What is the correct CRA reporting for the following scenario?

[bad98roadster]

Facts:

 

Mortgage Loan

Last Payment Date: 2/10/2009 - no other payments made on account to date. No foreclosure yet.

First Delinquency Date: 3/1/2009

30 days late on:4/1/2009

_______

 

4/09 - 30 days late 

5/09 - 60 days late  

6/09 - 90 days late 

7/09 - 120 days late

8/09 - 150 days late 

9/09 - 180 days late

 

10/09 should be - Closed, Charged off, Not Reported and/or what??

11/09 should be ??

12/09 should be ??

01/10 should be ??

02/10 should be ??

03/10 should be ??

03/10 should be ??

...

12/13 should be ??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[willingtocope]

Logic does not apply.

 

"180 Days Late" is both an event and a status.  On 9/09 it was 180 days late (the "event")...from then on, its "status" was 180 days late.

[bad98roadster]

Logic does not apply.

 

"180 Days Late" is both an event and a status.  On 9/09 it was 180 days late (the "event")...from then on, its "status" was 180 days late.

 

In my view, a repeating 180 days late would indicate that the consumer missed 6 payments then started making full payments again for 4 years without ever catching up on the missed payments.

 

The consumer's credit score suffers from a default dated over 4 years ago that's being reported as if the 180 day late occurred last month.

 

Is there any case law or precedent to support the fact that the furnisher and/or CRA can continuously report 180 days late for 7 years or until the SOL runs?

[willingtocope]

As I said,logic does not apply. 

 

The actual data that is sent from the creditor to the CRAs uses a "code number" to indicate status.  1 = "at least 30 days late",  2 = "at least 60 days late"....6 ="at least 180 days late".  There is no code beyond 6.

 

There is no law (yet) that says credit reporting has to understandable by the consumer...only that reporting has to accurate.

[bad98roadster]

Thank you for the explanation =)

 

I've read that late payments or defaults has less and less effect on real FICO scores over time. I've read that lenders don't put as much weight on defaults that occurred 2, 3, or for years earlier.

 

In the scenario I mentioned above, the lender would be seeing lates on a credit report as if they were "new" lates, even though the consumer gave up possession of their home years ago. The lender never closed out the loan or officially foreclosed. 

[willingtocope]

Well, sorta...

 

It is true that late (or in this case, defaulted) items do hurt the FICO Sucker Score less and less as time goes by, that's basically because the damage is down and it just stops getting worse.  Your sucker score isn't going to improve much.

 

On the other hand, while your FICO Mortgage Scores are probably also as bad as they're going to get, no other mortgage lender will consider giving you another mortgage until this ding goes away.

 

Also, the people that credit reporting is really meant for (i.e., lenders) know how the game is played.  They know how to intrepret "180 days late" as "oh boy, this account is seriously overdue".