Posted on: 07th Jan, 2008 03:27 am
I checked my credit report and have come across 2 negative items being reported. One of $45 and another of $30 both unpaid. I called up the collection agency and was told they won't be able to delete the accounts; if I could only pay them off they would report it as "paid off". What I'm concerned is, if they don't remove them, why should I pay, they said it would stay till 2010. What you guys think? What should be the right step now for me?
Think of it this way... Thompson may only owe $75 bucks... however John Doe from down the street could owe a few thousand dollars. In fact he might think he actually has to pay back the balance in full! He might even go years without paying the debt because he can't afford it. We both know what happens then, higher interest rates and the loss of thousands of dollars! These are the types of victims collections companies prey on. I don't care if someone owes $5 dollars or $2,500! I want to help them understand how to settle their debt and ultimately restore their credit!
Has anybody ever broken down how a credit scores are formulated? If not, allow me.
- Payment history takes up 35%
- Debt ratios or the balance and limits of your existing accounts take up 30%
- Length of credit history is 15%
- Type of credit 10%
- Number of inquiries is 10%
Has anybody ever broken down how a credit scores are formulated? If not, allow me.
- Payment history takes up 35%
- Debt ratios or the balance and limits of your existing accounts take up 30%
- Length of credit history is 15%
- Type of credit 10%
- Number of inquiries is 10%
oh man...i already stated that i understand not only the concept, but the benefit of settling a debt rather than paying in full; but i also said that in this case - this $40 + $35 - i do not comprehend why a collection agent would settle. what will they settle for? $20? $17.50? come on.
and i am only addressing this specific poster (thompson) and not the vast american public.
and you are in kauai?????? you need to be on the beach, girl! i am in connecticut, surrounded by snow (though it is 60 degrees today), and it gets dark by 5 pm.
and i am only addressing this specific poster (thompson) and not the vast american public.
and you are in kauai?????? you need to be on the beach, girl! i am in connecticut, surrounded by snow (though it is 60 degrees today), and it gets dark by 5 pm.
Hi Thompson,
What I understand is, it's better to pay what you owe but do negotiate with the collection agency, so that they give you some time within which you can repay the debt. If at all the agency is not willing to delete them, you have no other way but to pay them off. Or else, it may take a hit on your credit record and who would want that!
Good luck
What I understand is, it's better to pay what you owe but do negotiate with the collection agency, so that they give you some time within which you can repay the debt. If at all the agency is not willing to delete them, you have no other way but to pay them off. Or else, it may take a hit on your credit record and who would want that!
Good luck
@banker0679
Section 605(c) only applies to "The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6) 3 of subsection (a)".
The applicable limitations period is Section 605(a)(5) which states, "Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years."
@qmakerly
One has a duty to pay obligations. However, there is a legal principle called "laches" which says if you sit on your legal rights, you lose them. In other words, if a creditor does not sue you within the legal time frame, they have lost their rights to recover the debt. In my view, if one has no legal right to recover a debt, there is no moral obligation to pay it.
Section 605(c) only applies to "The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6) 3 of subsection (a)".
The applicable limitations period is Section 605(a)(5) which states, "Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years."
@qmakerly
One has a duty to pay obligations. However, there is a legal principle called "laches" which says if you sit on your legal rights, you lose them. In other words, if a creditor does not sue you within the legal time frame, they have lost their rights to recover the debt. In my view, if one has no legal right to recover a debt, there is no moral obligation to pay it.
"no moral obligation" - you sure youre a banker?
i had never heard of laches - looked it up and i see what you're talking about; nevertheless, i don't agree and feel that one ought to pay one's obligations, period.
if i borrow money from your bank, will you promise not to sue me, so i won't have to pay you back?
i had never heard of laches - looked it up and i see what you're talking about; nevertheless, i don't agree and feel that one ought to pay one's obligations, period.
if i borrow money from your bank, will you promise not to sue me, so i won't have to pay you back?
wow...i just noticed...i joined on here 2 months ago today! i think i'll have a party!
Jheard - paying off a collection item is not ADVERSE!
If you pay them it wont improve your credit and they won't sue you so I'm with most of the people here that say there is no point in paying.
Wow I can't believe that it took 5 posts before someone said the right thing. You should always pay your debts if you can and no matter what, it is the "RIGHT" thing to do. I understand that you all think it is no big deal but an obligation is an obligation in my mind. PERIOD. George is right, and apparently is the only one.
Do you want my definition of "laches" - (I'm going to give it anyway, obviously)
- not taking responsibility for one's actions by hiding behind some legal loophole.
What a world we live in, where people on a daily basis strive to take more and more for themselves, always expecting another handout.
This website and forum is here to help people. To help people solve problems. This post is not about a problem it is just another person who wants a way out of their obligations. And you guys are willing to support that outlook. It is amazing to me and the reason there needs to be more oversight in our industry. It is not "OK" to do the "WRONG" thing just because you can get away with it, legal or illegal. PERIOD.
Do you want my definition of "laches" - (I'm going to give it anyway, obviously)
- not taking responsibility for one's actions by hiding behind some legal loophole.
What a world we live in, where people on a daily basis strive to take more and more for themselves, always expecting another handout.
This website and forum is here to help people. To help people solve problems. This post is not about a problem it is just another person who wants a way out of their obligations. And you guys are willing to support that outlook. It is amazing to me and the reason there needs to be more oversight in our industry. It is not "OK" to do the "WRONG" thing just because you can get away with it, legal or illegal. PERIOD.
thanks so much, eric. that was a delight to read, and i thoroughly concur. i love the definition as well.
sometimes we think we are helping people by advising them to, indeed, do the wrong thing. if only we knew how often that bad advice comes back around to bite us as well.
sometimes we think we are helping people by advising them to, indeed, do the wrong thing. if only we knew how often that bad advice comes back around to bite us as well.
George,
I am curious, what is a relationship manager, if you don't mind? I am just curious.
I am curious, what is a relationship manager, if you don't mind? I am just curious.
to boil this down to its essense, i am a mortgage loan originator aka loan officer. of course, there is much more to it than simply quoting rates, scribbling information on a legal pad, a loan application or a napkin. in addition to doing that, first horizon considers us to enter a relationship with the borrower, on an ongoing basis.
frankly, long before i began working with first horizon, i considered all my work to be relational, so this was an easy fit when i joined the company.
until cutbacks in the past several months, we had the ability to refer our borrowers to specific local individuals for the purpose of opening savings and checking accounts, obtain personal loans, etc. the idea behind all this, of course, is profitability to the bank itself (we are a division of first tennessee bank n.a.), but also a relationship that will go well beyond the mere taking of a mortgage application.
i live this in addition to it being on my business cards. i truly do feel that any mortgage in initiate turns into a relationship between the borrower(s) and me.
i hope some of that shows up in the way i post on here as well.
thanks for the query, jbarto - i hope this was helpful.
frankly, long before i began working with first horizon, i considered all my work to be relational, so this was an easy fit when i joined the company.
until cutbacks in the past several months, we had the ability to refer our borrowers to specific local individuals for the purpose of opening savings and checking accounts, obtain personal loans, etc. the idea behind all this, of course, is profitability to the bank itself (we are a division of first tennessee bank n.a.), but also a relationship that will go well beyond the mere taking of a mortgage application.
i live this in addition to it being on my business cards. i truly do feel that any mortgage in initiate turns into a relationship between the borrower(s) and me.
i hope some of that shows up in the way i post on here as well.
thanks for the query, jbarto - i hope this was helpful.
After and If are also capitilized. I have to say I agree, if you owe money ,pay it, better late than never. But thats just me .I never forget a loan. If I have to pay in small amounts then thats what I do as long as I am making an effort to pay it off.
patricia...what is the "after" and "if" capitalization statement referring to?
i know i have a bad habit of not capitalizing much of anything, but it's a style i got into so long ago, it's hard to stop.
as for your payment habits, i concur - we should always strive to make payments as best we can; and paying bills in full is how we all ought to handle our business.
imagine - what kind of society would we have if everyone was irresponsible in paying bills or keeping promises?
i know i have a bad habit of not capitalizing much of anything, but it's a style i got into so long ago, it's hard to stop.
as for your payment habits, i concur - we should always strive to make payments as best we can; and paying bills in full is how we all ought to handle our business.
imagine - what kind of society would we have if everyone was irresponsible in paying bills or keeping promises?
May I interject here?This is simply a case of misunderstanding. Molson misinterpreted bankers post and now banker is misinterpreting Molson's post.I don't think she is referring to the 75 dollars owed, just that you should negotiate in general .Am I correct?