Pay for delete settlement questions

[eFlyerMan]

What is the name of your state? TX

My wife and I guaranteed a lease for my step-daughter's first college apartment. She completed the full term of her lease. I paid the rent directly and was never late. Upon move out, we shampooed the carpet and very carefully cleaned and disinfected the entire apartment.

The apartment managment, through some creative accounting and vivid imagination, found over 1300.00 worth of charges to subtract from the original deposit. I moved her in and I moved her out. The apartment was in better shape than when she moved in. We fought with the management company and they refused to budge on the amount.

The 1169.00 debt was originally due on 2/21/2006 and it was turned over to a collection agency on 7/1/2006. The collection is killing my credit score and I want to offer a pay for delete settlement.

I think I should use an escrow company to hold the money until the collection is removed. Has anyone faced this situation before? Do you have any pertinent advice that is particular to this instance?

Thanks in advance.

[JustAPal00]

It's over a year later! Did you sue in small claims court over their damage charges? They were not allowed to charge you for wear and tear! Your landlord had 30 days to refund the money, or provide you with a list of damages. Was your security deposit only $131.00? $1300 in charges, $1169 still due?

[JustAPal00]

§ 92.109. LIABILITY OF LANDLORD. (a) A landlord who in
bad faith retains a security deposit in violation of this
subchapter is liable for an amount equal to the sum of $100, three
times the portion of the deposit wrongfully withheld, and the
tenant's reasonable attorney's fees in a suit to recover the
deposit.
(b) A landlord who in bad faith does not provide a written
description and itemized list of damages and charges in violation
of this subchapter:
(1) forfeits the right to withhold any portion of the
security deposit or to bring suit against the tenant for damages to
the premises; and
(2) is liable for the tenant's reasonable attorney's
fees in a suit to recover the deposit.
(c) In an action brought by a tenant under this subchapter,
the landlord has the burden of proving that the retention of any
portion of the security deposit was reasonable.
(d) A landlord who fails either to return a security deposit
or to provide a written description and itemization of deductions
on or before the 30th day after the date the tenant surrenders
possession is presumed to have acted in bad faith.

Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3641, ch. 576, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.

[moburkes]

Its been 1 1/2 years. Why didn't you dispute this then? Did you read your state's security deposit requirements to see if the LL screwed on on anything? Otherwise, I don't see that you have any recourse at this late date UNLESS the account went to collections without a lawsuit.

[eFlyerMan]

I did dispute the debt originally and was sent a verification of debt. The original amount was 762.00 to which they added an additional 406.70 collection fee. The original deposit was 299.00

It took me until Jan 31, 2007 to receive verification of the debt and that required a 200.00 letter from an attorney. The verification they sent is filled with imaginary charges and bad math.

The original creditor wouldn't budge on the amount and we refused to pay the extortion. That's why it is with the collection agency now.

This is a company that owns units in college towns and their standard operating procedures are to take advantage of students and extort money from them after move-out.

Tecnically, they sent an accounting of the deposit on the 30th day so they are in compliance. At issue are the detail items included on the ledger. I did have an attorney review the case and they are in compliance with the letter of the law. A small claims case is still an option. the strategy now, since it is already in collection is to negotiate a pay for delete agreement.

[Chien]

There are references to pay-to-delete agreements and sample letters all over the Net. What you don’t see is the same volume of post hoc “Yeah, I did it and it worked for me” stories.

The last time I looked, the contracts between the CRAs and their permissible users precluded pay-for-deletes. The FTC is aware of this, because consumer advocate groups have lobbied to do away with that preclusion.

From the standpoint of the CRA, it makes perfect sense. Ideally, their job is to provide an accurate and informative credit history and profile. That’s not happening when Party A’s debt can be paid and remain but in a new status and Party B’s debt can be paid and vanish. A good analogy is a judgment. Pay it and it remains on the report as “judgment-paid”.

I don’t really doubt that it happens anyway, but the question is “Can you ensure it?” Your payment is going to be taken regardless, but you might find it interesting to ask if you could get a legally binding and enforceable agreement that the item will be gone in X days, and the CA is liable in damages, if it’s not. A simple contractual agreement. Offer to write it yourself. My guess is that you couldn’t get a taker.

Technically, what the CA has to do, if it has such a provision in its contract, is tell the CRA that the item was disputed and could not be verified with the creditor. Then, it’s removed because it’s unverifiable. It’s a lie but the only workaround. So continue your negotiations, but recognize the potential problem. To a certain extent, you’re going on faith.