late versus CO reporting by OC

[Lyssarene]

I know this has been discussed but I can't find the final answer.

I have a OC reporting as follows on a charged off account:

EX EQ

collection/charge off collection/charge off

under the 2 year payment history it shows for Experian 11/02 CO 12/02 CO

But for Equifax is shows

11/01 30 days

12/01/01/02 - nothing

02/02 30

03/02 60

04/02 90

05/02-12/02 120 (reported each month as 120 days late)

One report shows CO/ the other shows the lates.... are they both correct or do they have to match identical? If they have to match, which should they match, CO or the lates?

[willingtocope]

The FCRA onlys says that what CRAs report must be accurate...it doesn't really say they all have to match. It looks to me like they're both accurate, as far as they go.

[Lyssarene]

OK - if it was listed as CO = Collection chargeoff then how can it be listed as 120 days in those same 2 months? Wouldn't that be inaccurate?

[willingtocope]

No, not really.

Credit reporting is not common sense logical. For example, when it comes to "late", the organization reporting only has five things to choose from: not late, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, and 120 days. Once you pass into the "late more than 4 months" category, they always select 120 days.

And, again, there is no requirement that an OC or CA report to a CRA. Only that if they do report, it must be accurate.

So...they reported you as CO to one, and late to the other.

You could invoke the "must be accurate AND complete" wording of the FCRA, but there's really no advantage to you doing that. Both 120 days late and CO hurt your scores...a lot...CO is probably a little worse.