StuckInTheMiddle

reaging if pymt history added after closed by grantor?

Recommended Posts

I cleaned up my hubby's credit nice and pretty so we could buy a house, mission accomplished. Now I'm working on mine and I'm a little rusty.

Whats interesting here is that its the same credit card co (Providian) that we went to the mattresses over on hubby's side, and won full deletion of a reported charged off account. To give a little background we had proof that they had re-aged his already settled/paid in full (no charge off whatsoever) account after a dispute we filed. We pretty much had them dead to rights for doing this maliciously to ruin his score (basically they had 35 months of derogatory payment history on an account only open for 23 months). His score still hasn't recovered, I suspect that having it deleted from the 3 CRA's doesn't do squat to FICO's magic formula.

I think I've distilled mine down to one (okay maybe 2) basic questions:

If Providian lists 'closed by grantor' as of a 10-10-2003 credit report I have on file, but then lists a new round of 30/60/90's in 2006 is it re-aging? Once an account has been closed by the grantor the clock can't be restarted can it?

Lastly, we had a helluva time getting this deletion and actually sent them copies of the lawsuit paperwork we intended to file. I'm hoping not to do this this time around... can I simply dispute to the CRA's with the copies of dated CRs showing the error and get them to delete the TLs or do I always need to go through the TL itself to get a deletion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-aging has occurred when the Data Furnisher changes the DOFD, which is typically not listed on CR's, so that the TL may appear for longer than 7 years (plus 180 days). That term doesn't apply to the Providian account.

But what they have reported is inaccurate. IF the account is CO'd, they can report the last status prior to CO as 'late', but not on a closed account. (I gotta ask) Is there a balance remaining on the account? Is there any notation about 'sold' or 'transferred'?

"...CRA...copies of dated CRS..."

The CRA's don't accept documentaton from consumers. It's their policy.

With that in mind, if it was me, I'd give it a try anyway. Just don't get your hopes up too high. Work the DF at the same time and keep impecible records. I'm not one to suggest lawsuits, but in this case, after a few attempts to dispute with both the CRA's and DF - a well-worded ITS letter implying willful noncompliance on well-documented violations should work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you do have to go to the tl to get a deletion! But I'm a little confused ? I am not sure if mean that they are saying he was late in 2006? That is not re-aging if its true.Meaning, even though it was closed if you still had a balance you were still obligated to pay and if you stopped paying simply because it was closed you were wrong!! Now if it was closed in 2003 with a zero balance then they cannot go back and claim you were late when in fact you were not!! You must contact immediatly and dispute with credit bureaus remember you cant sue until you dispute with credit bureaus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hubby had 1 account with them, paid in full Oct 2003... they had listed it as a charge off so we disputed in Feb 2005 blindly trusting they would 'tell the truth' and correct the TL. They seem to have retaliated to that request by going back in and adding months and months of 120 days that hadn't previously been there effectively adding 16 months of payment history leading up to the feb 2005 dispute even thought they had previously listed it as charged off not to mention the paid in full/no charge off settlement agreement we had made in oct 2003.

For a little background they had assigned all these accounts to an extremely abusive 3rd party collector who after much digging didn't bother to document anything including the settlement in oct 2003. This guy made us miserable by calling up to 5 times a day, threatening lawsuits, garnishments and can be quoted as saying "I have your SSN's and I will make it my purpose to ruin your credit". This is why we caved and paid in oct 2003 long before we understood any of our rights. Luckily for us this unprofessional strong arm didn't bother to keep records of anything whatsoever and after disputing and demanding a correction of the payment history Providian (WaMu) wasn't able to provide records on anything after assignment to this 3rd party. We have proof via dated CR's that show someone retroactively went in to change previously unreported payment history. Ultimately we won on a technicality (their inability to provide records of any payment history after assignment to this 3rd party) but most certainly had them dead to rights for being complicit with the 3rd party collector by maliciously and illegally adding payment history that hadn't been there before.

If that isn't confusing enough...

I had 2 accounts with them, also paid in full in Oct 2003.

The first one has an 'out of the blue' 30 as of jun 2004, balance history of $10 for each sep/oct/nov 2004 and a statement that reads "between sep 2004 and nov 2004 your credit limit/high balance was $1100." which seems to contradict the closed as of oct 2003 and $10 balances. This account was paid in full as of oct 2003 and I think this $10 payment history that magically shows up in sep - nov 2004 for $10 is bogus.

The 2nd one is similar except the payment history shows up in jun 2004 like the first but continues from that point on reflecting payment history as recently as aug 2006.

What it boils down to is this:

Providian was taken over by WaMu.

WaMu was completely unable to document any payment history during the dispute process beginning with the time it assigned my husbands account to this abusive 3rd party collection agency (Van Ru).

I suspect some hinky stuff is going on with my 2 accounts but lack the same 'gotcha' that we had with hubby's.

I know that this payment history after oct 2003 is fabricated for some nefarious purpose but my accounts aren't listed as charge offs like hubby's was, just some shady payment history entries. But both are listed under the 'negative' category on my CR's.

I have a couple of options here...

I still have all the same contact info for the superspecial rep from their legal dept that was assigned to me after our ITS letter (on hubby's behalf). I'm thinking I can contact her again in the nicest possible way, saying something to the effect "you can save us all a lot of time and headache and just delete these 2 accounts because you and I both know that the payment history cannot be documented and was most likely fabricated by the cowboy 3rd party collection agent"

I can go through the dispute channels again and basically do all the same work again that we did on hubby's account which culminated in angry angry ITS letters.

My concern is: if i go the first route I may sabotage any efforts if I have to go the 2nd route. I'm wondering if the proof of bad behavior on my husbands account has any bearing on any dispute I file for my accounts...

Writing this post has led me to this idea: maybe I'll do both. I think I'm going to file written disputes with the CRA's claiming the payment history was fabricated effectively kickstarting WaMu's obligation to prove payment history (which I know they can't do). I'm also going to call this rep who we got to know very very well, and state politely "same song different verse, just delete the accounts".

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Please add any ideas or comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta tell you, I didn't read through your entire post. It got muddled and confusing in the first paragraph. You may wish to edit for clarity.

"...charge off...we disputed..."

Got that part, but then you say, "...paid in full Oct 2003..." (And) "...settlement agreement...Oct 2003..."

Was the account PIF in good standing? The word 'settlement' is used on defaulted accounts, which means the account was either a collection of CO. Are you saying that you had an agreement to change a defaulted account to PIF Non-default status?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotta tell you, I didn't read through your entire post. It got muddled and confusing in the first paragraph. You may wish to edit for clarity.

Thanks for trying :D

My 2 questions are:

How do I get all 3 CRA payment histories to match on multiple TL's, and more importantly how do I get them to reflect the nicest possible history that TU has?

If only 1 CRA is listing a collection account, can I skip contacting the CA/OC's and ask the CRA directly to delete the collection because the other 2 CRA's already have?

This is what I'm focusing on:

My FAKO scores are 641TU/592EX/590EQ and FICO is 585. I'm trying to find out why the FAKO's aren't closer together.

The best I can figure are the differences in payment history on 1 of 2 Providian accounts (with a ding on the 2 yr history). But there are 2 other accounts that don't have matching payment histories on all 3 CRA's but are still open/current with perfect 2 yr payment histories.

Hubby's Providian account has long since been deleted, we busted them on reaging big time.

I'm trying to figure out my course of action on my 2 Providian accounts which aren't good

#1 All 3 CRA's have as follows; 4 ea 30 day/2 ea 60 day/2 ea 90 day, with the last 30 day in jun 04. Jun 04 isn't dinging my 2 yr history, so I'm not sure I should do anything with it.

#2 DOESN'T match across all 3 CRA's, which could explain the disparity in FAKO scores.

TU reports 3-30/2-60/3-90

EX reports 5-30/2-60/3-90

EQ reports 5-30/2/60/3-90

Needless to say TU has the nicest 30/60/90 history on across all accounts (not just these Providian ones) on my CR. EX and EQ do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"...How do I get..."

Basicaly, YOU don't. Both the OC and CA(s) are Data Furnishers. The CRA's interpret the electronic data they send according to their own internal software and format. That's often the reason for slight discrepancies in different reports. The CRA's simply hold, and parrot, what the DF provides. So you go to the DF, whichever one is applicable, and ask that they report accurately. Then you check your reports with an understanding that certain differences are inherent in the system. If there are inaccuracties not explained by format differences - you might have to sue to have them corrected.

"...because the other 2..."

The CRA's are separate businesses. There is no requirement or expectation that their records would, or should, match. You can't leverage one Consumer File against another. If you wrote EX claiming that they have more data than TU, EX is going to take that as proof positive that THEIR files are superior.

"...why the FAKO's aren't closer..."

For one thing, the range of numbers is different. I can't quote them off the top of my head, but one starts at 350, one starts at 400. There are substantial differences built into the software. Another issue is that the three scores are calculated using the 3 different Consumer Files. So one score is factored using the data in your TU file and the other scores use the other two. As you've already noticed, the basic data can be different. So the score calculated from the data will be different also. It's also NO BIG DEAL to have significant differences in your scores.

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