Debt Guy

Members
  • Content Count

    1,066
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Debt Guy last won the day on October 1 2008

Debt Guy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

385 Excellent

About Debt Guy

  • Rank
    500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....
  1. The advice you are getting is probably what you want to hear. However, I think it is sorely in need of a reality check. Speaking as one who has been on both sides of this equation (a career in banking and later a business failure that left me with $300,000 in credit card debt) your situation feels familiar in several perspectives. Just some thoughts. First, your existing financial situation is the parameter that defines your options. You can only do what you can do. It makes little difference what the creditor wants or demands if you do not have the ability to make it work. It serves nei
  2. I've been away dealing with some health issues so it has taken a while to respond to your questions and challenges. Also, I'm sure everyone is aware that the site server has been unstable. Then why come here? Lots of reasons. 1. I enjoy helping people and sharing the knowledge I have gained over a lifetime of working with credit in just about every role you can imagine. 2. I learn things. I don't know it all and I am willing to be convinced that I might not have the exact correct answer for every single situation. 3. It is an opportunity to engage in a serious dialogue and debate. I ha
  3. Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been away dealing with some health issues. And, the server has been very unstable. I trust that the two issues are not related. Semantics are important to ensure clear communication. I think that is what is going on here. If we don't use the right words, then it is hard to understand each other and even harder for a bystander to understand. It seems you are including the term "collection agency" as a broad definition of any entity that collects debts. You can use the term if you wish, but it is not technically accurate. For purposes of illustrati
  4. Hi Suze I agree that the CA has violated by not sending the dunning letter in a timely fashion. However, the violation is not worth much unless you can prove the violation. Dunning letter violations are especially hard to prove as it is impossible for you to prove a negative. All the CA needs to prove is that they have an internal procedure to send dunning letters -- they do not have to prove they sent it or that you received it. Personally, I think you would be spinning your wheels here. You don't need the dunning letter to send a request for validation. I am sure you know that a DV is o
  5. Hi Suze I agree that the CA has violated by not sending the dunning letter in a timely fashion. However, the violation is not worth much unless you can prove the violation. Dunning letter violations are especially hard to prove as it is impossible for you to prove a negative. All the CA needs to prove is that they have an internal procedure to send dunning letters -- they do not have to prove they sent it or that you received it. Personally, I think you would be spinning your wheels here. You don't need the dunning letter to send a request for validation. I am sure you know that a DV is o
  6. Hi Suze I agree that the CA has violated by not sending the dunning letter in a timely fashion. However, the violation is not worth much unless you can prove the violation. Dunning letter violations are especially hard to prove as it is impossible for you to prove a negative. All the CA needs to prove is that they have an internal procedure to send dunning letters -- they do not have to prove they sent it or that you received it. Personally, I think you would be spinning your wheels here. You don't need the dunning letter to send a request for validation. I am sure you know that a DV is o
  7. I have found most collection agencies can not actually verify the debt because the original creditors do not have the documents to prove it. I think what the OC has is a pretty mixed bag. Creditors pretty much stopped keeping paper records quite some time ago as the challenges of storage and retention became overwhelming. Up until the last couple of years, disk space was pretty expensive and creditors would delete old records to free up space, although some stored documents on computer generated microfiche (but even those things have a limited life and are awfully expensive to retrieve). B
  8. Per the FCRA, they need to have documentation to report negative information. Currently, through eOscar, the CRAs take their word for it. If you press them in court, they will lose. I'll re-read FCRA. I sure don't remember anything like that. Opinion letters from the FTC (Wollman) numerous instances of case law. (Let me dig it up). Dig hard because you are wrong. Wollman says no such thing. I recently posted at length what Wollman means and what the words mean. The only case law that is on point is Chaudhry (which everyone hates). All the other court decisions out there are really d
  9. Huh? It's called a bullseye, it's done on e-Oscar, it takes seconds and requires merely a reason code. You are absolutely correct. But, you misunderstand what I was trying to say. The problem is the periodic tape that goes to the CRA. The problem is communicating internally in the organization to modify the data in the computer system -- otherwise, the old data will just get re-reported in the next tape update. As for the consumer's ethical position in insisting on deletion ... we simply do not know the full circumstances of the consumer's life. The consumer may have faced a series of mis
  10. I asked you how you distinguish between a debt buyer and a collection agency during a lawsuit - never got a response. If you are being sued - how do you tell in the pleadings that it's a collection agency vs. a debt buyer? Why can't a CA sue? If you mean someone who has not purchased the debt, then I must disagree - I see collection agencies who have been "assigned" a debt and did not purchase it sue all the time. Admin If I missed this earlier, I apologize. I have a lot of threads going and I don't exactly live on the computer. Sometimes one of the notification emails gets lost in the clutt
  11. but by that same token wouldn't the person dunned have the same ability to argue non-receipt? Well, it can be argued. And it has many times. Courts have consistently ruled against the consumer in that situation. I'm sure a judge somewhere has said differently but I've never seen a published opinion to that effect. Any CA/DB attorney worth snot knows how to counter the argument. collection agencies have no documentation...... Can you please show me where it says a CA is required to have any documentation of any type. CAs, under the assignment from the OC, are entitled to rely on the OCs r
  12. Do you happen to know if such a status would change on one's CR if paid off a CO in full? Yes, I know. The answer is no. Credit reports reflect history. The FCRA is very specific that the history must be reported accurately. If a charge off is paid -- well it is just a paid charge off. The charge off still happened. The payment does not make the charge off go away. Just makes it paid. Does the company have to reinstate the debt as a performing asset, therefore changing it's status as no longer charged off? Banking and accounting regulations prohibit a bank from reversing the charge-off a
  13. If it does pop back on, then you have the CRAs for reinsertion violations. And this is VERY easy to collect on (from the credit reporting agencies). I've done it myself. Depends on why it was reinserted. If the tradeline was reported accurately in the first place, then it is still reported accurately when reinserted. If the tradeline is accurate, you have no cause of action. Pretty hard to "collect on" if you don't have a cause of action and cannot prove the tradeline was inaccurate in the first place. Don't you agree?
  14. setting up and NDA in place of a PFD. This is a tough one. Personally, I think an NDA would be far preferable. Assuming, you and I have the same definition of how an NDA works in this situation. Normally, an NDA is an agreement to not discuss the disposition of a matter. In this case specifically, what you really mean is (1) the consumer will send an FCRA dispute to the CRAs and (2) the DB/CA agrees to not answer the dispute resulting in (3) the automatic deletion of the tradeline by the CRA. But, I still see several problems. First, it is a breach in spirit, if not letter, of the agreem