Go for it, take the name of the person’s and make sure they agree exactly to what you thinking is going to happen. Paying for deletion from all 3 credit bureaus.
Verbal agreement is as good as written ones in many recent court rulings and litigations.
The bottom line is they getting money to simply remove a sentence from your report! I have done few of them and never had any issues.
I'd be careful of recording w/o knowledge...I know many ppl SAY that but we all live under 50 different state laws.
That all operate prison systems independant of one another, as well as what consitutes state wiretapping violations.
Not that some states will or won't press the issue...
Why not email the terms for 'clarity' thus creating a written trail of what the agreement is ...even text and SM can be argued
as a written meeting of the minds and it can be argued that correspondence from company email is as good or even better
than company letterhead...it's hard to play the 'which rep said that.....who TOLD you that' when you've an email from
JSmith at jsmith@creditorcompany.com
When 'they' say a letter is coming ...that's fine can you simply hit REPLY to the email I just sent to your email just 'outlining'
just 2 things
a) I'm paying X amount and
b) You guys will delete the account once said amount is received
Those two things are CLEAR correct?
No recording needed ...got written correspondence (in today's world email is a mother ...ask Mrs.Clinton 
*PFD's are always a crapshoot IMO (because techically the entire process is a total LIE....no different than a criminal asking to pay
to delete a crime he/she committed from being 'reported' ...so now the 5 time DUI guy looks 'clean' when really he isn't or the wife beater
looks like a choir boy on the background check) but hey it's a tool available so where there is a system to manipulate, manipulation will reign, no biggie.
@Anonymous wrote:
I'd be careful of recording w/o knowledge...I know many ppl SAY that but we all live under 50 different state laws.
That all operate prison systems independant of one another, as well as what consitutes state wiretapping violations.
Not that some states will or won't press the issue...
Why not email the terms for 'clarity' thus creating a written trail of what the agreement is ...even text and SM can be argued
as a written meeting of the minds and it can be argued that correspondence from company email is as good or even better
than company letterhead...it's hard to play the 'which rep said that.....who TOLD you that' when you've an email from
JSmith at jsmith@creditorcompany.com
When 'they' say a letter is coming ...that's fine can you simply hit REPLY to the email I just sent to your email just 'outlining'
just 2 things
a) I'm paying X amount and
b) You guys will delete the account once said amount is received
Those two things are CLEAR correct?
No recording needed ...got written correspondence (in today's world email is a mother ...ask Mrs.Clinton
*PFD's are always a crapshoot IMO (because techically the entire process is a total LIE....no different than a criminal asking to pay
to delete a crime he/she committed from being 'reported' ...so now the 5 time DUI guy looks 'clean' when really he isn't or the wife beater
looks like a choir boy on the background check) but hey it's a tool available so where there is a system to manipulate, manipulation will reign, no biggie.
When you call a BUSINESS like a CA you will ALWAYS hear a "this call may be monitored.. blah blah". That is notification that the call is being recorded. One party cannot record a call, while denying the other party permission to record. That statement gives you the legal right to record the call yourself even in two party notification states.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
I'd be careful of recording w/o knowledge...I know many ppl SAY that but we all live under 50 different state laws.
That all operate prison systems independant of one another, as well as what consitutes state wiretapping violations.
Not that some states will or won't press the issue...
Why not email the terms for 'clarity' thus creating a written trail of what the agreement is ...even text and SM can be argued
as a written meeting of the minds and it can be argued that correspondence from company email is as good or even better
than company letterhead...it's hard to play the 'which rep said that.....who TOLD you that' when you've an email from
JSmith at jsmith@creditorcompany.com
When 'they' say a letter is coming ...that's fine can you simply hit REPLY to the email I just sent to your email just 'outlining'
just 2 things
a) I'm paying X amount and
b) You guys will delete the account once said amount is received
Those two things are CLEAR correct?
No recording needed ...got written correspondence (in today's world email is a mother ...ask Mrs.Clinton
*PFD's are always a crapshoot IMO (because techically the entire process is a total LIE....no different than a criminal asking to pay
to delete a crime he/she committed from being 'reported' ...so now the 5 time DUI guy looks 'clean' when really he isn't or the wife beater
looks like a choir boy on the background check) but hey it's a tool available so where there is a system to manipulate, manipulation will reign, no biggie.
When you call a BUSINESS like a CA you will ALWAYS hear a "this call may be monitored.. blah blah". That is notification that the call is being recorded. One party cannot record a call, while denying the other party permission to record. That statement gives you the legal right to record the call yourself even in two party notification states.
1) That's a legal determination and I'm not quite sure the courts have made that a clear cut determination....most things in the law
are fluid when it comes to how the judge in YOUR case sees it.
Ex: Just because the cops can record YOU ...does automatically give you the LEGAL RIGHT to record said officer....this is still a argument here in Ca.
My point is it has NOT been decided as a a legal right, by our Supreme Court (which would trump your state's interpretation of THEIR own laws) I'm not
trying to be a ninny here but to go so far as to proclaim a 'legal right' is a bit much.
2) As far as us non lawyers know the 2nd party may also have to announce and give notice of a recording...again I DON'T KNOW and I'm not a lawyer and even if I practiced in Ca. I wouldn't for sure know what the crap West Virgina law was or Iowa....
Besides notifying that a call 'may' be used for 'training' purposes is different than legitimizing as legal evidence in a court case the court is under no obligation to allow
a recording recorded against the state's standard as evidence to the legal binding contract....yes among 'us' on the street it may be a 'tool' to say c'mon you know you said whatever but once we invloved the courts things change and it gets 'real'.
Again, it probably won't get anybody locked up and it may provide 'social pressure' to get a CA to do the 'right thing' as agreed but the soapbox of using a 'possibly' illegal recording might not be as powerful as one thinks, in EVERY state in this great union......unless there has been some FEDERAL LAW passed that I'm not aware of?
* Speaking of ' legal determination' and the interpretation of said party's legal obligation...it could easily be argued that the entire process of PFD is the lender breaking his agreement with the CRA to report truthful information...by accepting a payment to LIE about what happen, which is de facto what's happenig by deleting a transaction or account as if it didn't happen when it in fact did...could be seen as breaking the terms of 'that' agreement.....
Lenders pay the CRA's for accurate background info of potential borrowers the PFD process by it's very nature is about breaking a legal agreement to report the truth...
Ionly bring it up to say laws and how they are pressed or not pressed are fluid...this iswhy you'll here some vendors say 'we can't do a PFD' not because it's 'literally' against the law but it is against the 'spirit' of the agreement they sign up for ( I'm not advocating FOR them...just pointing out a quirk in how 'we' feel about stuff being 'so legal' and to the letter....yeah only when it'sworks towards our wishes)
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
I'd be careful of recording w/o knowledge...I know many ppl SAY that but we all live under 50 different state laws.
That all operate prison systems independant of one another, as well as what consitutes state wiretapping violations.
Not that some states will or won't press the issue...
Why not email the terms for 'clarity' thus creating a written trail of what the agreement is ...even text and SM can be argued
as a written meeting of the minds and it can be argued that correspondence from company email is as good or even better
than company letterhead...it's hard to play the 'which rep said that.....who TOLD you that' when you've an email from
JSmith at jsmith@creditorcompany.com
When 'they' say a letter is coming ...that's fine can you simply hit REPLY to the email I just sent to your email just 'outlining'
just 2 things
a) I'm paying X amount and
b) You guys will delete the account once said amount is received
Those two things are CLEAR correct?
No recording needed ...got written correspondence (in today's world email is a mother ...ask Mrs.Clinton
*PFD's are always a crapshoot IMO (because techically the entire process is a total LIE....no different than a criminal asking to pay
to delete a crime he/she committed from being 'reported' ...so now the 5 time DUI guy looks 'clean' when really he isn't or the wife beater
looks like a choir boy on the background check) but hey it's a tool available so where there is a system to manipulate, manipulation will reign, no biggie.
When you call a BUSINESS like a CA you will ALWAYS hear a "this call may be monitored.. blah blah". That is notification that the call is being recorded. One party cannot record a call, while denying the other party permission to record. That statement gives you the legal right to record the call yourself even in two party notification states.
1) That's a legal determination and I'm not quite sure the courts have made that a clear cut determination....most things in the law
are fluid when it comes to how the judge in YOUR case sees it.
Ex: Just because the cops can record YOU ...does automatically give you the LEGAL RIGHT to record said officer....this is still a argument here in Ca.
My point is it has NOT been decided as a a legal right, by our Supreme Court (which would trump your state's interpretation of THEIR own laws) I'm not
trying to be a ninny here but to go so far as to proclaim a 'legal right' is a bit much.
2) As far as us non lawyers know the 2nd party may also have to announce and give notice of a recording...again I DON'T KNOW and I'm not a lawyer and even if I practiced in Ca. I wouldn't for sure know what the crap West Virgina law was or Iowa....
Besides notifying that a call 'may' be used for 'training' purposes is different than legitimizing as legal evidence in a court case the court is under no obligation to allow
a recording recorded against the state's standard as evidence to the legal binding contract....yes among 'us' on the street it may be a 'tool' to say c'mon you know you said whatever but once we invloved the courts things change and it gets 'real'.
Again, it probably won't get anybody locked up and it may provide 'social pressure' to get a CA to do the 'right thing' as agreed but the soapbox of using a 'possibly' illegal recording might not be as powerful as one thinks, in EVERY state in this great union......unless there has been some FEDERAL LAW passed that I'm not aware of?
* Speaking of ' legal determination' and the interpretation of said party's legal obligation...it could easily be argued that the entire process of PFD is the lender breaking his agreement with the CRA to report truthful information...by accepting a payment to LIE about what happen, which is de facto what's happenig by deleting a transaction or account as if it didn't happen when it in fact did...could be seen as breaking the terms of 'that' agreement.....
Lenders pay the CRA's for accurate background info of potential borrowers the PFD process by it's very nature is about breaking a legal agreement to report the truth...
Ionly bring it up to say laws and how they are pressed or not pressed are fluid...this iswhy you'll here some vendors say 'we can't do a PFD' not because it's 'literally' against the law but it is against the 'spirit' of the agreement they sign up for ( I'm not advocating FOR them...just pointing out a quirk in how 'we' feel about stuff being 'so legal' and to the letter....yeah only when it'sworks towards our wishes)
I let every collector know i'm recording the call as soon as they inform me of the same, with a simple "me too" Then In the midst of the conversation a get their name and the date.
OP you aren't recording calls to use against them in court. You are recording to let the next Rep know the last one made the deal, and you would like it carried out (they tend to forget after payment and let you know this by saying "it's not in our records or the last reps notes")