@Anonymous wrote:Client Services
I could only find one solid reference to Client Services, and in that particular case they were an assignee for Citi, not a JDB. In any case, I would DV them.
@unusuallyconfused wrote:I was highlighting an exception LOL
Yeah, I don't understand how some CAs can pull stuff like that and then hop on their high horses and say "we can't delete--for the integrity of the system!" 
@unusuallyconfused wrote:Totally totally right. That's the point, the integrity of the system is already flawed but the whole point of the system is to try to figure out who is WILLING to pay their debts. If somebody ends up owing money then goes out of their way to make a good faith effort to pay it back then what's the harm? The world isn't gonna collapse just because a CA deletes an otherwise accurate account. The bill gets paid, the company is happy and the consumer can go on with his/her life without having one bill effect the next 7 years of their life.
Speaking of which, have PFDs ever been challenged in court as not being "legal" or enforceable? I've read recently that some CA say it's not legal so they don't do it (but I can't find any provision section of the FCRA, et al specifically saying that) while others clearly do it?
PFD's are perfectly legal and enforceable when you have them in writing. I think what that CA was referring to is the fact that CA's are bound by an agreement with the CRA's to not delete TL's on the basis of payment.
@unusuallyconfused wrote:Is that right? Didn't know the CA have agreements with CRAs for that (or that such agreements existed). Explains a lot. But still it goes on obviously? I wonder if despite these agreements that you mention they just aren't enforced rigorously by the CRAs??
Because then it becomes a situation of finding out which CA have agreements and which don't and then hope like Hell you're dealing with one that doesn't have an agreement...
It's a blanket policy. It's not necessarily that some CA's are exempt from such policies, but rather that some are more willing to ignore them. I have no idea what actions the CRA's take, if any, to enforce such things.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Leadberry wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:Client Services
I could only find one solid reference to Client Services, and in that particular case they were an assignee for Citi, not a JDB. In any case, I would DV them.
Since we have already recieved settlement offers from them, and no response so technically they don't know we got them, if we were to do that wouldn't that give them the upper hand? Couldn't they come back and pull the settlement offer and ask for the full amount?
AFAIK, the DV places a cease collection bar on the CA until they validate. If they take any action to collect on the debt before that happens, they are in violation of the FDCPA. This is assuming the DV is "timely." I would imagine the settlement offer they sent you reports a date through which it is valid. I would also imagine they have to stick to that offer.
The law states that any information that is posted must be accurate. There is nothing that says that anything has to be reported. You can pay and have things removed. Even the federal government has a policy of removal of paid tax liens. There are guidlines that should be followed, but it is worded as "should". Nothing concrete.
There is nothing barring them from doing a PFD. Some CSRs are uninformed. They say that that it is illegal, blah, blah, blah. They just don't know.
July 2013 score: EQ FICO 819, TU08 778, EX "806 lender pull 07/26/2013
Goal Score: All Scores 760+, Newest goal 800+
Take the myFICO Fitness Challenge
Current scores after adding $81K in CLs and 2 new cars since July 2013
EQ:809 TU 777 EX 790 Now it's just garden time!
June 2017 update: All scores over 820, just pure gardening now.