Are these not considered collections?

[myscoresawful]

I have several accounts on my EQ that I believe are collections with a different type entry, and yes, according to the "things that are hurting your score" these balances are.

For example:

Porfolio purchased an HSBC charge off. It is Now listed on my credit report as an open account 120 past due (the entire $922 is past due). In the description, it shows "collection", but the status is open, 120 past due.

All things considered at the myfico site indicate my score would go up by paying this off. Too bad I don't trust Portfolio.

There are a couple of others too, doing the same thing.

One is for a utility company, due to fall off my report the end of February for $676 .....as with the Portfolio account, if I go to "credit at a glance" it shows this being included in the "total open revolving accounts balance".

There's even a pay day loan in there!

No wonder my EQ is 100 points lower than the other two!

Crap! I just noticed another thing. I had a loan from a finance company: $350.00.

It is showing "secured" ...it was NOT.

It is showing for Oct 2006: Repossession/foreclosure and every month since then, "OK" Even though the description is charged off account secured....none of this is correct. Does this mean I have a repo or foreclosure on my report? or does that have to be in the status to count against me? I'm really confused now!

[Debt Guy]

Seems to me at least some of the tradelines are reporting as they are supposed to as collections.

There may be errors in various data elements (for example, you said the finance co loan was reported secured when it was unsecured) but those errors may be disputed on the factual basis.

As best I recall, each CRA has slightly different rules for data furnishers in terms of how a tradeline is displayed on the credit report. I think that is the reason you see a tradeline looking differently from one CRA to the next CRA. The DF prepares their data in a standardized format (METRO3 was the last version I remember). That same data file goes to each CRA. The CRAs then merge it into the database with their own definitions of how data is displayed.

I have never seen or heard of a DF "doctoring" their data files for individual CRAs. It would be expensive and replete with problems.

I guess I am not understanding what you are looking for. How do you think those tradelines should be reported?

Have you asked TU about their policies for displaying data?

[myscoresawful]

Seems to me at least some of the tradelines are reporting as they are supposed to as collections.

There may be errors in various data elements (for example, you said the finance co loan was reported secured when it was unsecured) but those errors may be disputed on the factual basis.

THey are also reporting it as a repo/foreclosure. wth?!

As best I recall, each CRA has slightly different rules for data furnishers in terms of how a tradeline is displayed on the credit report. I think that is the reason you see a tradeline looking differently from one CRA to the next CRA. The DF prepares their data in a standardized format (METRO3 was the last version I remember). That same data file goes to each CRA. The CRAs then merge it into the database with their own definitions of how data is displayed.

I have never seen or heard of a DF "doctoring" their data files for individual CRAs. It would be expensive and replete with problems.

My post doesn't imply any of the above.

I guess I am not understanding what you are looking for. How do you think those tradelines should be reported?

I'm really not sure, there are 4 accounts in the "collections" section of my EQ CR and then there are these listed in revolving accounts, I want to know what the difference is? How can a utility bill be revolving? *shrug*

Have you asked TU about their policies for displaying data?

Do you mean EQ? No, I would rather ask my question here first, besides, EQ CS doesn't know what they're talking about half the time, they tell me things like "your account will drop off 7 years from the DOLA"

Thanks for replying.

[myscoresawful]

DebtGuy, maybe you could help me with them individually?

For example, I was under the impression that a charge off could not be reported as "open, past due", etc.

If the OC sells that, can the new owner begin reporting it as open, revolving, 120 past due as the status? (they have collection in the description).

I am referring to the Portfolio Recovery account that was purchased from HSBC.

I have sent them a DV letter, they sent back (on their letterhead and truthfully, I believe it was in response to my dispute with the CRAs because it was postmarked before my green card was signed) what it is for...a debt purchased from HSBC, current outstanding balance (an amount that they show no calculation of how they came up with)... I know they don't have to validate now that the initial 30 days are up, but I don't think they have anything. I also disputed HSBC and they sent me a letter stating they checked into my dispute and found that it was for a cc I once had with them...no documentation. I think they don't have any records either. (not trying to get off the initial question of how PFR is now reporting, but just wanted to give more insight on this).

it also shows on my report: "previously disputed, now resolved".

It was never resolved. All they did was verify with the 3 CRAs.

[Ahntara]

"...reporting it as a repo/foreclosure..."

This relates to the electronic data that accompanies the CO rating. Sounds like the CRA misinterpretted the data and labeled this as a secured account. When it defaulted, the 'repo..." label got in there. It's probably an automatic notation which accompanies the rating. For practical purposes, it gives you two separate dispute reasons (the 'secured' part and the 'repo' part).

"...I want to know what the difference is..."

Well, you know what a utility account is; and you probably know what a revolving account is (like a credit card, an account that you may pay in full or make a partial payment to and REVOLVE the balance over to another month, for mega fees). The fact that some CRA lumps them in an incorrect Sub-Category (which doesn't even exist in your Consumer File) is just a format issue and nothing to be concerned about. Just like the mislabel above, practically it's another reason for a separate dispute, which gives you another chance to get the TL shielded from view.

"...All they did was verify..."

Verifying with the DF is all they do. They consider that resolution. In their opinion, it has been and the comment is appropriate.

[myscoresawful]

"...

"...All they did was verify..."

Verifying with the DF is all they do. They consider that resolution. In their opinion, it has been and the comment is appropriate.

No, I mean, all the DF did was verify (well by their standards, I guess, anyway)...they didn't resolve anything... I feel like, by putting this on my TL, they are saying to any potential lender, "she disputed it, but now its resolved and as you can see, it's still here and past due"

sort of like, she agrees it's a bad debt and hers...

[Ahntara]

You're reading your interpretation into it.

The truth is closer to, "she disputed it, we verified, we don't care if she agrees..."

[myscoresawful]

ok, and since it was apparently charged off by HSBC in 2006, and Portfolio is now on their entry showing the DOFMD as 7/2007....wouldn't that be reaging?

[Ahntara]

...it would if it does...

DOFD doesn't appear on most CR's. You may have one that shows this date, but that would be unusual. IF the DOFD is showing and it is later than the DOFD shown by the OC, that would constitute illegal re-aging. I'm just dubious that this is your actual situation.