90 day lates

Weird. Yes, of course these lates hurt. Your count of 9 90 days would not be correct. However, that doesn't matter, the correct amount still would not be what is on your report. Does your report say this was a charged off debt? Obviosly the lates are incorrect, dispute it.

 

Yes, any late pays hurt. The fact that it is 31-90day lates versus 1-90day late does not make a difference. I would dispute with the CRA's as "Never paid late". I would also begin the validation process. If you are dealing with the OC, they will not have any info from 1995 or 1997 to provide as validation.

good luck!

 

Here is the explanation I was given from a cc company:

Consider an account that had a scheduled payment Jan 1 and each month thereafter. This account has been paid on time prior to this date, never late. The debtor defaulted and made no more payments. Take a look.

Jan 1 missed payment #1 30 days late current

Feb 1 missed payment #2 30 day later current & 60 day late from #1

Mar 1 missed payment #3 30 day late current & 60 day late from #2 & 90 day late from #1

Apr 1 missed payment #4 30=4, 60=3, 90=2
May 1 missed payment #5 30=5, 60=4, 90=3
Jun 1 missed payment #6 30=6, 60=5, 90=4
Jul 1 missed payment #7 30=7, 60=6, 90=5
Aug 1 missed payment #8 30=8, 60=7, 90=6
Sep 1 missed payment #9 30=9, 60=8, 90=7
Oct 1 missed payment #10 30=10, 60=9, 90=7
Nov 1 missed payment #11 30=11, 60=10, 90=8
Dec 1 missed payment #12 30=12, 60=10, 90=9

To me, this doesnâ??t seem fair; because one missed payment is counted under several of the late pay notations. For example, the missed payment in January creates a 30 day, a 60 day, a 90 day, and for some companies they go up to 180 days. In my opinion it should just show one 180+ notation, not multiples.

So it is easy to see in a year, why they can come up with 9, 90 days lates. That would be equal to 27 months or over 2 years.