mandolin.peach

OC reporting "Charge Off" every month!

Recommended Posts

As stated, we are both saying the same thing but from opposite ends.

You are quoting "not later than 180 days" which is essentially the same as I have been saying which is not longer than 7.5. The math is the same....I'm just doing the math and giving the final, maximum number. Even under your quotes and descriptions the CRA may list a negative item for up to 7.5 years without breaking the law...if they choose to. Do they have to? No.

I would never tell someone not to try. But on the same token I will not lead someone into the false belief that the law sets a strict 7 year limit when the Statute specifies that it really can be as long as 7.5 through convoluted language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks again for all the inputs.

for "uwackme"--I intend to use the FCRA section that says they can't re-age your account when I dispute mine. I don't know if that section was primarily intended to mean they can't report the delinquency beyond the 7 (or 7.5) years, but clearly the action of reporting a charge-off every month DOES re-age the account with the obvious intent of affecting one's credit rating during the period it is being reported. After reading all the inputs, I think this could be well-argued and won.

This is also the section I would use to dispute the practice of updating account status on CRs to the date of most recent dispute. I'm actually quite apalled that they get away with this when it clearly discourages people from disputing their credit reports which they have a legal right to do. What kind of mob-tyranny is that?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get back on topic here?

I'd like to hear more of Methuss's argument that the continued reporting of a CO status is a FCRA violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we get back on topic here?

I'd like to hear more of Methuss's argument that the continued reporting of a CO status is a FCRA violation.

yes id like an angle of approach on this as well, many TLs on my report are like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only assume maybe it would fall under " MISLEADING" in the false/misleading violation. If can be proven to have a negative effect on FICO (and therefore interest rates, credit terms, etc) and the OC's are certainly acutely aware of thier impact on FICO and it has already been stated in caselaw and FTC opinions that reporting to CRA's is used as a communication medium to debtors, so information (although technically true) that is MISLEADING to "least sophisticated consumer" AND to that SIMP Isaac would potentially be a violation.

Thoughts?

________

HAWAII MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

Edited by uwackme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can only assume maybe it would fall under " MISLEADING" in the false/misleading violation. If can be proven to have a negative effect on FICO (and therefore interest rates, credit terms, etc) and the OC's are certainly acutely aware of thier impact on FICO and it has already been stated in caselaw and FTC opinions that reporting to CRA's is used as a communication medium to debtors, so information (although technically true) that is MISLEADING to "least sophisticated consumer" AND to that SIMP Isaac would potentially be a violation.

Thoughts?

I think you are confusing the FCRA with the FDCPA. Cap1 is subject to the former and rarely subject to the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my two cents here. I have been using Equifaxs' monitoring service for a while now. Just yesterday I received an alert to an account change as well as score change. I have an account that was charged off several years that reports a CO every month on the history. However, the month of October was listed as OK. When they updated the account back to CO for November my score dropped 10 points.

I say this just to add to the discussion, it appears that it does have some effect when reported every month as a CO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed IHC, FDCPA not at issue here.

Was refering to "knowingly furnishing false/misleading information to a consumers credit report". The argument is all FCRA, also many states have laws about the same, in fact in MA it is a CRIMINAL act.

The question becomes, can we prove to a court they are knowingly placing false/misleading information on a consumer's credit report. Part of the knowlingly argument is where the Creports as an aknowledged "communication" medium to the debtor/consumer may come in handy.... in argument in court.

This would EVEN be an argument to go after Crap1 on the refusal to list the CREDIT LIMIT on the TL, a blanket company policy designed to DELIBERATELY lower the consumer's FICO score to make them less attractive to Crap1's competitors. The FCRA mentions both furnishing false/misleading information and OMMISION of information which would have the TL misrepresent the account.

I dont have the statute cites on the tip of my tongue, but I was just thinking out loud about what remedies we might have.

Remember, that in court there is always argument that can persuade a judge to draw conclusions that may blaze new trials. FCRA/FDCPA in thier newest updated forms are still young as statues go, the caselaw is still forming.

________

Gsx-R400

Edited by uwackme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so if we were to say that reporting as CO every month is not legal, why isn't it?

How could one go about sorting that out, what do you write and who do you write it to?

I'm in this exact situation and I'm more than game to try it out. I had a cap1 CO that was reported as CO on EXP for a few years untill it was paid off (Nov 04). It was not reported for the next year or so untill I disputed it in October 05, it was reported for one month as CO again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following htis post and decided to share what happened to me. I had a 6.5 year old ca for $52 and it was reporting every month as Charge Off! I also had a PAID ca from 4 years ago. I disputed the PAID account with EXP. I was shocked at the results. EXP deleted BOTH accounts and my score jumped 102 points over night. This shows how damaging the monthly reporting of Charge Off can be, even on an account 6.5 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just my two cents here. I have been using Equifaxs' monitoring service for a while now. Just yesterday I received an alert to an account change as well as score change. I have an account that was charged off several years that reports a CO every month on the history. However, the month of October was listed as OK. When they updated the account back to CO for November my score dropped 10 points.

I say this just to add to the discussion, it appears that it does have some effect when reported every month as a CO.

Wrong, that is because the item was reported as OK, and then charged off. This is a NEW charge off, as the item was reported as paid (OK) the month before. That was the basis of my lawsuit against Verizon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been following htis post and decided to share what happened to me. I had a 6.5 year old ca for $52 and it was reporting every month as Charge Off! I also had a PAID ca from 4 years ago. I disputed the PAID account with EXP. I was shocked at the results. EXP deleted BOTH accounts and my score jumped 102 points over night. This shows how damaging the monthly reporting of Charge Off can be, even on an account 6.5 years old.

That has nothing to do with how damaging it is for a CO to report every month and everything to do with the fact that 2 negatives were deleted from your CR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong, that is because the item was reported as OK, and then charged off. This is a NEW charge off, as the item was reported as paid (OK) the month before. That was the basis of my lawsuit against Verizon.

Please keep in mind it was still reporting a as CO in the TL. I was refering to specifically to the 81- month history report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, dont confuse something being reported as "pays as agreed" and the fact the CRA's someties use PAA code as filler for months where there simply is NO report on the TL.

On my Crap1, there were 4 YEARS of "PAYS AS AGREED" listed after the COff was listed....this was because the same code means NO REPORT THIS MONTH on the acct status item. The interest was reported each month however, so acct balance kept rising.

Once they LOST the lawsuit, they deliberately began once again ACTUALLY REPORTING.... meaning sending an actual report with acct status COff... the acct status as COff each month since. In my case even worse for them, as the acct is IN DISPUTE and they haven't reported as such :twisted:

The "not legal" part is reporting information that is MISLEADING as to the status of the debt in the TL. Reporting COff each month as though it just happened, over and over, to poison the TL's "recent activity" character of the debt is clearly FALSE/MISLEADING information.

Now its a matter of getting a judge to agree. Remember, the FDCPA/FCRA statutes in their latest encarnations are NEW laws, still being fleshed out in caselaw. Everytime the creditors find a new "twist" to exploit it's like a new TOY to play with, until someone BREAKS IT.

________

SUZUKI FR-50 SPECIFICATIONS

Edited by uwackme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no. CO in the status does not reflect what happened, it reflects the status. If the status reads OK and then reads CO, FICO treats it like a NEW CO. The alternative is for the furnisher to not report once the item is charged off, something which the FCRA never intended.

Sometimes I feel like debtors grasp at straws and try to overanalize this stuff. I tell you what, this arguement is going nowhere. If any of you feel like you have a good arguement, find me a case - published or not- where the judge held to your posistion. I would like to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill do my best to make that caselaw happen.

In my case, the status is CO and date of status is the new month, each month. So May status was CO, date of status May2005, ditto June, ditto July. The DATE of the STATUS of CO is correctly April 2001 (by thier own submission, though July 2000 is the legal date... 180 days after 1st delinquency).

So they are attempting to make it LOOK like a fresh CO ... EACH MONTH for the last 9 months. The date of status prior to May2005 was indeed April2001. Month after month for years.

So for 4 years the status was CO, and date of status April2001. For years there was no report other than acct balance, with interest accruing on an increasing acct balance (not that that is legal either, COff balance is supposed to be $0). So with no report, the acct status was "*" on one CRA and "pays as agreed" on the other. And date of status was April 2001.

They lose the suit in April 2005, next CR's list acct status CO, date of status May2005, etc, etc each month since.

You can't tell me this is legal, clearly it is false/misleading, deliberately designed to affect my CR negatively.... and did hit my FICO score for 50 points as this change was the ONLY change on the entire CR for the entire period.

For me, I can attack based on the LACK of listing TL as "disputed", but Im also going after them for this tactic and will blaze the trial, looking for WILLFUL non compliance punitive damages as well as statutory damages. I will ALSO include in the suit the lack of acct-credit limit, and lay the ground work for class action for others over the lack of a credit limit submission on literally MILLIONS of peoples CR's as an act of deliberate POISONING of CR TL's for all, especially those in otherwise GOOD STANDING.

COne must be shown the penalties of thier illegal activities.

Always remember DM, "false/MISLEADING" is in the eye of the TRIER OF FACT... aka the Judge and Jury. We shall see.

________

Top Penny Stocks

Edited by uwackme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote the FTC on this to see what their stance is. Awaiting a response.

If the FTC agrees, then I could use that as easy ammo against all of the OC(s) who are doing this to me (quite a few at this point).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still waiting for the FTC...however I just presented this argument to equifax and experian to see what they are going to do...will keep you posted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get ANY answer from the FTC I'd be really surprised.

As before, I agree with Dive, the CO each month is the status - they are NOT reporting it as charge-off each month. However, if the date of status really IS being updated each month, then you probably DO have a legit complaint. Have you contacted the furnisher about it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lady,

Im in a lawsuit with the "furnisher", have been since they sent a collections atty with summons after me. Did all the appropriate stuff vis-s-vi dispute, and they have admitted in court hearings as to receiving valid dispute and DV. However, they didn't pass it on to the CRA's and instead did the opposite and began this "acct status CO" and "date of status NEW aka 5/05 6/05 7/05 8/05 9/05 10/05 11/05 12/05".

Trust me, the "furnisher" knows damn well what they are doing.

So not marking as "disputed" even though it was/is and they LOST in thier court case, and are attempting to obtain a new trial as we speak. So technically they should have DELETED thier TL until they got a new trial and won a judgment. As it is a court of law has said they have NOT proven thier claim that there even IS a debt owed at all :twisted:

My case is beyond the chargeoff report issue, lots of other violations and I have plenty of time to countersue/sue over them... 2 yr SOL from my discovery of the violations (april 2005). At this point I will either countersue and transfer to Federal _IF_ they get a new trial OR I'll file in Fed directly if they fail to get a new trial. Point being transfer will cost me nada, while filing myself with cost filing fee's.

Right now the case is on hold pending appeal. They DID obtain a new trial, but did so illegally and I'm appealing the judge's illegal ruling granting the new trial. The plaintiff got a heairng, failed to notify me, and judge granted motion to vacate dismissal EX PARTE in direct violation of MA law. Which expressly PROHIBITS granting relief EXPARTE. It boggles the mind. I really dont think the appeals ct justices will be happy about this. they dont like blatent violations of citizens right to due process.

Mass Uniform Small Claims Court Rules, Rule 8

"The court MAY NOT grant such relief EX-PARTE."

Dont know how much clearer it can get.

So pending the outcome of the appeals process, it goes to Fed the easy way or the hard way.

I'll be pursuing the violation of the lack of dispute notification, AND the CO/date of status issue, and the balance not $0 on a chargeoff, and the lack of credit limit reported.

Whatever items a trier of fact might determine is "false/misleading" information I'll include as a seperate violation and let the trier of fact sort it out. They are after $<2K, so even 2 violations at max$ neutralizes thier claims against me. But I'll be claiming 4 violations x2 CRA's x 9 months and counting. $72K is such a nice round number. :twisted:

________

BUY VAPORIZER

Edited by uwackme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you get ANY answer from the FTC I'd be really surprised.

As before, I agree with Dive, the CO each month is the status - they are NOT reporting it as charge-off each month. However, if the date of status really IS being updated each month, then you probably DO have a legit complaint. Have you contacted the furnisher about it ?

Yep, no response from the FTC yet.

Called the CRA's. Probably Pretending to agree with me on the phone, however nothing was removed so far. I will wait a little bit for the dinosaurs, but I don't expect too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a CA showing CO'd for the past several months....Disbute was sent last June 05. Capital One never showed it as Disbuted at all. My conclusion to all this is... I do have a valid complaint (Correct) and if so how do I go about doing something about it? and how should the letter be written? (to OC or CRA?) I do have the letters and the green slip from sending to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What TL is listed? Is it only COne, or is the CA listing a TL of its own?

Just because you DV'd the CA, Im not sure what the legal requirements are for them informing COne of the DV, and whether the "dipsute" carries over like an infection to the OC once informed. But if they ARE responsible to tell the OC of the dispute, and the OC then doesnt list it correectly.... then they are in violation.

Whether it is a ONCE EVERY MONTH violation, or one time, cant tell. It's all about how they are reporting. If its marked acct status ChargeOff, date of Status NEW eaxch month, then to me at least it seems like a repeated offense, not a one time.

So you need to research whether the CA must and did inform the OC about the dispute.

If the CA is reporting to your CR's too, and not listed in dispute after dispute, THEY are in violation.

________

DC MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Edited by uwackme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

OK I have to jump in and ask this

Crap one is showing Charged off every single month on my CR.. and each month the balance goes up.

So basically each month it is showing as a charge off for about 55 bucks more each month than it did the month before.

Explain to me how that is legal?

I mean that basically just screws me til that whole 7 year period is up.. correct?

Might call the lawyer man tomorrow on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I called EQ today and told them that it was an innacurate statement to allow a chargeoff to populate a credit report each and every month as it did not meet the legal definition of a CO. They claim to be removing all CO right back up to DOLA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.