Collector told me they CAN'T report to CRA. Why volunteer that?

[RobinMontrose]

 

I have a $2000 collection from a storage company. The collector told me it's coded so they can't report it to the CRA. Why would she volunteer this information? Why can't they report? They don't have my SS#? I remember threatening in writing to sue them if they impaired my credit since I shouldn't owe them anything. But that's another story. Anyhow, then she started negotiating the price. Should I pay this or will it never amount to anything? Could it be some sort of ploy so I don't dispute the debt before the dunning date expires?

[wernda1234]

Good morning,

Not sure why they volunteered that; I don't know much about local or Florida state law on debt reporting.  And perhaps they said it because of your statement to sue the if they reported it.  Myriad are the ways of debt collectors.

While it is your personal decision to pay the debt, negotiate a reduced amount, or leave it be, I would be more concerned about the possibility of them filing a lawsuit then them reporting the debt to a CRA.  

[WhoCares1000]

The first question is how old is this debt? That will help us determine next steps.

In any case, there are also a few other things that are needed as this is a unique case:

1) How much was the monthly storage unit rent. Unless you had a huge unit, it would take quite a bit of time to reach $2000 after auction of your items.

2) Were you properly informed of the auction according to Florida law. Were you also properly informed how much the auction fetched if required in Florida. You need to look at your lease and Florida law regarding how this works.

I ask these questions because if the rental unit owners did not follow the lease or the law, they might not be able to collect legally (they can always call and ask for a payment nicely). That might be why they cannot put this on your credit either.

 

[jasen_v2.0]

So generally when someone in collections calls an account "coded" they're making a generic reference to some status code from their internal software system.  The more responsible ones attempt to keep track of timelines, actions taken, etc that would affect or trigger certain parts of the various legal requirements to apply to the account.  So their system will flag it and when a collector pulls it up, it will show some status code that tells them what actions they're allowed to take, information they're allowed to share, etc.  The internal system uses the status coding constantly, to determine which accounts are exported and sent to the bureaus that day (or at end of month), which get placed in dialer (IVR) queues, which get Form Letter #3A automatically printed out on what date, which get included in rollup reports, or credited towards billing their customer (for 3rd party), which accounts get frozen and ignored until the coding changes, or even which are deemed uncollectable and closed out.  

[KylieHolmes]

The credit bureaus were forced to change as to not accept any sort of debts being reported without a social security number.

Too many instances of Sr. Jr. or common name at same address (such as an apartment complex causing erroneous information on people's credit reports...

Hence, liability in the form of lawsuits!

For example did you know judgments are no longer factored into the credit score?  For the same reason to the best of my knowledge, judgments don't have personally identifiable information on them if you think about it.. Just a name and address.  They do not have your social on them.

 

[Clydesmom]

14 minutes ago, KylieHolmes said:

The credit bureaus were forced to change as to not accept any sort of debts being reported without a social security number.

Too many instances of Sr. Jr. or common name at same address (such as an apartment complex causing erroneous information on people's credit reports...

Hence, liability in the form of lawsuits!

For example did you know judgments are no longer factored into the credit score?  For the same reason to the best of my knowledge, judgments don't have personally identifiable information on them if you think about it.. Just a name and address.  They do not have your social on them.

 

Again what you posted is straight up WRONG.  Judgments can and do get reported.  What changed is now 2 or more verifiable identifying factors such as SSN, address and DOB are required before reporting.  They very much are factored in to credit scores.  I have NO idea where you get your information but you really need to stop.  Not only are you resurrecting really old threads but your "advice" is down right detrimental.

[KylieHolmes]

The information comes from an Equifax rep and Google (as of today).

[KylieHolmes]

Here's another article:

https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/judgments-no-longer-included-on-credit-report/

By all means let me know if these articles are not correct.

[KylieHolmes]

19 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

Again what you posted is straight up WRONG.  Judgments can and do get reported.  What changed is now 2 or more verifiable identifying factors such as SSN, address and DOB are required before reporting.  They very much are factored in to credit scores.  I have NO idea where you get your information but you really need to stop.  Not only are you resurrecting really old threads but your "advice" is down right detrimental.

Here's another one... Straight from the horses mouth: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/new-retrospective-on-removing-public-records/

[Clydesmom]

23 minutes ago, KylieHolmes said:

Here's another one... Straight from the horses mouth: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/new-retrospective-on-removing-public-records/

Not helping your case.  Your reading comprehension is at best 2nd grade level.  Until you can fully understand what you read you should not be giving out advice.  That article was about removing inaccurate and unverifiable records.  It does NOT mean that under no circumstance can valid judgment information be reported.  You also didn't bother to notice it is 2 years old.  Much has changed since then.  Go back to school.

[Clydesmom]

31 minutes ago, KylieHolmes said:

The information comes from an Equifax rep and Google (as of today).

What you are assuming is that creditors only use the 3 well known bureaus.  There are dozens of credit reporting services and many ways for them to find out about a judgment.  Your assumption because EX, EQ or TU don't list a judgment means it isn't affecting a consumer is dead wrong.  I stand by my statements.  Your advice is REALLY BAD and you lack experience to be handing out the "information" you believe is helping.  You can't even read what date the thread is from and are resurrecting really old posts.

[KylieHolmes]

I didn't say it doesn't affect consumers, it just doesn't affect their credit score.  You sound like a debt collection advocate tbh.   Which part of the article saying credit bureaus do not report judgments anymore is inaccurate?     Pretty clear that's what they say and I doubt they went back to reporting them after going to not reporting them after all these years.   

If these are really old posts, I'm sorry but they were at the top of the first page of non-pinned posts.

Creditors do only use the three main bureaus and obviously they can use sites like lexis to search for judgments but the only credit grantors that do that for the most part are mortgage companies.

[KylieHolmes]

4 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

What you are assuming is that creditors only use the 3 well known bureaus.  There are dozens of credit reporting services and many ways for them to find out about a judgment.  Your assumption because EX, EQ or TU don't list a judgment means it isn't affecting a consumer is dead wrong.  I stand by my statements.  Your advice is REALLY BAD and you lack experience to be handing out the "information" you believe is helping.  You can't even read what date the thread is from and are resurrecting really old posts.

If someone stands up and shows a copy of a civil judgment on their credit report, i'd be super surprised.   I'm not trying to give "good" or "bad" advice, rather just non emotionally stating the current facts that be.    Again, this thread was on the first page after pinned messages I wasn't being mean to anyone not sure why you are attacking me.