Harry Seaward

Moderators
  • Content Count

    6,452
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    175

Harry Seaward last won the day on June 4

Harry Seaward had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,355 Excellent

About Harry Seaward

  • Rank
    500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Arizona

Recent Profile Visitors

5,861 profile views
  1. I understand they won't press charges, but they should certainly file a report.
  2. This doesn't make any sense. It's not the cops' jobs to "prove" anything. They only file a report based on statements made by the both of you.
  3. Those guides were written over a decade ago. Much has changed. But give it a shot and let us know how it goes. This sounds like ID theft or fraud. File a police report, turn that over to the creditors/debt collectors and that will be the end of it. More or less, yes. Depending on the OC, using arbitration may be an option to give yourself some leverage to get these off your report. https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/329436-arbitration-overview-and-strategy-2018-most-up-to-date-info/
  4. You won't get a deletion on legitimate debts without payment in full, and even then, most creditors/collection agencies won't delete no matter what. The best you can realistically hope for is a settlement for less than the full amount, but they will remain on your credit report as paid collections. If the debts are bogus, what's the hold up with the credit repair company? They should have had them deleted within 2 weeks.
  5. Right. They've validated the debt. Time to switch to plan b.
  6. It depends on who owns it. If the OC has sold it to a debt buyer, you would offer the PFD with the buyer. Just FYI, this won't remove the OCs charge-off from your reports, and because they no longer own it, they have zero incentive to remove it. If the OC does still own it, I would try to negotiate with the OC directly to have them pull the account back from the CA. The OC will probably tell you that you have to deal with the CA, though. If this works with any of them, I'd put my money on the gas bill.
  7. Your best shot at getting them off is to sue whoever is reporting for violations of the FCRA (and FDCPA where applicable). The easier but less effective method would be offering to pay the debts in exchange for having them deleted from your reports.
  8. What's changed that you can afford a monthly car payment when you couldn't come up with $115 for the gas bill?
  9. Where's the part about names being crossed out? And was there an affidavit?
  10. Right. My bad. I thought OP had said he/she sent one via non-certified, but reading again i see that's the next move. OP did say the person on the phone told him/her there's no reason they wouldn't have accepted the letter, though. If the offices aren't operating, the phone people should be aware of that. Which brings it back to my main point. If they don't have the capability to prevent FDCPA violations, they shouldn't be conducting any sort of business that could lead to such violations. If they don't have the capability to prevent FDCPA violations, they shouldn't be conducting any sort of business that could lead to such violations.
  11. No I'm not. Obviously, but my point is they can't be 'open' enough to conduct operations that potentially lead to FDCPA violations but then say they aren't liable because they are 'closed'. If they can't prevent FDCPA violations, they have to cease operations or face the liability. Nonsense. The employees aren't going rogue here. They are operating under the direction of the employer, whether from a cubicle in an office or laying in bed in their underwear. If the employer is telling them to make phone calls that potentially violate the FDCPA, the employer bears the burden of ensuring reasonable procedures are being maintained to avoid violations. What's unreasonable about opening a mailbox 2 or 3 times a week?
  12. Were you ever (within the last 7 years, anyway) 30+ days late on paying this card? Where are you getting your reports from? If this is some 3rd party thing like Credit Karma, forget about it. Get your reports directly from the bureaus (www.annualcreditreport.com is fine since the data is direct from the bureaus).
  13. California Civil Procedure 1985(c): The clerk, or a judge, shall issue a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum signed and sealed but otherwise in blank to a party requesting it, who shall fill it in before service. I see arguments for both sides, which is probably what the 30 minute phone call was about. It was already served, so the changing of the names was not "before service". On the other hand, the person serving it is authorized to fill in whatever info they want, so the crossed out version is now a different ('new') subpoena. The long and short of this is the CA and process server didn't want to go though the hassle of going back to court to get a different subpoena. Everyone knows that if they CA had gone back to the court for a second subpoena, the court would have issued it without skipping a beat. The question for the court will be whether or not this is legal under the letter of the law, and if not, does the letter of the law trump its spirit. Was this a subpoena duces tecum? If so, (b ) says that they have to also serve an affidavit with the subpoena. Crossing things on an affidavit voids the entire affidavit.
  14. If they are open enough to be making and receiving phone calls, they can certainly open a mail box. I understand the people answering the phones aren't the ones checking mail, but if covid is an excuse to stop the inconvenient parts of the CAs business that prevent FDCPA violations, they also have to stop the other parts that lead to FDCPA violations.
  15. I'm not in California, but this nonsense is being used everywhere to 'suspend' people's rights (especiallyin California), so i wouldn't be surprised if the CPP is being dismantled one case at a time.