"Pay for delete letters"

[HMT]

Do they actually work? I know when I (used to) get those $3.00 checks in the mail saying if you cash this your automatically are enrolled in such and such I threw 'em through the shredder. But I can't help but wonder... Would a pay to delete letter work? Sounds too good to be true and I have a feeling of the response but it is honestly something I've been pondering long before BK!

Any one out there tried this? What was the response?

Thanks!
Heather

[catleg]

What does the one thing have to do with the other?

As far as pay for delete, I'd forget it. Only for oddball creditors will that work, not the big national banks.

[HMT]

This is what I thought. I had seen posts here and there on other sites. I just asked if someone had tried or gotten results with this tactic as I still feel guilty about even thinking of BK. I come more and more to grips with it with each passing day but I'm still in the research phase and I'm still looking for the easy button I suppose Catleg. Thanks for your input though. At least I know not to waste my energy or paper trying to get this to work.

~H

[HMT]

What people were saying was to send 1 or 2 hundred dollars and hope they just cash it thinking it's a partial payment without fully reading the letter attached. There are sites on the net (I won't post 'em but if you search with this title you can see) I just didn't know if there was any validity to this or not was just asking if anyone had done this and what the outcome was. I sort of feel Catleg is right on about this though. I can't see Citi, or BoA doing this... maybe a JDB but I'd think you'd be close to SOL by the time they accept it. The only thing I have to compare it to is those $3 checks the cc's send out hoping you won't read the letter....

Didn't mean to confuse, or offend if I have I am sorry.

[catleg]

I've heard of this as a credit repair technique, but would only really work with JDB type creditors. You offer a few bucks for a clean TL.

[HMT]

Ohhhh, well that makes more sense for me! Thank you! I had been trying to figure out why everyone wouldn't just do this first but this is more you have a few small debts that are 5 yrs old and dragging you down so just send it out and it'll get rid of them (MAYBE) but when you are looking at BK you are really too far gone.

Is this what you are saying?

[HHM]

Restricted endorsements on checks...which is what you are talking about, are not enforceable.

Let's say you send one of these, and they do not comply. What are you going to do? Are you willing to sue them? Basically, any sort of restrictive endorsements on a check is not valid. Don't waste your money.

[catleg]

There is no need to pay for deletion when you file BK.
The status of the accounts changes to "included in BK" which is a neutral status.
You may need to do some disputing of your credit files after BK, to ensure no derogs remain.
But as I said, pay for deletion is a credit repair technique and thus frowned upon in most circles.

[hereforinfo]

They won't/can't delete valid history because it actually violates their terms with the credit bureaus.

[IBroke]

The status of the accounts changes to "included in BK" which is a neutral status.

Accounts with the remark "included in BK" might still have a negative impact on your credit score - at least based on the information I got from experienced users from credit-forums.

[HMT]

I've got you, I just wanted to know about/understand it, I'm not planning on doing it. I really needed to know what real people thought about it and if anyone had tried it. Seeing these things online you never know what to think.

You're right HMM What would I do if they just cashed it and didn't follow the letter? I couldn't do a thing!

Thank you all for opening my eyes to this.

As I said, I truly am sorry if I somehow offended by bringing it up, it was not my intention at all!

OK I'll keep researching BK and junk this crazy scheme! It gets put into the "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!" folder in my brain ;)

Have a good night,
~H

[IBroke]

Restricted endorsements on checks...which is what you are talking about, are not enforceable.

Let's say you send one of these, and they do not comply. What are you going to do? Are you willing to sue them? Basically, any sort of restrictive endorsements on a check is not valid. Don't waste your money.

I used this so-called "Westcap"-method more than once.

The last time, I removed a CA-account from my file. First, they didn't want to comply but after I told them they will be sued, they removed it. I presented the check to my attorney and he said that it can be enforced.

It also depends if you are paying in full or not. And it depends on your state-law. If you offer a payment in full with a restricted endorsement and they refuse to accept the check, they might even lose the right to collect the money from you - again, depending on state-law.

Westcap:

CASHING OF THIS CHECK REPRESENTS PAYMENT IN FULL TO WHOM THE CHECK WAS ISSUED. CREDITOR AND/OR ITS ASSIGNEE, AGENCY, COURT, LAWFIRM AGREE TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL DEROGATORY INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED AGAINST SAID ACCOUNT BY SAID FIRM AND BY SAID FIRMS ORIGINAL CLIENT AND CREDITOR WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF TENDER. TENDERING OF THIS INSTRUMENT SHALL INDICATE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE AMENDED TERMS OF THE CARDHOLDER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. VOID IF RIGHTS RESERVED

http://consumers.creditnet.com/Discu...ter-42936.html

Or simply google "Westcap endorsement"..

[IBroke]

You're right HMM What would I do if they just cashed it and didn't follow the letter? I couldn't do a thing!

Oh yes, you can. You can sue them for breach of contract - because that's exactly what it is.

[HHM]

Oh yes, you can. You can sue them for breach of contract - because that's exactly what it is.

That is just it, restrictive endorsements on checks DO NOT create a contract.

[IBroke]

You can't sue for a breach of a contract when what you asking for in the contract violates State or Federal Law.... The FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) makes it illegal to remove or alter accurate negative information. Once the information has been placed in your file it cannot legally be removed or altered.

So you write a letter or endorsement on a check and it is not enforceable since you cannot force someone do something illegal. Not to mention now you are attempting to commit fraud and you can be charged with a crime for trying to 'pay' the reporting party to remove negative accurate information in exchange for money. Go read the FTC website on credit repair. Talks all about trying to remove accurate negative information being illegal.

Also on a side-note the "WesCap" Method was thought up prior to the rewriting of the 2001 FCRA. So prior to that date it might have been viable in some states. But since the FCRA was updated and amended in 2001 it is no longer usable.

Interesting - guess my attorney was wrong. But as I said, it worked for me several times - POST 2001.

Another question cocerning the updated FCRA would be IF they should cash such a check with an endorsement in the first place they already know they can't fullfill ("void if rights reserved")...In other words - can they take the money although they can't deliver?

But anyway, when somebody is looking forward to CH7, I agree it doesn't make sense to even attempt "pay for delete". The gain (if any) from removing some derogatory accounts from your file would be minimal - especially with a following BK on your file.

In that case, saving the money for the attorney is certainly the better option.