***UPDATE!!!*** PFD letter for multiple collections at CA

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

when did this turn into a conversation regarding the legality of PFD's? people are successful with them day after day and gives those who are rebuilding credit some light at the end of the tunnel. more-so, it worked for me even after your discouraging posts. take your trolling somewhere else and let others celebrate in their success. 

---

I am just sharing factual information. I didn't discourage you. I suggested you alter the verbiage to have less legal jargon to encourage the likelihood of success. 

There are many companies that are hit or miss with PFDs because they are aware of the CROA lawsuit possibility.

I work in Financial Tech and am constantly being exposed to various laws and regulations, and I come here to the forums and share everything I learn, and take in information from the community to learn myself, too.

I am sorry if you feel somehow offended by my sharing of information, but I am glad that you were able to get an agreement for your collection to be deleted. Hopefully they follow through. My immediate concern was that a mod asserted something that wasn't true in reply to my statement, and someone took it to be true. If someone comes into this thread and reads from a mod that PFDs are not illegal, after being denied by a CA for a PFD claiming it is illegal, they may waste time and money pursuing legal action that they should not be taking.

Good day and congratulations on your success toward moving forward early from your past mistakes.

Really no need to be rude.

[medicgrrl]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@gdale6 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Added this bit on to the end, thoughts? 

If you agree to the above terms, please prepare a letter on your company letterhead explicitly agreeing to the same terms as the above settlement offer and have it signed by an authorized representative of Professional Credit Services. It will be implied that this letter shall constitute a legally binding contract, enforceable under the laws of my state. Upon my receipt of this letter certified funds for the full amount of $281.00 will be mailed to Professional Credit Services, if you agree to the terms. In exchange for doing so, Professional Credit Services will delete all references regarding this account from my credit files, and this debt shall be satisfied. 

---

You know Pay-For-Deletes are illegal, right? If you throw this at them they might be more inclined to say no, thinking you are savvy enough to sue them afterward for breaking the CROA.

I would just simply ask for agreement in writing via email, letter, or fax, and leave out the legal jargon.

---

PFDs are not in any way illegal. The CRAs dont like them as they want paid derogs to remain on file per their operational handbook and this is the reason they dont want anyone granting such.

---

They absolutely are illegal. There is precendence in lawsuits favoring plaintiffs that categorizes the CA as a Credit Repair Organization by agreeing to delete derogatory information from the credit bureaus for payment. The CROA states that a CRO is not allowed to accept payments prior to completing the credit repair action they are promising.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title15-chapter41-subchapterII-A&num=0&edition=prelim

---

This statute doesn't say anything about a collection agency not being allowed to delete their tradeline following payment.  If there is precedence indicating that, you would be better off to share that link instead of this one.

[Anonymous]

---

@medicgrrl wrote:

---

This statute doesn't say anything about a collection agency not being allowed to delete their tradeline following payment.  If there is precedence indicating that, you would be better off to share that link instead of this one.

---

I read about the cases in 2012. I'll have to do research to find them again.

The judge in the first case that set precidence determined that the collection agency was a CRO under §1679a(3)(A), and was not exempt under §1679a(3)(B) as it was not a creditor. 

So, no, there is no verbiage about collection agencies here. The judge determined that the CA was ACTING as a CRO by agreeing to take the entirety of the collection for the express purpose of removing the tradeline from the consumer's report. The CA argued that it was not sole puprose of credit repair, as they had authority to collect, but the judge disagreed as the agreement stated that the payment was in exchange for a deletion of the tradeline.

Because of this determination, they were liable to adhere to CROA §1679b(b).

I'm sure you've seen cases of complaints being filed after a PFD was agreed to and the tradeline was not deleted. These complaints are successful because of the violations of the CROA as well.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate that. I hope you see this from my point of view. I started this thread asking for help with proof reading (which you contributed to), but your comments regarding PFD's being deleted are illegal and that I was highly unlikely to get an agreement from the CA came accross as negative and to be honest kind of condescending. I don't dispute the debt, I simply wanted to see if there was a solution to getting this off my record considering the small amount owed. While the advice and help that the members of this forum contribute to are extremely helpful, I find the hope and re-assurance that I'm not alone in my journey as the highlight. Well wishes and positive vibes are the only reason I keep coming back, and to actually post things rather than just be a lurker. 

My apologies if I came across as rude, best wishes to you in your journey as well. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I appreciate that. I hope you see this from my point of view. I started this thread asking for help with proof reading (which you contributed to), but your comments regarding PFD's being deleted are illegal and that I was highly unlikely to get an agreement from the CA came accross as negative and to be honest kind of condescending. I don't dispute the debt, I simply wanted to see if there was a solution to getting this off my record considering the small amount owed. While the advice and help that the members of this forum contribute to are extremely helpful, I find the hope and re-assurance that I'm not alone in my journey as the highlight. Well wishes and positive vibes are the only reason I keep coming back, and to actually post things rather than just be a lurker. 

My apologies if I came across as rude, best wishes to you in your journey as well. 

---

Forgiven.

Always remember that most people have good intentions. All of our own personal experiences can shape the perception of something that is neutral in nature, but in stark contrast to what we believe or want to hear. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@medicgrrl wrote:

---

This statute doesn't say anything about a collection agency not being allowed to delete their tradeline following payment.  If there is precedence indicating that, you would be better off to share that link instead of this one.

---

I read about the cases in 2012. I'll have to do research to find them again.

The judge in the first case that set precidence determined that the collection agency was a CRO under §1679a(3)(A), and was not exempt under §1679a(3)(B) as it was not a creditor. 

So, no, there is no verbiage about collection agencies here. The judge determined that the CA was ACTING as a CRO by agreeing to take the entirety of the collection for the express purpose of removing the tradeline from the consumer's report. The CA argued that it was not sole puprose of credit repair, as they had authority to collect, but the judge disagreed as the agreement stated that the payment was in exchange for a deletion of the tradeline.

Because of this determination, they were liable to adhere to CROA §1679b(b).

I'm sure you've seen cases of complaints being filed after a PFD was agreed to and the tradeline was not deleted. These complaints are successful because of the violations of the CROA as well.

---

Found one, in fact this one is older than the first one I found several years ago.

No. 99 C 2303. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 8, 2001.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/162/996/2319849/

Plaintiff Sherry Bigalke was represented by Edelman & Combs, known for their huge PRA Class Action Lawsuit recently. 

[Anonymous]

Did you use the letter?