TheMrs2020

Ok, let's try this again. I DID NOT MAKE A PAYMENT. I know better than that. I haven't contacted them nor have they contacted me. I have disputed it (they verified) and EXP won't take another because they messed up the first and they suck. What is the exact case law (or any law) stating that the reported payments are only for minimum due payments? And that a payment under the minimum can be reported as late? Because the least sophisticated/unsophisticated consumer would believe that any payment would suffice. And the acceptance of said payment by the company supports an on time payment report. And how does that negate reporting a 30 day late as 120? Because by your logic they then have misreported a 30, 60 and 90 day late buy reporting them as on time and at minimum the previous 3 months. Which is STILL not reporting accurately. So they are wrong either way. Please remember I am in California the laws are more consumer friendly here. Oh and they are required to inform me that they are going to relay negative information to the CRAs before they do so and did not. I have to file this in District Court since their information isn't available with the California SOS. And they've already been ruled not able to push this into Federal Court.

No, I didn't do anything and nothing changed that I could see on the account. I didn't contact them. EXP notified me that there was a change. ***They added a new late payment in the last 60 days. *** No, I didn't request to close the account. I know I still owe it. I wanted clarification on if it should read a $0 balance due to it being a charge-off. I disagree that it can be paid one month and 120 days late the next. That would infer that the customer hasn't paid for 120 days, which is incorrect. If there is a payment, then it's not unpaid. And its not unpaid 120 days in a month. I forgot to add that they reported it 150 days late twice.

It was my understanding that a furnisher had to properly report information. It's not incorrect to report paid one month then 120 days late the next? It's not incorrect to report written off by company AND closed at customer's request? It's not incorrect to update a charged off account? Shouldn't the balance be 0 and not $XXX?

If this is in the wrong section, I apologize. I have spent some time trying to find the answer and another place to put this. After no word for years, a company updated a charged off account to: Account was closed at customer's request (on EXP) Charged off AND closed at customer's request on EQ and TU. Payments going from paid to 120 days late (no 30, 60 or 90 days late) Some months reporting ND instead. The amount is less than $600. No, I haven't contacted them or done anything to spur this change. What violations do I have here? (I'm not new to this but having fresh eyes helps to see more). I am in CA and the California Rosenthal Act mirrors the FCRA and applies to the Original Creditor. Thank you!