Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 08:53 am  I just got a copy of my credit report that shows Discover card with the words "Paid Charge-Off 8/2000" It seems like I just reset the clock for 7 years on this one. It was charged off in 1995 and they always reported that as the date of last activity the entire time I sent them 20 dollars a month to pay it off. So what am I looking at now and can I get the 1995 date back. This is only on Trans Union by the way.
|
| | Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 10:46 am That's exactly what your looking at! If you were able to wait just 2 more years this account would have dropped off your file completly. The only way you could have avoided this would have been to negotiate reopening the account with the creditor. Depending on how long it had been charged off, they may have accepted. The date of last activity is now the date you paid the "charge off" off. Good Luck!
|
| | Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 11:10 am Yeah, unfortunately June is correct. It doesn't pay to pay.
|
| | Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 11:21 am And I just realized Patricia is house hunting. This created a SEVERE problem for your mortgage. I suggest you call Discover and ask that they report the last delinquency as of 95 again. Explain that you expected paying the account would improve your credit and that you can't get your mortgage with the current charge-off on your credit. If they are agreeable, make sure they send, or even better fax you the letter stating so. Please update with the results and we'll take it from there.
|
| | Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 03:49 pm I signed up for junum.com through Kristi Feathers' group about a month ago. Should I rely on their counselor to help me with this or go it alone?
|
| | Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 04:28 pm Call Discover yourself. Ask for a supervisor if necessary, make him/her cry. If that doesn't work, see what Kristi and Junum say. I've been a Junum affiliate for a while now, but haven't put anything on the advertiser page yet because I'm not sure what they're doing. We've had some postings about Junum here, but I'd definitely appreciate some more feedback on their services.
|
| | Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 06:00 pm Unfortunately debt collectors are usually very cold and have heard every sob story in the book. Also they probably gave opportunities or what they call a "second chance" before charging the account off. I would say your chance for persuading them to erase this is very low. They would love to keep you from getting a mortgage. I don't know a thing about Junum but I would be leary of any company that made big promises. This account was recently paid and has been reported accurately. Maybe a while from now you can dispute it with a CRA and would be removed. I suggest, if everything else is good on your credit, that you try rebuilding your score by obtaining a Passbook personal loan with a bank. Since you'll have a bank loan, this would really help!
|
| | Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 06:02 pm Oh, Christine, I'd like to know what you know about Junum too! Thanks
|
| | Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 06:58 pm re Junum, do a Keyword Search here for junum. And I have actually had several real estate clients who got legitimate derogs off their credit by just being a pain in the butt and calling and calling and trying at different times for different supervisors. Chase removed a current 60 day late. Persistence *sometimes* works, and it always was women who made it happen. I don't know what that means ... Patricia wants to buy a house, not rebuild credit. After I thought about this for a bit I really don't believe Discover is reporting accurately. While Patricia made the final payment in 8/2000, the account was charged off in 95. As such, the last derog should be reported in 95, or whenever Patricia started making her payments. I'd love to hear what a judge would say.
|
| | Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 06:17 am But she will have to build credit to purchase a house. Her date of last activity would be 8/00 since that was when she paid the charge off completely. And I would say that this account remained in a charged off status while she was making payments. If Discover had reopened the account this would be a different situation. I would also love to hear what a judge would say though.
|
| | Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 02:30 pm If a card like the one mentioned above is charged off, even if it was a couple of years ago, is it possible to call Discover, offer lots of money and get the charge off removed and the card re-opened?
|
| | Friday, October 27, 2000 - 08:51 am Has anyone been able to get a card from Discover after being charged off or having the debt included in bankruptcy? Sometime when my credit is better I'd like to once again have a Discover card. I'm assuming I'll have to pay back what was discharged in BK. But I'd like to know if it's possible to do this.
|
| | Friday, October 27, 2000 - 10:50 am Phillip, I've never seen anyone do this but I'd like to know what happens if you try it.
|
| | Monday, October 30, 2000 - 04:31 am I must have misunderstood Patricias' problem. What am I thinking? Call Discover and hound them now that you've paid this account. Christine is right, they'll eventually take that bad remark off.
|
| | Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 10:12 am One last question on the Discover card issue. What is your advice on whom to call regarding the reporting? Is there something I should not say to these guys? What am I asking for exactly? That they adjust their reporting to the 1995 date as the date of last activity and ask them to fax me a letter stating as much? Any advice here would help.
|
| | Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 04:06 pm Ask them to document the original date of delinquency in writing for you.
|
| | Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 10:49 pm I assume Shylock's idea is to send that document to the CRAs to have the account redated. Not a bad idea. If they'll send anything. Although I think that Patricia already has the previous reports showing the 95 date. It might be worth a try if Discover won't voluntary redate the charge-off. I want to make it very clear that I previously posted "Persistence *sometimes* works, ..." with an emphasis on SOMETIMES. Patricia lost all negotiating power when she paid the account. Not a situation *I* like to be in.
|
| | Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 09:21 am According to an opinion letter from the FTC a paid charge off should not reset the clock. I think the CRAs are having a problem because there is only room for one date. If they want to report when it was paid (a positive thing) they still need to pay attention to when it was first delinquent (a negative thing) for the purposes of the 7-year reporting limit. I would think that this is a common mistake they make and very damaging to consumers. A quote from the letter is: "2. Is the reporting period extended if (A) the original creditor sells or transfers the account to another creditor, (B) the consumer responds to post-chargeoff collection efforts by making a payment on the debt, or (C) the consumer disputes the account with a CRA? Does it matter whether the 7-year period has expired when any of these events occurs? No. In enacting the new provisions discussed above, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- 180 days after the start of the delinquency that led to the chargeoff -- to begin the obsolescence period. It did so to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from later events under the original FCRA. Enclosed are two staff opinion letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99; Johnson, 08/31/98) that discuss the impact of these provisions, and the legislative history relating to their enactment, in more detail. Because the commencement of the seven year period is now described with some precision by the statute, it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you listed -- sale of the charged off account by the creditor, or a payment on or dispute about the account by the consumer -- changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a chargeoff." The link to the full letter is: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/amason.htm A link to a bunch of FTC opinion letters is: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/index.htm
|
| | Friday, November 10, 2000 - 08:02 am And let me just add that making a payment renews the SOL to COLLECT-- NOT-- REPORT!!!!! The lady, above said her date of last activity was now 8-2000, That is correct. That is the last action on the account but does NOT change how long it should remain on her credit. Last activity and reporting time of first serious delinquency that leads to charge off are DIFFERENT.... I answered this entire thread on another board and here below is what I said. A person on the board said: I just read a post on Bayhouse. A lady there said that she charged off a Discover account in 1995. She paid it off slowly making $20/mo payments. She disputed the account in 8/2000. Well they updated the last activity to 8/2000. So I thought: they cant restart the clock so she should dispute the new date. But everyone on that sight, including Christine Baker said that she did restart the clock by paying it. Why is this so confusing. This is making my stomach ache. Christine Baker referred the lady to Junum or to You, Kristi. I know you have asked this before, but was the clock restarted for accounts prior to 1996. I disputed the account myself once and it came back verified so I left it alone. Well Junum disputed mine again and now my account says 1997. Ugh. I mean, we come to you and Junum to get these kinds of questions answered. I cant even get in contact with Junum. Left messages Monday- no return calls. After you address this one last time, I am leaving it alone. I wont rest until I get Your answer. roni. I Replied:--------- O.k. Roni, you will now be able to rest( lol) because I am going to answer your question and my answer comes straight from the opinions of the FTC. Regarding the dates of before and after 1997 Please read this in full to understand it. The problem with most of these issues is that people skim over it and miss critical points. Because the commencement of the seven year period is now described with some precision by the statute, it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you listed -- sale of the charged off account by the creditor to another creditor or collection agency, or a payment on or dispute about the account by the consumer -- changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a charge off. 3. Since Sections 623(a)(5) and 605(c)(1) provide new rules for calculating the 7-year period that became effective in 1997, do charge off accounts now have different obsolescence periods depending on when the charge off occurred? Yes. Section 605(c)(2) states that the section "shall apply only to items of information added to the (CRA) file of a consumer on or after" 455 days after enactment, or December 29, 1997. Therefore, a charge off reported to a CRA on or after that date is subject to the new commencement-of-the-delinquency method of calculating the obsolescence period set forth in Sections 623(a)(5) and 605(c)(1). (Heres where it applies to you Roni) On the other hand, a charge off reported to a CRA before December 29, 1997, is not covered by the new provisions, as discussed in (Kosmerl, 06/04/99). If a credit account was reported as a charge off before 1997, the Commission's view has been that it can be reported for seven years from the date the creditor actually charged it off. What that means is that rather then reporting it for 7 years plus 180 days under the ammended FCRA it is simply reported from the actual date of charge off. Even if you pay a debt that was charged off prior to 1997, that does not permit the creditor to report it for 7 years from the date you last paid. That has never been the case. Many people confuse what the original FCRA meant in terms of "Reporting time" Even before 1996 the account was supose to still only be reported for 7 years from date charged off but there was no provision that protected you from additional actions extending that time. That is why the NEW FCRA made it painfully clear to CRA & creditors that one date must apply. If the creditor attempts to extend the reporting time on an already charged off debt because you made a payment a few years later, just refer them to Clarke W. Brinckerhoff Attorney-202-326-3224 who writes the opinion letters on this issue for the FTC. He specifically states that debts charged off before 1997 should be reported for 7 years from actual charge off date and no extending of that time is permitted. There may be some critics that disagree but I personally wrote to the FTC and asked this same question and got the answer I am giving you now. As always, not legal advice, just my opinion! Kristi
|
| | Friday, November 10, 2000 - 09:32 am Update. I spoke with a supervisor at Discover who said their policy is to send updates to the bureaus directly only. He did agree to copy me on the letter that went out to all 3 bureaus stating the actual date of charge-off and nothing more but that they would not fax it to me. The date they have in their computer is 1-96 which is nuts since I stopped making payments in the summer of 1995 which is when the charge-off date was reported originally. I have the letter now but have not run my reports yet. I am waiting another month to give the bureaus to act on the letter. The only thing the letter will really do is when the 7 years are up, I can use it to have the account deleted. As far as I am concerned it doesn't do anything else for me. I am basically stuck now. I am guessing that my scores are suffering since the 8-2000 date will be used as the date of charge-off or last activity. I don't think there is anything else that can be done.
|
| | Friday, November 10, 2000 - 11:15 am I think you are correct in that the magic credit scoring machine is probably using the wrong date and giving you a lower score. Your case is a good example as to why these formulas and scores should not be a secret. If you knew the formula you could prove that the new date is being used and is damaging your score. I would keep writing Trans Union until they fix this.
|
| | Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 06:38 am The problem is that we don't see the actual report. Especially the "plain English" format really sucks since you don't know how the dates are reported. It could well be that "Paid Charge-Off 8/2000" is no problem at all with the 95 date as the date of the charge-off. We have discussed these opinion letters in length, this is getting really old. I'd like to ADD to Why and how to dispute incorrect DATES for collections/charge-offs (FTC opinion letters) 06/22 some results of these disputes.
|
| | Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 05:02 pm Not to be lost in all this is the direct relativity of your current score to the two dates. Setting aside the myriad of factors involved, if you just look solely at a charge-off recorded as 1996, your score is less impacted than with a date that is registered as 2000. The rule of thumb is that the older a derogatory entry (late pay, lien, collection, etc.), the less the impact. Aside from getting the collection off your report altogether, having it reflect a charge-off date in 1996 instead of 2000 is much better for you.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |