I have a couple of charge off accounts, now the date opened is showing years ago, however the balance as of is showing this months date. My question is will this false reporting make it that much longer for the 7 years to come around? I am not using these accounts they are charged off, so why in the hell are they still reporting the date as current as if I have had some activity going on? Please help. DIMPLES1 ************************ FROM THE DEPTHS OF CREDIT HELL I RISE!
They are just updating the information that it was charged off as a bad debt. There should also be a date closed or a date of last activity tha is what you go by for the 7 yr reporting period. Dillards is one place that if you get a charge off with them then they will update that thing on your credit report every month. Casper72
I am having the same problem. I have some charge-offs that occured in 96. The reports show a updated charge off of 3-2002. This happened when I started disputing my reports a month ago. So they are basically re-aging the account extending the period an additional 7 years to end 3-2009. I am writing a letter and revising it somewhat. I have it posted at http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&pgnum=&postid=157544#post157544
Awesome letter! I'm itchin' to use it if you get any results. Keep us posted. Smitty Litigious Nutcase
No, no, no. They aren't reaging the account. If I read the original post right, the creditor is showing what the balance is as of the current month. That has nothing to do with reaging an account. It is not false reporting. If you have a balance, even after a charge-off, they are allowed to continue to report the balance every month (becasue it's what you owe) until it's paid (the balance would then be zeroed out) or deleted from the report. The DLA is the date that dictates the 7 year clock.
I just pulled a report from www.worthknowing.com and I don't remember the report giving a date of last activity, but I do report see a date open and balance as of with a date. Now the balance as of has a current date, I would think they are trying to reage the account Balance as of date. What do you guys think?
No. They're not. First off, don't rely on worthknowing for ANYTHING. Second, all they are doing is showing what your balance is as of today - no more, no less. it has nothing to do with reaging anything.
What does the report list as the date that it'll fall off? Is it in fact 3-2009 or was that an assumption you made? Smitty Still Curious
So what is worthknowing good for, only viewing balances, and that is all? Hummmm so I just need to wait on my update Credit reports.
There is a reason why so many call it: (not)worthknowing.com I only use it to get a general idea of what's on my report. They are known for listing open accts as closed, closed as open, etc.
It is in fact 3/2009 this month. But I'm sure next month it will be 4/2009. Thats what they are doing to me
Reporting a "Balance as of x/xx" is not the same as reaging an account. It is simply stating a fact - as of this date, you owe this amount. To re-age an account, one of two dates must change - the "Opened Date" or the "Date of last activity". Simply reporting what is owed as of a certain date has nothing to do with reaging the account.
No it's not! Why is this so hard to understand? Worthknowing doesn't give a DLA date. DO NOT use this method to calculate last activity - the info just isn't there. Do me a favor: #1 - get a real copy of the actual TU report (so you have a file # when you call). #2 - pick an account you're questioning from worthknowing an call TU. #3 - ask TU when the account is due to fall off. Ask them from what date does the 7 year clock begin ticking.
Yeah what you say is the way its SUPPOSED to be. However, as I have stated over and over, it is NOT what they are doing. EVERY time the "Balance as of x/xx" changes, so does the scheduled to continue date. Again, balance as of 1/2002=continue date of 1/2009, balance as 2/2002=continue date of 2/2009, and so on. Maybe thats not what exactly is happening to Dimples but at least he/she and everyone else is alerted to some additonal overt practices that are being used. Just because it might not have happened to you doesn't mean its not true. Sometimes it does
All I am saying is that the "Balance as of" date is not what drives the 7 year clock. As your "balance as of" date is changing, your DLA must also be changing.
We know that, but it doesn't look like Experian knows that and I think that is what rhaeny is getting at. Obviously they are not using the DLA to start the 7 yr. clock or else the "scheduled to continue to stay on" date would not change from 2006 to 2009. I too love the letter rhaeny, definetly send it!!!
We're talking about two different things then. My responses have been in reference to dimples' original post.
