can they report you charged off 120 days

I'm not sure what you're saying...

If you paid it in march, then it should say paid. you may be seeing marks for late payments that are associated with the PREVIOUS lates, and they will remain for a while. As long as there is no amount in the "Past Due" column and your balance is showing $0, you are now fine.

 

I know what you are saying. World Financial Network National Bank keeps doint the same to me. Mine was paid in 03-2003, after disputing it they came bank and said it was a charge off as of 03-2006. This then shows up as a "recent" late payment, recent meaning 3 months as opposed to 3 years. This does lower your score by at least 15 points because it is "recent". Write a letter to the cra and tell them when the original charge off date was.

 

Once CO has occurred the status will (officially) be either CO or PCO (PAID CHARGE OFF).

You can occasionally get a delete or PAA (PAID AS AGREED), or luck into them updating to PAA, but it's the rare option.

CO in the status is the LAST status of the account.

 

Were the payments received prior to the date due (which will be hard to tell this late in the game)?

Just because a check was cashed in March for a March payment, doesn't mean that the March payment was timely.

For example, if your March payment was due on the 15th, they receive it (or post it) on the 17th, and they don't allow for a grace period, your account is late, and they can report it as such.

Just because the check was cashed in the month of March, doesn't mean that the check was received before the due date, and that it wasn't late.

Now, that being said, the only real way to know would be to dispute the reporting.

First, I'ld send a letter to the DF (Data Furnisher) telling them that you are requesting conclusive verification of the payment history which they are reporting.

Then, I'ld dispute the payment status to the CRAs which the lates are being reported to.

 

"For example, if your March payment was due on the 15th, they receive it (or post it) on the 17th, and they don't allow for a grace period, your account is late, and they can report it as such."

Although there may be creditors that do this, as a consumer why would you accept it, when on its face, it is erroneous reporting? The CRAs only show 30 days late, or 60 days late, etc. If they are showing on your report as 30 days late, you dispute, and they verify as accurate, but you were only 1 day late, they have verified that what the CRA is telling other creditors about you is accurate, yet is is clearly erroneous.

Reporting, by policy, as "30 days late" accounts that are actually only a few days late is both deliberate erroneous reporting, and a deceptive and unfair trade practice, since it gives them an advantage knowing they can offer you poorer terms more profitable to them with no actual increased risk, based on their erroneous damaging reports that will dissuade other creditors from undercutting their terms.

Note that this is a far more damaging an anti-competitive tactic than failing to report credit limits, because posting recent negative lates tends to damage your scores more than debt to available limit effects that can be offset by opening other accounts. Your other good accounts are a less effective counterbalance to erroneous negative TLs.

Sears had a reputation for reporting even 1 day late. They also got caught coercing consumers to reaffirm debts that had been discharged in bankruptcy, with a substantial fine. Presumeably with Citi taking over their CC operations, both practices have stopped.

Note that Citi got caught posting payments and adding late fees for payments received only hours late on the actual due date. They settled a class action a couple years ago.

Several other CC companies were caught posting payments days after they actually received checks in the mail. Although they can post the payments when they process the checks, they can't legally charge extra interest or late fees if the original check was received on time. They can, however, delay increasing your available credit by the payment made until they have processed it. See FCBA.

Same applies to processing of mortgage payments in a delayed manner to rack up bogus late fees. Search on Fairbanks Capital for examples and the penalty they paid when caught.

You have to draw a line somewhere. If you accept even the predatory actions of your creditors, they will compete with an advantage over legally-compliant competitors, damaging both you and the more responsible lenders you might prefer to use.

 

Ontrack:
If you read the legend (at least on EQ) 30 = 1-30; etc...
Would it be better if they gave the EXACT number of days, yes, but the odds of that happening are between slim and none.
True lates are not possible after CO...
But CO statuses after CO can still be reported accurately, its only reporting that (AS OF) XX/XX the account is *STILL* COed.