I have disputed this account (opened 12/96) 3 x and it was removed from all account except for Exp. This account had a $200 limit and became delinquent on 5/97. While there were some scattered payments throughout this period, the account remained over the limit. Here is the problem, I made the minimum payment once in 5/99 and 6/99 but the account balance at this point was almost $400. After that, there was one additional payment made before the account was finally charged off in 2000. The account remained over the limit until it was closed. Should the dola be 5/97 or 6/99? I am thinking that even though, Bloomie's held on to the account, it was in their collection dept by 9/97 and my credit priveleges had been suspended. Thanks to a request for verification, they sent all of my charge statements and a letter from their legal compliance department. The letter even has a mistake in it, where they say that my last payment was in 9/99 but they let interest and finance charges accrue until 6/00. Help, what is my next step on this? This is one of my last 4 derogs on EXP and I desparately trying to get it removed.
Those scattered payments - did they bring the account current at any point (regardless of whether it was closed to charges)? http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/johnson.htm In sum, we believe that the phrase "commencement of the delinquency that led to the action" in Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) of the FCRA should be construed according to its normal meaning. If a consumer falls behind on an account and never catches up, the delinquency has its "commencement" when the first payment is missed. From that point on, the account is past due and thus delinquent
The minimum payment was met but the account was never current (i.e. it was still over the limit the entire time). That is the part I don't understand, if I made the minimum payment does that mean it is now current even though I am still over the limit by almost 50%.
Maybe for $200 an offer to pay would the way forward? I would write and offer them $100 if they agree in writing first to accept this in full and final settlement and sent a UDF to each of the agencies stating this is paid iff full and remove the lates.
They tacked on interest fees and late charges and the blance is now more than $600. BTW, did I mention that I only charged $117 on the card and made more than that in payments before they finally closed the account. I just want to know if I have a case here because it would be a difference of it being deleted next year or being deleted in 2006.
The minimum payment was met but the account was never current (i.e. it was still over the limit the entire time). *That is the part I don't understand, if I made the minimum payment does that mean it is now current even though I am still over the limit by almost 50%. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" *What I don't understand here is what are you trying to say ? Could you state it another way so us slow folks can grasp what ya mean.
so if you made the minimum payment every month and it was not over the limit it would be considered current, correct? so why would it change if you were over the limit? does being over the limit mean its past due? its been awhile since ive had to deal with this.
Hope this helps The account was opened 3/97 with a credit limit of $200. The account became delinquent and was referred to the in-house collection agency in 9/97. There were several scattered payments until 4/99 that did not meet the stated minimum payment. During this period, the account was charged $20 each month in late fees. By the account now had a balance of more than $400 which included the late fees and interest charges. The listed minimum payment in 4/99 was $56 - I paid $63. My question is does making the minimum payment bring the account current? The account was closed to purchases, in collections and more than $200 over the credit limit.
Re: Re: Need Help w/ Bloomies...please I see your point and that's why I asked for opinions because I am looking for ways to attack this. It is quite possible that I am going about this all wrong but they have validated this account and continue to verify every dispute. The problem I am having is the strange reporting on this account. Even after I made that payment, it went 240 days without another payment and it was not closed. They just continued to pile on late fees, which I believe is incorrect per the FCRA.
"If a consumer falls behind and never catches up" is the statement that I am working with. It doesn't state that missed payments are the only barometer for measuring delinquency just that they are used for measurement purposes. My notion is that an over the limit account is viewed as delinquent by most creditors as they will continue to charges over the limit and late fees until is back at or under the credit limit. This is probably wrong but my thought was to argue that the account because it exceeded the original agreement could not be considered current until it is brought back to or beneath the $200 credit limit. Apparantly, they treated the late fees like they would any other purchase. I know that the minimum payment of alot of other creditors would havebeen whatever amount was necessary to bring the aqccount current (i.e. back to or below the credit limit).
sol It will be on my report until 7/06 if I use their dates and it is one of three negs still on my report. I don't want to wait that long, if I don't have to.
sol since the account was never brought current, IMO it would be from the date of the first delinquincy (not the delinquincy after the small payments)
Should the dola be 5/97 or 6/99? mvalrie ================ I would say 5/97 and it should come off your reports by 5/04 Who agrees / disagrees with this? """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
so if you made the minimum payment every month and it was not over the limit it would be considered current, correct? 1*so why would it change if you were over the limit? does being over the limit mean its past due? jenz ================
