topic Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread) in General Credit Topics

Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

NoMelonsNoLemon — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:30:28 GMT

Is this statement true or false...

It is illegal to make a payment for the CA to remove items from your CR.

This statement is the bane of both Debt Collectors and Customers alike. What happens is Debt Collectors hear, can I pay you to remove this from my CR, which causes them to say, it is illegal for us to .... and you to say your ignorant and thus starts the bickering, it makes them want to cause us more problems, and when we hear them reply it is illegal for .... it makes us want to take a chainsaw, duct tape, a leash and....[ very long explicit violent explanation edited for your time, innocence, and plausible deniability ]

The short of it is anytime they hear anything about removing and CR they do not listen but rather respond as trained monkeys with a canned explanation that .... blah blah blah, and they know they are not wrong because they have to take a test on it every year, they do not even give into consideration the whole picture.

Brings me to what we currently have, the PFD example letter Tuscani so graciously provided us. Today as I was on the phone, I tried to cite to the ignorant debt collector where and what law they are speaking of versus what I was asking them to do. For those of you who believe I was able to educate the debt collector or believe in telekinesis, please raise my hand.

So I set my mind in motion ... and began thinking of some way I could improve my position if someone was willing to work with me. On my 45 minute drive home I thought of a few things:

1) How to improve the PFD letter highlighting the point that accepting money from a debtor to solely pay monies to have a CR improved is illegal, however paying a debt and the CA removing the debt is legal. I do not know if it would be better to put this information into the letter or add a generic letter in with the PFD making reference to it.

2) Being armed with the ability to cite the law (i.e. The article number and all references to the laws) to educate the ignorant party. Something to the effect of stating okay if I can cite the articles and you can verify with the FTC or whoever, would you be willing to send me / fax me a letter stating that you will remove the debt from my CR if I make payment?

3) Could someone post the articles and laws that pertain to issue, a way to prove it false, line item by line item. Not a link to the site where you can read the whole thing but just the article piece and explanations, so that we can dissect it and make very clear explanations to include in a PFD type of a letter. Kind of like paint by numbers for CA's and collectors alike.

Thank you for reading this post and any replies.

Forwards or Backwards: NoMelonsNoLemon

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

NoMelonsNoLemon — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:06:19 GMT

Little Bump, really looking for some help on this, I have done a few searches but can not find anything on where it talks about this or is there case law on this??

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:06:52 GMT

NoMelonsNoLemon wrote:
Is this statement true or false...

It is illegal to make a payment for the CA to remove items from your CR.

This statement is the bane of both Debt Collectors and Customers alike. What happens is Debt Collectors hear, can I pay you to remove this from my CR, which causes them to say, it is illegal for us to .... and you to say your ignorant and thus starts the bickering, it makes them want to cause us more problems, and when we hear them reply it is illegal for .... it makes us want to take a chainsaw, duct tape, a leash and....[ very long explicit violent explanation edited for your time, innocence, and plausible deniability ]

The short of it is anytime they hear anything about removing and CR they do not listen but rather respond as trained monkeys with a canned explanation that .... blah blah blah, and they know they are not wrong because they have to take a test on it every year, they do not even give into consideration the whole picture.

Brings me to what we currently have, the PFD example letter Tuscani so graciously provided us. Today as I was on the phone, I tried to cite to the ignorant debt collector where and what law they are speaking of versus what I was asking them to do. For those of you who believe I was able to educate the debt collector or believe in telekinesis, please raise my hand.

So I set my mind in motion ... and began thinking of some way I could improve my position if someone was willing to work with me. On my 45 minute drive home I thought of a few things:

1) How to improve the PFD letter highlighting the point that accepting money from a debtor to solely pay monies to have a CR improved is illegal, however paying a debt and the CA removing the debt is legal. I do not know if it would be better to put this information into the letter or add a generic letter in with the PFD making reference to it.

2) Being armed with the ability to cite the law (i.e. The article number and all references to the laws) to educate the ignorant party. Something to the effect of stating okay if I can cite the articles and you can verify with the FTC or whoever, would you be willing to send me / fax me a letter stating that you will remove the debt from my CR if I make payment?

3) Could someone post the articles and laws that pertain to issue, a way to prove it false, line item by line item. Not a link to the site where you can read the whole thing but just the article piece and explanations, so that we can dissect it and make very clear explanations to include in a PFD type of a letter. Kind of like paint by numbers for CA's and collectors alike.

Thank you for reading this post and any replies.

Forwards or Backwards: NoMelonsNoLemon

It would be illegal to pay for delete! like payola.....it is not illegal to pay & bill & have it deleted.

exzmp: you owe JoeSmow CA $150 and pay $150 & have it deleted

illegal do not owe JoeSmow anything & offer to pay $XXX just to delete it.

Message Edited by HappyDays on 08-22-2007 09:06 PM

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

NoMelonsNoLemon — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:59:05 GMT

Right and that is what I am saying, however when I ask over the phone if they will remove the Man has oppressed the collector at the other end of the phone, and like trained monkeys they have no ideal what I am talking about, only their canned response.

Would it be great in order to be a debt collector you would have to meet a criteria

1) Your fico has to be 660+

2) You have to have successfuly remove a mark on your credit.

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

George2037 — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:48:04 GMT

I see exactly where you are coming from. It was not to long ago several companies claimed to be able to clean up your credit and have items deleted from you CR in exchange for money. When a CA recieves a PFD letter they confuse it with an attempt on your behalf to have the TL deleted in exchange for money. Mabe if the PFD was more of a PFR (Pay for Removal), stating that you will pay the debt only if the CA agrees to stop reporting and remove all claims to validity to the debt.

For example I took the PFD Letter and changed the First sentence in the second paragraph and all words delete to remove (*Note: I have not used this it's just a suggestion*):

"In the spirit of compromise, I am willing to pay this account IN FULL (or settlement percentage) if you agree to immediate stop reporting and remove all claims to the validity of this account from any and all credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion). "

Original Read:

"In the spirit of compromise, I am willing to pay this account IN FULL (or settlement percentage) if you agree to immediate deletion of this account from any and all credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion). "

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:19:24 GMT

NoMelonsNoLemon wrote:
Is this statement true or false...

It is illegal to make a payment for the CA to remove items from your CR.

This statement is FALSE - there is no law regarding PFD. However, let me explain why some creditors won't agree to do the PFD.

Section 609(c)(2)(E) of the FCRA of September '96 states that "a consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from a consumer's file, unless the information is outdated under Section 605 or cannot be verified". It means that it's not illegal for a creditor to remove items from your CR, BUT they do not have to delete the items if they don't want to unless the DOLA of the item is 7 years old or older OR they cannot properly verify the debt.

Some creditors (mostly credit card companies and larger collection agencies) do claim that they have signed agreements with the credit bureaus that they will not allow a negative listing to be deleted upon settlement, which is why a number of them don't agree to the PFD. However, the user agreement between the credit bureaus and the creditors states that the creditor won't report inaccurate information to the credit bureau. Some creditors think that since the entry is (to the best of their knowledge) accurate, then having the credit bureau delete an accurate entry is a violation of the agreement.

However, some creditors will do a PFD, especially if you're paying the full balance.

Message Edited by JennLewis on 08-23-2007 10:19 AM

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:18:06 GMT

George2037 wrote:
I see exactly where you are coming from. It was not to long ago several companies claimed to be able to clean up your credit and have items deleted from you CR in exchange for money. When a CA recieves a PFD letter they confuse it with an attempt on your behalf to have the TL deleted in exchange for money. Mabe if the PFD was more of a PFR (Pay for Removal), stating that you will pay the debt only if the CA agrees to stop reporting and remove all claims to validity to the debt.

For example I took the PFD Letter and changed the First sentence in the second paragraph and all words delete to remove (*Note: I have not used this it's just a suggestion*):
"In the spirit of compromise, I am willing to pay this account IN FULL (or settlement percentage) if you agree to immediate stop reporting and remove all claims to the validity of this account from any and all credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion). "
Original Read:
"In the spirit of compromise, I am willing to pay this account IN FULL (or settlement percentage) if you agree to immediate deletion of this account from any and all credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion). "

George, I think that your wording is EXCELLENT.

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

George2037 — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:01:52 GMT

Thanks, this is how I would change the entire letter (wait for approval from the experts to approve before using it):

Collection Agency
1212 Maple St
City, State Zip

Re: Collection Account for Original Creditor Account #: 00000xxxx

Amount: $25.00

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is to inform you that the validity of this debt is disputed. I am not sure of the account number, as I have never heard from you regarding this account. The account number I have is the one listed on my Experian credit report – which omits the last few digits.

In the spirit of compromise, I am willing to pay this account IN FULL (or settlement percentage) if you agree to immediate stop reporting and remove all claims to the validity of this account from any and all credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion). The purpose of this settlement is merely to have this item removed from my credit files. It is not to be construed as an acknowledgment of liability for this debt in any form. Again I have no knowledge of this debt and to avoid a lengthy dispute process I am offering this out of goodwill to Collection Agency and Myself.

If you agree to the terms and accept this agreement, certified funds for the settlement amount of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) will be sent to Collection Agency in exchange for full removal of ALL references regarding this account from my credit files and full satisfaction of the debt. As certified funds will be used for payment, there shall be no waiting period regarding the removal of this account from the credit reporting agencies records.

Collection Agency agrees to remove ALL information regarding this account from the credit reporting agencies WITHIN TEN CALENDAR (10) DAYS following receipt of payment as specified above and will not discuss the terms of this settlement with anyone, excluding your client on this account. If contacted by any third party, including credit-reporting agencies, Collection Agency will not acknowledge that any settlement offer was made, accepted or executed and will, in fact, deny knowledge of any such account.

If you agree to the above terms, please prepare a letter on your company letterhead explicity agreeing to the same terms as the above settlement offer and have it signed by an authorized representative of Collection Agency. It will be implied that this letter shall constitute a legally binding contract, enforceable under the laws of my state.

Your response must be postmarked no later than 15 days from your receipt of this settlement offer or this offer will be withdrawn and I will request full validation of this alleged debt, as provided for by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

If the legality of this request is in question this is the quoted section of such FCRA that would apply: Section 609(c)(2)(E) of the FCRA of September '96 states that "a consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from a consumer's file, unless the information is outdated under Section 605 or cannot be verified".

Please address all correspondence regarding this account to:

You
123 Any Street
City, State Zip

Message Edited by George2037 on 08-23-2007 11:52 AM

Message Edited by George2037 on 08-23-2007 12:01 PM

Message Edited by George2037 on 08-23-2007 12:01 PM

Message Edited by George2037 on 08-23-2007 12:01 PM

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:02:22 GMT

JennLewis wrote:

NoMelonsNoLemon wrote:

Is this statement true or false...

It is illegal to make a payment for the CA to remove items from your CR.

This statement is FALSE - there is no law regarding PFD. However, let me explain why some creditors won't agree to do the PFD.

Section 609(c)(2)(E) of the FCRA of September '96 states that "a consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from a consumer's file, unless the information is outdated under Section 605 or cannot be verified". It means that it's not illegal for a creditor to remove items from your CR, BUT they do not have to delete the items if they don't want to unless the DOLA of the item is 7 years old or older OR they cannot properly verify the debt.

Message Edited by JennLewis on 08-23-2007 10:19 AM

I think there's some confusion here between the obligations of the CRAs and of the creditors.

Creditors cannot report inaccurate information, and have a duty to provide complete and accurate information to the CRAs (see Section 623(a), "Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information"). If you had a bad debt, paid it, and then the creditor tells the CRA to delete the TL as if it never happened, there's at least an argument that the creditor is providing inaccurate information to the CRA. Maybe this is why they are squeamish about PFDs.

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

George2037 — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:11:36 GMT

But in theory the PFD puts the actual debt in question, and would allow the CA to claim the TL is inaccurate and remove it from all three CRA's pending verification with OC. The CA tells the OC payment is recieved then all Collection Processes stop. To put the topping on the cake the PFD finishes off with an agreement to keep all communications concering said account confidential between the three parties involved (OC,CA, You).

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:15:15 GMT

George2037 wrote:

But in theory the PFD puts the actual debt in question, and would allow the CA to claim the TL is inaccurate and remove it from all three CRA's pending verification with OC. The CA tells the OC payment is recieved then all Collection Processes stop. To put the topping on the cake the PFD finishes off with an agreement to keep all communications concering said account confidential between the three parties involved (OC,CA, You).

Interesting theory. I'm mulling that one over.

BTW, the bit of the FCRA that you are citing is not a stand-alone provision about a CRA's responsibilities to remove info. It is part of the terms of a written disclosure that the CRA is required to provide to consumers:

Section 609(c)(2): Summary of rights required to be included with agency disclosures. A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer, with each written disclosure by the agency to the consumer under this section --

... (E) a statement that a consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from the file of a consumer, unless the information is outdated under section 605 or cannot be verified.

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:07:27 GMT

NoMelonsNoLemon---I think the generality other individuals posted is that ultimately it's how you ask for the removal of the negative entry. I created a PFD letter that was a compilation of several I found plus my own two cents.

My initial thought, before you proceed with more negotiations, is how old is the debt? If you're beyond the statutue of limitations, I'd start with a debt validation letter. We wrote a very firm, but professional, letter to two of my husband's CA's and they were unable to validate. In my opinion, requesting debt validation is always the best option if you are outside of the statute of limitations. Not only will you reap the rewards through your credit report, but the harrassment stops along with the potential for years of grief and aggrevation. If you're close to being outside the SOL's, I'd wait and then send a DV letter.

If it's a more recent collection, you are more likely to settle for a larger % on the dollar and less likely to get a PFD, from what I've read. I had a collection that's 4 years old. I sent my PFD, never called just sent written correspondence, and was able to settle for 25% with a written statement agreeing to remove the acount from all credit reports. I started low, like any negotiation, but was prepared to pay the full amount. Luckily, they accepted my proposal the first time at 25%. If they hadn't, I'd probably have sent another offer of 35% or 40%. I really think starting low, but reasonable, is the best negotiating strategy on a debt more than a few years old. After all, no one ever goes to the car dealership and expects to pay sticker price let alone asks to pay sticker price, right?

Back to your original question....I found the following in the Fair Credit Reporting Act examination handbook:

When a financial institution that (regularly and in the ordinary course of business) furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about its transactions or experiences with any consumer determines that any such information is not complete or accurate, the institution must promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination. Corrections to that information or any additional information necessary to make the information complete and accurate must be provided to the consumer reporting agency. Further, any information that remains incomplete or inaccurate must not thereafter be furnished to the consumer reporting agency.

The key word is "When". Nothing mandates that any institution report to anyone. The FCRA simply regulates those who report "When" they do.

I think this position can further be supported by the repetetive use of the language "[The FCRA] requires that any person, including a financial institution, that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency ...."

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:11:32 GMT

masdeocho wrote:

Creditors cannot report inaccurate information, and have a duty to provide complete and accurate information to the CRAs (see Section 623(a), "Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information"). If you had a bad debt, paid it, and then the creditor tells the CRA to delete the TL as if it never happened, there's at least an argument that the creditor is providing inaccurate information to the CRA. Maybe this is why they are squeamish about PFDs.

Hi masdeocho - I hope that I wasn't confusing anyone - I thought that's what I was saying in the next paragraph in my post to explain why CAs usually don't do PFDs - to the best of their knowledge, the entry is accurate, and by asking the CRA to delete the entry, they believe that they would be reporting inaccurate information.

If a CA is willing to do a PFD, what they do is report to the CRAs that they (CA) are not able to validate the debt, so the entry needs to be removed. Are they reporting inaccurate information? No - a number of collection agencies, especially the "junk debt buyers", can't verify/validate the debt because either they don't have the information, or it's virtually impossible for them to get the information.

If a CA is really unwilling to do a PFD, then they either CAN validate the debt or the CA is actually an agent hired by the OC to collect the debt (they get a cut of what they can collect, but the remaining money actually goes to the OC).

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

NoMelonsNoLemon — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:34:18 GMT

So then I think I need a better explanation of SOL and DV. I live in IN (Indiana for you non yanks), most of my debt is about 6 years old, I would like to buy a house tomorrow and in order to do so I need my fico to jump up. More then time being an issue, I like the PFD letter but I would like to include a bit more information over coming any non personal issue objectives. Laws, Statues, and citations of where they can find the information for validation of what I am asking for is with in there means. In other words unless they are just bitter @$$h0l3$ there are no legal objectives to what I am asking for

SOL is in reference to how long a debtor can be sued for what he/she owes. SOLR is different and refers to how long an account can be reported. --- Is this correct?

DV is where you ask a CA only (can not ask OC) for validation but this is where I get a bit lost. They be it the CA is require to provide me with 5 items. What are the laws governing CA's providing this information, would they have to have my signature on a document? or can they just say I have a piece of paper from the OC that says he owes it... this is another main point of my fustration what is their requirements on the "proof" they provide?

I have an account that is 3 years old, I can't DV it because it is the OC, however if it went to a CA and then on my CR I can DV it, but once they come back with validation I thought I was reading that basically they can re-age the account, causing me to have it for another 7 years?

Thank you all for your time and posts

Britt could you post your PFD barring personal info?

Message Edited by NoMelonsNoLemon on 08-24-2007 10:34 AM

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:04:38 GMT

NoMelonsNoLemon wrote:
So then I think I need a better explanation of SOL and DV. I live in IN (Indiana for you non yanks), most of my debt is about 6 years old, I would like to buy a house tomorrow and in order to do so I need my fico to jump up. More then time being an issue, I like the PFD letter but I would like to include a bit more information over coming any non personal issue objectives. Laws, Statues, and citations of where they can find the information for validation of what I am asking for is with in there means. In other words unless they are just bitter @$$h0l3$ there are no legal objectives to what I am asking for

SOL is in reference to how long a debtor can be sued for what he/she owes. SOLR is different and refers to how long an account can be reported. --- Is this correct?

DV is where you ask a CA only (can not ask OC) for validation but this is where I get a bit lost. They be it the CA is require to provide me with 5 items. What are the laws governing CA's providing this information, would they have to have my signature on a document? or can they just say I have a piece of paper from the OC that says he owes it... this is another main point of my fustration what is their requirements on the "proof" they provide?

I have an account that is 3 years old, I can't DV it because it is the OC, however if it went to a CA and then on my CR I can DV it, but once they come back with validation I thought I was reading that basically they can re-age the account, causing me to have it for another 7 years?

Thank you all for your time and posts

Britt could you post your PFD barring personal info?

Message Edited by NoMelonsNoLemon on 08-24-2007 10:34 AM

I sent a DV to a CO before I knew that it should have been a different letter.

Other then in Public Records....Can not reage (CRTP) can reage in most states (SOL)

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=generalcredit&thread.id=8713

SOL

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/20040116b2.asp?caret=8

CRTP

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=generalcredit&message.id=17466

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:36:47 GMT

NoMelonsNoLemons---

I think the links to threads others provided did a great job of explaining SOL's and DV. To clarify my own perspective, statute of limitations, with relation to debt, are the acts specifying the period of time within which a claimant (usually a creditor or debt collector) can legally pursue litigation in an ttempt to enforce the debt. Seperatly, there is also a limited period of time a debt can be reported to a credit reporting agency (aka Credit Reporting Time Period, CRTP). This is 7.5 years for all items, excluding bankruptcy.

There's a window between the SOL's (if less than 7.5 years) and the CRTP that I view as the real window of opportunity to not only bring the debt to finality, but also clean up your credit report. As soon as the SOL's expire, legally the creditor has no recourse to do any more harm. This is why I think during this time period, debt validation is the best option for most. If they can validate the debt they will continue to report to the credit reporting agency. However, if they were already doing so, and you believe the reporting was correct, you've not lost anything except 41 cents and some time. If the reporting is incorrect but more beneficial, I think one must consider the seriousness of the error and the effect it may have if corrected.

With all of that said, I see case after case where collection agencies file litigation well beyond the SOL's. You are then forced to mount a defense and spend time and money unnecessarily. If you've armed yourself with applicable case law, the case will probably be dismissed. Nonetheless, the whole process does cause some grief and aggrevation. I'd like to note that these situations are becoming less frequent as the result of more independent state regulations and heightened consumer awreness.

Most of us don't really want to go to court, right? We just want to make sure we have the support of regulations and laws in case we do. I think the sentiment is generally that we all want the negative information removed without any additional consequence. We want to find the least painful, most effective way to do this.

I digress, back to your original issue, to clarify, you have an account reported to a CRA that is 3 years old. It is currently with the original creditor. Is it listed as charged off? When you say it's 3 years old, does that mean you have not made any payments in 3 years? Have you read the SOL's in Indiana to determine what the time period is for written contracts and open accounts? Have you been able to locate any case law or substantiation for whether this type of debt is considered a written contract or open account in Indiana? Was this a credit card account? Is it still open?

In regards to debt validation, I'd like to provide some of my opinions on ths issue in hopes it will shed some light on your options. The FDCPA governs collection agencies debt validation practices. There may also be state specific requirements that might help you. I have not found any regulation or law that specifically outlines what a collection agency must provide to validate the debt. The FCRA and FACTA governs debt validation by original creditors. Currently, there are no direct mandates that an original creditor must validate the reported debt. However, there are laws that explicitly indicate reported information must be accurate. For this reason, most large creditors have established internal procedures for handling what's know as "consumer direct disputes". Creditors are becoming keenly aware that consumers are more knowledgable about the credit reporting laws. I'm sure you've seen advertisements for attorneys who are handling class action lawsuits and looking for individuals who may have been affected. Even though there are no specific laws to quote or refer to, consumer interpretation is very powerful. Juries are very sympathetic to consumers who are viewed as victims of big, bad financial institutions or collection agencies. For this reason, attorneys are advising collection agencies and creditors to implement internal controls in excess of the law. Therefore, if you specifically ask for reasonable validation, and it cannot be provided, creditors will frequently remove the account from it's reporting to the CRA's.

As a side note, the issue of original creditors and consumer rights to dispute with them has become a hot topic federally. In the last several months, testimony has been heard by the Committee on Financial Services for the purpose of determing whether amendments should be made to the FACTA, FCRA and FDCPA. Although opinions vary, it looks like there is quite a bit of weight behind the idea that consumers have a right to receive debt validation from original creditors. It's possible we will see laws providing more clarification on this issue in the near future.

As far as the PFD, if you are still within the SOL's and need this item removed before the SOL's expire, this may very well be your best option. If it's the original creditor you've attempted to settle with, you may be limited in your options. Have you sent a written request? My experience has been that frequently with large creditors written correspondence is more successful than phone calls. Just remember to have a warm tone. Since it's not well defined in law as to whether deleting the entire reporting is legal, a companies internal procedures are all you have to work within. You also don't want to stir the pot too much if you are within the SOL's.

Re-aging is different than tolling. I think you meant you were concerned that the debt could be tolled. Tolling suspends or restarts the SOL's. It does not necessarily restart the CRTP, but it can. The statute of limitations for a debt may be tolled by either an unconditional promise to pay the debt or an acknowledgement of the debt (i.e, payments, written or verbal statement, etc).When a debt is tolled, the time limitation on bringing a lawsuit to enforce payment of the debt is suspended until the time for payment established under the promise or acknowledgment has arrived. Upon that due date, the statute of limitations will either resume or start over.

Re-aging is a voluntary practice by creditors where they agree to report your account in a positive status, sometimes as of a given date or sometimes from day 1 of the accont history, in exchange for a defined period of payments made on time.

If you can provide some specifics of the situation, I'll do my best to provide any information I have that may be pertinent.

I'll post my PFD in the next few days.Below is the DV letter I used for an account outside of the SOL's. If within the SOL's, I would advise use of different, more amiable, letter.

August 26, 2007

Jones Collection Agency

222 1st Street

Noplace, FL33333

Re: Account #: 5555555

Original Creditor: Smith & Smith Corp

Dear Sir or Madam:

This letter hereby notifies you that the validity of this debt is in dispute. In an attempt to validate this debt, I am requesting evidence of this debt, specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature, as well as proof of your authority in this matter. Absent such substantiation, under federal and state law you must correct any erroneous reporting to any and all credit reporting agencies

In accordance with Section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act and corresponding case law, please provide me, in writing, the following information:

A copy of the alleged original contract or other instrument bearing my signature
Complete account history, including, all statements, records of all activity, payments, collection attempts, and any charges added for collection activity; In short, any and all documentation pertaining to this account
Evidence of your authorization under 15 USC 1692(e) and 15 USC 1692(f) in this alleged matter
Evidence that your company is registered as a consumer collection agency in the State of Florida

Additionally, until full validation is provided, all representatives of your company, or any affiliated company, must immediately cease & desist all attempts to collect the aforementioned debt. Failure of your company to comply with this request will be a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and will directly result in a complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Florida Attorney General's office. Please be advised, should this request be violated, I will pursue all criminal and civil claims, including any and all punitive damages, allowable by federal and state law against your company.

Failure to respond, in writing, and in a timely manner, will serve as a waiver to any and all of your claims in this matter and that this matter is permanently closed. Please provide the requested information or correct your records and immediately request the removal of this invalid debt from all sources to which you may have reported.

For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This Notice is an attempt to correct your records, and any information received from you will be retained should further action become necessary. This is a request for information only, and is not a statement, election, or waiver of status.

I look forward to your timely response.

Best regards,

Jane Doe

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:24:11 GMT

masdeocho wrote:

Creditors cannot report inaccurate information, and have a duty to provide complete and accurate information to the CRAs (see Section 623(a), "Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information"). If you had a bad debt, paid it, and then the creditor tells the CRA to delete the TL as if it never happened, there's at least an argument that the creditor is providing inaccurate information to the CRA. Maybe this is why they are squeamish about PFDs.

Hi masdeocho -

This statement is interesting in the sense that some creditors who skip reporting payment statuses every month...because then you get comments on your FICO scores that say something like 'missing payment information...creditors can't tell if you missed a payment or were late...."

That is the biggest bunch of horse crap. I think it should be law that if a subscribed Creditor fails to report for a month the "Pd" should go in to make a green block.

I have a number of creditors that skip reporting because I am playing there credit game by PIF and charging a small amount before statement end so I don't have a zero balance and don't pay finance charge.

It just makes me mad that because they don't report a month it is assumed to be negitive because I might have been late. What a crock of crap.

Sorry for venting, but I have just been fighting using disputes and that is another joke. I had a creditor for an installment loan that I paid in full, which got me 2 months to finally report paid on the CR. The creditor was reporting to EX & EQ. Got EQ to show 'paid in full' 0 bal. That was fun the creditor would report pif with a balance. NO controls on what is reported by these CRA.
Then EX dispute gets corrected and what do you know that the creditor sends another update to EQ changing account status to 'Closed Account' from 'Paid in full' and my score dropped 10 points.

Talk about playing with a stacked deck...especially when you get a creditor that knows all the hidden un-written rules and cause & effects of comments.

Message Edited by BKed_Rebound on 08-26-2007 09:13 AM

Message Edited by BKed_Rebound on 08-26-2007 09:22 AM

Message Edited by BKed_Rebound on 08-26-2007 09:24 AM

Re: Questions for the Magistrates (Yet another PFD thread)

NoMelonsNoLemon — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:59:11 GMT

I love the letter, I recently called a debt collector who when I asked for the DOFD responded "I don't have to give you any information, beside secure payment" I asked then how am I suppose to find out about my "debt", he responded "Any way you can buddy".

I am thinking of reporting him to the secretary of state and FTC.

The debt is on my CR as .. I just looked up my CR and it's with the same company as above! So it is not with the OC but it reports opened 09/05 and I believe the SOL is 6 years. However the OC never sent me a letter, which they are required by law to send me within 45 days and the account should have been closed in good standing 12/04. I am going to hire an attorney.

Thank you for your response though, it helped me bring it all together the tolling piece is what I think I was missing. This has really helped me!

Please don't forget to post your PFD

Message Edited by NoMelonsNoLemon on 08-27-2007 05:59 PM