Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Posts posted by PotO

  1. 1 hour ago, hdporter said:

    ... I'm strapping on a helmet come Friday.¬† ūüôĄ


    Dolphins again?


    Speaking of dolphins, I just noticed a line item in the Navy budget for increase spending in acquisition and training of combat dolphins.  Seriously.  When stationed in San Diego, I had several friends -- yes, I do have friends!!! -- at FASWTPAC and they all swore that dolphins were their best friend and could be trained to be excellent warriors. 


    And sea lions.  Also a valuable tool in the Navy arsenal.


    Just sayin'.  I am not encouraging contact.  I don't want Bev to clobber me, too. Then I'd need a helmet, too.

  2. 4 hours ago, maverick9 said:

    I will state that @centex wasn't that bad and do value her input. It's something about how she delivers it but it's not a big deal. 

    @PotO I wish I can pull the bully out of him but not optimistic that it's possible however, there is always hope. 


    Typical WLB.


    You've been on CB since 2009 and simple concepts escape you.  Then, @centex points out salient facts, and you go WLB with accusations that she's a know-it-all.  If she made you look stupid, it isn't her fault.  


    As previously stated, it's often the dunces that accuse those with a particular expertise of being a know-it-all.  You've proven that point.

  3. 3 hours ago, IheartLoopHoles said:

    Thanks everyone. Ok here is another question....


    If you do the PFD for a settled amount, a CA can't send you the 1099-c for the written off amount right? Since they didn't incur the loss, the OC did.... and then they paid a very small fraction to buy it? Kind of answering my own question here but want to make sure it's worth it if I choose to do PFD.


    My understanding is that only the entity that owns he debt can send the 1099.


    3 hours ago, IheartLoopHoles said:

    My understanding with OC's is once they have written it off their books via charge-off and then sell it to a JDB there is no business to be done. They consider it gone/not theirs anymore and will refer you to the JDB they sold it to.


    As brother @hegemony so accurately stated, there are distinct and important differences between OC, CA and JDB.  Not all CAs are really JDBs and JDBs often use CAs to collect their debts.  Also, the FDCPA does not apply to OCs, although the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does.  Also, there have been several FTC advisories about how the FDCPA does not apply to JDBs, although virtually every JDB will comply with the FDCPA to avoid the issue of whether the FDCPA applies to them being heard by the courts.


    Regarding this debt, exactly what are the tradelines on your credit reports?  There are distinctions which should indicate whether or not the OC still owns the debt and if an entity is a CA or a JDB.  I've not looked at those things for a while so I am not entirely sure myself, but I believe @hegemony, @hdporter and @centex could shed light on this.  


    As for PFDs, almost every CA will accept them and most JDBs will, too.  Most OCs will not.  You need to identify the players.  It would suck if you negotiate a PFD with a CA, but then the OC / JDB derogatory tradeline is still on your credit reports.   

  4. 5 hours ago, xJohnDoe001x said:

    PotO, the is a forum where we share information on how to DO something you have been here telling me what I can not do.


    You implied that you are good with math so tell me the answer to this problem.


    Somewhere in this forum is someone who may need help that you can give so add up how many minutes that you have squandered flatulating hate calling me dumb and poor and not elsewhere helping someone?

    Mic Drop


    You've been told the answer, but you are too stupid to listen.  Unless you can increase income, significantly reduce the money you need to borrow or find a banker as severely brain damaged as you are, your only electric vehicle is going to be a battery powered 6" x 6" Batmobile.


    Everybody, especially an ex-con, should be able to clearly understand that the law prohibits a bank from lending more than your income and reasonable expectation of expenses can justify.  Banks have already told you that and here it has also been mentioned, but you are just too stupid to accept the fact.  


    While in prison you should have focused on that remedial reading group.  You were told what to DO to increase the loan amount a bank will give you.  DO increase your income.  DO save up more money and / or DO lower the amount you need to borrow.  DO get your former cell mate to co-sign for you.  


    3 hours ago, xJohnDoe001x said:

    I see what the problem is you are not aware of forum trolls, they pretend to help when they are really are looking for victims to such the life out of.


    Someone who is really trying to help will not talk down to you, will not call you names and will not stay on your post for hours talking trash, they will leave.


    A Troll of the other hand lives for the drama, they will squat on your post and chase real help away and, well, go read the whole dialog between us, I suspect that you didn't because if you you would have had something to say to him.


    He's a Troll


    A troll? ¬†Coming from an ex-con -- and they ALL say they were innocent ūüôĄ -- that is a compliment. ¬†If a troll, then I'm one with more available credit than you and your entire family tree for 10 generations has ever had. ¬†I get offers almost every single day from Citi and 1/2 dozen other banks begging me to please take their unsecured loan offers of $35k.¬†


    You've been on CB since 2014 and what have you learned?  That raising your FICO a few points will not help you?  Nope.  That unlike you, banks mostly try to follow the law?  Nope.  


    Well, the good news is that Batmobile will easily fit inside your new prison cell.  

  5. 15 minutes ago, maverick9 said:

    You and others have approached me as if I should know all these things that you vets know and that is just not fair. Please don't assume we know because we wouldnt be posting questions if so. 




    Jethro, you've been here since 2009 and still have the logic and pure credit skills of a third grader.  To make it fair, Granny should weld a dunce cap to your head so we know not to expect much from you.  


    The mistake is assuming someone couldn't stay in third grade for over a decade.  You've shown it is possible.

  6. 14 minutes ago, xJohnDoe001x said:

    People, consider the. People in the world are poor primarily due to the activities of the rich. Poor people are the prime commodity for the rich.


    If everyone had the same education and skills there would still be poor people because there are only so many middle class jobs.


    Western economic requires poor people, there wouldn't be jobs that pay poverty incomes otherwise



    Now it appears that one significant reason why you live in poverty is because you have the IQ of a dyslexic gerbil.  Congratulations!


    People are poor because either they have made stupid choices in life or they were unlucky enough to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Of course, spending 1/2 your adult life in prison isn't a huge help.

  7. 27 minutes ago, centex said:

    What is rather ironic, Maverick, is that you claimed to have spoken to recon, which you seem to have missed was the very section where I conceded you MIGHT have had a chance.  You might want to go back and re-read what you had quoted from my earlier post...


    The reality is that you ARE leaping before contemplating, and that is NOT going to behoove you in any manner of credit repair.  You want guidance and then, when it is given, you ignore much of it and go off half-cocked. 


    And if you think a failure to sugar coat is somehow a bad thing, then you are just part and parcel of the SAF generation. 


    He's just a Neanderthal failure setting himself for yet another in what will be along string of failures.  Just sit back and enjoy watching yet another failure on the horizon.  

  8. 14 minutes ago, xJohnDoe001x said:

    PotO, questioning my IQ and suggesting that I live under a bridge is not something that a reasonable person would do, they would though wonder about your compassion, empathy and understanding about people who live under the poverty level.

    Yes, I do get EBT, formally known as 'Food Stamps'. I also have Obama phone service, on a Galaxy S21. FYI, it is actually a Bush that gave the free phone service. I also get free 100 Mbs internet through the ACP program and my utilities paid by the C.S.E.T. Program.

    I live in a one bedroom apartment in a subsidized senior community with a Big Fat Cat named Duke E. Zillah, he is laaaazy. And four kittens named, Punanie, coochie, Numbskull and Glitch. OK, so I am borderline cat horder.

    Yes, a $450 car payment is large chunk of my income but had you check my math without the preconceived notions and marginalized me you would have realized that retired senior citizens are financially stable, and our income is secure.

    A reasonable person would think that someone who has a secure income and a stable financial culture, is able to save $100 a month after paying their bills, including a car note, insurance and donating $126 to charity, has over $2K in savings and $23K of unutilized credit WOULD NOT DEFAULT ON THEIR CAR PAYMENT.

    If my income stopped I would simply sell the car and pay off the balance.

    Did I mention that I have $7K for a down payment now and am saving five to six hundred a month so by the time that the '24 Chevy Equinox is released I will have over half of the MSRP?

    And Oh! I applied for a Electric Vehicle Incentives program that will give up to $9K towards the down payment and up to $4K rebates after the purchase of an EV.

    I am going to to get an EV one way or another.



    Compassion and empathy for those who live under the poverty level is not a problem.  Where it gets tricky is when you add an IQ < 4 to the mix.


    While you can live and do so probably enter that some people who earn ten times what you do, you have serious issues understanding third grade math and banking regulations.  Banks like to lend money to people who don't need it.  The law mandates they look at your whole financial picture and failure to do so can result in multi-million dollar fines.  Any banker who wants to keep their job is going to look and say that after all your expenses you will have a cushion of $100.  What happens when, heaven forbid, you total the car and have to pay your insurance deductible of $500 or, with the quote they gave you, likely far more?  What happens if there's a medical emergency?  A fire?  Or any one of a hundred other catastrophic events?  


    With the FICO you quoted, it seems you have good credit.  That helps you a lot.  But banks are mandated by law to lend according to your income or resources known to the bank.  


    The 2024 Equinox will have a startling MSRP of, according to Chevy, around $30k.  If you have 1/2 that saved and get the incentives you mentioned, maybe you only have to borrow $10k and have monthly payments of around $200.  Banks would go for that.  I seriously doubt they will go for $20k or $25k. 


    That your income is steady and you have mastered excellent financial habits goes towards getting your loan application approved.  Then the trick is how much they approve you for.  Again, the law mandates they use your income to decide how much to lend you.  You tell them your income and how much your housing costs are and they plug in their own values to determine expendable income and determine how much they will lend.  

  9. 5 minutes ago, legaleagle2012 said:



    Collecting on a debt is definitely not a FDCPA violation unles ......


    Yes it is. No warning is required on either side. He disputed with the CRAs, not with the creditor. 


    Kaiser v. Cascade Capital, LLC - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals


    "Joining other circuits, the panel held that the FDCPA prohibits filing or threatening to file a lawsuit to collect debts that were defaulted on so long ago that a suit would be outside the applicable statute of limitations. The panel held that these prohibitions regarding time-barred debts apply even if it was unclear at the time a debt collector sued or threatened suit whether a lawsuit was time barred under state law. The panel concluded that plaintiff’s debt was time barred under Oregon’s four-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint stated a claim for relief under the FDCPA."



     If they decide to sue you, which in the present case it seems like they cannot, then you can insist on verifiable proof.   


    I said that to OP. No suit, no discovery. Actually they can sue, but not without committing the violation. He should be so lucky. The argument here is that they waived the right to report when they waived filing suit.



    Rosenthal is all but useless.  Statutory damages are something like $50.



    "Any debt collector who willfully and knowingly violates this title with respect to any debtor shall, in addition to actual damages sustained by the debtor as a result of the violation, also be liable to the debtor only in an individual action, and his additional liability therein to that debtor shall be for a penalty in such amount as the court may allow, which shall not be less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000). ¬†Cal. Civ.Code ¬ß 1788.30(b). Accord Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, 69 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1395‚Äď96, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 (1999) (‚ÄúThe [ Rosenthal] Act provides for recovery in an individual action of ‚Ķ a fine of $100 to $1,000 if the creditor‚Äôs violation is willful and knowing.‚ÄĚ) (citing Cal. Civ.Code ¬ß 1788.30(b))."


    It is their responsibility as debt collectors to know and comply with the SOL. If they don't, that's wilfull in my book. "We didn't know" doesn't fly. Incompetency comes with a price.





    Jethro, ask your Literacy Volunteer for a refresher course.


    Suing while outside the SOL is a FDCPA violation.  Normal collection activities are not.  Trying to collect a debt is not a violation.  Suing to obtain a judgment with which to collect is.  

  10. 2 hours ago, xJohnDoe001x said:

    This thread is dead


    It correlates with your IQ.


    No reasonable person will ever consider income of $1,060 per month sufficient to justify a new car loan without a huge downpayment.  And maybe even then.


    Housing expenses of $177 with no utilities and no food expenses signifies to a reasonable person that you live under a bridge abutment and live off food stamps.  A car payment of $450 per month is about 45% of your monthly income.  Given those facts, if any bank were to lend you what you wanted and you ultimately defaulted, banking regulators would have a field day.  And with a mere $100 cousin, your chances of default are astronomically high.



  11. 14 minutes ago, xJohnDoe001x said:

    In my BofA app it gives me my Transunion's FICO which as 771, the NerdWallet app gives me a 766.

    $177       Rent

    $126        Donation

    $150        Incidentals

    $0            Food

    +$0          Utilities =



    $607       Current Savings ~

    When I enter my credit score and the $7K that I have for a down payment into some lenders pre-qualified calculators I get a potential monthly payment of $350 to $450 a month and I also got insurance quotes of about $120 a month for the car that I wanted so

    $450    Car Note

    $120     Insurance

    -$607    Sub Total



    =$100~    Monthly Savings

    With some Quantum Calculations on a Chronometric Particle Number Cruncher I would save more than $100 being that I wwillbe ggetting  a COLA increase of about $770 in Januaryb, before a car purchase will happen.

    FYI - if you pay less than $300 to $500 a month for rent some lenders will automatically put your rent to their minimum of $300 to $500 a month unless you tell them that you have documentation for the low rent.

    That is how I live, I am a miserable person hating life with all my chronic pain and other maladys so I don't do anything. I am strict with money so can afford the car easily if I can get a loan.

    I will not break myself with the down payment, I will have a few months of bill money and a few grand of credit for emergencies if I get a car.

    Sometimes Life takes a squat on us from above. . . B A M and so we should be prepared with some toilet paper to clean up the mess that it blessed us with. 


    I have an A, B, C, and D plan in case I realized that days are coming that I will not be able to pay the car note.


    A couple of observations.


    NerdWallet does not provide a FICO Score. ¬†They provide a Vantage Score which is pure 1,000%¬†ūüí©.


    Even if you plug a FICO Score into your pre-qual app, it is useless.  Unless you are going for a home mortgage, there isn't one single bank, credit card company or other reputable lender which uses your credit score to decide whether or not to approve your credit application.  The only data they consider is the information you provide on your application (Hello, income!), the raw data from your credit report(s) and any internal data they already have on you.  


    Once they decide to approve your application, only then will your credit score come into play, if even then.  If they use your credit score, it is to determine certain terms of your account such as APR and, in very rare instances, your credit limit.


    It's also important to note that FICO has multiple versions of their credit scores and each creditor may use a different one.  Assuming they use your score and it is roughly 771, you should get a very good APR and that will keep your payments a bit lower.  


    You are totally correct in that life can be a biatch.  I applaud your efforts to take things in stride and to be totally prepared for multiple scenarios.  I hope things go very well for you.



  12. 8 hours ago, hegemony said:


    4.5 years in federal prison.  Far too short!!!  They should have given the biatch the max of 20 years. 


    Ericka Andrea Monique Johnson is from -- surprise, surprise! -- North Carolina.  Shall I post her photo? ;)


    P.S.  God bless PenFed!


  13. 6 hours ago, IheartLoopHoles said:

    They have all been charged off by OC's a long time ago.....


    Just because an OC has charged off an account does not mean that they still do not report the tradeline to the CRAs.  


    The accounts that you refer to intros threat are being reported by the CA(s), correct?  Are they also being reported by the OC(s)?

  14. 3 hours ago, Why Chat said:

    I admit I misspoke-- I thought you were considering settling for less than you owed. Paying a CA in full including added interest and fees MAY get it off your reports but it also may still be reported by the OC. In any case it is certainly not a financial good move. Also if you are intending to do it with more than one CA you are (IMO) being fiscally imprudent. The following is from Forbes;

    Generally speaking, consumers should not use pay for delete to address a collection account on their credit reports. Here’s why you shouldn’t rely on pay for delete when trying to improve your credit score:

    • The process is discouraged.¬†Though not prohibited under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the strategy exists in a grey area. This is because only inaccurate or incomplete entries can be removed from a consumer‚Äôs credit report‚ÄĒnot accounts that have been paid in full. As such, pay for delete letters typically don‚Äôt have any legal weight.
    • The debt collector might not follow through.¬†Often, debt collection agencies only care about receiving payment on collections. For that reason, a debt collector may take your payment and then refuse to remove the account from your credit report.
    • The account won‚Äôt disappear entirely.¬†Credit bureaus can correct errors and report payoffs but are not likely to completely delete the entire collections account. This is because a debt collector can‚Äôt remove negative marks reported by the original creditor.
    • Pay for delete may not increase your score.¬†Every credit score model treats collection accounts differently, and some ignore them entirely, including FICO Score 9 and VantageScore 3.0.


    It appears you have a never ending supply of bullūüí©.


    While the process may be discouraged, there are very, very few CAs that will not accept a PFD. ¬†Apparently Forbes is also full of¬†ūüí©. ¬†A PFD is most definitely NOT prohibited by the FCRA. ¬†Anybody with kindergarten level reading skills can see the FCRA does not prohibit the removal of accurate data. ¬†Nowhere does the FCRA state that you have to report; only what you do choose to report must be accurate. Reading is a valuable skill and Literacy Volunteers are available free of charge.


    Yes, there is the possibility that the CA may not keep their promise.  That is why an intelligent person will get the commitment in writing or actually record the CA when they make the promise.  It's also a good idea to enter a restrictive endorsement on any check you use to pay them.  Also, if you do get screwed, you can dispute the tradeline with the CRAs and are likely to be successful.   


    If there is a successful PFD, the whole fooking CA tradeline will disappear.  


    Forbes is a regarded liar. ¬†FICO 9 most definitely does NOT ignore collections accounts. ¬†That said, the PFD removal may not affect your credit score if you have a ūüí©load of others that still remain. ¬†Still, it is a step in the right direction getting the tradeline removed.¬†¬†As for Vantage, DILLIGAF? ¬†And neither should you. ¬†Vantage is¬†ūüí©.


    Anybody who states that a PFD is certainly not a good financial move has the IQ of a dyslexic gerbil.



  15. 32 minutes ago, IheartLoopHoles said:

    Thanks WhyChat. My understanding was that a PFD gets deleted from your CR's altogether and PRA specifically offers this as an option?


    You are right.  A PFD removes the tradeline completely.


    One thing to consider is that the PFD with the CA only affects the CA's tradeline and not the OC's.  If the OC is reporting, you need to negotiate a PFD with the OC and not the CA.  Unfortunately most CC OC's will not negotiate a PFD.

  16. 41 minutes ago, Why Chat said:

    A PFD will hurt your credit --not help it. It will be reported as settled with a newer date.

    How are you disputing??






    Bullūüí©. ¬†A Pay-for-Delete, as the name clearly indicates, deletes the derogatory tradeline completely from your credit reports. ¬†Only if you do not PFD will the tradeline be reported as settled and even then must fall off at the 7-year point from DOFD. ¬†


    The only disadvantage to a PFD is if the OC is also reporting in addition to the CA.  A PFD with the CA has no effect on the OC's derogatory tradeline.  

  17. 2 hours ago, legaleagle2012 said:

    You have no legal basis to "do" anything at this point since it appears they are ignoring you so far. If they attempt to collect the debt, that would violate the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act. Suing / collecting  has nothing to do with reporting.


    You could try the "prove it" angle with the CRAs .... since PRA declined to take you to court within the SOL period and now cannot successfully do so, you were deprived of an opportunity to challenge their ownership of the accounts. You canot conduct discovery with no pending court case, so for all you know, they don't even own these accounts. That all depends on whether or not they ever sent you any paperwork when they acquired the accounts. This tactic may not get you  very far, but it will create some work for PRA.  If they refuse or cannot prove ownership, you can give this to a lawyer for evalution. Reporting on a debt they cannot legally prove they own is probably an FCRA violation.


    Rosenthal is all but useless.  Statutory damages are something like $50.  The only good thing about Rosenthal is that it includes original creditors which is something the FDCPA does not do.  


    Collecting on a debt is definitely not a FDCPA violation unless they are attempting contact after you have ordered them to cease.  They can still report and still attempt to sue, provided the CRTP and SOL is not an obstacle.  


    No CA has to "prove" anything unless they are suing you and you are smart enough to demand proof.  All the CRAs need to continue to report after you have disputed the tradeline is for the subscriber to say the debt is correct.  This has been hashed out in the federal courts ad nauseum ... no CA ever has to prove anything in order to report derogatory data.  They never -- yes, never -- have to provide anything for verification of a debt other than a simple statement that they have verified the concept and amount of the debt with the original creditor / junk debt buyer.  If they decide to sue you, which in the present case it seems like they cannot, then you can insist on verifiable proof.   

  18. 7 minutes ago, centex said:

    Date opened is a field related to when the account was opened in the office of the furnisher, not the original account opening date.  The only date that matters is the one associated with the original delinquency event immediately preceding the charge-off, since that is what drives the seven year, six month window.


    A viable argument can be made that one-month term is correct given that there has ceased to be a revolving agreement.  The matter was defaulted and immediately became due. 


    DOFD. Date of first delinquency after which the account was never brought current.  You can make multiple payments after DOFD and as long as the account was not brought current the CRTP cannot be reset.  It sits at 7.5 years from DOFD.  

  19. 2 hours ago, maverick9 said:

    Nah. I disagree. I've been warned about her from several others. We can't ALL be wrong.

    And if you think I don't know squat, you're full of yourself as well. 


    I'm about ready to dump this dated forum and it's pompous arrongant "contributers" with these types of responses. I'm involved in a lot of forums/discords and have never been disrespected like I have here. I gave you a 2nd chance but see you like to flex your forum jockey skills and think it's time to block you from my posts. 


    Block away, Jethro.


    You have a well-deserved reputation here, as clearly evident from your posts showing a myopic understanding about credit, as a moron.  Let's face it, even a regarded gerbil knows that virtually every issuer as a recon / backdoor number.  

  20. 5 hours ago, maverick9 said:

    Very well.


    I just got off the phone with what may be deemed the "reconsideration department" even though they told me there is no such thing. The rep put me on hold several times as she was looking into the application. She said she is sending it to be re-reviewed and they will let me know within 1-2 weeks. So we shall see........


    There is no such thing as the Chase reconsideration department.  What there is at Chase is called underwriting.  They actually make decisions.  


    If you only spoke with a customer service representative, you wasted your time.  If you spoke with underwriting, then you have a chance.  


    The Chase Amazon Visa is a bit easier than other Chase cards.  I think they are trying to be more accommodating to appease Amazon.  


    If you burned Chase previously, then you are usually facing an extremely uphill battle.  Did they mention that during the phone call?  

  21. 1 hour ago, hegemony said:


    There are still light years to go.  I seriously doubt they will ever have anything but microscopic holes in the wall unless, as is rumored, AliPay buys WeChat.  


    The current test as mentioned in the article is really nothing special.  One creates a QR code on the AliPay platform that you can then send to a friend.  What the article fails to mention is that the QR code can also be sent via e-mail or any other messaging platform and not just WeChat.  Then there is the pesky limit of under $300 in local currency equivalent.  Here that would be considered a micro payment.


    Basically the difference between AliPay and WeChat is the messaging platform.  Although AliPay has a messaging platform, it is cumbersome and not as fluid, dynamic or robust as WeChat's.  Everybody -- and I mean EVERYBODY -- uses WeChat for messaging here.  On the other hand, AliPay has THE best payment platform going.  WeChat cannot compare at all.  So, what people do is chat and transfer money on WeChat and then immediately transfer the money into their bank account and then link that bank account to AliPay for payments.  


    When you think about WeChat and AliPay, they are awesome platforms.  Every business and government entity has a WeChat forum and you can do everything from pay Customs duty, show COVID-19 vaccination / nucleic acid testing results and check your online banking.  With AliPay, you can pay anything and anybody. They have what used to be Uber and pretty much all the other functions WeChat has, but with a lesser chat feature.  Seriously, without both WeChat and AliPay here, your life is fooked.  That's why they have 1.4 billion people walking around 24/7 with an iPhone planted up their arse.  

  • Create New...

Important Information