How to prevent Collection Agencies from showing up after deletion?

[murrellm]

Hello,

Please forgive me if this is a redundant question already answered somewhere else on this board.

Within 3 months, I've managed to get over 10 negative listings off my credit. So, far so good, however I noticed that when I disputed one of those listings, a new Collection Agency popped up. This original particular listing was Nicor Gas, which the Credit Beareaus took off, but within a few weeks, Assest Acceptance appeared trying to claim 3 times as much in reference to Nicor.

This doesn't sound like a coincedence, and it seems apparent that I invoked this. Now my question is, Is there any way to prevent this from happening? Is this to be expected when I delete some listings? If so, should my next approach be debt validation?

Thanks in advance.

[willingtocope]

Always DV a CA. They screw up so often you can never be sure they're even talking about your debt.

And, generally, when you dispute something with the CRAs, they're supposed to contact the people doing the reporting...who will then decide what their next step will be. Sometimes, if its an OC...they'll decide to sell the debt. Sometimes, if its a CA...they'll decide you're too much trouble and send it back to the OC who will then get another CA involved.

[DucknCover]

Somebody here described CA's as a "Whack The Mole Game". That's a pretty accurate picture.

[murrellm]

Wow, so you are saying that this can be a never-ending battle, even after a deletion, and even after getting rid of a CA that shows up in reference to a deletion, yet making way to a possible other CA to show up in its place. There should be a law that protects consumers in having to deal with more that one CA after a successful DV or deletion.

Well, if I can keep 90 percent of these listings I removed to never haunt me again, then I can sleep at night. For the meanwhile I will DV as suggested, and keep my eyes open for any other CA that my show up.

Thanks for the heads-up and advice.

[HadEnough]

You need to get everything deleted.

If a CA's able to leave a negative mark on your TL, the CA likely will get paid when you buy or refinance a house/car/ect.. The lender simply pays them off and adds the amount to your loan.

You'd likely never have time to context/remove a bad credit report from your TL within escrow time parameters.

A CA sneaked one into my TL & I only found out when I refinanced. The lender's policy was to pay the CA by issuing a check but - she gave the check to me!

The CA's signed the check over to me as part of their settlement agreement after I was forced to take legal action.

[Ahntara]

It's not extortion if the consumer owes the debt. Every one of us has the option of paying if they don't want to engage in a 'never ending battle' with rotating CA's.

"...should be a law..."

Credit reporting is regulated by a law, the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It has no bearing on efforts to collect a bad debt. A law barring collection efforts post-removal from your CR is not plausible.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

It's not extortion if the consumer owes the debt. Every one of us has the option of paying if they don't want to engage in a 'never ending battle' with rotating CA's.

"...should be a law..."

Credit reporting is regulated by a law, the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It has no bearing on efforts to collect a bad debt. A law barring collection efforts post-removal from your CR is not plausible.

Amen

[legend]

It's not extortion if the consumer owes the debt. Every one of us has the option of paying if they don't want to engage in a 'never ending battle' with rotating CA's.

"...should be a law..."

Credit reporting is regulated by a law, the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It has no bearing on efforts to collect a bad debt. A law barring collection efforts post-removal from your CR is not plausible.

I still have a Household charge off that they themselves continue to claim I dont owe, yet it has been sold to the 18th debt purcher so far! 18 different collection companies have over the past 4 years been placed on my credit. I have been saying for years now that there ashould be some legislation towards OC's on the number of times they can just hand out alledged debt.

"collection efforts post removal" why not? if the OC cant confirm you owed a debt, why should they be aloud to sell or transfer it 18 times????? Im forced to monitor my credit, Im forced to go thru the DV process over and over and over with a family to raise and a company to run I barley have time for them! Not plausible?

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Maybe it's time for my soapbox one more time before 2007 is closed...

I would venture to say that the only reason consumers don’t like that fact that an original creditor can sell our bad debt to someone else who can then try to collect and/or sell to someone else who can then try to collect, etc. is because we don’t want to pay the debt.

I don’t know if it’s a societal change or just a reflection of a particular generation or just what is going on but there seems to be a general feeling in this country today that we really shouldn’t have to pay our debts or that we should only have to pay the debts we want to pay.

There is noting innately “unfair” about one debt holder selling the debt to another and then that one to another…but we call these creditors “junk debt buyers” because that makes them sound more evil and therefore, less entitled to collect anything from us and helps us rationalize not paying the debt.

If we really want to put junk debt buyers out of business all we have to do is either pay our debts as we promised to do (good idea I think) or stop going into debt in the first place (which is the best idea of all).

I’m sure that sooner or later, either most states or the Federal government will step in and “take care of us” one again and they’ll make it illegal for an original creditor to sell a bad debt to anyone else.

Now, in case anyone is wondering, I’m 100% in favor of using the full weight of the FDCPA and requiring a creditor/collector (whether the creditor is the original or the 18th) to obey the law and to prove their claim and also in favor of being able to settle for a figure that makes sense given what the current creditor, if not the original creditor, paid for the debt but at the end of the day, we need to pay our debts to whoever does own it now.

Okay, dead horse beating over for 2007.

[2001Badyear]

Robert,

Very well said. I'm one, too, that believes that I owe the dept to which I've not yet paid. I have held off paying whom I still owe pending these falling off in the next several months. I can financially afford it, but if I pay them now I suspect that re-ages the account, or is that wrong reasoning?

If I pay them (CA or OC) after they are forced off by the 7 year rule, will that then allow them to enter it onto my CR as a new TR?

On the other side of that can any CA tag the TR for eternity if not paid, even if beyond the 7 years? I suspect the answer is yes, or until you DV them and they do the handoff.

Is this essentially correct?

[Magdalen77]

Maybe it's time for my soapbox one more time before 2007 is closed...

I would venture to say that the only reason consumers don’t like that fact that an original creditor can sell our bad debt to someone else who can then try to collect and/or sell to someone else who can then try to collect, etc. is because we don’t want to pay the debt.

I don’t know if it’s a societal change or just a reflection of a particular generation or just what is going on but there seems to be a general feeling in this country today that we really shouldn’t have to pay our debts or that we should only have to pay the debts we want to pay.

There is noting innately “unfair” about one debt holder selling the debt to another and then that one to another…but we call these creditors “junk debt buyers” because that makes them sound more evil and therefore, less entitled to collect anything from us and helps us rationalize not paying the debt.

I have paid the debts that were mine, but I also have one debt from an ID theft back in '99 that HSBC keeps selling to junk debt collectors. And I have three cases where I paid the debt before it went to collection and they still ended up with junk debt collectors (such luminaries as NCO Financial, Palisades and Arrow). I will not pay these. I've already verified with the original creditors that I don't owe them any $$$, but it's been hell trying to get these characters to remove. Just recently, I've gotten tired enough of them that I've decided to really fight them. Documenting and making sure the documentation gets to them and the CRA's. Hopefully, that will be it. But, especially with the ID theft issue, I resent the h--l out of the fact that HSBC keeps selling the debt and their little junk debt collectors keep re-inserting an invalid address in my credit report.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Magdalen,

Then I would start hitting the current debt owner where it hurts and I'm not simply talking about little FDCPA violations...I suspect if you found a hungry lawyer you could sue for damages that would make the current creditor take notice.

It's really up to all of us to fight against those that let this kind of BS keep happening and I'm not just talking about the debt buyers...original creditors also need to be held accountable for poor and/or incompetent accounting and, for especially for granting credit to scum without properly vetting the applicants.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

I believe that the correct answer is that derrorgatory information (a bad debt) can only be reported for 7 1/2 years after the DOFD.

Setteling the debt, as far as I know, does not change the DOFD (if I'm wrong about that someone please step in).

You can, however, reset the SOL with certain actions (it depends on your state laws) but that is a separate issue from the allowable reporting period on your bureau reports.

[Magdalen77]

Magdalen,

Then I would start hitting the current debt owner where it hurts and I'm not simply talking about little FDCPA violations...I suspect if you found a hungry lawyer you could sue for damages that would make the current creditor take notice.

It's really up to all of us to fight against those that let this kind of BS keep happening and I'm not just talking about the debt buyers...original creditors also need to be held accountable for poor and/or incompetent accounting and, for especially for granting credit to scum without properly vetting the applicants.

I'm just before dotting all the i's and crossing the t's to do that. I spent too long feeling hopeless and powerless over this. HSBC couldn't verify that this was my account 7 years ago, because it isn't, they removed the original debt as did their first two collectors. But that doesn't seem to stop them from selling it to more low-lifes.

It amazed me that they were so willing to open a $1900 credit line for someone posing as me at Best Buy, especially at a time when I thought my credit was pretty sucky.

In any respect, I will never have a a HSBC account or a Best Buy account nor will I ever buy anything at Best Buy. When I swear that I never had any HSBC accounts nor did I ever buy anything at Best Buy, that will be the absolute truth. I like Circuit City better, anyway. (I know better than to get credit with them, I think HSBC does their credit as well).

[myscoresawful]

You need to get everything deleted.

If a CA's able to leave a negative mark on your TL, the CA likely will get paid when you buy or refinance a house/car/ect.. The lender simply pays them off and adds the amount to your loan.

You'd likely never have time to context/remove a bad credit report from your TL within escrow time parameters.

A CA sneaked one into my TL & I only found out when I refinanced. The lender's policy was to pay the CA by issuing a check but - she gave the check to me!

The CA's signed the check over to me as part of their settlement agreement after I was forced to take legal action.

AWESOME!!!!!!

[stefdr]

Maybe it's time for my soapbox one more time before 2007 is closed...

I would venture to say that the only reason consumers don’t like that fact that an original creditor can sell our bad debt to someone else who can then try to collect and/or sell to someone else who can then try to collect, etc. is because we don’t want to pay the debt.

I don’t know if it’s a societal change or just a reflection of a particular generation or just what is going on but there seems to be a general feeling in this country today that we really shouldn’t have to pay our debts or that we should only have to pay the debts we want to pay.

There is noting innately “unfair” about one debt holder selling the debt to another and then that one to another…but we call these creditors “junk debt buyers” because that makes them sound more evil and therefore, less entitled to collect anything from us and helps us rationalize not paying the debt.

If we really want to put junk debt buyers out of business all we have to do is either pay our debts as we promised to do (good idea I think) or stop going into debt in the first place (which is the best idea of all).

I’m sure that sooner or later, either most states or the Federal government will step in and “take care of us” one again and they’ll make it illegal for an original creditor to sell a bad debt to anyone else.

Now, in case anyone is wondering, I’m 100% in favor of using the full weight of the FDCPA and requiring a creditor/collector (whether the creditor is the original or the 18th) to obey the law and to prove their claim and also in favor of being able to settle for a figure that makes sense given what the current creditor, if not the original creditor, paid for the debt but at the end of the day, we need to pay our debts to whoever does own it now.

Okay, dead horse beating over for 2007.

I can agree to most of this, I have seen too many times how people have gotten in over their heads and were looking for a way to just forget all about the debt they have built up.

Personally, I have spent a couple of years doing serious credit repair, to make up for many years of indifference. I haven't had a problem paying debts that were mine, but what I will not pay are outrageous "late fees" or "collection fees". I do realize collectors have to earn some sort of living, but I'm not going to pay their rent. I have only dealt with a couple of CA's directly, and a few I had pulled back by the OC before I settled.

An account I'm working on now is on GF's reports, URS trying to collect over $1400 on a CC with a $500 CL. Not happening. Ever. That is simply ridiculous.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

I can agree to most of this, I have seen too many times how people have gotten in over their heads and were looking for a way to just forget all about the debt they have built up.

Personally, I have spent a couple of years doing serious credit repair, to make up for many years of indifference. I haven't had a problem paying debts that were mine, but what I will not pay are outrageous "late fees" or "collection fees". I do realize collectors have to earn some sort of living, but I'm not going to pay their rent. I have only dealt with a couple of CA's directly, and a few I had pulled back by the OC before I settled.

An account I'm working on now is on GF's reports, URS trying to collect over $1400 on a CC with a $500 CL. Not happening. Ever. That is simply ridiculous.

I agree that CC interest rates, fees, penalities and policies are ridiculous; I'd even say immoral; unfortunately they are not illegal.

It is also worh keeping in mind that immoral or not, "we" sign up for those trips when we get the stupid CC in the first place.

As long as people continue to think that their value as a person depends on how many (and what color of plastic) credit cards are in their wallet or purse; there will be continue to be long lines to take those trips!

[willingtocope]

I'm one, too, that believes that I owe the dept to which I've not yet paid.

I also agree that we should pay our debts. I, for one, did not get into debt thinking "well, when it gets too bad, I'll just walk away from it". (My plan was "gee, first I'll have a heart attack and then I'll have 3 major client declare BK on me, and then my company can go out of business, and I'll get to declare personal BK and all my debts (and assets) will be gone").

But, paying back the money you borrowed from the OC...and paying a junk debt buyer are two entirely different things.

I have held off paying whom I still owe pending these falling off in the next several months. I can financially afford it, but if I pay them now I suspect that re-ages the account, or is that wrong reasoning?

Possibly. If you pay the OC in full for the balance they are currently reporting, then, in effect, you have "brought the account current" which does allow them to report for another 7 years. If you "settle" the account for less than the full amount with the OC, technically, it should fall off at 7 years from the original DOFD.

On the other side of that can any CA tag the TR for eternity if not paid, even if beyond the 7 years? I suspect the answer is yes, or until you DV them and they do the handoff.

Again, technically, the reporting period is controlled by the DOFD of the OC. Anyone who reports after that is guilty of reaging...but, first you have to prove it, and second you have to get the CRAs to agree that you've proved it.

Now then...junk debt buyers are called that because, like "junk bond buyers" in the stock market, they purchase an "investment item" that they know full well may or may not return their investment. Has nothing to do with our perception of them...its the investment world's perception.

If you feel guilty about "not meeting your obligations"...call the OC and offer to pay them in full.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

I also agree that we should pay our debts. I, for one, did not get into debt thinking "well, when it gets too bad, I'll just walk away from it". (My plan was "gee, first I'll have a heart attack and then I'll have 3 major client declare BK on me, and then my company can go out of business, and I'll get to declare personal BK and all my debts (and assets) will be gone").

But, paying back the money you borrowed from the OC...and paying a junk debt buyer are two entirely different things.

They are different mostly because we decide they are different which allows our position of not paying a JDB to be more “reasonable”.

The events you mention are the kinds of things that happen to almost everyone in life – we all like to pretend that such things only happen to other people but the truth is that most people have at lest one major financial “emergency” about every ten years.

We can choose to either prepare for those emergencies beforehand which greatly lessens the effect, or we can suffer the full, must worse, consequences of not preparing.

We prepare by living within our means rather than within the means we want to have; by not going into debt in the first place and by having a three to six month emergency fund to handle emergencies (hence the name)…the problem is, that kind of advice gets lost amid the millions of dollars of media advertising and the billions of mailings every year all telling us we NEED debt!

It's funny how something that barely existed at all a few decades ago (personal debt) has turned into an absolutely necessitiy of life. .

[willingtocope]

They are different mostly because we decide they are different which allows our position of not paying a JDB to be more “reasonable”.

Sorry, no.

If you start with the assumption that we have a moral obligation to repay people from whom we have borrowed money, does that extend to someone who paid someone who paid someone for the right to try to collect that debt? If the last someone paid the full amount of the debt, maybe...but if the last someone paid pennies on the dollar, are you morally obligated to enrich their coffers many times over? Does it make your "holier than thou" bones feel better that you given the JDB money to continue to extort from others who may not have as much disposable income as you?

And, if you start with the assumption that we have a legal obligation to repay people from whom we have borrowed money, does that also extend to the "last someone" above? Often, when a debtor stands up and demands proof of "chain of custody", even the courts seem to agree that there are extensive legal hoops that a typical JDB fails to jump through.

Personally...I say, either pay the original creditor what you owe, or, pay taxes on the "found income" to the IRS thereby transferring the debt to the government, and put the JDB's out of business. These are people who have found a way to manipulate the system for their own benefit.

(For the record, when we were still in business, we were approached by a law firm in our area to participate in an "investment club". This lawyer's plan was to buy charged off and unpaid debts from a major bank in the area, and collect on them. He showed us the debt agreements that the debtors had signed that allowed for the "assignment of rights"...and showed us his agreement with the bank to purchase those assignemts for .056 cents on the dollar. He explained how his business was funded by local doctors, dentists, and other professionals, and said that for a $10,000 buy-in, he could gurantee $100,000 return in less than 2 years. He also said that he would be completely upfront with us...and explained how there was no specific law that he could site that permitted his company to collect on these debts (since his company was not actually party to the orginal contract) but, on the other hand, there was not specific law that said his company couldn't collect. He said that in the absense of a defense by the debtor, his default judgement rate was on the order of 83%...judges simply didn't want to be bothered dealing with cases where the defendant didn't "care enough" to show up. Again, in the spirit of being honest with us, he did say that only about 20% of the judgements were actually collectable, but that still amounted to several million dollars a year for his operation. When my wife said, "gee...this doesn't sound right to me"...he said, "well, honey, what's right and what's legal are just not the same thing".

Since my wife owned the company, and did not like to be called "honey", we declined.)

[2001Badyear]

Quote:2001Badyear

I have held off paying whom I still owe pending these falling off in the next several months. I can financially afford it, but if I pay them now I suspect that re-ages the account, or is that wrong reasoning?

Quote:Willingtocope

Possibly. If you pay the OC in full for the balance they are currently reporting, then, in effect, you have "brought the account current" which does allow them to report for another 7 years. If you "settle" the account for less than the full amount with the OC, technically, it should fall off at 7 years from the original DOFD.

Willingtocope,

If I understand what you said, than paying the entire amount in any situation will simply buy you another 7 years from when you do this? If that's the case, than I will have to reconsider paying back anything, at least not the full amount. These several fall off within three months, but the last ting I want to do is allow them, through my actions, no matter how honorable, to have another 7 years on the CR that I can do nothing about.

Thoughts all??

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

I

f you start with the assumption that we have a moral obligation to repay people from whom we have borrowed money, does that extend to someone who paid someone who paid someone for the right to try to collect that debt?

Yes it does.

Aside from your opinion and desire it to be otherwise, nothing above eliminates our moral or our legal obligation to pay our debts. If someone really doesn’t want the obligation then they simply shouldn’t go into debt in the first place.

If the last someone paid the full amount of the debt, maybe...but if the last someone paid pennies on the dollar, are you morally obligated to enrich their coffers many times over? Does it make your "holier than thou" bones feel better that you given the JDB money to continue to extort from others who may not have as much disposable income as you?

What makes me feel better is keeping my word and paying my debts.

You won’t find any post by me on this or any other board where I suggest that there is anything unreasonable with negotiating with a current debt holder for a settlement amount that takes into account what the debt buyer likely paid for the debt.

I find it strange that the idea of paying my debts is a “holier than thou” concept???

And, if you start with the assumption that we have a legal obligation to repay people from whom we have borrowed money, does that also extend to the "last someone" above? Often, when a debtor stands up and demands proof of "chain of custody", even the courts seem to agree that there are extensive legal hoops that a typical JDB fails to jump through.

I also have no problem with a debtor exerting his rights including that right to determine if the alleged current debt holder actually has the legal right to collect and can prove it nor will you find any post by me anywhere in which I’ve suggested otherwise.

Personally...I say, either pay the original creditor what you owe, or, pay taxes on the "found income" to the IRS thereby transferring the debt to the government, and put the JDB's out of business. These are people who have found a way to manipulate the system for their own benefit.

I’m all for paying the original creditor but that often used argument tends to ring a bit hollow - if people were that concerned about paying the original creditor why did they not pay in the first place? We could put JDBs out of business tomorrow if we all simply paid our debts as we promised or stopped going into debt in the first place.

(For the record, when we were still in business, we were approached by a law firm in our area to participate in an "investment club". This lawyer's plan was to buy charged off and unpaid debts from a major bank in the area, and collect on them. He showed us the debt agreements that the debtors had signed that allowed for the "assignment of rights"...and showed us his agreement with the bank to purchase those assignemts for .056 cents on the dollar. He explained how his business was funded by local doctors, dentists, and other professionals, and said that for a $10,000 buy-in, he could gurantee $100,000 return in less than 2 years. He also said that he would be completely upfront with us...and explained how there was no specific law that he could site that permitted his company to collect on these debts (since his company was not actually party to the orginal contract) but, on the other hand, there was not specific law that said his company couldn't collect. He said that in the absense of a defense by the debtor, his default judgement rate was on the order of 83%...judges simply didn't want to be bothered dealing with cases where the defendant didn't "care enough" to show up. Again, in the spirit of being honest with us, he did say that only about 20% of the judgements were actually collectable, but that still amounted to several million dollars a year for his operation. When my wife said, "gee...this doesn't sound right to me"...he said, "well, honey, what's right and what's legal are just not the same thing". Since my wife owned the company, and did not like to be called "honey", we declined.

I don’t like the concept of junk debt buyers nor do I like the almost obscene profits they make but let’s keep in mind that buying what is already likely uncollectible debt is a huge risk for them but more importantly, it is WE who give them that power by going into debt in the first place and then not paying.

Our enemy isn’t junk debt buyers; our enemy is the person we see when we look in the mirror.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Quote:2001Badyear

I have held off paying whom I still owe pending these falling off in the next several months. I can financially afford it, but if I pay them now I suspect that re-ages the account, or is that wrong reasoning?

Quote:Willingtocope

Possibly. If you pay the OC in full for the balance they are currently reporting, then, in effect, you have "brought the account current" which does allow them to report for another 7 years. If you "settle" the account for less than the full amount with the OC, technically, it should fall off at 7 years from the original DOFD.

Willingtocope,

If I understand what you said, than paying the entire amount in any situation will simply buy you another 7 years from when you do this? If that's the case, than I will have to reconsider paying back anything, at least not the full amount. These several fall off within three months, but the last ting I want to do is allow them, through my actions, no matter how honorable, to have another 7 years on the CR that I can do nothing about.

Thoughts all??

Why not try to netotiate a pay for delete? Since they creditor should know they will fall off soon; there is little advantage to them to continue to report.

[2001Badyear]

I

Yes it does.

Aside from your opinion and desire it to be otherwise, nothing above eliminates our moral or our legal obligation to pay our debts. If someone really doesn’t want the obligation then they simply shouldn’t go into debt in the first place.

What makes me feel better is keeping my word and paying my debts.

You won’t find any post by me on this or any other board where I suggest that there is anything unreasonable with negotiating with a current debt holder for a settlement amount that takes into account what the debt buyer likely paid for the debt.

I find it strange that the idea of paying my debts is a “holier than thou” concept???

I also have no problem with a debtor exerting his rights including that right to determine if the alleged current debt holder actually has the legal right to collect and can prove it nor will you find any post by me anywhere in which I’ve suggested otherwise.

I’m all for paying the original creditor but that often used argument tends to ring a bit hollow - if people were that concerned about paying the original creditor why did they not pay in the first place? We could put JDBs out of business tomorrow if we all simply paid our debts as we promised or stopped going into debt in the first place.

I don’t like the concept of junk debt buyers nor do I like the almost obscene profits they make but let’s keep in mind that buying what is already likely uncollectible debt is a huge risk for them but more importantly, it is WE who give them that power by going into debt in the first place and then not paying.

Our enemy isn’t junk debt buyers; our enemy is the person we see when we look in the mirror.

Robert,

I guess I'm curious what your reason is for being on this forum. Most answers I read from you tend to be, in my perspective, from that of a CA. I believe there are many of us here that are here to try to clean up mistakes from our past.

Your quote here: if people were that concerned about paying the original creditor why did they not pay in the first place? We could put JDBs out of business tomorrow if we all simply paid our debts as we promised or stopped going into debt in the first place.

This assumes we were all simply trying to get one over on someone, where that is not universally the case. You do not know what my case was, nor that of many others here. That being said, there's no doubt I've seen folks here whose sole purpose is to get away with whatever they can. Not the case with me, so please avoid these generalizations.

Thanks,

[Amerikaner83]

OK NOT another "Robert is a CA" type post, please.