Settling debt with Amex

I paid my charge-off in full, and then contacted AMEX's credit bureau for a "goodwill deletion" of the tradeline. I had no luck negotiating with them.

jmart

 

I did...I paid in full and got the deletion. Initially they refused, but I send them a really "gooey" letter about how I had fulfilled my responsibility with them and I paid in full and how many people never do that but I did...and how I was 18 without a job when I got the card and now I'm older and have a job and am responsible, blah, blah, blah...and it worked! Try it!

 

Have you sent validation??? I would go that route first...if not, try a "gooey" letter on planet feedback, and let them know that you are aware that you only have a little time left before it comes off your report, but that you want to make good on what you owe (it doesn't hurt to try!)

 

ok. Here's what happened to my account. Amex, when they had it, wouldn't settle for a percentage less than 70-80%, I think. It was so much I couldn't pay it. they also wouldn't delete.

Finally went through several collection agencies. First wanted 70, then 60, then 50. I didn't bite.

The second collection agency took 40% but wouldn't delete. I pointed out that the Amex tradeline plus theirs meant double reporting. I also told them there had been several charges that I'd contested but had never been removed (true, wallet stolen).

They finally said they'd take 40% and not verify. So I paid, and it got deleted (I did it the wrong way, nothing in writing) but it did get deleted through a cra dispute.

Amex dropped after a cra dispute too. But first I got rid of the address the account had been at (take away the address identifier and it helps).

Now, you may wish to really think about this. A payment will constitute new activity; hence you restart the clock (your debt is before the new changes)... so if you pay you lose.

If the account is only with Amex and not a collection agency... I don't think they'll delete a thing. However, if they're negotiating 70%, your report is clean other than this, and you want another Amex, you could try to do a pay it and get another card...

if you're dealing directly with Amex, they're a bit tough. If you don't care about another Amex card, let it drop... once you're past the reporting date noone can put it back on your report, not Amex, not a collection agency (and if a ca does, you sue and get paid for their errors).

So, the real question is: What's your goal???

 

By the way, years later I wanted another Amex card. I paid Amex directly the rest of the account (yes, all of it) and that would get me off the black list in a year.

Then, a month later I became an AU on a well used card. And I got a membership banking account.

If you pay it in full, your name is purged 1 year (and 1 billing cycle) from the date you pay it in full, or you can try to get an override via a supervisor for an approval if you're still on the black list but the account is paid in full.

If you pay it in full, you might get someone to agree to unrate it. After all, their real point isn't to have someone pay in full and then get punished more... you can appeal to their sense of what's fair.

Maybe they could "unrate" the account for a paid in full. at 70% they're offering, it's not much more money...

 

Talk with a supervisor not a regular rep.

 

I completely disagree that making a payment on an acct. that has been charged off or sent to collection, restarts the clock. Here is the FTC opinion letter on this subject.


February 15, 2000

Ms. Alaina K. Amason
14155 Shire Oak
San Antonio, TX 78247

Dear Ms. Amason:

This responds to your letter concerning the time limitations imposed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") on the reporting of chargeoff accounts by a consumer reporting agency ("CRA," usually a credit bureau). We list your inquiries on this topic below in italics, with our replies immediately following each item.

1. What reporting limits does the FCRA provide with respect to chargeoffs, and how long have they been in effect?

Section 605(a)(4), which has been in effect since the FCRA became effective in April 1971, has always prohibited CRAs from reporting chargeoffs that are more than seven years old.(1) Section 623(a)(5), which became law in September 1997, requires a creditor that reports a chargeoff to a CRA to notify the agency (within 90 days of reporting the account) of "the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded" the chargeoff. Section 605(c)(1) provides that the seven year period begins 180 days from that date. Both provisions were part of the major revision to the FCRA that were enacted in 1996.(2)

2. Is the reporting period extended if (A) the original creditor sells or transfers the account to another creditor, (B) the consumer responds to post-chargeoff collection efforts by making a payment on the debt, or (C) the consumer disputes the account with a CRA? Does it matter whether the 7-year period has expired when any of these events occurs?

No. In enacting the new provisions discussed above, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- 180 days after the start of the delinquency that led to the chargeoff -- to begin the obsolescence period. It did so to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from later events under the original FCRA. Enclosed are two staff opinion letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99; Johnson, 08/31/98) that discuss the impact of these provisions, and the legislative history relating to their enactment, in more detail. Because the commencement of the seven year period is now described with some precision by the statute, it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you listed -- sale of the charged off account by the creditor, or a payment on or dispute about the account by the consumer -- changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a chargeoff.

3. Since Sections 623(a)(5) and 605(c)(1) provide new rules for calculating the 7-year period that became effective in 1997, do chargeoff accounts now have different obsolescence periods depending on when the chargeoff occurred?

Yes. Section 605(c)(2) states that the section "shall apply only to items of information added to the (CRA) file of a consumer on or after" 455 days after enactment, or December 29, 1997. Therefore, a chargeoff reported to a CRA on or after that date is subject to the new commencement-of-the-delinquency method of calculating the obsolescence period set forth in Sections 623(a)(5) and 605(c)(1). On the other hand, a chargeoff reported to a CRA before December 29, 1997, is not covered by the new provisions, as discussed in one of the enclosed letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99). If a credit account was reported as a chargeoff before that date, the Commission's view has been that it can be reported for seven years from the date the creditor actually charged it off.(3)

The opinions set forth in this informal staff letter are not binding on the Commission.

Sincerely yours,

Clarke W. Brinckerhoff

 

I believe that this Amex account was about 6 years old or so... meaning it likely predates the ammendment, and so that's what I was using as the basis for the statement about how payment will affect the account.

 

The other issue is the score. The trade line will have the delinquency embedded in it. The dla determines how the delinquency affects the score. A payment would post to the account with a dla of this month. So, for scoring purposes, the payment will reage the account (especially if the lender uses old software, which many still do).

there's a good discussion of score, dla, and delinquency on the yahoo board this month.

 

You might want to take a copy of your credit report to your bank/ car dealership and ask them specifically what needs to happen for you to get a decent rate on a car. They may prefer a large down payment rather than paid chargeoffs showing on your report.

I guess you have multiple charge offs... so as your report stands right now, the more recent ones hurt more (not the most in money, but the newest ones).

I didn't know that when I started, so I did the biggest issues first (thinking that was best) but it wasn't. I needed to settle and remove the little 20 issues that were within the last 24 mos first. I did it the wrong way...

the last date of activity drives your score. If your goal is to increase your score, work from the most recent issues back.

I guess my point with Amex is 70% is so close to paid in full that it's silly. If it went to a collection agency you'd settle it for under half. If you're going to pay 70%, you might as well try to pay in full for unrated or deletion and then be able to reestablish with Amex in the future. But since your current goal is a car...

Maximize your money for score increases. Talk with the dealership/ bank and see if they'd rather see you use your money for a larger down payment (and still have the chargeoffs on the report) or if you need to pay the chargeoffs before financing...

Once you figure out how to get better car financing, I agree that you should take care of the old chargeoffs one way or another. It sucks always looking over your shoulder for someone to come after you for an old debt... it feels better to never worry about some issue biting you in the credit report.

 

well. this is interesting. Regarding Equifax only (because they at least give real fico scores). What may have happened is that one or more tradelines that you disputed got their dla's updated by the very act of disputing.

Look closely at those before and after reports. If the only real difference is you disputed (so your updated report is now new) then you may want to talk with a supervisor at Equifax about the very reinvestigation process reaging the account.

I have never done this but I was told directly by Fair Isaac that it can happen and that it's "unfortunate" for the score because asking for a reinvestigation shouldn't, in and of itself, lower your score.

On your Equifax score, look at the difference in reason codes too. they're the key to the score. If now your reason codes have more "recent derogs" then you have a good case... but I've never pushed this issue so I wouldn't know how to push it except in a lawsuit against Equifax.