When a previously charged-off account is finally paid, does the date of last activity change on the account? Does the 7 year clock start all over? I am confused on this point and trying to advise a friend. Thanks for help. Calmest_LA
No! Paying an account does not affect the date that CRAs use to calculate the delete date. NO! NO! NO! You pay...then the date paid is updated, but all the systems check a 'purge date' which is a date they calculate off the delinq. dates. If it was written off 6.5 years ago, and you pay it, the timer still says "6.5 years". Payment does not affect the purge cycles for deletion. Period.
Hey, At least "InsideGuy" is learning from us as well as teaching us! I would like to have someone other than don richman who is at TU and knowledgeable about the law and the system. InsideGuy, I have a ? FNBM has sent 2 UDFs to TU to update. TU had deleted the acct when I disputed the pay history. Last time I called, the rep said that since FNBM did not reply using the dispute reply form, they refuse to reinsert. I don't get it. Doesn't seem legal to me. Any advice?
InsideGuy, Thanks for the info! Your explanation was nice and clear. I will tell my friend I heard it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Please stick around the board for awhile. I'm sure there are plenty of members who could benefit from your advice and knowledge. Thanks! Calmest_LA
Glad to see you here InsideGuy expect a bit of razzing... but it's good to have someone from inside on the board. Expect differing opinions.. that's part of the game As to the drop date, this guy's right on the money regarding the drop date.. but only if the trade line has a complete history attached to it and assuming the creditor doesn't reage it for you for paying it (that's illegal but it happens). You may take a hit on score for paying it. This info is directly from a Fair Isaac rep: If the account is coded correctly and has a history reported with it then paying it shouldn't reset the date of last activity and shouldn't drop your score. Unfortunately... however, if your account doesn't have the appropriate history to it then paying it can make the pay date the date of last activity and for FICO purposes.. it can and will dramatically lower your score as it makes the derog appear to be in the last 24 months for scoring purposes... remember: FICO is a predictor of future delinquencies and if it thinks it sees new, recent delinquency you'll take a huge score hit... which is why we try to negotiate a delete or an "unrated" trade line in with a settlement... a full deletion being the safer of the 2 Unfortunately, TransUnion is the one that is updating its systems the most and doesn't disclose the history of payments to you... so it'll be hard for you to tell if a lender will see that it's an older derog because you're not going to get full disclosure from TU... the only real way to tell how the bureaus are reporting your info is for you to get a trimerge and look for yourself (find a nice mortgage broker or a banker) to see a copy for yourself.
Well, hello, inside guy. Welcome to our board. I'm with Marie, expect a lot of razzing, but I think it's good to have people like you around. It shows that people are making honest efforts to comply with the law. Again, welcome.
Alright - I'm gonna take some bashing. I'l try to learn my way 'round these boards. If anything, alot of what goes on around here is guessing. It takes up alot of your time. I think i can help you understand if asked. I don't want to blatantly defend CRAs....but of course working here helps me understand how difficult it is to pull all this off (credit reporting, FCRA). Some troubles are because of technology not keeping up, some because FCRA creates catch-22s. Alot of times - and this is hard to believe - the laws actually hurt the consumer. In other words, we wind up acting in the interest of adhering to conflicting laws that put us at risk at the expense of the consumer. Also, so goofy things that piss you off keep us from going bankrupt. Re-insertion of data: People hate when good acc'ts get deleted. Then, they don't get reinserted. Well, the FTC and sue-happy folks had a bug up their butt about LEGITIMATE re-isertions, such to the point that to defend and settle the legit ones was ruining us (taking away money needed to reinvest in realtional database, etc, etc...things that would help mixed file...etc) Anyway, remove the risk to survive: Stop all reinsertions. It worked. This is one example. I do think alot of the ID issues need to be resolved. Something needs to be standardized industry-wide. There may be hope. The old FTC scared us to death. Why? Because asking for their help usually meant things got worse. The say it - it's law. What is needed is a set of standards....something sponsored to consolidate data and ID issues, yet assure all involved there is no collusion. I think it's coming. It's behind the techno leaps, but that's the way it is. The economy exploded (for the good), and CRAs played a part - but there is catch up to be played. Alot of your grief, I understand. Alot, I don't. Generally, most people will never need to deal with us - and that's a plus. But there needs to be more standardization and less FEAR OF GOV agencies by the CRA's ....a partnership is needed....but not at the cost of over-regulation.
Interesting post. I'm curious. It seems that Equifax will update a trade line in favor of the consumer if the OC doesn't respond (eg: a zero balance correction)... I dispute 0 balance... the OC doesn't bother getting back to the CRA... Equifax will update the balance to 0 Experian will normally update the balance to 0 TU will delete why has TU changed its policy on this one? Or have they?... Also.. it seems if we dispute a negative trade line (say with some neg history) and say it's the same scenario... are we being paranoid? or is it more likely that TU will actually update the balance to 0 but leave the neg trade line... I'm wondering: is it paranoia that we think you guys have a tendency to want to leave the negs... or is it just dumb luck? This is really fun asking you these questions, actually. Glad to see you're staying here to help us better understand the system... and you are right... most aren't stuck with mixed files so most people (as a whole population) deal with you guys rarely if ever (I still have friends who don't even check their reports once a year)... but I try to change that! thx
TU does indeed re-insert tradelines that were deleted in error. Had that happen to me a few months ago and got it corrected in a few days once I figured out what had happened.
InsideGuy, I for one don't think you should be subjected to any bashing, afterall, we all do something for a living. I say, thanks for posting and being willing to share with us, this is an intelligent and friendly board, you've no reason to expect anything less. I am bothered by your statement: "If anything, alot of what goes on around here is guessing. It takes up alot of your time. I think i can help you understand if asked." Could you direct me or give examples of what you consider to be "guessing." Maybe trying to understand the actions or unactions of the CRA's could be considered guessing, you've got to admit though, sometimes trying to work with the players involved, CRA's -- OC's -- CA's, doesn't make any sense at all, though the industry laws are generally pretty clear together with FTC opinions and caselaw interpretations, the parties either make up their own rules or just decide they don't have to adhere to them -- that's my take on the guessing anyway. Why is it difficult to "pull all this off (credit reporting/FCRA)"? If we're all playing with the same rules and you have the benefit of technology in your court, it seems to be that accuracy in reporting would be the rule and not the exception. I'm curious which you think to be true, just your opinion based on the insight of your occupation, do you think most reports are accurate? Well, I have to clarify, though the technology is available, TransUnion especially is behind the times in implementing it -- that would sure make your job easier. However, I've not read anywhere that there are exceptions to the laws because of a delay in updating, improving, maintaining -- whatever, computer and database technology. I'm curious too your opinion of laws creating catch-22's and hurting consumers. I personally don't think the law goes far enough to insure accuracy in reporting, that said, how can any laws that allow us to question accuracy hurt us. The only times I've been hurt, haven't been by the laws, but by those choosing not to follow them. "Also, so goofy things that piss you off keep us from going bankrupt." This really bothers me, not that you said it but that you actually confirmed it. The CRA's make tons and tons of money from consumers exercising their rights -- when that wasn't enough money, now consumers can insure the steady cash flow and goldplate the business, by subscribing to the monitoring services provided by the companies. I disagree that most people will never need to deal with CRA's -- that statement tends to support your position on my earlier question of whether you think most reports are accurate or inaccurate. I think a more honest statement would be that most people may never know that they need to deal with CRA's or never understand the impact of not dealing with CRA's. I don't have a problem with the business one way or another except where it concerns my privacy, but it is a business, accumulating and distributing data. What seems to get lost, is that in the accumulation and distribution of that data, when not accurate, consumers -- people, humans trying to feed families and live -- you and me, are harmed, and undoing that harm is no easy process, laws aside. It should be at least as easy and timely for me to have inaccurate information corrected as it is for the CRA's to keep reporting it, yes? That's my grief, what grief is it that you are having a hard time understanding? Welcome to the board, InsideGuy. Sassy
