My advice only comes from having over $20K in debt removed from my credit report without waiting the full seven years or filing bankruptcy. It may not be useful to some.
Congratulations to you for cleaning up your problem. Sincerely.
All disputed CRA records that can’t be verified must be deleted and the vast majority of reported and then paid debts don’t stay for the full 7 years (Shhh. Don’t tell.)
What interests me is the “pay for delete” and the “send them a contract”. That ever happen to you? Get any signed contracts back? You see, I have a different kind of practice and don’t use CRs or report to CRAs, but I consult for people who do. We’ve all heard of Pay for Delete, but I’ve never known somebody who got one (sort of like seeing Bigfoot). I’m also trying to decide whether I would fire a consulting client who was stupid enough to sign a contract guaranteeing the performance of a third-party (the CRA) or whether I would double my fees to defend them, if you sued them because they told one of the Big Three to delete a record and it ended up staying. Any input would be appreciated. I’m evaluating Urban Myths.
You see, the contract between the CA and the CRA prohibits it. No CA would ever admit they do it and any CRA would tell you that it’s prohibited. So the only way for it to work is if somebody lies. If you play by the rules, the only way for a Pay for Delete to work is for the CA to tell the CRA either “We made a reporting error” or “We’re unable to verify”, when neither is true. I’m not saying you didn’t accomplish it, I just wondered how often? (If you want to respond sotto voce, I can open up PM.)
The function of CRAs and the purpose of the FCRA are to ensure that credit grantors can have accurate and current information when making credit extension decisions and that consumers get a fair shake in the process. If somebody can pay to wipe the slate clean, while somebody else, who is dealing with the vast majority of straight-up CAs, can only pay to get a record of a paid debt, it seems to me to be analogous to paying to get your kid a military deferment instead of going to Iraq (actually, with no draft and in deference to GWB, Nam would be a better analogy), don’t you think?
If I pay debt and my FICO improves marginally and yours improves exponentially, because you happened to deal with greed-heads who ignored the rules, who am I entitled to be PO’d about? It’s so confusing, but I'm getting an idea of where your allegances lie.