Feeling defeated. A new med collection has surfaced.

[trusty]

Although it seems counterintuitive... paying a collection is actually detrimental to one's credit, no matter how long it's been on the reports. It's one of the weirdest ways to understand how adversarial credit reporting can be; and how unproductive earnest intentions are, when addressing this. 

Getting something in writing is worth far more than just paying and hoping. Paying a collection does not change its negative effect. Rather, it just makes the credit bureaus less likely to remove it... since it has essentially been acknowledged.

Many of us have been there, and done that. That's what we're here for. Trying to do the right thing is not based on common sense, in this regard.

There have been stories of users that have just paid a collection that they assumed was theirs, since it showed up on their credit... only to find out that it was in someone else's name. However, once a collection has been paid, it becomes more difficult to remove it for any errors, because it has already been tacitly acknowledged.

Collection agencies are not inherently magnanimous. They oftentimes miscalculate and over-bill, and in the aforementioned case, misapply a debt from one person to the next. It never hurts to press the process and to engage in your rights.

All I can say is that we live and we learn.

[Anonymous]

---

@trusty wrote:

Although it seems counterintuitive... paying a collection is actually detrimental to one's credit, no matter how long it's been on the reports. It's one of the weirdest ways to understand how adversarial credit reporting can be; and how unproductive earnest intentions are, when addressing this. 

Getting something in writing is worth far more than just paying and hoping. Paying a collection does not change its negative effect. Rather, it just makes the credit bureaus less likely to remove it... since it has essentially been acknowledged.

Many of us have been there, and done that. That's what we're here for. Trying to do the right thing is not based on common sense, in this regard.

There have been stories of users that have just paid a collection that they assumed was theirs, since it showed up on their credit... only to find out that it was in someone else's name. However, once a collection has been paid, it becomes more difficult to remove it for any errors, because it has already been tacitly acknowledged.

Collection agencies are not inherently magnanimous. They oftentimes miscalculate and over-bill, and in the aforementioned case, misapply a debt from one person to the next. It never hurts to press the process and to engage in your rights.

All I can say is that we live and we learn.

---

Trusty I was waiting for someone to post with the angle that I should not pay without PFD.  However, when no one did, I thought it was best to pay.  Had you posted sooner,  I might not have paid so quickly.

[Anonymous]

---

@trusty wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@trusty wrote:

Paying a collection (without a written agreement for deletion) is just about the worst thing one can do, because it solidifies the derogatory remaining on a credit report, in perpetuity.

Strategically... disputing straightaway, and then debt validating are some tools that may be applied when collections pop up. The burden of proof is on them. All the better if you discover that it was a case of mistaken identity.

---

This is just plain bad advice on handling a legitimate debt. For one thing there is no "burden of proof". Taking an adversarial stance is certainly going to simply make them dig in. Approach them honestly, stating that you never knew about this, have recieved no notifications, and wish to pay it if they will agree to delete it. A written promise to do so is not necessary, you can record any phone calls with them.

---

There is always the burden of proof. That's one of the fundamental tenets of our society. Pretending there isn't a burden of proof - when there absolutely is - does a gross disservice to oneself, and to others.

"Bad advice," in this context, would be telling someone to just suck it up and take it... or worse yet, to send in a payment for an unsubstantiated collection... and then hope that said collection agency removes a paid collection, which they have zero obligation to do.

Rather, the proper advice to give someone revolves around what their legal options are... to enforce the collection agency's legal obligation to validate and ensure that they are supplying accurate and complete information.

To wit: Everybody that has studied the laws knows that a reported item must be 100% accurate and complete. This oftentimes means that even if someone did owe a debt once upon a time... if it hasn't been accounted for correctly, than it can be removed from the credit reports.

Whether someone should own up to something is very personal to them... and not at all mutually exclusive from objectively pursuing their legal rights.

Any advice that doesn't involve someone's legal rights is nothing more than feigning the morality police.

---

I'm sorry but "burden of proof" only truly comes into play once you enter a court of law. In the dispute and validation process, virtually nothing in the way of "proof" is legally required. Thats just a sad fact of life in the credit reporting world. Regardless of it being a "tenet of our society",  it is what it is.

Honestly I'm not really concerned with what is "right" or "moral" with regards to cleaning your credit up - only what constitutes an EFFECTIVE strategy. OP had an admitedly legitimate and recent debt they did not know about when it occurred. Taking an immediate adversarial stance in such a situation is seldom productive. With it being so recent, Debt Validation is likely to be simple and straightforward for the CA. Disputing requires one to identify an inaccuracy in the reported data. "I didn't know about it" is not an error in the data. Also this forum does not advocate blanket use of the dispute process. If an inaccuracy in the reporting *is* identified then a dispute is the way to get it corrected.

[trusty]

*Duplicate.

[trusty]

A collection agency is not friendly, nor trustworthy. - It is by design... adversarial. Encouraging others to treat it any other way is proffering wholly misguided advice.

Debt collectors only serve to extract as much out of a mark as possible, proper procedures and accounting be damned. In many cases, there has been a gross miscalculation; or worse yet, the subject has been totally misidentified. In other cases, the debt collector isn't even licensed to purchase or even collect on debt.

In light of these, it behooves consumers to always verify things. It can only hurt to assume that something deeply hurtful to one's financial history is automatically 100% correct, without first verifying... no matter whether we think we may have recognized the creditor name from once upon a time. - That's what debt collectors do, they prey on a consumer's desire to quickly resolve things... even though credit reporting just doesn't work that way.

Urging others to blindly agree to uphold collection derogs - without first exhausting all of their options - is not considered "effective" credit advice, by any measure.