TheMrs2020

What FCRA violations do I have here?

Recommended Posts

If this is in the wrong section, I apologize. I have spent some time trying to find the answer and another place to put this. After no word for years, a company updated a charged off account to:

 

Account was closed at customer's request (on EXP)

Charged off AND closed at customer's request on EQ and TU.

Payments going from paid to 120 days late (no 30, 60 or 90 days late)

Some months reporting ND instead. 



The amount is less than $600. No, I haven't contacted them or done anything to spur this change. What violations do I have here? (I'm not new to this but having fresh eyes helps to see more). I am in CA and the California Rosenthal Act mirrors the FCRA and applies to the Original Creditor.

 

Thank you!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheMrs2020 said:
 

If this is in the wrong section, I apologize. I have spent some time trying to find the answer and another place to put this. After no word for years, a company updated a charged off account to:

 

Account was closed at customer's request (on EXP)

Charged off AND closed at customer's request on EQ and TU.

Payments going from paid to 120 days late (no 30, 60 or 90 days late)

Some months reporting ND instead. 



The amount is less than $600. No, I haven't contacted them or done anything to spur this change. What violations do I have here? (I'm not new to this but having fresh eyes helps to see more). I am in CA and the California Rosenthal Act mirrors the FCRA and applies to the Original Creditor.

 

Thank you!

 

 

Was it charged off?  Which part is incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was my understanding that a furnisher had to properly report information. It's not incorrect to report paid one month then 120 days late the next? It's not incorrect to report written off by company AND closed at customer's request? It's not incorrect to update a charged off account? Shouldn't the balance be 0 and not $XXX?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TheMrs2020 said:

It's not incorrect to report written off by company AND closed at customer's request?

BOTH are possible.  A consumer can close an account with a balance and if they fail to pay the balance as agreed the company can then charge it off.  Under that circumstance both are correct:  the customer DID close the account at their request but defaulted on the balance resulting in a charge off.

Is that what happened?  Did you close the account with a balance?

34 minutes ago, TheMrs2020 said:

It's not incorrect to update a charged off account?

Depends on why it was updated.

35 minutes ago, TheMrs2020 said:

Shouldn't the balance be 0 and not $XXX?

No.  If they still own the account they can report the balance.  Charged off is merely an accounting term meaning the balance is no longer considered a performing asset but is a liability.  It does not mean you no longer owe it.

36 minutes ago, TheMrs2020 said:

It's not incorrect to report paid one month then 120 days late the next?

The one scenario I can thing of that might explain this is if the minimum due on the account was $XX and the consumer only paid $BB then technically a payment was made but it was not the full amount to keep the account current.  Failure to pay what is due could result in the account being listed as 120 days late if less than the minimum payment was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I didn't do anything and nothing changed that I could see on the account. I didn't contact them. EXP notified me that there was a change. ***They added a new late payment in the last 60 days. ***

No, I didn't request to close the account.

I know I still owe it. I wanted clarification on if it should read a $0 balance due to it being a charge-off.

I disagree that it can be paid one month and 120 days late the next. That would infer that the customer hasn't paid for 120 days, which is incorrect. If there is a payment, then it's not unpaid. And its not unpaid 120 days in a month.

I forgot to add that they reported it 150 days late twice.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheMrs2020 said:

It was my understanding that a furnisher had to properly report information. It's not incorrect to report paid one month then 120 days late the next? It's not incorrect to report written off by company AND closed at customer's request? It's not incorrect to update a charged off account? Shouldn't the balance be 0 and not $XXX?

 

 

Yes, a furnisher must report accurate information.  As stated previously by another poster,  credit card companies can update an account after it is charged off.  The company can also report the amount of the unpaid balance.

1.  Was your payment for the amount requested by the credit card company?  Or did you pay less than what was requested?

2.  Was your payment made before or after the account was charged off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheMrs2020 said:

I wanted clarification on if it should read a $0 balance due to it being a charge-off.

No.

12 hours ago, TheMrs2020 said:

I disagree that it can be paid one month and 120 days late the next. That would infer that the customer hasn't paid for 120 days, which is incorrect. If there is a payment, then it's not unpaid.

If you do not make the minimum payment due then it IS unpaid.  Here is an example:

January amount due:  $100  customer pays $50.  That means the account becomes 30 days late because the minimum payment was not made.

February amount due:  $175 customer pays $50.  Now the account is 60 days past due because the minimum again has not been made.

It takes 4 months of making less than the minimum payment for an account to quickly get to 120 days late.

You can disagree all you like but if the minimum payment is not made monthly then the account is late and can be reported that way.  You must bring the account current with all past payments, late fees and interest caught up for the number of days late to reset to 0.

12 hours ago, TheMrs2020 said:

And its not unpaid 120 days in a month.

120 days late reported in month of [April] does not mean that the consumer was late 120 days in that month. It means it has been 120 days since a MINIMUM payment was made on time.  

12 hours ago, TheMrs2020 said:

If there is a payment, then it's not unpaid.

Unfortunately no.  Many consumers make this mistake believing that as long as they pay "something" they are covered.  From an FCRA standpoint if you fail to make the minimum payment then the account is late and can be reported that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TheMrs2020 said:

What violations do I have here?

You don't have any until you first dispute it and they continue reporting inaccurate information following your dispute. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's try this again.

 

I DID NOT MAKE A PAYMENT. I know better than that. I haven't contacted them nor have they contacted me.

 

I have disputed it (they verified) and EXP won't take another because they messed up the first and they suck.

 

What is the exact case law (or any law) stating that the reported payments are only for minimum due payments? And that a payment under the minimum can be reported as late? Because the least sophisticated/unsophisticated consumer would believe that any payment would suffice. And the acceptance of said payment by the company supports an on time payment report.

 

And how does that negate reporting a 30 day late as 120? Because by your logic they then have misreported a 30, 60 and 90 day late buy reporting them as on time and at minimum the previous 3 months. Which is STILL not reporting accurately. So they are wrong either way.

 

Please remember I am in California the laws are more consumer friendly here.

 

Oh and they are required to inform me that they are going to relay negative information to the CRAs before they do so and did not.

 

I have to file this in District Court since their information isn't available with the California SOS. And they've already been ruled not able to push this into Federal Court.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TheMrs2020 said:

And the acceptance of said payment by the company supports an on time payment report.

Read your cardmember agreement.  It may say something to effect that they can close your account if  “you  don’t pay at least the Minimum Payment Due by the due date.”  

You are bound by the terms of the agreement.  Also, look at your credit card statements.  They will show “minimum payment due” or something like that.  Most people, even the least-sophisticated consumer” can can understand what that means.

If, after disputing with the CRAs, you disagree with the furnisher’s determination that the information is correct, you can dispute directly with the furnisher or sue it.  But if you sue, you bear the burden of proving the information is wrong.  

In order to receive statutory damages under the FCRA, you would have to prove the furnisher willfully (intentionally) reported incorrect information.  If you can only prove negligence, you must have actual damages.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BV80 said:

If, after disputing with the CRAs, you disagree with the furnisher’s determination that the information is correct, you can dispute directly with the furnisher or sue it.  But if you sue, you bear the burden of proving the information is wrong.  

This ^^^ is how it works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TheMrs2020 said:

Please remember I am in California the laws are more consumer friendly here.

The FCRA is a FEDERAL statute not state.  That governs reporting to the bureaus not the California state laws on consumer debt.

8 hours ago, TheMrs2020 said:

Oh and they are required to inform me that they are going to relay negative information to the CRAs before they do so and did not.

Your card agreement and terms of service spells this out.  NOTHING in the FCRA requires they notify you prior to a negative credit report entry.  No idea where you got that.

8 hours ago, TheMrs2020 said:

I have to file this in District Court since their information isn't available with the California SOS. And they've already been ruled not able to push this into Federal Court.

I recommend you consult a good consumer attorney before you file ANYTHING in ANY court.  If you get this wrong and the suit is labeled frivolous you will be on the hook for their expenses dealing with it which could easily be five figures between court costs and attorney fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, 

Im in a similar situation trying to figure out FCRA violations. 
 

I had a credit card with BoFA for 30k defaulted due to unemployment. They sued me O hired a crappy lawyer and eventually settled for the full amount but paid in monthly payments without interest. 
Now they are reporting the account as charged off every month, they show an available credit amount, credit report does not state that it was settled and they report a new charge off every month (38) total. 
can someone help me figure out the FCRA violations, this is impacting my credit score every month! ( Also, disputed multiple times and they continue to confirm the info as accurate.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.