Renai3 Posted April 18, 2007 Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 I downloaded and printed out my EQ last night and saw on EQ that my HSBC account lists a charge off amount as $455. The original debt owed was $815 (according to EX). So, does this mean the debt was sold for $455? I hope so; I'm gonna have that figure in mind when dealing with CO.Thanks,Renai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadinKS Posted April 18, 2007 Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 I believe that is the amount that they claim as a loss for taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted April 18, 2007 Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 Exactly. CO does not mean its sold. When (or if) it is sold, it will show a $0 balance, and "sold to another lender". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renai3 Posted April 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 Exactly. CO does not mean its sold. When (or if) it is sold, it will show a $0 balance, and "sold to another lender".Oh, ok. It does show $0 balance, and says sold (I've also spoken to OC and they told me this prior to me pulling report). So.... why does EX show a balance history running up to $815 on Dec 2006 (it does also say sold, $0), if they are only claiming the $455 for taxes? Is that extra all the fees (late, over) they tacked on then? Can I assume it was sold for or less than the $455?I'm asking because I expect a letter from Midpoint soon. Long story short, HSBC sold to Forward Properties on 01/07, I never received a letter. Got a call from Midpoint Friday who's claiming this same debt (told me $900+). He said he'd settle, I told him to put it in writing. This was the only way I could get mail from these people. The plan is to DV both FP and Midpoint (to find out who really has this), and go from there. If I need to pay one of these agencies, I'm not planning on paying a lot more than they bought it for.Thanks,Renaiediting to add: I'm also DVing Platinum Capital Inv. as they have reported this same debt on 3/19 on EX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadinKS Posted April 18, 2007 Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 why does EX show a balance history running up to $815 on Dec 2006 (it does also say sold, $0), if they are only claiming the $455 for taxes?They can charge up the interest and fees prior to charge off. I don't know if they can claim those fees and stuff on taxes. I'm sure someone w/more knowledge will chime in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted April 18, 2007 Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 All banks (and most large businesses for that matter) work on an "accrual" basis, which means they show income and expenses on their profit and loss statements when its "earned" as opposed to when its paid. This allows them to cook their books a little easier than if they operated on a strickly cash basis, but does make it a little harder when they have to back off from claimed income.The point is...if you were to agree to pay in full, they'd ask for the entire $815 because that's what their books claim they earned. On the other hand, the amount you actually "borrowed" was probably $455. In their smoke and mirrors bookkeeping, that $455 probably qualifies as an "expense" since they paid it (on you behalf) to some vendor. Its all accounting double speak designed to inflate their "P" without hurting their "L", and avoiding taxes on anything.As to what the JDB paid for it...chances are they bought several tens of millions of dollars in "pretend" debt for maybe 10% of the face value.The JDB is going to try to squeeze every penney of the $900 or so out of you, but might get generous and "settle" for 30%. Just be sure to get everything in writing BEFORE you send money and make sure they stipulate the debt is paid in full and the balance will not be resold. And, don't forget to claim the "found income" on your taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
answer2prayer Posted April 19, 2007 Report Share Posted April 19, 2007 Exactly. CO does not mean its sold. When (or if) it is sold, it will show a $0 balance, and "sold to another lender".Newbie here: I've read this alot here at CIC and was wondering what to do if I have several COs that still show a $ amt in balance not 0 on my CRs. Should I dispute this with the CRs:confused: They were in fact sold because I have multiple CAs that are reporting them also:!: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted April 19, 2007 Report Share Posted April 19, 2007 Newbie here: I've read this alot here at CIC and was wondering what to do if I have several COs that still show a $ amt in balance not 0 on my CRs. Should I dispute this with the CRs:confused: They were in fact sold because I have multiple CAs that are reporting them also:!:Welcome...we'll try to help if we can...It does get confusing...and, the OCs, CAs, and JDBs do everything they can to keep it that way. Its so confusing that many people just throw up their hands and say "where do I send the check"...But, here's the deal...When an OC lists a TL on your credit reports as "charge off"...that, by itself, doesn't mean anything to you. Its only an accounting term to them. The OC still owns it, you still owe it, and they'll still try to collect. In order to collect, they may get a CA involved; and, to further pressure you, the CA may also put a TL on your reports. If you successfully fight off that CA (by using the DV process), the CA may send it back to the OC who will then get another CA to hassle you...who might also report. You can wind up with several TLs relating to the same debt.If the OC doesn't sue...or sues and doesn't win...or decides that they need an income tax writeoff, they may sell the account to a JDB. When they sell it, they're supposed to mark their TL as $0 balance, and "written off/sold to another lender". Then, the JDB might start trying to collect. The JDB will put a TL on your reports. And, the JDB might get a CA involved...so you wind up with yet another TL.All of this presupposes that everyone involved reports accurately. Not all do.People get "charge off" and "write off" confused all the time. And, just to make it harder to keep track of, the "debt fixer" crowd claims that "charge off" is a magic time that makes OC's more willing to settle. It ain't.And, I should mention...a CO is not necessarily a WO...and a CA is not necessarily a JDB. You need to keep the players straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
answer2prayer Posted April 19, 2007 Report Share Posted April 19, 2007 WOW ...thankyou willingtocope....and of course I have questions? So is it a violation if it is a CO or WO with the OC and the CR states Charged off as a bad debt and it shows a balance? I have OCs, CAs and JDBs that have CO'd....as the collections went from hand to hand....I have quite a few of these. What they are doing is also making my figures in the Total Balances of Accounts show over $110,000 !! Which in reality is not true. For example one acct. for $2,400 was CO'd by CO, CA and JDB. CO shows a balance of $2,400 and JDB shows $2,400 but the CA shows $0 balance....so that is $2,400 x 2 for a total of $4,800 which then brings my Total Balances of Accounts owing up an extra $2,400. 2nd ?: How can I correct these? Who is violating? The CRA or the CO & JDB. Would I need to DV CRA so they will validate with CO and JDB to get the balances changed to 0? Can't the CRA see that it is a CO and know that it should have a 0 balance? What should I do? Need some advise from the experienced here! Thanking you all in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted April 19, 2007 Report Share Posted April 19, 2007 The operative phrase is "sold to another lender" with a $0 balance. If the original creditors tradeline doesn't say that, then the OC still owns it. Anyone else who references that account is a collection agency. If the OC's TL doesn't say both, then dispute with the credit reporting agency as "inaccurate", and see where that leads.If you have multiple collection agencies reporting for the same account, then dispute those with the CRAs...only one can collect at a time.If you do have an account that is "sold to another lender", then the OC's TL can remain (with a $0), you can have a TL from the junk debt buyer they sold it to (with some positive balance), and, you can have a TL from the CA trying to collect for the JDB.Any other combinations means that someone is reporting inaccurately, and you should start by disputing those with the credit reporting agencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
answer2prayer Posted April 19, 2007 Report Share Posted April 19, 2007 Great! Thankyou so much willingtocope for the clarification. I do have a few original OC's that the TL is inaccurate. They show CO and 0 bal on 1 of the 3 CRAs. The other 2 show CO BUT with balances not 0 balances. So I guess I will be disputing those....I don't want to settle these, they are out of SOL but I don't want all these balances there when in fact they should be 0 balances. My totals should be something like $40,000 not $110,000 for open/collection accts. (still alot but $40 if better! )Now, Just to verify...from what I'm understanding from what you said there can be times that an acct can show as a double entry...example...when a CA is collecting for a JDB...got it now! BUT if the JDB sells the acct to another JDB then they would have to change the balance due right, and the CA collecting for that JDB would have to change their balance then also, right? (whether they change it or not that's a different story) but they are legally supposed to right?Again, thankyou, You've been a great help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted April 19, 2007 Report Share Posted April 19, 2007 ...if the JDB sells the acct to another JDB then they would have to change the balance due right, and the CA collecting for that JDB would have to change their balance then also, right? (whether they change it or not that's a different story) but they are legally supposed to right?Right...if JDB-A sells the account, their TL should show $0 balance and "sold to another lender"...JDB-B could then have an open account. And, theorectically, there should only be one listing for a CA. You may have to get "legal" on them to make it right, however.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
answer2prayer Posted April 19, 2007 Report Share Posted April 19, 2007 PERFECT! Got it....thankyou so much. I'm sure you haven't heard the last of me as I continue to armor for battle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renai3 Posted April 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2007 Right...if JDB-A sells the account, their TL should show $0 balance and "sold to another lender"...JDB-B could then have an open account. And, theorectically, there should only be one listing for a CA. You may have to get "legal" on them to make it right, however....This is perfect. I'm glad it was asked in my thread. I have this same CO/sold (HSBC). They gave me the name of the one they sold it to (CA1), CA2 is contacting me for this same debt, and CA3 has reported it on my CR like they own it. I've sent DVs to CA1 (I received one phone call and captured their number) and CA3 and am waiting on a letter from CA2 so I can DV them as well.But, now, I didn't know that CA and JDBs are different. Who's who? I have Forward Properties (originally sold to), Midpoint aka MRG aka Federal Credit Recovery, and Platinum Investments. Are these all CAs?Renai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted April 23, 2007 Report Share Posted April 23, 2007 It is really tough to keep them straight. Some companies actually are both CAs and JDBs.This is why that once an OC has sold a debt, you should always DV whoever comes after you. The DV can even include something like "...I never had an account with you people...prove to me I owe you money, or get off my credit reports and leave me alone..." Keep good records. If the account has been sold multiple times the chances of them having sufficient records to stand up in court are slim, so be prepared to challenge "chain of custody" if it goes that far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
answer2prayer Posted April 23, 2007 Report Share Posted April 23, 2007 It is really tough to keep them straight. Some companies actually are both CAs and JDBs.This is why that once an OC has sold a debt, you should always DV whoever comes after you. The DV can even include something like "...I never had an account with you people...prove to me I owe you money, or get off my credit reports and leave me alone..." Keep good records. If the account has been sold multiple times the chances of them having sufficient records to stand up in court are slim, so be prepared to challenge "chain of custody" if it goes that far.You are right about being tough to keep them straight! My credit situation is really, really terrible...terminally ill mother, loss of job, then loss of mother, own physical illness, and the list goes on....won't go into it all here at this time BUT needless to say, I at first tried to work with the COs with no success and being uneducated in the laws of debt collection, I then basically began to ignore all correspondence for the last 5-6 yrs from these "vultures", "hiding" and living in "fear" to answer my phone or door...desperately needing to re-fi, my battle began....was going to go through debt settlement agencies, etc. BUT heard too many bad stories about that so decided to start getting educating myself...which led me to CIC....as I've stated before CIC was a Godsend for me....I am no longer living in "fear", and I do see the light at the end of the tunnel.As you state willingtocope, "keep good records"Due to the time frame you can imagine how many times some of my accts have actually been sold. BUTFortunately, amazingly actually, I kept 90% of the correspondence. So with that along with my CRs I'm in the process of matching them all up. I am organizing it all at the moment so I can begin my DV's and MOVs. I also know exactly when my last payments were on everything! and have records..so that's a huge help also.... Of course I'm really trying to be careful in choosing right now, who and what to dispute first, as the majority are out of SOL there are a few still in SOL...and I don't want to start anything that will maybe get one of them to respond back with a suit...when they are basically leaving me alone at the moment!! Ok...enough rambling....Anyway thanks again willingtocope for all your help! Let the battle begin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts