Paid Returned Check

[Anonymous]

How would I go by getting this off?

Reported with all three CRA's

Tigertranz returned check date opened: 10/2006 Status: Paid


Would it be better to send a DV since I have already paid the account in Jan/07, or just a GW Letter

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

New Credit repair rules do not allow us to advise you to send a DV on a paid collection. 

So send a GW.

[Anonymous]

But if I felt like sending a DV- it would be a valid option? :-)

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
But if I felt like sending a DV- it would be a valid option? :-)

---

If anyone answers in the affirmative to your question of DVing a paid collection, it'll be grounds for their getting kicked off FICO. And considering how much durn nigh everyone here depends on the forums here for advice and direction, it ain't gonna happen.

Don't be surprised if the thread gets locked.

The TOS you accepted when you joined states what you CAN do and what you CAN'T do. IMO, by asking a second time, especially after a Mod told you it's a no-no, you broke the rules.

Message Edited by Wonderin on 08-06-2008 09:46 AM

[Anonymous]

Hi just curious since I'm a newbie to the rebuilding your credit forum (always was reading the credit card forum).  I want to make sure I don't break any rules either.  Why would someone get in trouble for sending a debt validation letter for a paid collection?  (or am i misunderstanding in that the collection wasn't paid off?).  Doesn't a debt validation letter make the collector prove that the debt is owed?

(sorry for my ignorance, but appreciate any clarification)

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hi just curious since I'm a newbie to the rebuilding your credit forum (always was reading the credit card forum).  I want to make sure I don't break any rules either.  Why would someone get in trouble for sending a debt validation letter for a paid collection?  (or am i misunderstanding in that the collection wasn't paid off?).  Doesn't a debt validation letter make the collector prove that the debt is owed?

(sorry for my ignorance, but appreciate any clarification)

---

No forgiveness needed!

This is how I understand it ... and if you think about it, it WILL make sense. And please bear with me as I do my best to explain it withOUT breaking the rules myself!!

This forum is OWNED by Fair Issac (the people who've brought us FICO scoring). If they were to allow people on THEIR forum to discuss ways to UNETHICALLY circumvent the system, that would, if you think about it, be an extreme disservice to the lenders, creditors and such that they serve/sell their services to. Why in the world would you pay a company for a service when their own forums contain information on circumventing that service!

As for DVing UNpaid collections, that is simply a method of making sure that the person claiming that they can collect the money can PROVE that they are the ones who can collect the money.

Many, many, many times, CAs sell/assign debts back and forth. If you read some of the threads here, you'll see that often, many people have 2-3 CAs claiming collection rights for the SAME debt!!

So who to pay? How much to pay? A DV tells you that information. And if they CAN'T, they can't legally collect the debt.

Its not meant to be a way of rooking the creditors/CAs ... or getting out of debts you legally owe. Its simply a method of making sure that when you plunk down your hard-earned cash, you're paying the right person the right amount of money.

See?

And hopefully, I explained it withOUT breaking any rules!!

[Anonymous]

Oh, and just to make you crazy, there ARE exceptions to that rule of not DVing a paid collection.

Let's say that Acme Collections says that you owe $100 on a debt for a CC owned by Bob's Credit Cards. You say "Oh, my gosh! Whoops!" and pay them the $100.

Then, about two months later, Apex Collections says you owe THEM the $100 for the Bob's Credit Card debt. What do you do?? Do you pay yet ANOTHER CA for the SAME debt?

Nope. You DV them both. One will HAVE to be able to prove that you owe the debt (preferably, the one you paid will be able to). If Acme (CA #1) ends up being the one who could NOT legally collect, well, you've got an FDCPA violation. You can comfortably sue them.

But you'd still have to pay (I THINK) Apex Collections. Or provide them with proof that you paid the other CA for that debt.

[Anonymous]

That helps - thanks.  I guess i was confused when it said "paid collection"

[mberry117]

THANKS Wonderin!!!  That helped me alot, becuase I had the same question.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

This forum is OWNED by Fair Issac (the people who've brought us FICO scoring). If they were to allow people on THEIR forum to discuss ways to UNETHICALLY circumvent the system, that would, if you think about it, be an extreme disservice to the lenders, creditors and such that they serve/sell their services to.

---

I saw someone online make the argument that sending goodwill letters is an unethical circumvention of the system, because you're asking creditors to delete valid information in order to make yourself look better.

I'll have to find the blog, but I don't think I'd be able to name him because he's also someone who gives advice on credit repair -- making it a moot point.

So, is it ultimately a matter of degree?



(EDIT: I found the blog article. Per TOS here, I will not add the hyperlink. But this is an excerpt of this person's argument. Can find it using google 'goodwill letters fico'. Why does FICO accept this exception, or is this person's reasoning off in the first place according to FICO? Also, this person mention's 'liar's loans'... I don't think they're discussing 'authorized users', which is another way to game the system, and was accepted by FICO before FICO 08 is supposed to make that null and void. But I may be wrong. Again, it's all a matter of degree?)


"""""""Goodwill adjustment - Influence: Media, lying
Anarchy, and media's unethical suggestion to usurp the credit reporting system


...The Fair Credit Reporting Act states

"The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system."

That initial sentence-- and the premise-- of the nation's credit reporting law was written decades ago, but today, the media thumb their noses at those words.

The system has to be based on accuracy, or it loses its credibility. In 2007, in a climate of lies, Fair Isaac took action to nullify the practice of some slick operators: Selling others' good credit histories. Liar loans, in large measure, ended in 2007, too. But you don't have to look far to find another scam: The suggestion to try to get your creditors to lie to the credit bureaus. It's on television, radio, and in print.

Experian says that changing accurate, negative information is grounds for kicking a creditor out of the credit reporting system, and that it might even be illegal (not that they understand what illegal is):

" There are very strict laws governing what a business must do if it reports information to a credit reporting company. If a business were to intentionally do what you describe, it likely would be in violation of those laws."

Doing so also would be a violation of their contract with Experian and grounds for cancelling the business’s ability to report or receive information. Legal issues notwithstanding, the foundation of credit reporting in the U.S. is essentially the honor system.

The "Goodwill Adjustment": Examples of media suggesting your creditors lie to credit bureaus"""""""

(and then there are a bunch of news articles, and a link to the State of West Virginia and to FICO's boards itself, all of which I have not repeated here.)

Message Edited by Nonaii on 08-07-2008 08:11 AM