Debtconsolidationcare.com - the USA consumer forum

Can Midland delete

Date: Mon, 01/26/2009 - 17:30

Submitted by anonymous
on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 17:30

Posts: 202330 Credits: [Donate]

Total Replies: 15


I am trying to get "pay for delete" on 2004 collection, they said they can only update the credit line with "pay as agreed"..


They could delete it if they wanted to. But it takes someone higher up in the company, who has a login to E-OSCAR and can submit an AUD to the bureaus. My point being, their policies may not let collectors make that guarantee; so you may need to get a manager to do that for you.

They are lying too when they say it will be reported "paid as agreed." Since they are a CA, it will show as "paid collection," which is still bad for your credit score.


lrhall41

Submitted by DebtCruncher on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 19:45

( Posts: 2293 | Credits: )


Noblehorse, are you "settling" or paying in full?

I'll tell you my company policy ... is generally that "you can't have your cake and eat it too." Meaning, if a customer is willing to pay their account in full, then I am willing to delete our bad mark from the credit report. If the customer wants to settle for less than full balance, we will settle, but then we won't agree to delete our tradeline and instead report that it was settled less than full.

But like I said, it is possible for them to delete, they are just being sticklers about it. I'll ask one of my co-workers for you - she used to work for Midland. I'll see if she has any insite for you on their policies.

As far as paying to CC directly, they may not accept the payment if they indeed sold the debt to Midland.


lrhall41

Submitted by DebtCruncher on Tue, 01/27/2009 - 22:51

( Posts: 2293 | Credits: )


How do you find somebody there who will accept a delete for even full payment. I'm happy to pay in full for delete but thus far my requests have been denied and two validation letters have been ignored completely.

I'd be happy to settle this debt... I might even settle the debt under different terms than the ones I had originally planned. But I can't if nobody ever responds to my offers.


lrhall41

Submitted by on Wed, 02/18/2009 - 07:23

( Posts: | Credits: )


DebtCruncher - Nice handle by the way. Other than company policy and that it's a bit disingenuous to report a settled debt as paid in full (or delete tradelines - is that the industry lingo for paid in full?)... if it leads to a settlement which is obviously better than selling the debt to a CA, why wouldn't an OC be willing to give on this? I understand why they wouldn't offer it, but it just doesn't affect an OC one way or another, does it?

I guess I'm looking at it this way: A borrower's credit score, post settlement, is of no concern to the OC. Only getting the best settlement possible on a potential bad debt should matter. Reporting to the credit agencies is an "easy" give in the negotiations for an OC, as far as I'm concerned. Am I looking at this incorrectly?

Trying to understand the industry to help with my settlement process.


lrhall41

Submitted by ball_mich on Wed, 02/18/2009 - 12:09

( Posts: 360 | Credits: )


Bsquared - are you dealing with an OC or a CA? Without knowing, I'll say 1) if a CA isn't validating your account, then they should not be reporting it either (it is considered collection activity in violation of the FDCPA); 2) a CA cannot delete an OC's tradeline. Tell me more about your account and we'll go further.


Ball_Mich: Thanks for the props :)
Quote:

(or delete tradelines - is that the industry lingo for paid in full?)...

Not sure if it was a typo on your part or if you're confused ... deleting a tradeline doesn't mean reporting it as paid-in-full, it means actually removing the entire account from a person's credit report so it doesn't show at all.

Otherwise, you pretty much are looking at it correctly. For me & my company, you're right, it is a negotiating tool. I really could care less how a person's credit looks - what matters to me is getting a delinquent account paid off (and hopefully paid-in-full). Hence, if a customer is willing to pay-in-full, I will probably agree to remove our account from their credit report.

Now suppose a customer owes $2000 and they want to "settle" for $1000. Obviously, I want the full $2000. My "negotiating" is that is will cost you the full $2000 to get us off your credit report. If you only want to pay $1000, I might take it, but then we'll stay on your credit report showing delinquent/settled less than full. ...... But then we get back into "after we're paid, what does a person's credit matter to us?" So then it really does become punishment for them not paying it in full (and a warning to future creditors). If they want to come back later and pay the difference, then we'll take it off the credit report.

The alternative to both those scenarios, is that the customer wants their cake and eat it too (ie they won't pay more than $1000, but they also won't even pay that much unless we agree to "fix" their credit report). In that situation, you might ask "Isn't $1000 better than nothing?" Well, actually you kind of did ask that question:
Quote:
if it leads to a settlement which is obviously better than selling the debt to a CA, why wouldn't an OC be willing to give on this?

To answer that question, for my particular company, we don't ever sell our accounts. (I've got chargeoffs going back to the 1950's in storage. Maybe one day I can sell them as antiques.) Rather, we will work the accounts in-house until we have a good address and/or job on the person, then we'll send it to our attorney for lawsuit if they ultimately won't pay. So the alternative to the customer is "either settle or get sued eventually." Well... let me further add that it depends on the "collectibility" of the account as well. If we have a customer that draws disability and a lawsuit would be pointless, then maybe I would agree to delete for that $1000 rather than get nothing.

Now that rationale probably doesn't work for a lot of OC's, because they do sell off their accounts rather than sue. For them, I'm sure they would rather "settle" than sell it for pennies. Why they won't give in, I don't know.

It might be that they are afraid of some weird, twisted class-action lawsuit against them whereby a group of customers claim some sort of discrimination because the creditor agreed to remove some customers accounts, but not others. To limit their liability, big companies might instute an overall policy that they don't alter a person's credit report under any circumstance, unless the information being reported was indeed inaccurate.

Or, as smo said, maybe it's to "punish the consumer who is irresponsible". Or, it may be to forewarn other creditors not to make the same mistake in extending credit. That is, after all, the whole point in having credit bureaus. If everybody could "delete" their bad marks, and leave just the good marks on their credit, it would defeat the whole purpose and we should just say "everyone has perfect credit" and get rid of the bureaus completely.


smo65d11 - I love chocolate cake with raspberry filling too! That's what my brother had at his wedding.


lrhall41

Submitted by DebtCruncher on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 19:51

( Posts: 2293 | Credits: )


If they are ignoring your DV letters and you sent them within the time limit required then pay nothing. I have helped others send them letters and got nothing back. I then told them to dispute the entry on their credit reports and they all got deleted. So Midland must have sold it off although they haven't talked to me about getting anything yet.


lrhall41

Submitted by pokertramp on Sun, 02/22/2009 - 18:07

( Posts: 512 | Credits: )


Well, I can't tell you whether to pay them or not; that is a decision you need to make. Midland does file many, many lawsuits here in my county court.

Keep copies of your DV letters. I hope you sent them certified, just so that you can prove they got it. If not, you might want to send one more (ultimately if they sue you and you want to use FDCPA as a counter, the burden of proof will be on you to prove they received your DV and never responded).


lrhall41

Submitted by DebtCruncher on Sun, 02/22/2009 - 18:14

( Posts: 2293 | Credits: )