Personal Finance

Should I pay off this outstanding debt??

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 6th, 2015 10:23 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
Jun 6, 2015
1435 posts
233 upvotes
bruceh2015 wrote: No.

If a person has honestly run into financial trouble or is the victim of a serious mistake, they should not be subjected to protracted credit damage beyond the legal limits.

I'm all for paying back old debts, but not for shooting oneself in the foot.
Bruce - if you actually read this guy (OP) and all his posts, he is FAR from that scenario.

Sure for people who come on hard times and need a leg up, I am all for support, but this is not applicable at all. Just read.
Deal Addict
Jun 6, 2015
1435 posts
233 upvotes
popbottle wrote: Exactly. You couldn't get it more like nail on the head.

Also consider that you aren't required to tell any person or company where you work and/or where your bank account is except at a hearing that you legally receive a summons to.
Also another good indicator of where morality lies is check what popbottle is saying - when he says one way, run the other, because you can be pretty safe that is giving information that is either misguided/incorrect or just plain corrupt!
Deal Addict
Jun 6, 2015
1435 posts
233 upvotes
mikeymike1 wrote: Less than noble collection agencies are well known to circumvent some policies by reporting assignment dates as DOLA dates.
Filing bureau disputes is only recourse and usually gets incorrect data removed.
Why educate known crooks? :)
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 7, 2009
13885 posts
1368 upvotes
mikeymike1 wrote: Agencies have been known to perform duties and processes within legal limits as well as outside of legal limits to entice, mislead or coerce payment on a debt. You should know this.

The statue of limitations law within the Limitations Act Ont. in conjunction with the Consumer Reporting Act Ont. is meant to reside with the original claimant/creditor(trade accounts). Account date identifiers such as the date of last activity/date of first delinquency will serve as evidentiary grounds for SOL timelimits.
Negotiations with or through 3rd parties for settlements, debt repayment plans,(unless made with original creditor) or any other type of resolution does not reset or begin count of consumer credit reporting SOL timelimits.

Less than noble collection agencies are well known to circumvent some policies by reporting assignment dates as DOLA dates.
Filing bureau disputes is only recourse and usually gets incorrect data removed.
So knowing this, why in the world do you and others advocate for working with collection agencies without even a hint of cynicism? Is your contempt for broke deadbeats really so strong? Are they really the lesser of two evils here? Look, if it were the original creditor and they were making best effort attempts to collect on their own accounts, then I would absolutely counsel toward repayment. But when they sell your debt off to a 3rd party, all bets are off. The collection agency cares about one thing, and they will flirt with or outright break the law to achieve it. That is not an organization I want anyone giving money to, regardless of the circumstances leading up to there.
In a perfect system, corporations would fear the government and the government would fear the people. - David Wong

Check out caRpetbomBer's picks in this thread.
Deal Addict
Jan 2, 2015
1633 posts
639 upvotes
Toronto, ON
I'm trying to find an article about a guy in the States who fights collection agencies, and wins. He owes lots of money, but there's a lot of lawbreaking, and he's basically paying off his debts with earnings from his court cases. The collection agencies are afraid of him. Alas, I'd forgotten to save the link.

Many years back I had collections agencies after me. Some were alright, some weren't. The ones who were alright got paid off. In at least one case, the amount that was owing was pretty small, and the collections agent was a jerk, so I went to the original company and paid them directly. That stopped the calls from the jerk. Fortunately this was more than seven years ago, and there's no mention of that on either of my credit reports.

I wouldn't automatically assume a collection agency is corrupt. Some are pretty decent. Of course, if you can pay off the original creditor, that's even better, but I suspect in a lot of cases you cannot.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 20, 2011
5310 posts
484 upvotes
Vancouver
Syne wrote: So knowing this, why in the world do you and others advocate for working with collection agencies without even a hint of cynicism? Is your contempt for broke deadbeats really so strong? Are they really the lesser of two evils here? Look, if it were the original creditor and they were making best effort attempts to collect on their own accounts, then I would absolutely counsel toward repayment. But when they sell your debt off to a 3rd party, all bets are off. The collection agency cares about one thing, and they will flirt with or outright break the law to achieve it. That is not an organization I want anyone giving money to, regardless of the circumstances leading up to there.
The answer is because of the Patented Holier-than-thou(tm) system. People get satisfaction from sending barbs when people didn't pay a bill when the said person couldn't give a flying explicit toy helicopter.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 16, 2007
8134 posts
3485 upvotes
Financial District B…
Syne wrote: So knowing this, why in the world do you and others advocate for working with collection agencies without even a hint of cynicism?
I have no problems supporting the recovery and collections segment whatsoever. They are a vital element and a required process when evaluating lending principles and risk management.
While some 3rd party agencies may operate in an aggressive nature, some of the many clients they are chasing cause and dictate how they are to be treated.

You want respect and niceness when you defaulted on your account? Well, you had that from us, the bank, when you first defaulted. It takes anywhere from 5-7 months for any account to go from paid as agreed to charge-off.

You couldn't and didn't care less during that time frame and ignored all other collection attempts from the original creditor for months afterwards.


Syne wrote: Is your contempt for broke deadbeats really so strong? Are they really the lesser of two evils here?
Is your contempt for the banking and finance industry and any and all required processes from agencies, partnered companies or otherwise to recover unpaid debts really so strong?

Your failure to acknowledge the fact the OP stated he is seeking a mortgage in the near future is quite evident of your purpose on these forums.
To advise delinquents to stay delinquents no matter what other purpose or intent there is.

Yes the 'score' damage has been done. A collections trade affects the algorithm which affects the overall score value which advises everyone you're a high risk.
The difference between an unpaid collection to a paid and settled collection is gauged and ranked on a risk scale - this is not reflected on score.
Why is it conditional commitments stipulating unpaid collections must be settled prior to closing exists? Majority of all mortgage lenders will demand this.
Yes, the score damage has been done... there's a whole lot more to qualifying than just score. Seems I have to repeat this over and over.

Moreover, your previous postings in regards to consumer privacy, ERC- employment checks and any corporate policy and authority in general clearly shows you hold a stance of being oppressed by systems and at every chance you're going to promote your own misguided toxic condemnation to forum members who may be trying to right any concerns they may have.
Its quite sad that your jab back at the industry and its system(s), where you take no responsibility for the creation of your own issues, is to coerce and deflect advice from those who want to give credit help.

Syne wrote: Look, if it were the original creditor and they were making best effort attempts to collect on their own accounts, then I would absolutely counsel toward repayment. But when they sell your debt off to a 3rd party, all bets are off. The collection agency cares about one thing, and they will flirt with or outright break the law to achieve it. That is not an organization I want anyone giving money to, regardless of the circumstances leading up to there.
You don't know if any account has been rightfully sold or not. You don't know if the recovery process is being performed by in-collections or by 3rd party assignments.
Many perform recovery services on a contingency debt collection agreement so you have no idea if the actual collection is for the original creditor or not do you?
----------------------------Licensed Credit Bureau member, S1, FI Automotive, CCP forums most banned = x 13 and counting, guess who that is?... stomped to the curb once again
Deal Addict
Apr 13, 2015
1108 posts
214 upvotes
The suggestion that accounts end up in collections purely as a consequence of contempt for the system is rediculous. Many people find themselves in this position due to pure inability to pay. However , the assumption made by every collection agency I've dealt with is that I'm there due to a refusal to pay. Which is why I resent OSAP so much . There errors put me into collections at a time I couldn't pay. Because I was in collections, I didn't qualify for any relief programs. Because I couldn't qualify for relief, and because they put me there due to their errors, I refused to pay until I had sufficient income.

Glad I'm finally free of this nonsense and hope to never be there again.
Deal Addict
Apr 13, 2015
1108 posts
214 upvotes
Furthermore, what no creditor/collection agency wants you to know is that once your in collections maximum damage to your credit had already been done. 10%, 50%, 99% paid from here doesn't help. Your credit only begins to improve once 100% paid. You're not improving credit with partial payments, only staving off legal action on large accounts. Choose your debt repayment obligations accordingly.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 7, 2009
13885 posts
1368 upvotes
mikeymike1 wrote: I have no problems supporting the recovery and collections segment whatsoever. They are a vital element and a required process when evaluating lending principles and risk management.
Vital to lenders, detriminal to a whole bunch of other people.
While some 3rd party agencies may operate in an aggressive nature, some of the many clients they are chasing cause and dictate how they are to be treated.
That sounds like a justification. By "Aggressive in nature" you mean breaking civil laws, right? Civil laws that require the claimant file an expensive lawsuit to pursue. Ligitation which in this case, the law-breaker knows the claimant can't afford. Funny how that relationship works. Interesting power differential, don't you think?
You want respect and niceness when you defaulted on your account? Well, you had that from us, the bank, when you first defaulted. It takes anywhere from 5-7 months for any account to go from paid as agreed to charge-off.

You couldn't and didn't care less during that time frame and ignored all other collection attempts from the original creditor for months afterwards.
Many banks (especially now) hold the accounts for >2yrs and pursue lawsuits within the required SOL, usually with accounts >$10,000. I see nothing wrong with this as the reduced SOL in Ontario is having its exactly intended effect, which is to force banks and other companies to deal directly with borrowers. Why is this important? Because legislation aiming to strengthen this relationship comes from an understanding of how exploitative collection agencies can be (see above point).
Is your contempt for the banking and finance industry and any and all required processes from agencies, partnered companies or otherwise to recover unpaid debts really so strong?
No, just collection agencies. I do not support them. Their entire existence is poorly premised.
Your failure to acknowledge the fact the OP stated he is seeking a mortgage in the near future is quite evident of your purpose on these forums.
To advise delinquents to stay delinquents no matter what other purpose or intent there is.
OP will clearly have to wait 2 years for the mortgage either way. That doesn't mean it's good advice for him to pay the debt. Am I wrong?
Yes the 'score' damage has been done. A collections trade affects the algorithm which affects the overall score value which advises everyone you're a high risk.
The difference between an unpaid collection to a paid and settled collection is gauged and ranked on a risk scale - this is not reflected on score.
Why is it conditional commitments stipulating unpaid collections must be settled prior to closing exists? Majority of all mortgage lenders will demand this.
Yes, the score damage has been done... there's a whole lot more to qualifying than just score. Seems I have to repeat this over and over.
There's not enough transparency by banks in lending practices for me to have any confidence in these extra variables that go into the algorithm. I'll take your word for it that they exist. Either way, OP will have to wait for this account to fall of his report before getting a mortgage (barring a huge down payment or a co-signer). So with that in mind, Assuming he is a single borrower basing his mortgage primarily on credit score, I stand by my original advice. I do not advise him to pay the old debt.
Moreover, your previous postings in regards to consumer privacy, ERC- employment checks and any corporate policy and authority in general clearly shows you hold a stance of being oppressed by systems and at every chance you're going to promote your own misguided toxic condemnation to forum members who may be trying to right any concerns they may have.
Its quite sad that your jab back at the industry and its system(s), where you take no responsibility for the creation of your own issues, is to coerce and deflect advice from those who want to give credit help.
I am absolutely trying to help. My past experiences give me the ammunition to help. I know you see me as some jilted misfit, trying to get back at 'the man' but those troubles are well behind me. I come by my views honestly. No I don't think that credit checks should preclude you from employment as a general labourer. No I don't think testing for 30-day-old marijuana use is relevant to your ability to perform a job, and no I don't think that people who have paid their debt to society should be forced to disclose it on a job application. That's why they served their time. Those are my views, and I believe that they are well reasoned.
You don't know if any account has been rightfully sold or not. You don't know if the recovery process is being performed by in-collections or by 3rd party assignments.
Many perform recovery services on a contingency debt collection agreement so you have no idea if the actual collection is for the original creditor or not do you?
That's true I don't.. but at this point in (5yrs?) I highly doubt it's a contingency arrangement. OP can of course clarify for us if he can manage to get a straight answer from a collection agent.
In a perfect system, corporations would fear the government and the government would fear the people. - David Wong

Check out caRpetbomBer's picks in this thread.
Newbie
Sep 9, 2015
2 posts
Lethbridge, AB
Gonna chime in here with my own issue. The collections agency insists that CIBC has not sold my debt. I am 1 month shy of the 2 yr SOL in Alberta. Can the bank still sue me in the next month? And before everyone rags on me for not paying my debts, there has been hardship the last 5 years.

Top