- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How to respond to Insufficient Debt Validation?
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:34 pm to SaintEB
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:34 pm to SaintEB
quote:
Funny thing about your statement is that you'll never get in front of a judge.
If the City makes a political decision not to pursue people that is an entirely sperate issue from whether they legally can.
They can enforce this city ordinance as easy as they can a parking ticket.
2
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:38 pm to SaintEB
quote:
Funny thing about your statement is that you'll never get in front of a judge.
Exactly.
She works for Redflex. Pretty sure she admitted as much in other threads where she was called out for shilling for the machine.
Like I said, the racket only works if a majority of those "ticketed" are scared into believing that they either will face judicial penalty or have a moral obligation to pay up to the delight of the shareholders of an Australian corporation.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:39 pm to Catman88
quote:
Wait so you refused a debt they put it on your CBR and you paid it and they took it off? Did you ask them for a Pay for Delete in advance?
I never refused anything, I paid it as soon as I found out it was there. I had never gotten a letter or I'd have paid it already.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:40 pm to Napoleon
quote:
I have two for "insufficient wait time before a turn on red" in both I stop and then go. I didn't know I had to count to three seconds.
I have one too, sold the car
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:42 pm to Pennymoney
quote:
Your honor attached is an affidavit of the dept of motor vehicles attesting Legal Tiger is the registered owner of the vehicle in question.
how does that prove guilt? All it does is establish ownership of a vehicle.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:42 pm to Pennymoney
quote:
If the City makes a political decision not to pursue people that is an entirely separate issue from whether they legally can.
They can enforce this city ordinance as easy as they can a parking ticket.
A parking ticket (I THINK) could be a (ETA not a moving violation) traffic violation. I believe a better comparison would be a code violation relating to an ordinance such as this one from San Antonio:
quote:
The keeping of junk vehicles is prohibited within San Antonio city limits.
The City prohibits the keeping of a junked vehicle in ordinary public view. Any inoperable motor vehicle without a current safety inspection sticker or current license plate can be considered a junked motor vehicle. A $200.00 per day fine can be imposed on owners of junked motor vehicles and/or the vehicle could be towed and destroyed if the violation is not corrected within 10 days of receipt of notification.
City Code: 19-358
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:43 pm to Pennymoney
quote:
They can enforce this city ordinance as easy as they can a parking ticket.
Yep. But I don't see them making threats about credit reports nor is a company out of Ohio leading the charge for parking tickets.
I paid all of my parking tickets. But, frick Redflex and the ordinance.
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:44 pm to LegalTiger
quote:
She works for Redflex. Pretty sure she admitted as much in other threads where she was called out for shilling for the machine.
Pennymoney is a she?
That explains her posts on the Rant.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:48 pm to Pennymoney
quote:
Your honor attached is an affidavit of the dept of motor vehicles attesting Legal Tiger is the registered owner of the vehicle in question.
City ordinance blah blah says the owner of the vehicle is liable for this infraction.
City asks for judgment as prayed for.
Judgment against a vehicle? I'm being serious.
As stated earlier, this is all rhetorical because the whole can of worms that is the for-profit law enforcement enterprise will be open to discovery, which your bosses that are behind the local Redflex money grab do not want out in the open. That's why Joey D and Tony T haven't been successful to date with this current council in authorizing collection suits, but I digress.
So, you haul me into court, without any proof that I was ever provided notice that I was issued a "ticket" by your company or any proof as to who the actual driver of the vehicle upon which you are attempting to impose liability. I stipulate that I am the registered owner of the vehicle...all you might have at that point is that the original fine will be judicially recognized to be owed by me. I then agree to pay $25.00, which Redflex gets to keep half, the lawyer gets a whopping 1/3 ($8.21, ftr) and the poor city/parish government will then keep what's left.
Tell me again about how this is not about money, but public safety?
Full disclosure: I have zero unpaid Redflex money grab "tickets" nor have I ever received one.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:49 pm to LNCHBOX
FYI, although the main subject is a camera ticket in LA, this has the typical language/rhetoric used for providing the basis of authority to install these cameras in TX
Link to TXDOT Red Light Camera FAQ
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:53 pm to yellowfin
quote:
I never refused anything, I paid it as soon as I found out it was there. I had never gotten a letter or I'd have paid it already.
So you paid the bill after it hit your credit report and relied on their good grace to remove it from your credit report? You realize they were under no obligation to remove that entry off your credit report for 7 years even though you paid it right. They would only have to mark it as paid or settled if you settled. (Which doesnt really help your score any) The CRA's would even prefer that pay for deletes did not even exist. To companies like TUNA,Experian and Equifax they believe that it represents your credit if it were ever valid.
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:54 pm to Catman88
quote:
So you paid the bill after it hit your credit report and relied on their good grace to remove it from your credit report? You realize they were under no obligation to remove that entry off your credit report for 7 years even though you paid it right. The CRA's would even prefer that pay for deletes did not even exist. To companies like TUNA,Experian and Equifax they believe that it represents your credit if it were ever valid.
If he paid it upon notice, it may not have hit the report at all.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:56 pm to NameWithheld
quote:
FYI, although the main subject is a camera ticket in LA, this has the typical language/rhetoric used for providing the basis of authority to install these cameras in TX
Link to TXDOT Red Light Camera FAQ
Looks like a bunch of BS to me. If a person isn't issuing the ticket, I'm not paying. And I have yet to see any long term consequences of that other than what yellowfin described. And he is literally the only person I've heard of that happening to.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 3:00 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
how does that prove guilt? All it does is establish ownership of a vehicle.
Yeah, in a face to face discussion on this issue, this is usually where the supporters of the money grab start stuttering...bbbbbbut there's an ordinance, bro....
They aren't lawyers so they have no idea what they would need to prove in court, even in a civil court with a lower BOP. Not that you need to be a lawyer to understand the necessity of proving all elements of a crime or in this case a civil action, just some basic understanding of how our civil justice system works. But then again, proponents of for-profit law enforcement really have zero respect for our judicial system or else they wouldn't be behind money grabs that subvert little things like the 5th and 6th amendments.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 3:00 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
And he is literally the only person I've heard of that happening to.
A girl that I used to work with, saw it hit her Transunion. She disputed it from the website and it was removed. Actually, it was removed while under dispute, so I'm not sure where 6-8 weeks thing would come into play.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 3:00 pm to SaintEB
quote:
If he paid it upon notice, it may not have hit the report at all.
But it sounds like he didnt know about it and he doesnt have a method to find out on his own if he does owe money for this debt until it has already hit his credit. Thats part of the problem here.
Naturally redflex or whomever collected on the debt did want to remove that tradeline because of the bad press it would lead to but they were certainly not obligated to do so unless it was proved to be invalid.
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 3/10/14 at 3:06 pm to Catman88
No, I had a letter from them saying it would be deleted for X amount of dollars and it was gone a week later.
I don't even know if this was a ticket from the Lafayette cameras or the Houston cameras because it was about a year after I moved
The bank actually took care of most of the leg work to get it removed
I don't even know if this was a ticket from the Lafayette cameras or the Houston cameras because it was about a year after I moved
The bank actually took care of most of the leg work to get it removed
Posted on 3/10/14 at 3:09 pm to yellowfin
Oh ok that is def the way to go. I have just seen too many people pay their debt thinking they were going about it the right way and continue to get screwed for years. That was why I mentioned it here.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 3:17 pm to LegalTiger
quote:
there's an ordinance, bro....
Just because a city has an ordinance doesn't mean that it can't be appealed or challenged. I have seen many instances over the years where a city has had an ordinance on the books and had it struck down by a higher court due to that ordinance being in conflict with a state or federal law or having it be determined to have created an unnecessary, unreasonable, and/or arbitrary burden.
Here is a recent example:
Court strikes down Farmer's Branch ordinance prohibiting landlords from leasing to illegal aliens
Posted on 3/10/14 at 3:21 pm to Catman88
and the reason why I never got the notice was probably because i still had a texas plate on that car so it went to my address in Houston
and for the guy that said they can't prove it was you driving, every one I have ever got has had a big ole picture of my face behind the wheel....one even had me taking a sip of my beer
and for the guy that said they can't prove it was you driving, every one I have ever got has had a big ole picture of my face behind the wheel....one even had me taking a sip of my beer
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News