Portfolio Recovery out of SOL. Send FOAD?

[IheartLoopHoles]

Hi Yall,

 

Years ago this forum helped me completely clear my CR's and I swore I would have perfect credit forever. Then COVID.

 

That said, I have been thru many many posts to try and refresh my memory on best steps but there are so.many.posts. It looks like since last I was here (2007 or so) not much has really changed but I'm getting confused on what my best approach is with PRA.

 

I am in California. Debt is outside of SOL. I disputed the tradelines (they have like 5 accounts of mine) with the CBs hoping for a lucky break. Yes that was a mistake.

 

Is my best approach the FOAD letter? Or is there another approach I might be missing?

 

Any help is much appreciated, thank you!

[MarvBear]

To which SOL are you referring?  Reporting or collecting?

[IheartLoopHoles]

Suing. Just passed 4 years in June. Im in California.

[IheartLoopHoles]

I will add...DOFD is 2018 but they are showing the date opened in 2019 and 2020 with 1 month terms. They have OC listed and first 5 digits of the account number. 

[shifter]

Foad is only useful after the 7 years passes also. If they are reporting to the CRAs you are going to have to deal with that or wait 3 more years. 

[IheartLoopHoles]

Thank you. How about leveraging the reporting errors? Reaging?

[CreditSucksNot]

2 hours ago, IheartLoopHoles said:

Thank you. How about leveraging the reporting errors? Reaging?

It isn't re-aging. The dates you are seeing is when PRA got the accounts. They cannot report dates prior to their purchase.  It does not re-age the reporting time.

[legaleagle2012]

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.

[hegemony]

11 hours ago, IheartLoopHoles said:

I will add...DOFD is 2018 but they are showing the date opened in 2019 and 2020 with 1 month terms. They have OC listed and first 5 digits of the account number. 

are you aware that portfolio does PFD as a matter of policy?

[Bluesie58]

12 hours ago, IheartLoopHoles said:

Suing. Just passed 4 years in June. Im in California.

When did they file suit?  Filing tolls the SOL.  Also, did you make any payments after the DOFD?   If so, making a payment may have reset the SOL.  

[centex]

12 hours ago, IheartLoopHoles said:

I will add...DOFD is 2018 but they are showing the date opened in 2019 and 2020 with 1 month terms. They have OC listed and first 5 digits of the account number. 

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. 

[PotO]

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.  

[PotO]

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.   

[IheartLoopHoles]

Thank you all that clarifies it for me. Sounds like I leave it or do a PFD.

[Why Chat]

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

How are you disputing??

 

Try this;

https://whychat.me/GUIDEBOOK.html

 

Once you have successfully deleted any and all old addresses and it has been more than 90 days since your last unsuccessful dispute, you can try disputing this way;

https://whychat.me/SOL PROGRAM GUIDE.html

https://whychat.me/initdispltrsol.html

 

DO NOT try to check your dispute on line. The method described is designed to keep the dispute out of the CRA's automated computer systems. ( do not call either)

 

 

[IheartLoopHoles]

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

[PotO]

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??

 

 

 

 

 

Bull💩.  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.  

[PotO]

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.

[IheartLoopHoles]

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

[Why Chat]

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’s credit report—not accounts that have been paid in full. As such, pay for delete letters typically don’t 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’t 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’t 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.

[PotO]

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’s credit report—not accounts that have been paid in full. As such, pay for delete letters typically don’t 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’t 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’t 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 bull💩.

 

While the process may be discouraged, there are very, very few CAs that will not accept a PFD.  Apparently Forbes is also full of 💩.  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 💩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 💩.

 

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

 

 

[PotO]

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)?

[legaleagle2012]

19 hours ago, PotO said:

 

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.   

 

 

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 § 1788.30(b). Accord Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, 69 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1395–96, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 (1999) (“The [ Rosenthal] Act provides for recovery in an individual action of … a fine of $100 to $1,000 if the creditor’s violation is willful and knowing.”) (citing Cal. Civ.Code § 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.

 

 

 

[PotO]

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 § 1788.30(b). Accord Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, 69 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1395–96, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 (1999) (“The [ Rosenthal] Act provides for recovery in an individual action of … a fine of $100 to $1,000 if the creditor’s violation is willful and knowing.”) (citing Cal. Civ.Code § 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.  

[hdporter]

30 minutes ago, PotO said:

 

Suing while outside the SOL is a FDCPA violation.  Normal collection activities are not

 

This. 

 

@legaleagle2012:  Grab yourself a 2nd cup of coffee ... you're better than this.  (Seems like you've been responding to what you think you read this morning, vs what was actually stated ... been there; done that.)