I am so ticked off. Ok, so I have a Bloomingdale's charge-off that is being re-aged by Experian (of course). I disputed with them and the same info came back verified. Here's what my report shows: ----------------------------------------------------- BLOOMINGDALES/FDSB Status: Closed/Account charged off. $652 written off. Status Details: This account is scheduled to continue on record until 5-2006. This item was verified and updated on 3-2002. Date Opened: 09/1994 Type: Revolving Reported Since: 10/1994 Terms: NA Date of Status: 03/2002 Monthly Payment: $0 Last Reported: 03/2002 Credit Limit/Original Amount: NA High Balance: $652 Recent Balance: $652 as of 03/2002 Recent Payment: $0 Account History: Charge Off as of 6-1999, 5-1999, 11-1998 180 days as of 8-1998 to 10-1998 150 days as of 6-1998, 12-1996, 10-1995 120 days as of 6-1998, 6-1997, 11-1996, 5-1996, 9-1995 90 days as of 4-1998, 5-1997, 10-1996, 4-1996 60 days as of 3-1998, 11-1997, 4-1997, 9-1996, 3-1996 --------------------------------------------------------- Everything is wrong! This account has not been current or had any payments since early 1997. On top of that, they are using the 2nd charge-off date to start the 7 year clock - not even the first (which would be wrong anyway since the clock is calculated 180 days after the delinquency that led to the charge-off). Seems like willful non-compliance to me! So I called Bloomingdale's and see if they can tell my when the account went delinquent. The rep didn't have that info in the computer but said I could send a written request for the accounting history. She did however, have the original charge-off date of 11/98 (first strike). And she stated that the item will remain on my report for 7 years from that date. I explained to her that she was incorrect and that they were illegally reaging the account (don't even know why I wasted my time - I was just pissed). She kept telling me "We are trained that it is 7 years after charge-off. We are Federated Department Stores. We own 9 stores. We would never do anything illegal". - like something out of a bad Sci-Fi movie! UGH! I saw that was going nowhere fast. Bottom line - what to do? Seems to me like I have grounds to threaten a suit. But which one do I target?
This is really, really starting to sound familiar. I started pulling my stuff together to file against them last night. I want to wait until the one I currently have against a CA settles, but if anyone is interested in Class Action, I will be more than happy to get the ball rolling by filing in federal court here. This is number three with Experian that I have heard about in the past week or so just on this board. Since we only a little over 2,000 members, those percentages seem high to me...or at least a pattern is beginning to develop. L
I also have a problem with an account from 1995 being 'charged off" 7/1996 not 180 days after last payment,but a full year... This sucks soooo bad... _________________________________________________Someone told me that acounts prior to the ammendments made in 1997 to the FCRA don't get to start the clock at 180 days after the last date of payment but the 7 yrs starts when the company decides to charged off the debt..
It seems to me that the original creditor is just as guilty as the CRA and sometimes more, when it comes to re-aging. If the creditor is reporting the information incorrectly and then verifying it, then they are the guilty ones.
I just had an 2 charge off accounts that I disptued, from EXP, that was schedule to continue until 12-2002. They re-aged both and now it is scheduled to continue until 3-2009!! Those bastards!!!
But...the question here is...did they re-age it AFTER you disputed it or were they reporting it wrong the entire time and just keep verifying? Part of my case will be they reaged it in retaliation...lol. L
I am definitely having the same issue with Experian. They or the original creditor, which happens to be one of FDS stores(Rich's) have re-aged a charge-off twice now. First charge-off changed from 1996 to 1999 (fall of due in 2006); then it changed to 2002, fall off due 2009. I'm going after the creditor in this case, since they also pulled a hard inquiry after I asked them not to, and disputed these dates. I don't think it is Exp who keeps changing the Charge-off dates, someone is definitely reporting something incorrectly.
I am seeing a patterm with FDSB as well. In addition to my Bloomingdale's account, I have a Macy's charge-off that is also being re-aged by two years. This one is still in dispute with Experian but based on experience I am sure it will be verified. In my case, they have been reporting wrong the entire time. I smell a lawsuit.
Oh, almost forgot... Lynn112, If I'm not mistaken, according to an FCRA Staff Opinon letter, the law applies to accounts <I>charged-off or sent to collection</I> after December 29, 1997. So if an account was delinquent beginning 1995 but not charged off until 1998, the 180 day rule applies. Here is the opinion letter: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/kosmerl.htm If I am wrong, someone please correct me.
This was my basis for suit against Verizon which I didn't have to file because they settled prior. They re-aged in retaliation and pulled a hard inquiry to boot. Even without the inquiry I had them. I've posted all my correspondence with them on the board here: First and Second email Final email
So if a charge-off occurs before this date (in my case 11/97) when does the 7 years start? (5 years in my case due to being a New Yorker - YIPPY!) Is it from the date of the first delinquency without the extra 180 days (10/96 i think)? Or from the charge-off date (11/97)?
It would be the charge off date. I am in NY too which is why I am so mad about all of this. I am planning to pay these accounts so they will be deleted (it's been 5 years) but it does me no good if they keep re-aging them.
Hey all,I am in New York too so does that mean that my charge off in 7-1996 has to be removed because it is more than 5 yrs old!!!! That would make me sooooooo happy!!!!!!!!
Thanks donnav! Now all I have to do is get the actual date of the charge-off from Sallie Mae. EQ reporting 6/96(already removed) 6/97 and 11/97 - TU reporting all at 11/97 and EX reporting all at 6/98 I am afraid to ask Sallie Mae for the correct dates of the charge-offs because I wouldn't want them to say 6/98 and then start reporting it that way!!! I'm thinking I might just wait untill the end of the year to apply for mortgage once these items are off of both EQ and TU and just keep disputing on EX hoping they will just come off (scheduled for 6/03). Decisions, decisions, decisions....
You can add me to the list of people with a re-aged tradeline from FDS. Have been fighting a "paper war" with FDS (FACs) and the CRA over this issue... should be due to expire end of this year- they have it staying on until 2005... the woman I have been corresponding with at FDSB is completely inept - I feel your frustration!!!
It's ford motor credit.I tried to dispute,but it came back validated with a higher balance.I'll have to try agian..........
Lynn, Has it been paid? NY State law says that paid charge-offs must be removed after 5 years. I'm not sure if they will remove it if it's not paid - I haven't tried that. But on another thread yesterday, someone said you may be able to get it removed. Kit, I believe the reps are nothing more than programmed robots incapable of intelligent thought. I really wanted to reach through the phone and slap her. lol I got the fax number for their legal department and plan on sending a not so nice letter tomorrow. If I have to sue them to get them to follow the law, so be it.
