Jump to content

Please consider disabling your adblocker for CreditBoards if you have not already done so.  This site depends on advertising revenue to stay online.


nacho

Members
  • Content Count

    374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Not true. In some states, there are laws that allow a cease and desist to the original creditor. California is one, and I know there are others. What state are the people in? If they are in California or one of the other states with such laws, they can indeed send a letter to the OC, say they cannot pay and demand that collection communications cease.
  2. Well, I finally got my letter from Penfed. It says that personal information, including social security number, was accessed. It offers up Kroll credit monitoring service for free. Meanwhile, I have discovered that in late December someone tried to apply for credit in my name with WFNNB/Victorias Secret and also tried to access my Experian report on-line. There is an inquiry from WFNNB on my report and I just received a letter from Experian dated the same day as the inquiry saying here is the report number you requested on-line which you need to access your report on-line. So, it is pretty clear someone has been trying to use my identity. Whoever it is seems amateurish. Given the timing I do suspect this is related to the Penfed security breach. I suggest every Penfed member keep a close eye on your reports.
  3. nacho

    WTH PENFED...

    I received my replacement card today, but never have received the letter of explanation.
  4. Did anyone ever get the letter explaining why this was necessary? I got the email and a new card, but the promised letter of explanation has never arrived.
  5. Radi8, you are right, my experience is anecdotal and maybe I was lucky. However, I don't see any data at all for the "lie low" theory. Anecdotes by others that they sent a DV then got sued does not prove anything at all either. In my opinion, sending a Dv likely had nothing to do with any decision to sue. I just don't see the logic. My own opinion and experience says aggressiveness deters creditors. To really settle this we would need data on the percentages of people who get sued after dv'ing versus the percentage who got sued after "lying low.". We don't have that data. Also interesting would be someone from a large OC or CA saying that receiving a DV causes them to sue when they otherwise would not. We don't have that either. I guess my main point is to dispute the belief that it is established "fact" that sending a DV on a fresh charge off is bad or is any more likely to lead to a lawsuit than lying low. To me, this is an opinion that has taken on the aura of fact on this site by being repeated often. Also, I would add that advising people to not DV or send a cease and desist means that you are advising them to put up with constant phone calls from a CA. This is intolerable and extremely stressful to your average person. In the absence of actual evidence that there is some benefit to putting up with this, I could not give that advice.
  6. And let me add, not only did I send cease and desists immediately to any and all CAs, I eventually sent them to every OC as well as allowed under my state's law. Again, never once did this provoke the OC to sue. In fact, I think being aggressive deters lawsuits.
  7. Upon what do you base this belief? Personally, my own logic as well as my experience tells me it is not true. I guess we are dealing with opinions here, and that is ok. Large credit card companies do not decide to sue based upon being "mad" or any other emotion. And I find some of the reasoning in this thread very odd. The point has been made, this is a new charge off, so obviously they can validate. At the same time, one should not dv or communicate because that only confirms your address. Well, if it is a fresh charge off and they are calling and writing you, they already know where you are. And I know many of the vets on this board have beliefs about "lying low" and not sending full cease and desists, etc. I think it is important, though, to continulally be thinking about these things and discussing them. Sometimes things on the Internet take on the aura of truth just by being repeated enough times. I had about 10 accounts I walked from a few years ago. I aggressively dv'ed and sent full cease and desists immediately to every CA that ever contacted me. I got sued a grand total of one time, on the very smallest account, and that got dismissed. Never did dv'ing provokena lawsuit. Let's add this at least as some data.
  8. Brumbaugh & Quandahl is a collection firm that is itself subject to the fdcpa even when suing for an original creditor. It must give the notices required by the fdcpa and it must validate when demanded. It is absolutely a violation for b & q to file a suit after validation is demanded without first providing that validation. B & Q is basically a rogue organization ignoring the law.
  9. This firm is notorious for this. They are deliberately ignoring their obligation to validate, I know of two other cases involving them with the exact same behavior. They know they are violating but they don't care. The violation does not stop the collection action. It gives rise to a claim under the fdcpa. I believe Brumbaugh simply does not believe people will sue them in sufficient numbers for it to matter and they would rather go full speed ahead with the collections.
  10. Radi8, I respect your opinion although I disagree. One question, though, what do you mean by "avoid unnecessary contact"? CAs are relentless. Once they have found you as with the OP, they will call multiple time a day for months if you let them. Without a DV or cease and desist, how would you handle this? You are concerned about provoking the CA But during the constant phone calls how does one avoid provoking the CA? What should one say? Do you believe that simply putting up with the phone calls for months without agreeing to pay something somehow makes the CA less likely to sue? Is so, why do you believe this? I am genuinely interested in reading your thoughts about this. I guess the way I look at it, there is no reason to believe that DVing in any way makes a CA or OC any more likely to sue.
  11. I know others disagree but, in my opinion, definitely DV. Fight the collection agencies and insist upon your rights every step of the way. There is no evidence that I have ever seen that says a collection agency will be prompted to sue you if you demand DV any more than if you do not. In fact, my instinct and experience says the exact opposite. Showing you know your rights and will put up a fight acts as a deterrent. I personally don't think "lying low" works at all to prevent a lawsuit. Moreover, if you DV, there is a good chance that the collection agencies will violate. This gives you leverage over them. This strategy worked great for me when I was in your shoes. YMMV, of course.
  12. Have you applied for any loans or CC? Some banks or credit unions will pull one CRA for membership but pull a different one for loans/CC products. Yes. I applied for a cc at same time I joined. They only pulled TU.
  13. Consumer Credit Union. Anyone can join. I recently joined and they pulled TU for me. www.myconsumers.org
  14. I always thought one paid the subscription fees in advance. So they will let you keep the service for a while even when you have not paid in advance?
  15. Yep, Barclays has a hair trigger when your balances spike up. Doesn't matter if you intend to PIF, once it hits the report Barclays will promptly take action. They will tinker with your credit line constantly in my experience. Barclays is an unreliable lender in my opinion.

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines