If an acct. was was marked 30 days late as of 4-1999 does that mean the April payment was late or the March payment was late? Is it common for an acct. to be marked 30 days late 4/99 & never marked late again, but charged off in 6/99. Even if a final payment was not received can they write off the entire loan amount? Does something seem wrong with this: A 24 month loan is issued 2/97 for 3500. The acct. is marked late 30 days twice (once in 98 & once in 99) but the creditor "writes off" the entire 3500. I would assume that if it was never late more than 30 days, every payment was made. Even if they argued that the final payment wasn't received, shouldn't only that payment be written off?
I would interpret that to refer to the march payment being missed completely, meaning the last payment they received was February. I guess you could argue that 4/99 means that it was 30 days late as of 4/30/99 making the missed payment the April payment. Again, I would say it refers to the March payment. I am not sure about it being common, but I would bet it is NOT rare. Inaccuracies in reporting work both ways...correct listings listed incorrectly, and incorrect listings listed more incorrectly. There is no logic or pattern to the mess. Everything in nature steers toward entropy, including the CRA data. Sure why not. It is only incorrect if you dispute it Otherwise it can be listed any way they want. Ahhhh assuming is dangerous. As noted above, your assumption is that all information reported by the CRA is correct. We can all attest that is NOT happening. However, even if that information were correct, it is entirely possible (and likely) that the loan contract has a default clause that allows for calling the loan for any default...two 30 day lates can do that, even one could for some loans. It can only be found incorrect if you dispute it...start the process of disputing and validating the listing from both ends (the creditor and the CRA). -Peace, Dave
I interpret this to mean that you never made a payment, therefore nothing was applied towards the principle amount to decrease the amount owed on the loan. That's what it implies to me.
