nascar Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 You have a contractual obligation with a creditor to pay for goods provided. Your contract states that the creditor can use reasonable means to secure collection of the debt if you default. You fail to pay in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the creditor employs a debt collector to assist with collection. The account is reported to all three CRAs as a collection account. You pay the debt in full included all late charges and fees. The account is marked as a paid collection by the CA and zero balance by the creditor. Your contract with the creditor has now been fully executed. You owe them nothing more.WHY... can both the creditor and the collector (whom by the way, you had no contractual relationship whatsoever) continue to intentionally cause actual damages in the form of diminished credit score and subsequent higher costs to borrow money when they are no longer damaged in any way? At what point does the continued reporting of closed accounts and paid collections become retaliatory and no longer a means to encourage payment of a just debt? Creditors are free to choose when and to whom they report. They are not legally bound to continue to report. Just look at all the positive trade lines that never get reported because the creditor chooses not to. Come on you guys (and gals) ... what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recovering Attorney Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Reporting your credit history is not, in and of itself, a collection tool. It is meant to report your credit history with the creditor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leadhead Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 I believe it's unjust for BOTH parties to be reporting the delinquency. You shouldn't have to endure two dings on your report regarding one debt. I wish Congress would've addressed that aspect in their amendment to the FCRA. However, does anyone know how FICO and other scores are calculated? By that I mean does the algorythm "see" both a negative by both reporters or does it simply see one debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nascar Posted January 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Reporting your credit history is not, in and of itself, a collection tool.Why else would a debt collector provide negative information regarding a consumer? If it were solely for historical purposes, the original creditor's information would be a sufficient representation of credit history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Reporting your credit history is not, in and of itself, a collection tool. It is meant to report your credit history with the creditor.But it *is* a tool for collection. The FTC believes that to be so. And so do numerous judges cited in case law.Can't really blame the CRAs for this one. It's Fair Issac. They developed the risk scoring concept and perverted the concept of reporting credit history down to a numerical, statistical science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts