Help responding to BBB per LVNV response

[CleverCynic]

The following is an excerpt from LVNV explaining reporting methods to the BBB:

In most cases, creditors charge off accounts once they are 120

days or more past due/delinquent. The statement “120 days past

due” is generally how a charged off account is defined by the

credit bureaus. Due to the account being charged off, the

bureaus still report it as 120 days past due. This comment is

not reported by the current creditor but added by the bureaus to

further define the account; therefore, this statement cannot be

altered.

Per the CDIA (Consumer Data Industry Association) Metro 2 manual,

factoring company is defined as “a company or individual who

purchases accounts with the intent of collecting debts owed.”

Therefore, it is accurate in this situation. The statement

“installment account” is generally how a revolving line of credit

is defined by the credit bureaus. This comment is added by the

bureaus to further define the account; therefore, this statement

cannot be altered.

Here are the things I believe are wrong: LVNV is on my report in the capacity of a collection agency, though they begin their explanation with the reporting methods of OC's, of which they are not and have a bad habit of representing themselves as such. They should not report 120 days late, especially when no repayment agreement has been reached.

Furthermore, they refer to it as an installment account and blame the CRA's for using this terminology, though I believe it is the data furnishers job to define the account. Can a collection account be an installment account? It seems they are skirting the issue by saying that revolving lines of credit ARE TYPICALLY reported as installment accounts, but stop short of stating that this is in fact an installment account. Nice dance.

In general, I feel the tone of the letter tacitly blames the CRA's for the report presentation as if it's their policies that make everything look wrong.

Any help in responding to the BBB with specifics would be much appreciated. Since my complaint, LVNV has removed both entries from my EQ, and it was the most incorrect of the 3 bureaus. It only remains on EX and TU.

Also confirm for me that they cannot use CHARGEOFF as a term simultaneously with a balance outstanding. I'm pretty sure they can't.

I'm sure you can appreciate how helpful another set of experienced eyes on this matter would be to me. Thanks in advance, I have 10 days to respond.

Rob

[sgip2000]

They are partially correct; however, what they say applies to collection accounts, not original creditor accounts.

A collection account can be labled as a "installment account"; however, the terms should say 1 payment with the total due. If the account is 120 days or more past due, it can reflect that also. Some CRAs just note "Collection Account" instead.

Sucks, I know, but legal.

[Fizzle1979]

I will throw my two cents at this.

To me, 30, 60, 90 120, etc days past due should only be reffered to when the account is active and with the OC. Since the OC charged off the account, the Type Of Loan is not longer revolving account. The Type Of Loan now becomes a Factoring Company Account/Debt Purchaser. The TOL will never ben Installment in my opinion.

Unfortunately I only have my opinion and no hard data to back it up.

[CleverCynic]

They are partially correct; however, what they say applies to collection accounts, not original creditor accounts.

.

Is this what you meant to say? Or Vice-versa? Because I believe they are making excuses valid only for an OC and NOT a CA. Since they are a CA in this case, it is not a valid explanation for how they are reporting.

Thanks for you thoughts guys, keep'm coming!

[sgip2000]

I think what it boils down to is how the CRA codes it. Some note "Factoring Account" while others, call it "Collection Account" It may also depend on if it's been "sold" or "assigned". Once sold, it's coded differently.

[willingtocope]

First of all, responding to the BBB is not of any real use. The BBB has no power or authority over anything...even if they knew what they were talking about, nobody HAS TO listen. The worst they can do is kick out one of their dues paying sponsors...not much chance of that.

Second...its unimportant what NCO calls themselves or their TL. The only thing of importance is that they are NOT the OC, and therefore their time limit on reporting is controled by the DOFD for the OC. The terms "120 days past due" and "charge off" are STATUSes...not activities. Those are essentially correct.

If they've bought the account, and they're not reporting the DOFD from the OC...that's the only thing you can ding them on.

[sgip2000]

Is this what you meant to say? Or Vice-versa? Because I believe they are making excuses valid only for an OC and NOT a CA. Since they are a CA in this case, it is not a valid explanation for how they are reporting.

Thanks for you thoughts guys, keep'm coming!

Yes, that is what I meant. From what I've seen, the problems are mostly due to the CRAs not coding accounts properly. Of course, the CAs always screw up too, but with the influx of JDB, the CRAs haven't kept up on the proper noting of those accounts. Also, if a JDB presents themselves as an OC, the CRAs don't question it. If you had a collection account noted as a "revolving account", that'd be a whole different story.

[Fizzle1979]

First of all, responding to the BBB is not of any real use. The BBB has no power or authority over anything...even if they knew what they were talking about, nobody HAS TO listen. The worst they can do is kick out one of their dues paying sponsors...not much chance of that.

Second...its unimportant what NCO calls themselves or their TL. The only thing of importance is that they are NOT the OC, and therefore their time limit on reporting is controled by the DOFD for the OC. The terms "120 days past due" and "charge off" are STATUSes...not activities. Those are essentially correct.

If they've bought the account, and they're not reporting the DOFD from the OC...that's the only thing you can ding them on.

You will hear many people tell you that the BBB has no power to do anything with the CA's. Which might be true, however, to me if you make a complaint with the BBB and the CA fails to address the issue, that is just one more attempt you made to resolve the matter before going to court. I think I made five complaints with the BBB during my credit repair process and only one didn't side in my favor. I just took it to another agency and eventually I got the account off my credit report.

[CleverCynic]

If you had a collection account noted as a "revolving account", that'd be a whole different story.

See if a CA for a Credit card company reported as "revolving" you agree that would be wrong. So isn't reporting as "Installment" when the OC was a car payment be the same variety of violation? Either way they imply they are the OC.

Willingtocope, I don't know that I agree with all of that. I have other collections that are capable of reporting properly. When AFNI went from collections to 120 days past due my score plummeted. They fixed it when I complained and my score shot back up. They obviously can affect the score more by reporting 120 days late and I don't think it's simply their choice of how to do it as evidenced by their fixing it upon my complaint.

LVNV also fixed this as well. All I have left is the incorrect amount (actually reporting lower than what they reported to the BBB as true), and the combined use of CHARGEOFF as the status now with a continued balance outstanding. This is actually a recent status, they are claiming it was recently charged off and my scores took a dive with the new activity. They can't make up their minds.

[CleverCynic]

Here's the current reporting:

Note the 3 recent CO notations all of a sudden.

[CleverCynic]

bump -

Any further thoughts to add before I get writing?

[Fizzle1979]

I would also add in your reply that LVNV is not required to report to the CRA's, however if they choose to report, they must report accurately and completely. That (to me and I'm not a lawyer) means there must be no blanks for the data fields. All data frields must be complete and accurate. Of course this is a double edged sword, they could come back and report EVERYTHING. But I doubt they know all the correct information for every data field. So when you dispute it again with the CRA, dispute every data field for those two things.

[HadEnough]

Wherein their subtrafuges were contradicted item by item ;

http://creditsuit.org/images/uploads/Opinion_LVNV_MSJ.pdf

Here is Ms. Maloney's blog ;

http://fedfighter.blogspot.com/search/label/LVNV%20Funding