 days after the date of first delinquency. Collection agencies must still accurately report the date of first delinquency per FCRA 623(a)(5). If it doesn't, you follow the procedures for disputing, documenting it all as you go, and if it stays on then you sue the bastards.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
I'd suggest just letting them age off. If they are old and there is no collection activity, their impact is already low compared to more recent trade lines, and pay for delete is now very uncommon because the CRAs hate it. If you really want them off, I'd try disputing with the CRAs and seeing if they bother verifying with the CRAs, but of course this also risks waking up the debt. In general, ignore things you read about "New FICO" because just because FICO has a new version or product doesn't mean that lenders are going to switch to it any time soon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
revmoo posted:I need to do a write up, I recently found the shoe on the other foot and actually had to pursue a company for damages, and won in court. It was very interesting handling basically "debt collection" from the other end.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
A paid charge off is still a very strong negative, and it could take weeks before anything gets reported to the credit bureaus. Nothing you do right now will likely have any impact on what they will see if they pull your credit. In the longer term, you should not just pay the bank, you should try to negotiate for pay-for-delete, which means the bank will just entirely erase the tradeline on your credit report in exchange for you paying it off. This is much more difficult these days than it used to be, though. You should look at all of the information reported about the account, because if anything is incorrect, you could be able to dispute the tradeline with the bureaus and get it knocked off, but again that is a long-term benefit thing to work on. Sometimes a bank will not bother disputing your attempt to get a paid charge off removed, while they will for a non-paid charge off. Also if they aren't trying to collect, you could wake up the debt, but since you are prepared to pay in full, that isn't something to worry about. If you can get it off, you will then be in a much better position to get a new card to start building a credit history, as things like the age of your oldest account and average age of your accounts are very important, and it takes a long time of good history to build good credit. I was in a much worse situation than you seven years ago, and my last derogatories will finally fall off in February. Sometimes there is nothing you can do but wait for bad things to fall off, and cultivate good tradelines while you do.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2019 06:27
|
|
|
meat glitter posted:can i just send another certified letter saying "hey you didnt even get back to me in 30 days They don't have to respond within 30 days, they just can't do further collection activities until they finally validate. It isn't time barred in either Minnesota or New York if a payment was made in the last six years, as both of those states reage based on last payment. Your strongest legal case is the fact that it was a fraudulent card opened in your name not by you that you had no awareness of. Since there is a summary of judgement, and you weren't served, you should consult a lawyer. I do not think you should file a police report against your mother for identity theft at this time because all you know is that a card was fraudulently opened in your name, not who did it, at this time, since they didn't provide you with details from Discover about the card. My response certified mail would probably mention that I never opened a card with Discover that was left to default and have never had knowledge of the account as it has never appeared on my credit report. I have no knowledge of the judgement provided as I was never served or otherwise made aware of it. Please cease all collections activity as this is not my debt for these reasons, as you have not properly validated that the debt is in fact mine, as that is impossible as it is not. Please provide complete information about this account so that as this is likely a case of identity theft against myself I may pursue proper legal action. But yeah if there is already a summary judgement I would probably consult a lawyer before responding.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2020 11:55
|
|
|
GordonComstock posted:Do you know what the credit difference is between outstanding collection and a paid/settled collection? I was going to go for a pay for delete option as well, but maybe I should just pay out this paltry ($103) debt to just move past it (even though I firmly believe it's the fault of my old apartment complex). It dropped my credit score to around 640 and I'd like to purchase a home with a better credit score. There almost isn't a difference in regard to FICO scoring, both are considered derogatory tradelines, which is why the advice has always been to not pay anything until you negotiate pay for delete. That doesn't mean a mortgage underwriter won't see a difference, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
If they verify with the credit reporting bureau before validating with you, that is illegal collection activity.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
Big Taint posted:Send them the standard dunning response and then dispute with CRA after 30 days. If you get no response but they keep reporting to the CRA that’s an FDCPA violation as I understand it. Also this is a strategy to be able to sue them for 5k or use the ability to as leverage to get them to delete negative tradelines. So make sure everything is mailed certified with return receipt requested so you have the legal paper trail basically if that is the strategy you want to take.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2021 04:37
|
|
|
Is the letter from the court and the website the court website or is the letter and website from the debt collector?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2022 03:36
|
|
|
I'd go to the hearing and say you don't know what it is and make them prove you owe it. A lot of the times they aren't prepared to prove it because most people don't show up. I am not a lawyer and perhaps you should talk to one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
SSDI cannot be garnished for defaulted credit cards
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
I'd start by contacting lawyers that advertise practicing law around the Fair Debt Collection Act because the "getting calls" part is directly their wheelhouse, and from there they can direct on the fraud / ID theft part.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2023 19:47
|
|
|
I would expect someone suing a landlord over a deposit to be owed money by the landlord, not owe money to the landlord. Can you clarify the facts of your case?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2023 12:26
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer, but I did deal with debt collectors a good long time now in my past. If you are organized enough to be going to small claims court on your own, there are things you should be doing to increase your chance of collecting on violations. A lot of it is going to be following proper processes for demanding debt collectors validate the debt. Document every interaction you have with debt collectors and credit bureaus when you dispute with bureaus. Demand all communication be in writing. Send everything you send certified return receipt requested so you can prove dates things were sent and received. You'll have to research the law to know what are actually violations, and once you have two or three documented violations, you should be able to get a lawyer on spec.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2023 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
drat Bananas posted:I probably will call, ask for forgiveness that it was 20 minutes and the car was idling trying to figure out directions downtown, and to please just allow me to pay the normal parking rate. If they say no, I'll probably just pay the $87. I would probably ignore it until it was on my credit report because it's not real until then. It is correct that things like this are often unenforceable, so a judgement wouldn't be sought nor would it be reported if ignored. To not ignore I would follow standard debt validation practices with the person trying to collect, which absolutely would never include apologizing because that admits culpability. Then they send what they think is validation or the leave you alone. If they do send something you then reply (all communication via certified mail return receipt requested btw) disputing what they sent and why. Further collection activity without validation can be a FDCP violation. A security freeze on your reports limits who can access your reports to look at them to offer you credit, it doesn't stop your credit report from existing and receiving information about your reported debts, and that includes debt collectors reporting.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2024 18:04
|
|