Jump to content

Can credit card companies report a debt this way?


txguy84
 Share

Recommended Posts

Does Fair Credit Reporting allow credit card companies to report like this?
I have a CO credit card on my CBR that is reporting inaccuracies/redundancies. To give you a better picture see below:

02/2011 03/2011 04/2011
CO           CO           CO

01/2011 12/2010 11/2010 10/2010 09/2010 08/2010 07/2010 06/2010 05/2010
120            120         120          90       C/O         60          30          OK        OK

04/2010 03/2010 02/2010 01/2010 12/2009 11/2009 10/2009 09/2009 08/2009
     60        30           OK          OK         OK          30          OK        OK          OK

As you can see there are several 120 days late in a row along with a CO in the middle of a 30 and 60 day late.

Does this look like something that could be disputed/removed?

Thanks!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Big Sis says, disputing as "not mine" is worth a try, but...

 

This is all part of the intentional confusion that the CRAs have built into their reporting systems...if you call them on it, they will claim they are reporting accurately.

"Charge Off" and "Days Late" are both an event and a status. Once an account goes 180 days late (the event), its status becomes 180 days late forever...the same applies to charge off...once a debt is charged off (the event), its status remains CO until they collect it or sell it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, this is part of the game...

 

What I'm seeing is the charge off event occured 09/2010, then the "past due" status was reported for 4 months when they then switched to reporting the status as "CO".

 

It is confusing, but the FCRA doesn't say credit reporting has to be clear to the consumer...only that it has to be accurate.  Now the CFPB may get around to issuing directive to make CRs clearer and more understandable, but, I wouldn't hold my breath.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd think about a simultaneous dispute and 623 request to the data furnisher... at the very least it's inaccurate reporting - a debt cannot go from charged off to 90 days late, then back to C/O status.

 

Again...the C/O on 09/2010 was an EVENT.  And then in 10/2010 they switched back to reporting "90 Days Late" as a STATUS.  Confusing, but not inaccurate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I agree.  It is confusing.  The problem with the "user friendly" way the CRAs display stuff is that you have to look at ALL pieces of the display and you can't take one piece out of context and try to make sense of it.  For example, the page shown in this post:

 

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/321633-can-someone-look-at-this-tradeline-and-tell-me-if-they-renewed-the-dola/

 

If you look at the "Status" at the top of the page the TL is "Closed"...if you look at the "Payment History" plot in the middle of the page it looks like they're claiming it was 180 days late in both Dec 2009 and Aug 2013...and if you look at the "Account History" at the bottom, it restates the 180 days past due. 

 

Remember, the credit reporting business is not our friend...we are NOT their customer...they design this crap for the people who are used to looking at it day in and day out.  This is one reason why when Lexus/Nexus reports a FICO Insurance Score to an insurance agent, they don't show the full report or even a number...they report a letter which corresponds to a "Band" that the potential insuree fits in.  They don't expect even insurance agents to be able to intrepret this gibberish.

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.