Duplicate Accounts

[grantjeffries]

Is it legal to list a charged off account and then the same account again as a collections account? How do i get this removed? What is the best strategy? Do i start with the CA or OC first?

[kb9tbq]

Yes, original creditors & collection agencies can report on the same debt at the same time. Now if there are multiple collection agencies (only one should be current with showing a balance).

Start off finding out what the statute of limitation is on this account - link above will show for your state.

If these are still within the SOL - you might want to sit a bit on these and wait. Since you don't want to wake up the collection agency if they not be bothering you at this point.

If you are out of the SOL - then start with the CRAs disputing "no knowledge of account".

If the collection agency is bothering you - 1. Out of SOL, then send them Cease & desist letter. 2. If within the SOL, then you send the collection agency debt validation letter.

Post as you go along and others will help out.

[Edit by kb9tbq on Thursday, May 29, 2003 @ 08:38 AM]

[fixerupper]

Oh, yeah they can! I have one account that has been transferred to FIVE CAs! But I'm arguing the whole thing and one of them had the audacity to list the account as "settled" - I DIDN'T SETTLE WITH THEM - I'm fighting with them now. I sent them a DV recently, so I'm hoping that will clear it off.

[kb9tbq]

That is a night mare getting that many collection agencies working an account. Definately fight any that fail to update showing transfered to another lender with zero balance; better yet (if these are accounts re-called by the OC) bark down their throat about removing their tradeline off of the credit report all together). This is for asigned; sold accounts work a bit different - they will report like I mentioned earlier as being transferred to another lender.

Worse thing about these if you have a few of them reporting balances at the same time - it will make it look like you owe multiple times the same balance. This really messes with the credit scoring; and underwriting with loan companies on the debt to income ratio.

[fixerupper]

That is my problem - two (or three) of them are reporting balances, so it's making my debt / income ratio really high. It's not that bad, I swear! But I'm working hard (DH says I'm obsessed!), but I'm going to get a new house at a reasonable interest rate by the end of the year - I swear it!

[kb9tbq]

Definately fight them on this issue - this is not right by any means that collections companies no longer working the account should have the ability to continue reporting a balance.

I know we did not get the lowest rate: but we are still happy to be done with it and finally be moved into our new house.

Now the unpacking nightmare has began :upsidown:

[sisflomi]

There is a loophole with all this someplace. I am going to try and find the law for it. This is what I was told:

IF the debt is sold there can be no balance. It should read $0. If it was actually sold and not assigned then they are falsely reporting the tradeline and are in violation of the FCRA. You can try and dispute it again. If it is verified then I would send a strongly worded letter to the OC stating they are in violation of the fcra and you will refrain from filing suit against them if they delete the account.

[Crabjoe]

How accurate is the SOL that I got for MD from the above link? If the link is accurate, then here in MD SOL is 3 years except for a promissory notes which is 6 years.

This could be great news for me. So answer these questions if you can please...

1. I have Lates I am disputing on my credit reports and all the lates are from over 3 years ago (most current is from '98) Should these have been dropped?

2. There is a Worldcom Wireless collection on my Experian report I am disputeing also. Shouldn't this be off also?

3. If the answers to the above questions are they they should not appear on my credit reports, how can I get the CRA to just update the info... Basicly does anyone have a link from a gov't agency varifing the SOLs for MD?

Thanks for your help !!!

[kb9tbq]

There is a difference between SOL (statute of limitations) and the period of time items remain on credit reports.

SOL: Each state has a outlined amount of time for various accounts in which a creditor can legally take action to collect on debt owed. If this time expires they can still try to collect; but they can't take you to court. This has nothing to do with the reporting. Special rules for Tax Liens and Student loans (may even cover other federal types of loans) usually are not dischargable in bankruptcy & they don't have SOL. So these creditors can pretty much chase you down forever to collect on the debt. Sometimes the debt can be forgiven (may be some other factors on this part - which I am unaware of).

Period of time for Reporting: This gets a bit more complicated.

If you know when the last payment was ever made on the account. The following month will be the 1st delinquency now add 180 - 210 days to come up with the charge off date - then add 7 years for the period of time it will remain on the credit report. This covers collections and charge offs.

Judgments go 7 years from the FILE DATE; Tax liens go forever if unpaid - if paid will remain 7 years from the pay off date. Chapter 13 bankruptcy goes 7 years from the file date; Chapter 7 bankruptcy goes 10 years from the file date. Late payments goes 7 years from the date account was late.

Prior to 1997 there was no formula for when the charge off date started - will refer you to read the FCRA at www.ftc.gov under the business section to understand this part better.

Recommend that you get familiar with the Fair Credit Reporting Act - read it a few times - till you know you half way understand this. Will definately benefit you in knowing your rights.

[Crabjoe]

Thanks for the clarification kb9tbq. When I saw the SOL list for my state, I thought that they where SOLs for credit reporting. And I was hoping the state law would supercede the Feds. Well, I guess I have to just wait it out on my disputes. This is a PITA when I know my disputes are legit. They won't even fix an address that is clearly wrong (The girl even said it looked someone fat fingered it) and are telling me that can take 30 days because of investigation.

BTW, EFX creditwatch is garbage.. They keep sending me a notification that something changed on one of my disputes but when I check there is no change. Infact, when I call they try and tell me that the reason it notified me was because I disputed the TL. Then when I ask them why the other disputes arn't causing this, they are dumbfounded.

[kb9tbq]

If the CRA is not removing the address it is for a reason. Need to find out which creditor is contributing the wrong address and hunt them down to correct the matter so that the dispute can go through to remove the incorrect address.

I am really not sure about the monitoring service - I don't personally use these myself. I know that by reading other posts that sometimes people over look the update for new report button - so they could keep looking at the old report everytime they went back in. Or somehow kept missing refresh for the credit scoring. But that is the best that I understand in general on these.

[Waxworks]

An issue I have between an OC and a CA........OC sold the account, and I paid the CA, but the OC REFUSES to update the account as PAID....still says CHARGED OFF, but the CA is reporting it as paid. On a side note, TU reports ALL PAID COLLECTIONS as "OPEN" accounts. I only have 4,000 worth of bills, but according to TU, it is 21,000, and it is totally unfair the way they practice:mad:

[kb9tbq]

<blockquote>Originally posted by Waxworks

An issue I have between an OC and a CA........OC sold the account, and I paid the CA, but the OC REFUSES to update the account as PAID....still says CHARGED OFF, but the CA is reporting it as paid.

Think it should be charge off - but there will be zero balance and notation that the account was sold. Depending on the amount of time you have to exhaust fighting this - definately keep at them at the worse show them documentation that this account as been paid so it can be updated as I mention. But keep at it first for deletion.

On a side note, TU reports ALL PAID COLLECTIONS as "OPEN" accounts. I only have 4,000 worth of bills, but according to TU, it is 21,000, and it is totally unfair the way they practice:mad:

That seems strange, I will have to pay better attention to the TU tradelines I view here, but for the most part on the merged mortgage reports I view on a regular basis I had not noticed this.

TransUnion is not my favorite (beings that they have a knack at reporing complete account numbers and you have to watch them holding on to old tradelines when they should have expired).

</blockquote>

[Waxworks]

Just checked my PG......According to EX, I have 8000 in debt. EQ says 2000, and TU says I got 20,000 orht of debt, and its due to the way they report paid collections as "open acounts". I call up TU, and they say to me that as long as there is a "ZERO" Balance, they cant be disputer, so I sent them a letter, requesting the validity of all my "negative" tradelines. Therefore, all of my negatives, except for 2, are in dispute, and I am HOPING that most drop off.keyword: HOPING :notsure:

[kb9tbq]

Reporting paid collection as open accounts - would mean that what ever balance was in the high credit / credit limit section would be reflecting as available credit. And thereby be affecting the utilization - on the credit scoring.

On the reports which I use the tradelines are in the collection section and showing as paid. On the type they are reflecting what ever type of account it originally would of been (in some cases as collection if not installment or revolving...).

Now where you talk about the difference in debt spread out amoung each bureau - that can vary for quite a few reasons. Being that creditors don't report to all 3 CRA would be one possiblity. Another would be if the OC is reporting along with the CA or multiple collection agencies. But all prior CAs not working the account (should be reflecting zero balance no matter what).

You definately have some major disputing to do - if the debt showing is for the same number of collection agencies reporting across all 3 CRAs.

[ericasf]

Ok, my question falls under this same topic but a little different. Here is the issue. I have an account with Household that was "switched" to Midland. Household is reporting me as 120+ days late but the balance is zero. Midland is reporting me as 120+ days late as well. Is this right? Can they do that? Really, how can I be 120+ days late on zero?

And does anyone know if Midland buys the accounts or if they are just working on the OC's behalf without ownership of the account?

[Edit by ericasf on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 09:10 AM]

[kb9tbq]

<blockquote>Originally posted by ericasf

Household that was "switched" to Midland. Household is reporting me as 120+ days late but the balance is zero. Midland is reporting me as 120+ days late as well. Is this right? Can they do that? Really, how can I be 120+ days late on zero?

They have a tendancy to reflect the payment history of the original creditor. But what is most important is that the status should reflect paid collection.

Think you could get away with disputing with the CRA that you where never 120 days late to Midland Collection Company - see what they do on this.

And does anyone know if Midland buys the accounts or if they are just working on the OC's behalf without ownership of the account?

If Household's tradeline says sold or transferred to a new lender that might indicate midland bought the account. If it is not showing this - it could be asigned debt.

</blockquote>

But this is not for certain being that they can be off on the reporting just not showing the fact of the matter.

[sisflomi]

My hhbk says sold/transpherd too. Midland is on cr. Wolp&abr were trying to collect for it. Did dv letters to both and still have not heard back from either one. That was two months ago. I would say that hhbk sold the accounts to mid and mid has w&a do the collecting for them.