Jump to content

Current Status - 120 Days Late - With a "0" Balance?


Recommended Posts

Need someone with a little more experience to advise if this account is being reported correctly?

Account Number: XXXX

Current Status: CHARGE-OFF

Account Owner: Individual Account.

High Credit: $0

Type of Account : Revolving

Credit Limit: $0

Term Duration:

Terms Frequency: Monthly (due every month)

Date Opened: 10/2001

Balance: $0

Date Reported: 02/2007

Amount Past Due: $0

Date of Last Payment: 04/2005

Actual Payment Amount: $0

Scheduled Payment Amount: $0

Date of Last Activity: 07/2005

Date Major Delinquency First Reported: 02/2006

Months Reviewed: 63

Creditor Classification:

Activity Description: Paid

Charge Off Amount: $0

Deferred Payment Start Date:

Balloon Payment Amount: $0

Balloon Payment Date:

Date Closed:

Type of Loan: Credit Card

Comments: Paid charge off, Credit card

Since the account is "PAID" I would expect the "Current Status" to reflect such and not "CHARGE-OFF". Am I wrong?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, a little light reading.


Yes, you are wrong. This is what's known as a paid charge off.

However, there looks to be some incorrect reporting so assuming this is an OC then they are in violation of FCRA. That means you can sue them.

They report DOFD as 02/2006, but DOLA as 07/2005 and Date of Last Payment as 04/2005

How good are your records on this account? The account probably went 30 days late, 60 days late, 90 days late, 120 days late, then CO.

DOFD (Date Of First Delinquency) should be, I believe, the date it went to 30 days late.

In any event, print off hard copys of all three CRs--assuming it appears on all three. Your best bet is to gather all the documentation you have on the account, and you may be able to get a deletion with an ITS letter.

You may have enough to sue them with what's here on your CR. If the account balance is $0, and the Date of Last Payment is 04/2005, and the account is a CO, then obviously the DOFD would have to have been before 04/2005 and could not possibly be after 04/2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.