Jump to content

Charge off Repo gone to collections


siaan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a repo on my credit report that I believe is approaching 7  year marker (2014).  2 year after the repo the finance company Triad sold the account to collection agency.  This collection agency every month posts payment/balance as unpaid charge off to credit bureau. Please explain why this reported as such and not a final balance owed of $xxxx.xx charge off as of xyz date.

 

I just applied for credit card and was denied due to this auto repo reporting a charge off for the month of march 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However it is reported, it is a negative.  It should have less impact on your score closer to to the 7 or 7.5 year deletion.  Credit card companies are still tight about taking on customers that have no negatives, and are even working to drop even existing customers that are paid up (because these don't bring in as much revenue).  You'll have a better chance in 2014.  But even then you might not get the credit you want or deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FCRA section 623

fdcpa 807.  False or misleading representations  [15 USC 1962e]

 

(2) The false representation of --

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

 

If the collection agency has not charged your alleged debt to profit and loss they have misrepresented the character of the debt. The ca cannot report the charge off from the OC because that charge off does not reflect the status of the debt that they now own. The only way they can report it as charged off is if the ca has charged it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A CA cannot charge off a debt.  Technically, the CA is not reporting incorrectly or misrepresenting the character of the debt because it is a fact that the account was charged off. 

 

I don't know that the CA should be reporting it that way, but they are not misrepresenting the character of the debt by stating that it was charged off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A CA cannot charge off a debt.  Technically, the CA is not reporting incorrectly or misrepresenting the character of the debt because it is a fact that the account was charged off. 

 

I don't know that the CA should be reporting it that way, but they are not misrepresenting the character of the debt by stating that it was charged off.

How about this argument: Since a ca cannot charge off a debt, and the ca is reporting it as charged off, while the oc may have charged it off, the ca has to report the debt as it pertains to them. And since a ca cannot charge off, they are misrepresenting the character of the debt by reporting it as charged off. A ca cannot report the debt as it pertains the the oc because the oc no longer owns the debt.

 

A ca can only state whether the tl is open, closed, or sold to another purchaser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this argument: Since a ca cannot charge off a debt, and the ca is reporting it as charged off, while the oc may have charged it off, the ca has to report the debt as it pertains to them. And since a ca cannot charge off, they are misrepresenting the character of the debt by reporting it as charged off. A ca cannot report the debt as it pertains the the oc because the oc no longer owns the debt.

 

A ca can only state whether the tl is open, closed, or sold to another purchaser.

 

I'm not sure it would work.  There's nothing in the FDCPA or FCRA that says a CA/JDB can't report an accurate detail that was reported by the OC.  If a CA was to report the date of first delinquency, they would HAVE to report the same date as the OC even though that delinquency could not have been with the CA.  The same applies if a JDB reported the date of last payment reported by the OC.  That payment could not have been made to the JDB, but there would be nothing wrong with the JDB reporting it because it would be accurate.

 

There's no court precedent that I've been able to locate that would support your suggestion.

 

Considering the recent SCOTUS ruling, consumers need to be careful about making claims that they cannot support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CA can continue to charge interest and that would change the balance monthly which would allow them to update the TL but the cannot change the Status Date, which is the important date. Too many people look at the "last report date" and think it means something. It doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CA can continue to charge interest and that would change the balance monthly which would allow them to update the TL but the cannot change the Status Date, which is the important date. Too many people look at the "last report date" and think it means something. It doesn't.

Only if the contract with the OC states such, and if they cannot provide the contract a court of law should not allow it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.