Rebuilding Your Credit

[Familywantsahouse]

*Only based on my own experience* Husband had a comcast bill reporting as a collection account. We had a small prior balance that we paid through comcast, not even realizing it HAD gone to collections. Comcast never mentioned it had when we paid them. I didn't figure out it WAS a CA until we pulled the credit for a mortgage.

I did DV the CA, and since the CA was reporting from 06, it wasn't timely (although I never recall notification of this debt, it was a SMALL amount of money a whopping 30 bucks), they did delete after my DV....

[SavvyInvestor]

It is important to remember, when reading this response, that having paid a debt is not the same as having admitted ownership of it.  I'm sure millions of americans pay debts that are erronous simply because the alleged debt is from a company they did business with in the past. 

That something has gone to collections tells you the OC is willing to accept less than full payment.  That the CA gave you a settlement offer means that the OC was willing to accept a fraction of that settlement offer (as the CA would get part of it as well.) 

Once you have requested validation- and getting a credit report is a reasonable reason to request it, as you just discovered the debt was being reported-- the CA can no longer engage in collection activities.  Reporting to a credit bureau is collection activities. (per FTC Letter Cass) 

If you were to demand validation for this debt you've discovered is being reported, they would have to do this, or cease collection activities.  Since the debt is already paid they'd likely cease collections, as this requires no effort.   IF you then dispute the debt with the CRA, given that the debt is not validated, the CA has no way to know that it is actually your debt, and the CRA, having not been able to verify the debt will delete it.

[muumike]

I'm going to DV the CA and see what happens...

[MarineVietVet]

---

SavvyInvestor wrote:

It is important to remember, when reading this response, that having paid a debt is not the same as having admitted ownership of it.  I'm sure millions of americans pay debts that are erronous simply because the alleged debt is from a company they did business with in the past. 

That something has gone to collections tells you the OC is willing to accept less than full payment.  That the CA gave you a settlement offer means that the OC was willing to accept a fraction of that settlement offer (as the CA would get part of it as well.) 

Once you have requested validation- and getting a credit report is a reasonable reason to request it, as you just discovered the debt was being reported-- the CA can no longer engage in collection activities.  Reporting to a credit bureau is collection activities. (per FTC Letter Cass) 

If you were to demand validation for this debt you've discovered is being reported, they would have to do this, or cease collection activities.  Since the debt is already paid they'd likely cease collections, as this requires no effort.   IF you then dispute the debt with the CRA, given that the debt is not validated, the CA has no way to know that it is actually your debt, and the CRA, having not been able to verify the debt will delete it. If you have paid the debt there is nothing to validate.

---

Prior reporting does not have to be removed. An FTC letter means nothing. It is only opinion and not law.

And as RobertEG already said the OC really cannot force the CA to remove their reporting. All you can do is write GW lwtters to the CA asking for removal. I think that the CA should delete just because it's the right thing to do but they are not required to do so.

[muumike]

" And as RobertEG already said the OC really cannot force the CA to remove their reporting. All you can do is write GW lwtters to the CA asking for removal. I think that the CA should delete just because it's the right thing to do but they are not required to do so."

So Marine, should I give it 30 days or so to see what they do after the OC notifies them and then GW if need be?

[MarineVietVet]

---

muumike wrote:
" And as RobertEG already said the OC really cannot force the CA to remove their reporting. All you can do is write GW letters to the CA asking for removal. I think that the CA should delete just because it's the right thing to do but they are not required to do so."

So Marine, should I give it 30 days or so to see what they do after the OC notifies them and then GW if need be?

---

That's what I would do although I know how hard it is to wait for things to happen.

[muumike]

Thanks man. I appreciate the advice. I'll be patient, play the waiting game on this one and let the forum folks know the outcome.

[SavvyInvestor]

---

MarineVietVet wrote:

Prior reporting does not have to be removed. An FTC letter means nothing. It is only opinion and not law.

And as RobertEG already said the OC really cannot force the CA to remove their reporting. All you can do is write GW lwtters to the CA asking for removal. I think that the CA should delete just because it's the right thing to do but they are not required to do so.

---

The FTC letter is not just an opinion that "means nothing", it is a statement of what the law says from the agency charged with enforcing said law.   Thus they're a pretty authoritative "opinion" about what the law says.

An invalid debt with incorrect information should not stay on a credit report.  Sending a copy of the FTC letter to the CA lets them know that not only are they potentially breaking the law, but that you know this.  If you dispute the reporting with the CRA, and then the CA "verifies" it with them after this dispute and after recieving the FTC letter, they pretty much have eliminated any defense of these collection activities in court.

CAs are generally not interested in goodwill because they're not going to be doing business with you again.  Further, I believe the vast majority of the information being reported by CAs is innacurate in one way or another.  

When you have the leverage of invalid information, I don't see why asking out of the goodness of their heart to remove the informaiton makes sense-- especially when these are people whose business is evil, who have no goodness in their heart, and who are financially motivated to keep information on there-- since the threat of derogatory reports is the primary stick that CAs have.

[MarineVietVet]

---

SavvyInvestor wrote:

The FTC letter is not just an opinion that "means nothing", it is a statement of what the law says from the agency charged with enforcing said law.   Thus they're a pretty authoritative "opinion" about what the law says.

---

I will only say once again and then move on that an opinion is not law and carries no force of law and means nothing.

As of this date prior reporting by a CA does not have to be removed. And until that requirement is changed and included in the FCRA (which is the law and not an opinion) that, unfortunately is the way it will stay.

[SavvyInvestor]

---

MarineVietVet wrote:

I will only say once again and then move on that an opinion is not law and carries no force of law and means nothing.

---

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Here's the OPINION of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

“We ... hold that the Act requires a debt collector who receives notice that a consumer disputes an alleged debt to cease collection efforts until it provides the consumer with verification of the debt.”

(No. 05-15121     D.C. No. CV-03-00038-HG)

QED, unless you've got a supreme court case.