Found another dilema on hubby's file....Hubby had c/o from 6/96 which he agreed to pay in exchange for letter to change account to "paid"...when he rcv'd letter from CA, he paid acct (we have receipts and copy of their letter)...this was last August (before I knew about this board ). As of today, they reported to TU as Paid Collection and started clock over as of 8/01 ): However, on Equifax CA is reporting as UNPAID, AND there is still an entry from the previous CA they bought from reporting as "Collection"... On Experian, The ORIGINAL CREDITOR is still reporting as charge off, first CA is reporting collection acct w/ bal AND the CA we paid is ALSO reporting collection acct UNPAID!!!! DILEMA: This account is scheduled to fall off 6/03...we were hoping to buy a house before then (but I guess we can show lender proof of payment and they are reporting INACCURATELY!) This may still give us a higher interest rate however.... Now, I know there are some violations here, and hubby got a car loan w/ high interest as a result!!! Should we ... A) Fight this (but risk that they will validate and correct EX and EQ to reflect paid collection and start clock at 8/01) B) Let slide until 6/03, when they were scheduled to fall off (thus, delaying our goal for clean credit by over 1 year?) Please help! What is the best way to tackle this???
if it is being reported multiple times, you should dispute as duplicates and those should be removed. as for being a paid collection... i would try disputing those also, since it is paid the ca may not bother to verify, or you can ask the person who wrote you the letter and see if they will agree to write another one saying paid as agreed w/o charge off notation.
Yeah, they are reporting paid charge off on TU and restarted the clock! But on Ex and Eq they are still reporting innacurately as collection/UNPAID!!! They are reporting false info, and I was thinking this may be a good time to send Doc's "nutcase" letter....just wanted to get some opinions if that would work? It would suck if they corrected it to show paid/charge off on all three reports and would have to wait til 8/08 for it to fall off!!! Maybe I should sue them for reporting false info, and try to make them pay...but it sould backfire! my husband got a higher car interest loan because of this!!!
well, they are wrong for restarting the clock. you are right in that you have violations there. it is good if you have back copies of cr's that show original date debt was to fall off to document that claim. Do you just want them reported correctly or do you want them deleted? my guess is that you want them deleted since public records tend to drive your score down. you also have them for violations of refusing to accept your proof, and reporting inaccurate information. I will look up frca sections when i get back from work. If you have documentation against cra for the violations, you may want to send intent to sue letter, especially because you have damages (hubby's car loan)
I thought when you paid you *DID* restart the clock. Am I missing something here? Doesn't a payment constitute last activity? L
If an account has been charged off and/or sent to collections, it does not reset tje 7 year clock. Here is the FTC opinion on that: 2. Is the reporting period extended if (A) the original creditor sells or transfers the account to another creditor, (B) the consumer responds to post-chargeoff collection efforts by making a payment on the debt, or (C) the consumer disputes the account with a CRA? Does it matter whether the 7-year period has expired when any of these events occurs? No. In enacting the new provisions discussed above, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- 180 days after the start of the delinquency that led to the chargeoff -- to begin the obsolescence period. It did so to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from later events under the original FCRA. Enclosed are two staff opinion letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99; Johnson, 08/31/98) that discuss the impact of these provisions, and the legislative history relating to their enactment, in more detail. Because the commencement of the seven year period is now described with some precision by the statute, it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you listed -- sale of the charged off account by the creditor, or a payment on or dispute about the account by the consumer -- changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a chargeoff.
Thank you all for your response... LKH, Do you have the link to that opinion letter so I can keep that in my records? I will start with Doc's "nutcase" letter (since it was paid) and begin my papertrail....I think it's pretty screwed up that it's being reported as unpaid....my husband got a higher interest car loan as a result! If this letter doesn't work, should I just go straight to court, since I have them on violations anyway??
