wja1969

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About wja1969

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Fields

  • Location
    VA
  1. Fisthardcheese, I've reviewed the TILA, specifically Subpart B relating to open-end credit (credit cards). It discusses initial disclosures in detail and a requirement for creditors to disclose major changes to things like rate increases or fee increases. However I can't find a requirement for regular statements. Obviously every OC credit card company issues monthly statements, but how does the TILA bind a JBD to the same if they are still charging interest?
  2. In my experience, goodwill letters are huge longshots. Especially since it is totally easy to deny someone in writing with a form letter. I've had better luck in person on the phone if I find a sympathetic party where it's harder to say no to someone's (virtual) face. That said, I can't imagine finding a sympathetic party at MCM with the bunch of hardasses working at that CA. I also couldn't find any Virginia case law yet relating to removal of paid collections. Sounds like California and Texas have better consumer rights laws than my state...
  3. Thanks Tom, I would have negotiated PFD if I had been in a position of strength. However I was buying a house and while I didn't let the CA know that (they would have demanded full payment), I wasn't in a position to go back and forth for months with them trying to get a deletion. I ended up paying $.30 on the dollar. I could probably have gotten that number lower as well, but again, was not able to play hardball. I noticed in the sticky note regarding this topic that some people said they had success sending letters and removing paid collections. For instance, C M CHASE said to write the higher-ups at the CAs. That's good advice, but what's missing is what is she SAYING in the letters that is resonating with those higher ups??? A paid collection is a known debt and according to additional research I read, there's currently no legal precedent (at least at the federal level) for getting OCs and CAs to stop negative reporting even though the debt is paid. As anyone can tell you, the ongoing penalty to your credit that sticks around years after you pay does seem overly punitive and effectively represents an ongoing collection effort (IMHO). Yet according to one post I read, the Supreme Court has not ruled either way in the matter of ongoing negative reporting after payment.
  4. I've been reading the forum for at least an hour to ensure I didn't waste anyone's time. I did see a couple threads relating to this issue, but not enough specifics guidance. I have three credit card collections that I settled 6 months ago with the CA so I could buy a house. For years now both the OC and CA have been reporting TLs to all three CRAs against the same debt. As expected, the OC is reporting charge off and the CA is reporting collection account, paid. I hate this kind of double-dip reporting on the same debt, but I guess that's how it works... So here's what I have: Chase Credit Card = Charge-off Chase Credit Card = Charge-off Citibank Credit Card = Charge-off Midland Credit Mgmt (Chase) = Paid Collection Midland Credit Mgmt (Chase) = Paid Collection Midland Credit Mgmt (Citibank) = Paid Collection I know from research on this forum that sending DV letters at this point will do no good since no one is trying to collect from me any more. But I want to do SOMETHING. So is there a good cadence I can keep up and maybe get lucky? Written CRA dispute, followed by written CA dispute, followed by written goodwill request (hah!), followed by threatening letter from my lawyer (even though I don't have a real threat), followed by what??? The only good news is that the statute of limitations is up in a little over a year on all these debts (they are OLD). Still I'd love to see some improvement before mid-2016... Thanks!!!
  5. I've been trying to get several 2-year-old deliquencies removed that are being reported by a shady mortgage company called American Home Mortgage (now Homeward Residential). I just noticed a possible avenue to fight back. In a 7/2/12 Equifax report, I found that American Home reported the account as 120 days late on March 2012. March 2012 is nearly 2 years AFTER they sold the account to another mortgage servicer Residential Credit Solutions (RCS). At minimum, re-aging an account like this violates FCRA Section 605 © – "running of the reporting period". However this is more than just re-aging. They have not owned the account for nearly 2 years and in those 2 years I have been current on every payment to the new creditor RCS. Any thoughts on how to attack this? I could send a letter threatening to sue, but they might just remove that one deliquency in March 2012. That would help a little bit, but my goal is to get the entire trade line removed or at least have the prior deliquencies removed...
  6. I have 4 CC's that have not been paid for 18 months. None are listed in collections yet on my credit report, but all appear as chargeoffs from the OC and each OC has assigned the debt to their respective CA. Given the length of time (18 months), the CA's are already offering 25% of the balance to settle. I've recently come into a bonus from work and I'm willing to pay the settlements offered. However, I am not buying a house or otherwise pressed to settle. My only goal here is absolute credit repair and total deletion from my credit report. So I'm trying to understand the dynamics here. If I go back to the OC, won't they point me back to the CA? Even worse, wouldn't the OC offer far higher settlement rates up to 80%, which would cost me more? Most important to me, if I work with the CA and they agree to total deletion, does that bind the OC to the same agreement? I've been considering using the boilerplate letters and verbiage that Credit Infocenter recommends. This passage in particular seems like it might do the trick: "The COLLECTION AGENCY certifies that it is legally authorized to act in behalf of its CLIENT and that any agreement that the COLLECTION AGENCY makes on behalf of CLIENT is legally binding on the CLIENT." Anyway, I have researched a great deal and I understand the methodology for repairing my credit. I just wanted to gain some insights on how I should differentiate between the OC and CA, which one should I work with directly given my particular situation and who really holds the power? Thanks to all the smart folks in this forum. Helping others is a wonderful thing