Capepuffin Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 I just got a letter from TU. I asked them to remove an old TL. The 6 year reporting period for my state is up. This account was included in BK. Well I am bummed out because TU states that all accounts included in BK, stay on your report for 7 years from the DATE OF THE BK! I am so pissed!Does anyone know if this is the truth?This accounts last activity was 1997. Now if this is the case, it won't come off until 2006! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofttk Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Was it BK7 and what date filed ?Does the Maine 6 years apply to BK accounts or lates/COs only ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofttk Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 Based on a filing date of 11/98, the 6 years would be up for an account ONLY "Included in Bankruptcy" would be 11/04.Was there a delinquency and/or chargeoff that occurred prior to filing BK7 ? Does the TL read ONLY "Included in Bankruptcy" ? If so, does it give a filing or discharge date ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capepuffin Posted July 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 Was it BK7 and what date filed ?Does the Maine 6 years apply to BK accounts or lates/COs only ?It's a ch7 and it was filed 11/98, discharged in 99. Im in Mass. I don't know about it applying to BK accounts or lates! I just knew that the reporting period for Mass. was 6 years.The way TU worded it, it was a form letter, that applied to everyone no matter what state they live in. A BK account stays on your report for 7 years from the date of the BK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capepuffin Posted July 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2003 Here is what it says:Sears Acct#xxxxxxx>CH 7 BANKRUPTCY<Updated 05/2003Opened 01/1985 Paid off 06/1997 status as of 06/1997: Unrated>Status as of 07/1997: Payment after charge off/collection< Thats it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofttk Posted July 24, 2003 Report Share Posted July 24, 2003 Sorry, Cape, I thought the MA you had mentioned before was Maine, especially considering your handle. I guess I associate Puffins more with Maine than Massachusetts and I need to get up to date on the "new" postal state abbreviations !Well, I see no mention of a BK date. I would tend to do a nasty dispute letter based on the 7/97 date. That would mean the 6 years are up now.HOWEVER, I tried to confirm your six years by looking here: http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/93%2D52.htm. General Laws of Massachusetts, Title XV, Regulation of Trade, CH. 93, Sect 52.I see only 7 year limits on the items mentioned. Can you confirm the source of the 6 years ? (Note: Its says BK cases 14 yrs., although I would guess FCRA covers you at 10 on that)Also, do you know the date of commencement of the initial delinquency that lead to charge-off ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capepuffin Posted July 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2003 Sorry, Cape, I thought the MA you had mentioned before was Maine, especially considering your handle. I guess I associate Puffins more with Maine than Massachusetts and I need to get up to date on the "new" postal state abbreviations !Well, I see no mention of a BK date. I would tend to do a nasty dispute letter based on the 7/97 date. That would mean the 6 years are up now.HOWEVER, I tried to confirm your six years by looking here: http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/93%2D52.htm. General Laws of Massachusetts, Title XV, Regulation of Trade, CH. 93, Sect 52.I see only 7 year limits on the items mentioned. Can you confirm the source of the 6 years ? (Note: Its says BK cases 14 yrs., although I would guess FCRA covers you at 10 on that)Also, do you know the date of commencement of the initial delinquency that lead to charge-off ?ME is Maine! I love Puffins and Mass. doesn't have any puffins. So I can see how you thought that I was from ME!Yes the actual BK should come off after 10 years.I got the 6 years from this board on the link above on SOL. 08/97 was the last payment that they ever recieved from me! On my EQ CRA it says that the charge off date is 7/98 to 12/98, 3/98 to 5/98. It says that it is scheduled to come off my report on 9/2004(that is with their 7 year reporting period)Why is TU telling me, if an account was included in BK, that the clock would start over from the Date of filing! I still don't believe that to be true.Yes I can send them a letter but I guess that I better make sure of the SOL.Like I said originally, I did dispute this with them and asked them to remove it because of the SOL. I just want it to come off now, to me the 6 years are up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofttk Posted July 24, 2003 Report Share Posted July 24, 2003 ...I got the 6 years from this board on the link above on SOL....Yes I can send them a letter but I guess that I better make sure of the SOL......Yes I can send them a letter but I guess that I better make sure of the SOLLike I said originally, I did dispute this with them and asked them to remove it because of the SOL. I just want it to come off now, to me the 6 years are up!But SOL has nothing to do with the permissible reporting period. SOL has to do with how long the creditor has to pursue payment. Irrelevant in this case anyways because the debt has been discharged....On my EQ CRA it says that the charge off date is 7/98 to 12/98, 3/98 to 5/98. It says that it is scheduled to come off my report on 9/2004(that is with their 7 year reporting period)...Aside from the date issue, this TL should say IIB ! (I see you're onto the Lovern letter.)...Why is TU telling me, if an account was included in BK, that the clock would start over from the Date of filing! I still don't believe that to be true....Because they are ignoramuses and would like to have their cake and eat it too !I would go on the basis of the fact that the DF has violated the BK discharge permanent statutory injunction by pursuing debt collection after your filing, 11/98. Tell DF to delete or you'll have no recourse but to report their violation and pursue legally. If you escalate correctly and consistently, hopefully they'll cave before you go to court. Otherwise, stick it to them.That's my evaluation based on how I understand BK code. HOWEVER, there may be some other strategy more expedient and I would prefer to hear others here with more experience comment on what I said or on a more efficient means.A piece of the puzzle still missing for me is when was your first delinquency ? That could have a bearing.Also puzzling is that the TL says Paid Off 6/97. You say you were still paying as of 8/97 and then I assume you still owed as you have it IIB 11/98. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capepuffin Posted July 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 ...I got the 6 years from this board on the link above on SOL....Yes I can send them a letter but I guess that I better make sure of the SOL......Yes I can send them a letter but I guess that I better make sure of the SOLLike I said originally, I did dispute this with them and asked them to remove it because of the SOL. I just want it to come off now, to me the 6 years are up!But SOL has nothing to do with the permissible reporting period. SOL has to do with how long the creditor has to pursue payment. Irrelevant in this case anyways because the debt has been discharged....On my EQ CRA it says that the charge off date is 7/98 to 12/98, 3/98 to 5/98. It says that it is scheduled to come off my report on 9/2004(that is with their 7 year reporting period)...Aside from the date issue, this TL should say IIB ! (I see you're onto the Lovern letter.)...Why is TU telling me, if an account was included in BK, that the clock would start over from the Date of filing! I still don't believe that to be true....Because they are ignoramuses and would like to have their cake and eat it too !I would go on the basis of the fact that the DF has violated the BK discharge permanent statutory injunction by pursuing debt collection after your filing, 11/98. Tell DF to delete or you'll have no recourse but to report their violation and pursue legally. If you escalate correctly and consistently, hopefully they'll cave before you go to court. Otherwise, stick it to them.That's my evaluation based on how I understand BK code. HOWEVER, there may be some other strategy more expedient and I would prefer to hear others here with more experience comment on what I said or on a more efficient means.A piece of the puzzle still missing for me is when was your first delinquency ? That could have a bearing.Also puzzling is that the TL says Paid Off 6/97. You say you were still paying as of 8/97 and then I assume you still owed as you have it IIB 11/98.What is the DF?I don't know why it says paid off 6/97! Maybe it should actually have said charged off! Maybe if I dispute that this account was paid BEFORE the BK they'd remove it. I don't know!Yes it was included in my BK. It was so long ago, I honestly don't know when the last payment or the delinquency was.Thanks for your help croft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofttk Posted July 25, 2003 Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 ...What is the DF?I don't know why it says paid off 6/97! Maybe it should actually have said charged off! Maybe if I dispute that this account was paid BEFORE the BK they'd remove it. I don't know!Yes it was included in my BK. It was so long ago, I honestly don't know when the last payment or the delinquency was.Thanks for your help croft! Sorry, DF = Data Furnisher, the original creditor in this case.On the first dispute, I think you just picked a bad argument and TU merely responded to that argument. (Yes, that's only Monday morning quarterbacking)As far as I can tell, you only would have an argument for this aging off 6/04. That's without mentioning BK on this account.One alternative is waiting a couple months after the last dispute and just dispute as "not mine".Another would be to dispute with the DF (OC) as I mentioned before pointing out their reporting after BK as a barred debt collection effort and using that leverage to get them to delete. However, here again you get into acknowledging the debt is yours and they might turn around and clean the TL to IIB only.The way they show the tradeline sure is a mess. If TU were to verify this on a simple "not mine" dispute, you might then do a procedural request, they'll send their nonsense letter, then you could ITS TU demanding deletion or else. I understand TU can cave in rapidly on this. C'mon, someone else come in and back me up on this. I'mnot that proud, I'm still a newbie guys !I've kind of opened up this can of worms, someone help us out here ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capepuffin Posted July 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 Originally back in March I asked Sears to validate this account. They sent me a response saying:We are in reciept of your inquiry disputing/questioning info. reported by Sears to the credit bureau.We have reviewed the information reported to the credit bureau and compared this against the info. provided by you. We have found the credit bureau report to be inconsistent with our info. We have sent the necessary documents to the credit bureau requesting that your report be corrected.Please accept our apologies for any inconvience you may have been caused.=====The only change in my CR was: It went from 'included in BK' TO 'CH7 /dispute resolved/consumer disagrees'Also it went from the neg. section to the positive section on my report.Now Sears never sent me any info. on what they were updating or why. It also says that they compared what they had to what I had sent them, which was nothing but a DV letter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofttk Posted July 25, 2003 Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 ...Also it went from the neg. section to the positive section on my report....Whooooa ! Now that changes the entire complexion of the problem for me !I'm on more familiar ground now.Cape, I'm fairly sure this is not negatively impacting your FICO score. I have first hand experience that supports this ! The "unrated" status (which didn't quite click with me earlier) and it moving to the positive section are key here.I know it still looks negative if a pair of human eyes look at it. However, if you were sure it didn't negatively hit your score, would you be in that much of a hurry to delete before you attack it again 6/04 based on the 6/97 status date ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capepuffin Posted July 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 ...Also it went from the neg. section to the positive section on my report....Whooooa ! Now that changes the entire complexion of the problem for me !I'm on more familiar ground now.Cape, I'm fairly sure this is not negatively impacting your FICO score. I have first hand experience that supports this ! The "unrated" status (which didn't quite click with me earlier) and it moving to the positive section are key here.I know it still looks negative if a pair of human eyes look at it. However, if you were sure it didn't negatively hit your score, would you be in that much of a hurry to delete before you attack it again 6/04 based on the 6/97 status date ?I am trying to get these off asap! Possibly moving in the next couple of months! Unrated is fine if it is not affecting my score but for the eyes of the mortgage co, it still doesn't look good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofttk Posted July 25, 2003 Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 Hmmm....Well, with your time constraints and the fact that your score isn't suffering from it, I'm not sure it'll look that bad. In my case, I would disclose that I did BK in 11/98 (because it shows all over mine and DW's reports) and point out that they have BK noted correctly but the rest is screwy. I would expect any lender or broker to take what I say at face value and move on.If you have BK showing and other TLs correctly noted as IIB, I think anyone could look at this TL and see it is screwy because of all the dates preceding your BK. For this reason, and considering your timing (which was my situation back in February), I would tend to let it stand and see if there was anything else killing my score that requires higher priority attention.Then again, you aren't me. So, I'm not sure what else to tell you here.Does what I said make any sense for you ?Anybody else please chime in here ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts