ck out what creditor did....

[davids]

2002 - I received a collection for non-payment of services
amount $265...

in 2005 - a duplicate collection appeared on my credit report
for the same service, this time it was for $265 (orginal creditor)
plus $100 extra, bal $365.00

when i complained about this being a duplicate,

the 2002 collection for $265 has been deleted....

if something was to be deleted, then it should have been
the 2005.

now it will stay on my credit report 2-3 years longer then
it should have been on there.

can a creditor modify a collection years after it has been
posted to take futher advantage of this?? whats to keep
them from doing yet another modification in another 2-3 years??

is this illegal or unetical?

[lrprn]

can a creditor modify a collection years after it has been posted to take futher advantage of this?? whats to keep
them from doing yet another modification in another 2-3 years??

is this illegal or unetical?

Davids, have you sent the collection agency a certified letter asking for competent legal evidence that you owe what they say you owe? You can request this validation at any time after you've been contacted by a debt collector. If the collection agency can't produce the evidence, then they have to remove the negative from your credit report.

For more about your rights as a consumer under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, see the FTC's summary at http://ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fcrasummary.pdf - "Credit reporting agencies must correct or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information. Inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information must be removed or corrected, usually within 30 days. However, a consumer reporting agency may continue to report information it has verified as accurate."

If the agency produces the proof that your debt is verified, then find out why they post-dated the information. Did you acknowledge the debt during a phone call, for example? If you didn't, then again you can force the agency to correct their mistake by requesting that they do so in a certified letter giving them 30 days to make the correction.

Here's a good website that explains the ins and outs of Debt Validation and how to use it effectively when dealing with a collection agency - http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebu...lidation.shtml

Keep us posted about what happens with your attempts to get this resolved, ok? Good luck!

[davids]

Credit Agency

Davids, have you sent the collection agency a certified letter asking for competent legal evidence that you owe what they say you owe? You can request this validation at any time after you've been contacted by a debt collector. If the collection agency can't produce the evidence, then they have to remove the negative from your credit report.

For more about your rights as a consumer under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, see the FTC's summary at http://ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fcrasummary.pdf - "Credit reporting agencies must correct or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information. Inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information must be removed or corrected, usually within 30 days. However, a consumer reporting agency may continue to report information it has verified as accurate."

If the agency produces the proof that your debt is verified, then find out why they post-dated the information. Did you acknowledge the debt during a phone call, for example? If you didn't, then again you can force the agency to correct their mistake by requesting that they do so in a certified letter giving them 30 days to make the correction.

Here's a good website that explains the ins and outs of Debt Validation and how to use it effectively when dealing with a collection agency - http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebu...lidation.shtml

Keep us posted about what happens with your attempts to get this resolved, ok? Good luck!

the collection is valid for 2002 for $265.00 (this is the orginal collection)

what they have done is reposted it again in 2005, and just added
$100 to it.... then they turned around and deleted the original collection
from 2002.

the original collection was not in 2005, the creditor shows account
opened in 2005... which is not true inself, the actual account was
opened in 2002, but thats the account they deleted...

this collection should have not been reposted
again at all...much less reposted again 3 years
later, just to add a $100 fee to it, it was already posted in 2002...

it looks like they are doing themselves a favor, by deleting the original
collection for 2002, and keeping the highest out of the two, which
was the one they posted for 2005....

who gives them the right to make such a decision that would benefit
them no doubt, and hurt me just a little more, it will now stay on my
report 2-3 years longer, since they have deleted the original creditor
just to keep the 2005 creditor, mind you, the 2002 and 2005 is for
the same charge, they just added $100 to the 2005 creditor...

[lrprn]

the collection is valid for 2002 for $265.00 (this is the orginal collection)

what they have done is reposted it again in 2005, and just added
$100 to it.... then they turned around and deleted the original collection
from 2002.

What does the CA say the extra $100 is for? Is it a late fee? Something else?

If the $100 is a legitimate addition to what you owe, then it's perfectly legal for the collection agency to update the record and the date accordingly and delete the old 2002 record. And yes, it is to their advantage and yes, it does keep the hit on your credit report longer.

If the $100 is not a legitimate addition, then you need to dispute it through a certified letter asking the collection agency to validate the addition in writing within 30 days.

Good luck - keep us posted on what happens, ok?

[davids]

collections

What does the CA say the extra $100 is for? Is it a late fee? Something else?

If the $100 is a legitimate addition to what you owe, then it's perfectly legal for the collection agency to update the record and the date accordingly and delete the old 2002 record. And yes, it is to their advantage and yes, it does keep the hit on your credit report longer.

If the $100 is not a legitimate addition, then you need to dispute it through a certified letter asking the collection agency to validate the addition in writing within 30 days.

Good luck - keep us posted on what happens, ok?

the $100 they added, they claim its their collection fee... the $100 is not
from the orginal creditor, it is something the collection agency has
tacked on....

2002 Financial Network $265.00 (Orginal Amount owed)
would stay on credit report until 2009
Just deleted

2005 Asset Accptance $265.00 + $100 (Interest + Fees)
now it will stay on until 2012
Asset claims this account was opened in 2005,
thats not true, the original account was opened in 2002

Once an account is turned over for collections, meaning its
been submitted to your credit report...they can no longer collect
addtional fees...right? I do have items on my credit report
going back years, none of them have attempted to raise my
orginal collection by adding so called interest and fees....
basicly meaning, the collection agency can only collect
the orginal amount that was submitted to collections.

if this is truely how the system works, then how can anyone
expect to reach 7 years before it would fall off... they would
just do this again, in another 2-3 years...if you ask me, this
is not right....

once a collection ends of on your report thats it...I do not
see them having the right after 3 years coming to say, oh
its been 3 years since your collection, we are now going to
add more on your end, and keep it rolling for another 2-3 years longer.

if this is normal practice, consumers would never reach 7 years...

[lrprn]

the $100 they added, they claim its their collection fee... the $100 is not from the orginal creditor, it is something the collection agency has tacked on....

David, now that we know the $100 is not a legitimate charge (only the original creditor can add on a late fee and the collection agency can't add on a charge for their collection), take a look at http://credit.about.com/od/fastfactsfaqs/f/reaging.htm . This website does a good job explaining exactly what to do in your situation.

[davids]

collection

David, now that we know the $100 is not a legitimate charge (only the original creditor can add on a late fee and the collection agency can't add on a charge for their collection), take a look at http://credit.about.com/od/fastfactsfaqs/f/reaging.htm . This website does a good job explaining exactly what to do in your situation.

there you go, that sounds better... thats exactly what they done...
what they done is re-age the 2002 collection to 2005, thus deleting the
2002 collection...now making it more costly, and drag out longer.

now ive got to ask, once the orginal creditor gives the account
to a collection agency, and it is posted to the credit report...
can they go back and put more money on?? like posting a collection
in 2002, then in 2005 adding more fees on it...

it says a collection agency can not re-age the debt, but how about
the original creditor? only the orginal creditor could have deleted
the 2002 collection, right?

[davids]

collections

What does the CA say the extra $100 is for? Is it a late fee? Something else?

If the $100 is a legitimate addition to what you owe, then it's perfectly legal for the collection agency to update the record and the date accordingly and delete the old 2002 record. And yes, it is to their advantage and yes, it does keep the hit on your credit report longer.

do you have a link that supports this? once a collection is submitted,
it is on the credit report for 7 years.... I have never seen on my report
where a collection has been interrupted, resubmitted and the clock starts again and have years added to an original collection until now...so instead
of 7 years, it is more like 10 years... if it it supposed to be on for 7 years, then it is supposed to be on for 7 years and no longer...

and in this 3 year time frame, from 2002-2005, I never agreed to
pay anything, much less $100 in Interest and fees...

and no, I do not think anyone or company has a right to dig up
my past just so it can start over again...I do not think this is
how the system is supposed to work.

[HHM]

Let's step back...how much of your time and energy has been wasted for dealing with a $265 collection account.

Technically, by acknowledging the report is a "duplicate" you have affirmed the validity of the underlying debt. The CA does not care which one is right because at least one is right.

The best, although maybe not the most agreeable, way to deal with a collection account is to PAY IT. Get some perspective on this...its ONLY $265. (if it were $26,500 then you have issues), but come on....

Also, WHAT WAS THE "SERVICES" THAT THIS DEBT WAS FOR.

[lrprn]

WHAT WAS THE "SERVICES" THAT THIS DEBT WAS FOR.

HHM, davids answered this earlier - see http://www.bankruptcyforum.com/showt...70967#poststop -
"the $100 they added, they claim its their collection fee... the $100 is not
from the orginal creditor, it is something the collection agency has
tacked on...."

From davds's passionate frustration and multiple posts today about this, I have a feeling that this is about not paying an extra $100 he doesn't feel he should have to pay to the collections agency and getting his credit report corrected. Ultimately he'll decide how much time and energy he's willing to devote to this. It's great that you've given him another good option to consider - just paying the relatively small amount and moving on.

Good luck, davids - please keep us posted on what you decide to do.

[davids]

collection

HHM, davids answered this earlier - see http://www.bankruptcyforum.com/showt...70967#poststop -
"the $100 they added, they claim its their collection fee... the $100 is not
from the orginal creditor, it is something the collection agency has
tacked on...."

From davds's passionate frustration and multiple posts today about this, I have a feeling that this is about not paying an extra $100 he doesn't feel he should have to pay to the collections agency and getting his credit report corrected. Ultimately he'll decide how much time and energy he's willing to devote to this. It's great that you've given him another good option to consider - just paying the relatively small amount and moving on.

Good luck, davids - please keep us posted on what you decide to do.

your missing the point, its not the money. how would you feel, if a creditor sends you to collection in 2002... you know in 7 years it will be deleted, but in 2005, they modify the old collection to benefit their needs...this account has arleady been posted for 3 years... how would you feel if they just come long, when changes are done, you end up owing more money, and that 3 years is no more... the collection was sold in 2002 to a collection agency...
what if you had a 6 year collection, and all of a sudden, your creditor does some suffle...basicly restarting the collection...this would not upset you? instead of having 1 more year to ago...they reset it for another 3 years...this would not bother you....?? once the 2002 agency... rec'd this collection, it should not have been touched or modified, much less deleted and replaced with the same collection in 2005... what would the point be in expecting a collection to drop in 7 years if the creditor will not allow that....

in short...

if I sent you to collections in 2002 for $265

do you think I would have to right to re-send you
to collections in 2005 for $265 plus $100??

[HHM]

Well, if you want to get "cute" about it and get to the "real" issue...you owed someone money in 2002 and you didn't pay. Generally, most people refer to that as stealing. Now your just playing games with the creditor hoping it will drop off due to statute of limitations...who is really playing games with who here.

And you still didn't answer the question, what exactly did you owe this money for.

It just seems to me that paying a measly $265 bill would have been far better than letting it come to this...Especially since the odds are now stacked against you. You have blown your credit rating over 51.5 hours of work if you were paid minimum wage, it hardly seems worth it.

Generally, almost any contract for services or credit includes a collection charges clause, thus, it really doesn't matter who added it.

[Spartan]

Doesn't the SOL clock restart if you reaffirm the debt? Or does that only refer to where the debtor makes payment after being in default?

But HHM is right. You defaulted. They added on collection charge. Life isn't fair. But life is also short, and there are way bigger things to worry about and hassle over, than a few hundred dollars, which you legitimately owe anyway.

Just about everyone here would be rotten glad to just pay off a few hundred dollars and get our CR score back again......

I would just pay it off and move onto other more important things in life...

[davids]

talk about legitimate...

Doesn't the SOL clock restart if you reaffirm the debt? Or does that only refer to where the debtor makes payment after being in default?

But HHM is right. You defaulted. They added on collection charge. Life isn't fair. But life is also short, and there are way bigger things to worry about and hassle over, than a few hundred dollars, which you legitimately owe anyway.

Just about everyone here would be rotten glad to just pay off a few hundred dollars and get our CR score back again......

I would just pay it off and move onto other more important things in life...

you want to talk about being legitimate? everyone here legitmately owes
money, and most are working their own way around the system to benefit themselves oneway or another.

[davids]

stealing

Well, if you want to get "cute" about it and get to the "real" issue...you owed someone money in 2002 and you didn't pay. Generally, most people refer to that as stealing. Now your just playing games with the creditor hoping it will drop off due to statute of limitations...who is really playing games with who here.

everyone that comes to this forum is seeking to steal something,
however you wish to define the word "stealing"