Collection agency not willing to remove negative items

Hi guys,

I've been long away and it's been a great vacation!

Thompson, the collection agency won't delete, it would report the debt as "paid off" and that would help to improve your score at least to some extent compared to an unpaid account.

If you pay them, the item will last 7 years from date you pay. Since they say they will go off in 2 years, this is shorter. They will not sue you for these small amounts. So, I would not pay.

I agree with not paying them off if they are going to fall of in 2 yrs. These are not affecting your credit score significantly if you have had them on there longer than 2 yrs. To increase your score, there is more weight given to your balances on your current tradelines. You want to keep them below 30% of the max credit amount. Length of time the accounts are open is also a score booster. However, if you are really wanting to get rid of the collections, you can dispute them with the credit agencies. Since you contacted the collection agency, they may report them as new, in whic case they will try to keep them on longer than 2 yrs. Hope this helps.

I agree with Stephenie and jheard, do not pay them off unless the creditor is willing to delete them from your credit report... and only then if you have other credit that has plenty of history. Like they've outlined for you, paying old collections off will keep them on your credit for a longer period of time... plus since the date of last activity will be updated, your scores will likely suffer. An old unpaid collection does not negtive affect your score as much as a freshly paid collection.

It will not stay on your credit report for ANOTHER 7yrs.
That is a common myth in the collection business that is told to the ppl that owe them money.

The law states that the 7yr period begins 180 days from when the original creditor reports the chargeoff.
Section 605(a)(4), which has been in effect since the FCRA became effective in April 1971, has always prohibited CRAs from reporting chargeoffs that are more than seven years old.(1) Section 623(a)(5), which became law in September 1997, requires a creditor that reports a chargeoff to a CRA to notify the agency (within 90 days of reporting the account) of "the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded" the chargeoff. Section 605(c)(1) provides that the seven year period begins 180 days from that date. Both provisions were part of the major revision to the FCRA that were enacted in 1996.(2) .

I believe there is case law on point; I will try and find the cite for you.

Section 605(a)(5) says the limitations period is, "Any other adverse item of information, ... which antedates the report by more than seven years."

Section 603(k)(1)(B)(iv)(I) defines "Adverse action" as a "transaction initiated by" the consumer.

In other words, if you make a payment, the 7 year period starts over.

that totally contradicts 605(c) which probably means that you maybe reading it wrong.

Section 603(k)(1)(B)(iv)(I) defines "Adverse action" as a "transaction initiated by" the consumer. Can also mean that the consumer made the late payment. This is a transaction initiated by the consumer.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf Page 6 explains


Section 605(a)(5) says the limitations period is, "Any other adverse item of information, ... which antedates the report by more than seven years."

Making a payment isn't adverse.

Every legal/credit forum has viewed it this way where it starts 180days after delinquency. Making a new payment will renew 'state statue of limitations' which have nothing to do with Federal Credit Reporting Act

"do not pay" huh? where is the honor in that? if you owe money to someone, pay them...it is as simple as that. you gave your promise to someone to pay them for a service of some sort. they gave you the service, and now you break your promise. what is wrong with this scenario?

i am incredulous at some of what passes for advice on here.

tsk, tsk.

i would recommend a timeframe of paying....
not paying at all will always come & haunt you.

if you're applying for a mortgage do not pay them....wait for further instructions of your loan officer. he will tell you what the Underwriter says....you may need the money for a down payment.
After all is said/done...make sure to pay as it will help you in the long run.
If you dont have any intentions of buying home/car...make sure to pay ASAP as you dont want to deal with it when you want to buy a home or refinance

i have to laugh banker...the only word in your post that was capitalized was "underwriter" (other than first words of sentences). such respect! since i have been (and still think like) an underwriter, i applaud you for your notion that the word needs to be capitalized.

If you have finances to pay the debt it's always suggested. However you should negotiate! These collection companies purchased your account for practically nothing this gives you the power to settle your debt for less than half of what you owe. You also need to ask for a deletion letter. If they won't offer you one DONT PAY!

JUST a TIP-Don't admit to anything. Don't explain how or why you have the debt... just say you value your credit and the negative item is hurting you. If you do admit to guilt it's that much harder to have the derogatory items removed!

I am happy to teach you what to say. Feel free to call me with any questions or concerns! :wink:

Melissa Olson
EZ Credit Repair
866-979-1099 ext 202
"molson@myezcreditrepair.com"

[Email address deactivated as per forum rules. Thanks.]

i realize the benefit of settling a collection account rather than paying the balance in full. however, when the entire debt for 2 collections equals $75(!!!), why in the world would either of the agences settle? even though the agencies likely expended no labor in collecting for either, the simple fact that there is manpower needed for tracking and reporting is probably equivalent to the amount of each debt anyway.

truly, melissa, i don't quite understand how an admission of "guilt" will affect the removal of an item, unless they remain unpaid.

another "wow" from me.

Let me quote you George...

""do not pay" huh? where is the honor in that? if you owe money to someone, pay them...it is as simple as that. you gave your promise to someone to pay them for a service of some sort. they gave you the service, and now you break your promise. what is wrong with this scenario?"

George I don't understand how you can say that, then turn around and ask me why Thompson should pay $75 bucks? Isn't that a contradiction? Does the amount of money owed change your previous thought?

please re-read my post, melissa. i said "why would the agencies settle?" for a debt of $75. in no way does that indicate i advocate the person not paying. if i owe you $30 and you have to take time to put my information into a computer, report me to a credit agency, maybe even send me a letter or call me, why would i think i could pay you $15 to get you off my back? i would anticipate paying the whole thing!

my thought is precisely the same - i dont see any good reason for someone to refuse to pay $75 that is truly owed. the entire credit industry is built upon people paying back that which they owe.

Underwriters are always watching! beware lol