topic Re: Do Pay For Delete's Work Better if You Give a Good Reason? in Rebuilding Your Credit

Do Pay For Delete's Work Better if You Give a Good Reason?

Johnny_Favorite — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 22:15:06 GMT

This is just a hypothetical, but if you give the collection agency a reason for requesting a delete will you be more successful?

Example: "I do not believe these debts are mine and may belong to a room mate of mine that compromised my credit. I am willing to settle this debt in exchange for deletion."

I think many collection agencies don't want to do a Pay For Delete because they don't want to break the law or appear to be doing something shady, but what if you gave them a reason to be able to get paid and at the same time, get you out of the negative reporting?

Would this make things better? Worse? Just trying to figure out tactics here before I attack my next collection.

Re: Do Pay For Delete's Work Better if You Give a Good Reason?

Shogun — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 23:53:00 GMT

I don't know personally, sounds like a valid point though. Worth a try. I do like the way you don't acknowledge the debt though.

Re: Do Pay For Delete's Work Better if You Give a Good Reason?

RobertEG — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 01:30:20 GMT

Its not illegal for them to delete, so I dont think their is any concern over legal action, but it is against their credit reporting agreements to delete based on payment.

However, when reporting any deletion, the furnisher is not required to provide any reasons, so the CRA policy has no enforcement teeth.

To offer a reason is part of any good-will request, which is what a PFD offer inherently is. So I see no harm.

However, once caution....

They are apt to consider such a letter as a dispute, and place a dispute flag in your credit file.

If you make such statements within a PFD, I would preface the letter with a clear introductory statement that your letter is NOT a dispute.

Re: Do Pay For Delete's Work Better if You Give a Good Reason?

Shogun — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 03:32:54 GMT

The guidlines use the word "should", plus it's not a law, just a general rule. The law states they must provide accurate information, it doesn't compel them to provide any information at all.