Charge off question

[groovedesign]

I like to ask for some help from all credit gurus, ideas, or advice...

I was wondering if you guys could tell me if you see any inaccuracies here with a Charge off that Experian is reporting.

When I pull through the three and one's it comes up with a different account number as well as through freecreditreport.com which is the subsidary for Experian. On Experian's dispute site it gives me the same account number from the hard copy credit report.

I am trying produce a letter or a phone dispute with Experian to get this account removed. What do you suggest they have verified this item several times. Experian is the only CRA reporting this account. It has been removed from the others.

Is is possible for a CRA to report (2) 90 day lates without 30,60's and report charge off?

[Focus2069]

the white boxes means no data was collected that month, if i remember correctly.

[swirlgirl]

If Ex has verified it several times, they are not going to re-investigate. Is this a student loan? Have you contacted the OC?

[groovedesign]

This is a private student loan but it has been deleted from Trans Union and Equifax. Experian is the only bureau that reports it. I am asking if it is legal for them to report 90 and 120 days late without reporting 30-60 days. As well as they are reporting the incorrect account number. Is this a violation of the FCRA?

[chrismg]

The creditor not reporting the 30 and 60 day lates is not a violation of the FCRA.

The account number is not significant unless the tradeline is not yours.

[deltadawn]

I'm a novice at reading CR's; however, I think there is a discreptancy in the reporting.

TU shows pay status as current whereas EX shows pay status as delinquent/charge off.

If this was charged off, shouldn't the balance be $0?

Can someone explain to me how this is accurate reporting?

[groovedesign]

I'm a novice at reading CR's; however, I think there is a discreptancy in the reporting.

TU shows pay status as current whereas EX shows pay status as delinquent/charge off.

If this was charged off, shouldn't the balance be $0?

Can someone explain to me how this is accurate reporting?

Very True

here is the actual facts from a hard copy as reported by experian does anyone see a violation of the FCRA being the fact that the account was written/charged off?..

Date Opened:

02/2000

Type:

Installment

Credit Limit:

$25,000

Date of Status:

12/2003

Terms:

240 Months

High Balance:

$25,000

Reported Since:

04/2002

Monthly Payment:

$0

Recent Balance:

$28,408

Last Reported Date:

01/2003

Responsibility:

Individual

Recent Payment:

$0

[chrismg]

CRAs don't share information well. What's worse is when you get 3rd party software that tries to tie your accounts together, you can end up with the software pairing 2 different tradelines.

Not saying that's the case here...but those might be 2 different tradelines?

[groovedesign]

CRAs don't share information well. What's worse is when you get 3rd party software that tries to tie your accounts together, you can end up with the software pairing 2 different tradelines.

Not saying that's the case here...but those might be 2 different tradelines?

Funny those are two different trade lines but my question still refers to the charge off

[groovedesign]

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with my experian account?

[kel]

If in fact the debt has been charged off the balance should show $0. You say that TU and EQ have deleted. Am I right there? Has this been turned over to a collector or sold. Something is definitely not being reported right or updated on EX. I'm not understanding this yet. Maybe alittle more background would help. I don't really understand the "collection/chargeoff". Which is it? Is it a collection or has it been charged off? May contact the OC and find out what the status is for sure.

[LUEser]

Whoa now, hold them horses.

The balance doesn't have to show 0 for a charge off. Unless they transferred the account to another company completely (not a CA), or sold it.

Otherwise, CO is simply there to show that the company has marked it as a loss for tax purposes.

If one were to pay on it, the balance would decrease, but the rest of the amount is still considered charged off.

In the event that the debt were forgiven, then it would also read zero, but I don't know of any OCs who do that without some form of settlement.

In which case, it would still show CO, with a "Paid as Settled" or similar notation.

I don't see a problem here except that TU shows 120s on TC instead of CO.

To really find out if there is an error, you'd also need our TU paper report.

Hopefully, I'm just off base here, but I don't think so in this instance.

Sorry to burst your bubble man.

[groovedesign]

Whoa now, hold them horses.

The balance doesn't have to show 0 for a charge off. Unless they transferred the account to another company completely (not a CA), or sold it.

Otherwise, CO is simply there to show that the company has marked it as a loss for tax purposes.

If one were to pay on it, the balance would decrease, but the rest of the amount is still considered charged off.

In the event that the debt were forgiven, then it would also read zero, but I don't know of any OCs who do that without some form of settlement.

In which case, it would still show CO, with a "Paid as Settled" or similar notation.

I don't see a problem here except that TU shows 120s on TC instead of CO.

To really find out if there is an error, you'd also need our TU paper report.

Hopefully, I'm just off base here, but I don't think so in this instance.

Sorry to burst your bubble man.

LUEser:

This debt was sold or assigned to a CA. When I contacted the OC they referred me to the CA. I also was successful in removing the CA off my credit report. Do you believe that the original creditor is reporting wrong on experian. The recent balance shows $ 28408.

[LUEser]

Again, I exercise discretion here.

What we're getting at is a semantic game where "assign" can mean two things.

One can be an assignee of an account, and it does not necessitate that the account was being sold. This is simply account assignment, and happens all the time when an OC sends an account to a CA. In this case: Assignee means a person appointed to act for another. Hence the assigned CA acts on behalf of the OC to collect the money.

The other is the sell of an account, and many CC contracts have the language "blah blah blah... or its assigns." This type of assignee uses this legal definition of assignment: "A person to whom a right or liability is legally transferred." In the respect of junk debt buyers, the sale of paper. The right of title. In these cases the OC is completely out of the picture. And because of that the OC has nothing owing to it, as it no longer has a title. So it must report 0 balance.

So in your case, for the OC to be wrong, the CA would have to be an assignee in the second sense. i.e. debt sold to JDB. Otherwise, the OC is completely justified in reporting a balance on the charge off for the duration of the reporting period, but only if they're reporting 100% completely and accurately. And if they're not, then you pounce on that opportunity to make them get it off. But as far as your report goes now, without knowing exactly what the EXP paper copy says, it doesn't look like the OC is wrong.