This account just showeds up on my Transunion report. Acct Type: Installment account Acct Status: Closed Monthly Payment: $468 Date Open: Oct, 1996 Balance: $468 Terms: 1 Month High Balance: $468 Limit: N/A Past Due: $0 Remarks: Profit and loss writeoff Payment Status: Charged off as bad debt i dont remember what this was for and I filed a bk IN february 98.. How do you all suggest I handle this?
It was OPENED in 1996, the seven years goes from the date it was charged off or discharged, so it isn't obsolete and won't fall off until next year. You could dispute it as "not mine." After all, you don't remember what it's for. Hopefully Citi won't verify and it will get removed.
CitiFinancial was born out of Commercial Credit, Associates and now Washington Mutual, being bought up by Citibank. Now, why did it appear now? Look at the threads on the policy changes at TU & EX. They're requiring more frequent updating, possibly when they last submitted the account to the CRA, for some reason it was supressed by the CRA, and now that they re-submitted it, it appeared. Check to see if any new 'previous addresses' or your 'current address' has changed to something to match the new entry. Dispute it to TU, and hope that C can't find it. If any addresses were added, try to get those removed first.
Re: Re: Citifinancial 98 - 0 99 - 1 00 - 2 01 - 3 02 - 4 03 - 5 04 - 6 05 - 7 February 2005, would be the discharge date's expiration. Since there is no CLOSED date, shown in the post, we have to presume that it was closed when discharged. Now, they're breaking the BK rules when listing it as a C/O, so try disputing it first as a not mine, if it comes back verified, then try IIB, just remember to not provide the BK papers no matter how much the CRA begs for them. It's their job to verify it, not yours. With TU, you may be able to get a third dispute in, if all else fails; that would take us within 6 months of the expiration (post-Sept - March), so then you may be able to dispute it away as obsolete.
Re: Re: Citifinancial BTW: I did the count-down, because that is actually what I usually do to do the math when looking at a trade line. Just wanted to make sure that no one thought I was being cute, or smart-a**ed about it. Another way to remember it 200<5> - 199<8>, the tolling year is always the opposite even/odd wise; so if the account was closed in an even year, the 'full sentence' would expire in an odd year, and vice versa.
Re: Re: Re: Citifinancial Monthly Payment: $468 Date Open: Oct, 1996 Balance: $468 Terms: 1 Month High Balance: $468 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ According to this the original date of delinquency would had to have been Nov 96. Wouldn't the 7 year clock start on 11/96 rather than on 2/98,Or does a BK restart the reporting clock? Also this may not even be the posters account or if it was it may not have been included in the BK. If the Poster would just look over their BK papers it would tell them what the account is about if it was listed in the BK. This has already been reported for 8 years from 1996 to 2004.
Re: Re: Re: Citifinancial A lot of trade lines report 1 MONTH as the payment terms, when the account is charged off, because everything is now 'due payable'. Or at least thats the logic that they use to try to argue that reporting it that way isn't a violation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Citifinancial CitiFinancial didn't even exist until 1999, all CitiFinancial has is what information they saved when they obtained the data from the original company when they purchased the company to be merged into what became CitiFinancial; it also could be, if there is no entry for High Balance (I haven't personally seen the files that company's use to update the CRAs) in the data to be submitted, since this entry only just now showed up when they required the trade lines to be re-submitted in accordance with TU's new policy, that TU is saying that the highest balance which ever was reported to them is $468; since that is the only information which has been reported.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Citifinancial Be careful with citifinancial!! I disputed inaccurate information and my scores (PG) on TU and EQ tanked. Citifinancial even added another negative tradeline on TU after dispute, saying the account was charged off!! This is an account that was included in Ch. 13 in 1996 and discharged in 2001. They bought out the company that was included in bk, and STILL reporting that I am under a wage earner plan, now a new tradeline stating the account is charged off with a different amount and account #. They even have the dates that these accounts were open as 1999! I am so MAD!!! DH and I had no loans, credit ect. at all between 1996-2002. I don't see how they can get away with this?! They are the only bad items on my reports, and I am afraid to dispute again even though I know they are reporting wrong.
