cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Discussing PFD violate TOS?

Moderator Emeritus

Discussing PFD violate TOS?

Seeing how the guidelines/TOS whatever states that the only credit repair that can be discussed is how to remove ACTUAL errors, not legit accounts.....doesn't discussing PFD's violate that?
 
 
Just curious as to what everyone else thinks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Annual Reports, Freq. Requested Threads, 5 Things We Don't Talk About, Common Abbreviations, Where do I start?, State Resources
Message 1 of 8
7 REPLIES
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Discussing PFD violate TOS?

It is definitely a fine line.
 
PFDs and GWs are acceptable for discussion because they are merely requests for a CA or an OC to willingly enter into an agreement with the consumer.  If the CA or OC does so, that is a business decision they have made willingly.  A CA or an OC always has the option of saying "no" to a PFD or GW request.
 
Other tactics that involve blatant dishonesty or other unethical means are, of course, not acceptable topics for discussion here.


Message Edited by cheddar on 05-02-2008 01:11 PM
----------------------------
App free since 7/11/08.
TU 744 / EX 710 / EQ 694 (Starting to slip. Smiley Surprised )
Message 2 of 8
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Discussing PFD violate TOS?



cheddar wrote:
 
PFDs and GWs are acceptable for discussion because they are merely requests for a CA or an OC to willingly enter into an agreement with the consumer.  If the CA or OC does so, that is a business decision they have made willingly. 
Yup, I agree! With PFDs and GWs, debtors are not manipulating their creditors or CRAs. Disputing accurate items on CRs is whole different ball of wax.
Message 3 of 8
Super Contributor

Re: Discussing PFD violate TOS?

And in both cases one is admitting that one owes the money
The slide from grace is really more like gliding
And I've found the trick is not to stop the sliding
But to find a graceful way of staying slid
Message 4 of 8
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Discussing PFD violate TOS?



MidnightVoice wrote:
And in both cases one is admitting that one owes the money


Well, technically ... in the PFD letters floating around here, one specifically states that one does NOT admit liability for the debt... 
-----------------
Bartender, bring another round of FICOtinis please!

9.4.2011: TU 805. EQ 815.
Message 5 of 8
Super Contributor

Re: Discussing PFD violate TOS?



masdeocho wrote:


MidnightVoice wrote:
And in both cases one is admitting that one owes the money


Well, technically ... in the PFD letters floating around here, one specifically states that one does NOT admit liability for the debt... 


True, but at least some payment id being offered.
The slide from grace is really more like gliding
And I've found the trick is not to stop the sliding
But to find a graceful way of staying slid
Message 6 of 8
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Discussing PFD violate TOS?



MidnightVoice wrote:


masdeocho wrote:


MidnightVoice wrote:
And in both cases one is admitting that one owes the money


Well, technically ... in the PFD letters floating around here, one specifically states that one does NOT admit liability for the debt... 


True, but at least some payment id being offered.


Yes, I know nothing about this debt but I'll pay just to get rid of it.
-----------------
Bartender, bring another round of FICOtinis please!

9.4.2011: TU 805. EQ 815.
Message 7 of 8
Highlighted
Moderator Emerita

Re: Discussing PFD violate TOS?

PFD'a and GW are business deals, entered into willingly by both parties, who understand what is going on. No intent to deceive on either side. Although as this is arguable in the instance of CA's, agreements in writing are always advised! Smiley Wink
* Credit is a wonderful servant, but a terrible master. * Who's the boss --you or your credit?
FICO's: EQ 781 - TU 793 - EX 779 (from PSECU) - Done credit hunting; having fun with credit gardening. - EQ 590 on 5/14/2007
Message 8 of 8