Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

532 profile views
  1. The settlement document does not specify credit reporting. I had just ass(umed) that this OC would mark settled accounts like all the rest did. What it does say is "upon receipt of the final payment, we will consider the account settled for less than the full balance." My written dispute to the bureau(s) was that the account was settled and they must report it as "settled-less than legally owed". This OC refuses to do that. They cannot continue to report a "past due" when the settlement document clearly states "...settled for less than the full balance" regardless if the docume
  2. Thank you for the reply. The way it went down is this. I contacted corporate offices via email and plead my case for settlement. A manager called me back and faxed me a settlement offer. It was originally for the amount I paid over 24 months but I was free to pay it early. I used my bonus and paid it at once. When i called in to the number on the fax I told the woman taking the payment that I was electing to pay the entire settlement at once as opposed to over 24. I did and she congratulated me. It was silent on how I had to pay. I paid via ach debit. they sent me a settl
  3. I’m a little rusty after all these years. Here is my situation. I have an original creditor. I owed them several thousand dollars. We agreed to a settlement for 25 percent of the balance a few months back. I have it in writing that upon receipt of this amount the balance will be forgiven and I will be released from liability as to the balance. ok. I paid this to the OC. They then reported to the credit bureau that my new balance was what it was before minus this payment. Still charged off and no notation of settled less than legally owed. I initiated a written dis
  4. I did, it was $729.00. I don't even remember getting the calls..but they said my cell # was part of the settlement so I got the check about 2 months ago and cashed it and went on my merry way. My guess is it was such an obscure settlement that many people never filed claims, which explains why everyone's settlement was so high. This cements my belief that no matter what the class action is or how popular you think it may be, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS file a claim, you might be surprised. I sure was.
  5. SOFI appears to be very lenient on who they let in on their banking product. I defaulted on a 100k personal loan with them after a business failure and subsequently settled it when it went to collections at like 18k and I applied for their account when they were giving bonuses and they gave it to me.
  6. My suggestion, go elsewhere. I too have a federal felony for bank fraud from 2013 (lied on mortgage loans and defaulted back in the day) I kept most of my accounts and had a large restitution. However, I can tell you that certain banks not only run your background but that of everyone in your household. USAA and Chase come to mind. My wife who has various security clearances and squeaky clean background was shut down by Chase when they did a routine LN search on our address. They terminated her account b/c she was married to me. USAA also shut me down after I was indicted in
  7. Not sure where to post this but apparently I am getting a check over $600 for a TCPA class action settlement in the Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc., et al vs Alarm.com Incorporated et al. I received a notice from the settlement administrator saying I need to fill out a W9 b/c my settlement was determined to be over $600 and if I didn't fill it out it would be reduced to $599. I filled it out in November and followed up today and no checks have been sent. The settlement administrator claims to not know payments and this money (which is supposed to be mailed early 2020
  8. no, no recorded evidence, but when I called in one time to their internal recovery unit at Citi, I managed to get a US based manager and she said on a recorded call her ID and read over the notes and clearly saw where the Mumbai India call center rep offered the 25 and the cardholder response was accepted as long as other account could be settled at the 25% as well. That's when the rep switched over to get the 25% approval on the other account and by the time it was approved the original account was sent to T&H. I was advised to send a settlement dispute via fax to their inter
  9. I had 2 charge offs from Home Depot/Citi last year. While working with Citi to settle them one was approved at 25% and the other was approved at 40%. I was dealing with Citi's Mumbai, India call center at all times. I had a 9k that had a 25% settlement and a 17k that had a 40%. I told the rep I would agree to the 25% on the 9k and then I wanted to work on settling the 17k at the same amount. The rep incorrectly coded the 9k account as settlement not accepted. A few weeks later I found this out while settling the 17k at the 25%. After this was accomplished, the rep switched t
  10. I simply told them I was not going to put up with their shenanigans and they were free to sue me and I'd arbitrate and didn't GAF what it cost them in the end even if it were upwards of 100k and I would make their lives miserable. I didn't care if they won in the end as I'd be able to BK by then. They still pushed back and I finally made it to the head director of legal operations (below Zwicker) and he agreed that it would be in their best interest in accepting the below blanket settlement. I got the letter and paid the settlement and we parted ways. I also pointed them to a th
  11. Yeah, that is great. The problem is I would like to refi in a few years out of my ridiculously high mortgage. Even if I do all that, the debt will still be on the CR and I will have to PIF at time of closing. I know that PRA now deletes once settled, they say so on their website. I spoke with them again to day and reiterated the 15% that Synchrony offered prior to selling the debt and they argued with me and said Synch never does that even though I have it in writing. I think I can force the issue with them. But they are hard headed. I told them via CMRRR today that I elected binding ar
  12. So over the past 6 months I have been settling my debts b/c I had too much home equity to file bankruptcy. (don't worry the equity is protected by tenancy by entirety from creditors) but was recent enough that it might give a trustee pause. Fast forward to today, I have settled about 190k in charged off debt for about 38k. 20% basically. The last few I have were Sams Club and Paypal about 5k each which have recently been sold to PRA. I refuse to pay face value for these debts when I have been settling others at Synchrony for 15%. The contracts do have arb
  13. no, I had a platinum card that had 30k I settled with Zwicker for $5 and a Blue Cash Everyday that I settled for 4800 that had a balance of about 32k. I have a Bonvoy and Amex Every day charged off never sent to collections that owe about 3k. This is a business card that is the Gold card they offered the Optima on. Still under my SSN. I called them today and they said the offer was legit and they claim they will approve if I PIF This card, they said they don't care about the others settled for less than legally owed. Odd, b/c it appears to go against everything people say about the OASIS p
  14. Hello, I had 7 Amex cards which all charged off. Total owed Amex was about 60k over the 7 cards. I ended up settling most of them for like 18 cents on the dollar after they went to Zwicker for lawsuit and I elected arb. Anyway, on one of the business cards I just never did anything with, I got the email below. It says I can PIF and get the Optima card to rebuild with them and I will be approved unless I am in BK or have an active card or already received and accepted this offer from a CA. I am thinking about doing it b/c I can afford the 4k they are asking for, but know that I
  15. But the FDCPA doesn't specify they can be misleading if the consumer "chose" not to pay, for whatever reason, not does it carve out an exemption for making misleading statements if two parties are haggling and one works on commission. How are their misleading statements not violations under 807 (10)?
  • Create New...

Important Information