I have been back and forth with good ol' Mr. Cooke for almost a year now. I contacted him about a PAID chargeoff from 1999 (that's when it was paid). He agreed to change it to an R5, BUT it seems to change ratings from month to month. I have contacted him at least 4 different times in this last year about this and everytime he says he'll just change it back. I have followed Quixotes reasoning with Mr. Cooke, but apparently I am damned forever. Do I have anything based on the following reporting from the CRA's.....to me it doesn't seem 100% accurate. TU: Settled for less than full balance Opened; 4/98 Closed; 1/98 Balance $0 Most owed $187 EXP Settled for less than full balance opened 4/98 closed; 8/98 30 days 5/98 60 days 6/98 90 days 7/98 120 days 8/98 EQU **this is the one that changes back and forth from 120 days late to paid chargeoff** opened 4/98 closed 1/98 blance;$0 most owed $603 **RIGHT NOW IT SAYS PAID CHARGEOFF** Now here's the best part, I just found the collection letter where me and the CA agreed to settle: 4/22/99 Principal balance $555.08 Interest owing: $42.17 Total Balance due: $597.25 Number of accts. 1 The letter says in a nutshell: Our client agreed to the settlement of $425 (which I paid), in return your account will be marked "settled IN FULL" Our client will notify the appropriate credit bureaus that this account has been settled in full. Ok so the bureaus are all wacky, some say it was closed before it was ever opened. Some say I owed $603 which I never did (I never made a payment to this acct. until it went to the CA). If I ride out this garbage it will fall off 8/05. This account is SUCH a hassle. I just want it gone, but Mr. Cooke can't understand why. IF it was reported right on all 3 reports I'd be ok with that, but we all know it won't happen. What to do?
KHM, If I'm understanding correctly, you paid a collection agency correct? If that's the case, I'm going to say that the collection agency can't make Capital One report anything. The CA can change THEIR records to report "Settle in Full" but Capital One isn't obligated to follow suit. That's just on that point. Secondly, whatever Mr. Cooke is saying, you should get it in writing. You can dispute the entries as inaccurate - I have never owed 603 or whatever else. But the fact remains, as far as CapOne is concerned, it IS a paid charge off and without having something in writing, you don't have too much of a leg to stand on. You can try to take them to court for failing to report accurate information and at the most, you'll get an update report showing you paid $425, paid charge off, settled for less than balance rating. I know you may not like it but it might serve you well to let it go. Everything won't be a win. Choose your battles wisely.
Sas- I am willing to settle for what he promised, but in a year he has yet to provide it. When it reports as 120 days past due instead of paid chargeoff it doesn't hamper my efforts in obtaining credit. In the 4 times we've spoken I've asked him to send me something in writing stating that it should be 120 days late and not paid chargeoff, everytime he has promised he would but hasn't. Don't get me wrong Mr. Cooke is as professional as they get at any CC agency. I don't want to sue Cap One by any means, but this is the last of my worries. I've been to 2 mortgage brokers in the last year, once when Cap One was reporting paid chargeoff and one when it said 120 days late. The interest rates were off by about 1% (I went about 3 months apart), the killer was the paid chargeoff. I'm going to try a modified version of Quixotes verbal nutcase to Cap One. Long story short, I don't want to be back and forth with Cap One for another 3 years. BTW the CA never reported it.
SweetnSas, Please give reasoning or quote specific law that supports your belief that the CA can not enter into agreements on behalf of the OC. I am no attorney, but I believe agency law permits an agent acting on behalf of a principle to enter into binding agreements on the principles behalf. If the agent represents to third party that they have authorization to enter into binding agreements, when in fact, they do not, then that may be fraudulent, and nullify the entire agreement.
