Heres a question that may not have an answer

[pinkeysas]

I understand that most collection agencies are people who are only in the business to make a quick buck off of "lowlifes" like us.

But why is it then that if you offer them the $$$ they are asking for in return for them DELETING their reporting from you CR's, they won't do it?????

What do they benefit from keeping their name on your CR's once they're paid????

Especially for accounts that have in collections for 4 or 5 years, you'd think that they would take your offer because a few short years from then they would be out of SOL and definetley get NOTHING!!

If all they want is your money (cause they are making such a profit off of it) why do so many laugh at you when you ask for a PFD??????????????

[gypsie]

Because they attend a$$Hole 101 as part of their training!!

It's almost like it's a personal control issue with some of them.

PFD works BEST when the SOL is expired and you just want if off of the report, that way you've got the upperhand.

[pinkeysas]

I thought if the debt was out of SOL that they had to remove it.

Meaning you don't have to pay cause it's illegal for them to be reporting it????

[gypsie]

I'm talking about out of SOL for the purpose of collecting not reporting.

The reporting period is 7 or 71/2 years period.

SOL for collecting is the years mandated by the state in which a debt is collectable.

So, if you have a debt- say it is 5 years old and past SOL for collecting- that gives you an affirmative defense if they try to sue. THe debt is time barred and you don't have to pay a thing. But you've still got 2 more years for the debt to remain on your report.

So, with the above theory in mind- if you wanted something past SOL off of your report- a PFD works best because you have the advantage of "not having to pay" but instead wanting to pay - only for a delete. Many times CAs will do the PFD because they know the debt is passed the time for collecting and at that point - that is the ONLY way they will get any money

[pinkeysas]

That makes sense. Thanks for the good explanation.

Im in wisconsin, Im not sure if you know this or not but I think the SOL for collecting in my state is 6 years??????

[SecretAgentWoman]

I read somewhere it was because the CA's contract with the CRAs say that reporting information, deletion, etc, will not be "for sale." If the CRA hears the CA subscriber is promoting PFDs they may cancel their subscription...I don't know how true this is.

[dpgirl]

The PFD thing has to do also with the theory that removing collections from credit reports would have the effect of not giving a true picture of the debtor (for lack of a better term).

For instance let's say George had charged up all his credit cards and simply decided he didn't want to pay anymore so he let them all go. They end up with CA's. He ends up eventually paying them and making PFD deals. So they are gone and his credit report doesn't reflect them at all. George applies for a loan with Sam and Sam pulls his credit report and sees that there is no derogatory history for George. Sam has no idea that George will most likely repeat his past irresponsible actions. He has no idea that George has a history of not paying his debts because the credit report is now innacurately positive. The credit report is no longer an accurate measurement of how George handles credit. We all know there are people out there like that and they ruin things for the rest of us who are generally responsible.

Think in terms of being a lender, you would want to know of past behaviour. Now a person should be able to also have the opportunity to explain any CA tradelines, i.e... lost job, major illness or accident or other life events that sometimes lead to major credit issues and problems. A person applying for a loan may be a George or may be someone who had something happen and is otherwise responsible.

I am just playing the devils advocate on this one but it does make some sense. I am paraphrasing an explanation off of a collectors website - I just hate to say it makes some sense beacuse of the source.

I do have to agree though that once a debt is past SOL it seems dumb for a CA not to agree to a PFD as that is the only way I would pay one also.

[willingtocope]

I thought if the debt was out of SOL that they had to remove it.

Meaning you don't have to pay cause it's illegal for them to be reporting it????

Actually (you have to read your state laws to be sure), but I think WI is the one state where what you said is true. It is illegal to try to collect on a time-barred debt...and, therefore, probably against the FCRA to report it.

The main reason that CAs put a fight against PFD is to get more money out of you. If you would offer to pay the debt in full, they'd probably jump at the chance...but anything less always makes them feel they can get more.

(We tend to think of CAs and JDBs as if they've found the money tree, and they're being hard asses just because they can. The truth is that many of the people that work at CAs are paid on commission. Whereas the company as a whole is raking in money, the individual collector is probably not. They need to squeeze every last drop out of each sucker because they're probably only catching a live one every week or so. Think of a used car salesman...slease all the way, and only selling cars because he flunked out of medical school).

[SecretAgentWoman]

That doesn't explain why they get all upset and lie and threaten to sue (despite being out of SOL) when I say "sure, I'll pay the whole thing - just fax me over a signed PFD agreement" and they still refuse. Mind boggles, really.

(The same guy told me my FICO would "jump 20 points" when he marked the item paid. haha)

[willingtocope]

Well, they're not the brightest bulb on the tree...if they were, they'd be president...so, they're all furnished with a script. In order to think for themselves and deviate from the script, they need an approval from their handler. If they need to get the handler involved, the handler takes the commission. So...their script says "send me the money"...period.

[retmar]

There are so many reasons for this, and, you've all mentioned most of them. The only thing I noticed that no one mentioned is the excuse that, by law, they cannot delete. Remember, the FCRA only says that "if" you report, it must be correct, not once you report, it stays.

It is true about the CRA's cancelling membership for deletions, but, if a reporting party simply states "reported in error", who is to say they didn't.

Also, California is another state that it is illegal and a violation to even attempt collection of a timebarred debt.

I think the simplest way to put it is that it is a "play on words".

[dpgirl]

Retmar,

I'm sorry as I have asked this before but I still can't find where it states that is illegal in California to try to collect on an out of statute debt? I am in the California Civil Code and scrolling through the statues starting with the area of 1785.1 down to 1788.33, where it refers to the Rosenthal Act.

Maybe that isn't even the right area?

[CantCU]

To me, it's a negotiation tool. They can offer to settle for less than the full debt, then they can offer a PFD...well maybe they can't OFFER it, but there's no reason they cannot accept it...they can call it what they want with the CRA's.

I used to do a lot of settlement negotiations. My favorite saying was I was offering the "K-Mart blue light special" (now am I dating myself or what). The offer is only good while the light if flashing. The offer would only be good to end of business the day I offered it. Next day, the offer goes down. LOL!

[retmar]

dpgirl,

In our sticky above on California law, click on the link in the second post of page 1. It will take you to the Summary of the FDCPA. This site is the California Department of Consumer Affairs. The summary explains how California interprets the Federal, relationship to the Rosenthal (Calif), and how they apply it to the OC and CA. Article 2.1 explains about the OC and CA, and how to determine where the OC and CA become liable by definition in the summary regarding specific sections. Then scroll down to Article 2.6(2) and read it regarding the legality of collecting on timebarred debts. Also read the footnotes.

As you know, legal status relates to the debt being timebarred, therefore, there is no legal recourse available. The Federal statute for this is found in FDCPA 807(2)(A). To claim a violation under the CCC, you would cite 1788.17 as it covers everything. After you read this, you will see how you must relate statutes to show a violation. Yes, you can cite the CCC 1788.14 as noted, but, read 1788.17 and you'll see why I say this.