Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Monday, August 21, 2000 - 08:49 pm  I had a BK resolved in 9/92. There were about 8 accounts included that were covered by the BK. When I inspected my reports in May of this year I noticed one account, MBNA, was still included in the TU and Experian reports. On Experian, its status was marked as discharged in BK. The account history showed it as included in the BK, dated 10/94, and that it was scheduled to continue on record until 10/2001. I contacted both TU and Experian to remove the entries from the record. TU, after some "stalling" tactics relented and removed the entry. Experian was a slightly different matter. Firstly, six weeks after sending the initial request, I still hadn't heard from them. I followed up, stating that I was entitled to notification within thirty days. Two weeks later I get a response in the mail. Enclosed I found a new credit report from Experian. The first page stated that they have investigated the MBNA account. However, the outcome, instead of deleted, was 'updated'. Looking further at the detail for that account, it was still listed on the report, the status being discharged in BK. The history states 'included in BK 9/92 to 9/94' (I don't know what those dates signify, although 9/92 is the date of the BK and 9/94 is the date in the 'last reported' column for the account). Finally, the comment concludes that the item was verified and updated on 8/2000 and that it is scheduled to continue on record until "3/1999"!! Now if this is a joke I certainly am not amused. Why go to the trouble of updating the entry and verify that it should have been removed over a year ago and then actually enter this information to be seen in plain view. Should I now follow up again in writing and ask that they follow their own recommendation to remove an entry that should have been removed in 3/99, or should I (a-hem) attempt to reason with them over the phone, not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon surely.
|
| | Tuesday, August 22, 2000 - 04:00 am Although it isn't that satisfactory of a response, at least you know that it will get deleted surely within the month. Right after the first Experian runs a lil' program that deletes everything that should drop off and that entry will be caught at that time as being too old to show.
|
| | Wednesday, August 23, 2000 - 04:37 pm I thought that when a BK (CHAPTER 7) was listed on your credit reports, the accounts stay on their, but they are listed as being included in the bk - are they required by law to remove them?
|
| | Thursday, August 24, 2000 - 04:04 am my Fiancee has the same problem on his credit report with MBNA too and a couple of others...they are giving him bad scores but they were supposed to be marked included with BK. It's hurting us right now because we are having a hard time getting approved to rent an apartment
|
| | Thursday, August 24, 2000 - 11:54 am What state do you live in? What kind of apartment? If it's in a luxury style building forget it...
|
| | Thursday, August 24, 2000 - 12:30 pm To Frank: Yes, you thought correctly BUT after 7 years they are supposed to drop off the credit report entirely.
|
| | Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 07:58 pm There's no question but that MBNA 'double-bills' in this fashion. For example, if you have an MBBNA charge off for six years and file bankruptcy on the 7th, it is MBNA's position that the negative info stays another seven years, for a total of 14! How about them apples. Did you comment? Let me know! mokane@bellsouth.net
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |