     frank hardy (Esajh) | Saturday, December 02, 2000 - 07:14 am 
I have completed a search all morning for additional information - found little. I did see the questioned asked back in January but since the poster had additional questions those questions were answered, but the one that is also important was not.
The question: How can (or what is the law allowing) Experian to list an item included in bankruptcy also as XX days late, charge off, collection etc.? In other words a debtor files for 7 and the debt is listed. After the discharge the debt is either charged off (or during the time between filing and discharge) the debt is charged off, sent to collection etc. During the interval the debt is not paid (why would you) yet the debt is still being reported as late or begins showing as late. If this is legal then one must pay on a debt after the initial filing and until the debt is discharged or incur these other negative listings. Even if the debt is discharged the creditor can still "charge [it] off" after it is discharged by the court? Another negative!
In an attempt to be completely clear. A person files for chapter 7 protection on Jan 1, 1998. The court discharges the debtor August 1, 1998. The list of creditors is supplied in Jan 1999 and the debtor makes no further payments. In Feb 1998 creditor A lists the debtor as 30 days late. In march the creditor list the debtor as 60 days late and in April 1998 the creditor lists the person as 90 and places the account "for collection." By July the creditor has the person 180 days late, placed for collection and now lists the debt as a "charge off." In August the court discharges the debt and the balance is now zero; HOWEVER, THE CREDIT REPORT SHOWS THESE!
1. Chapter 7, discharged August 1998, balance zero
2. 5 times 30 days late
3. 4 times 60 days late
4. 3 times 90 days late
5. 1 time 180 days late
6. Account closed by grantor
7. Collection Account
8. Charge off
When you look at a Merged report this one item will appear as 17 (yes SEVENTEEN) negative listings. Each will have it's own weight with respect to the FICO score; however, Experian says it ABSOLUTELY has the right to report it this way.
I know everyone will say that it must show account included in bankruptcy and it does. I also know it MUST show a Zero balance and it does but it also shows this additional information that is completely misleading. I have searched the FCRA and as many sources as I could find. I can not find where it says this is possible nor can I find where it says they can not!
One final question. If the date of last activity is 6 months prior to bankruptcy and the account is listed in the bankruptcy, it seems that Experian is using the status change (delinquent to discharge in bankruptcy) as an activity? In other words your last activity was Jan 1997 but the account was discharged in bk. August 1998. Experian seems (at least in my case) to be using the August 1998 date as the "date of last activity." It seems to me that we are at their mercy as to when this date is, since we need to see it on the report and they are the ones who put it there.
Thanks
Frank |
| Shylock (Shylock) | Saturday, December 02, 2000 - 12:00 pm
Frank:
It's obvious that you're working from the credit report Experian sent you. Probably this is the only one you have access to.
If you could only see the report the lender (and the scoring software sees) and have someone explain it to you then the situation would be so much more clear.
When an account reported to Experian is in bankruptcy is should show on the report given to a lender as status: "BKLIQREO" The previous payment history also shows, such as: 11-97/L and (7) 9999999. Amazingly enough it's not uncommon for an account to show both BKLIQREO, CURR ACCT and a string of 9's to show the account was/is charged off.
While I can't say what effect these items might have on a person's score (since I have no access to Fair Isaac's model) I wouldn't worry about it as long as the item shows as included in bankruptcy. |
| Amy Duncan (Amydd) | Saturday, December 02, 2000 - 11:06 pm
I think this is an excellent question and I too would love to know the answer. I have several of my accounts that also show lates and charged off between the filing date and also after it was discharged.
I called experian asking why it doesn't just show "included in bankruptcy" and was told it doesn't matter and doesn't affect the score.
Much later I noticed at the beginning of the report it lists X number of charge-offs, X number of accounts 30 days late, X number of accounts 60 days etc..... None of these should be on here because I had no charge offs and I was never late prior to b/k.
I cannot believe that this does not affect my score. |
| frank hardy (Esajh) | Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 10:18 am
Shylock:
Actually I do have all copies of my report. I have the copy sent from the agencies to me (all three) and the merged "Mortgage" report. As stated by Amy I too have the listing "X" number 30 days late etc I completely agree that if this is not a factor, then why is it listed so? I see that the listing is not made by the CRA but by the consolidating agency. While I see that Experian is the agency listing these items, it may very well not be included in their scoring model. The mortgage consolidator, however, seems to be the one listing these on the report separately. They do use it in a negative fashion as well. They total all the negatives and give the UW quick over view without details. I do feel that it is definitely used against the person, but then again I have no definitive knowledge. Still looking for answers.
Frank |
| Shylock (Shylock) | Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 01:59 pm
You saw/have a merged mortgage credit report. Ok. I assume from that you are applying for a mortgage.
Most mortgages are constructed to be saleable to Fannie Mae. It is Fannie Mae's policy to get three scores from each of the credit bureaus, throw out the high, throw out the low and keep the middle.
Accordingly I conclude that Experian's report won't affect you because it is likely to be thrown out if it is lowest. But that's hardly a comfort to know it won't affect you THIS time but might again in the future.
Did you receive your scores on all three? And if so was Experian's score noticably different from the others? Higher? Lower? |
| frank hardy (Esajh) | Monday, December 04, 2000 - 01:01 am
Thanks for your input Shylock. The mortgage is somewhat misleading but I will not get into that now. I have a house and mortgage now but I would like to lower the interest rate and refi. at some time in the future. More importantly I have been trying to keep my CRs accurate. I do have the merged report and yes I do have the numbers. The Experian numbers are not noticeably different but I believe that is only because the others (TUC and EQF) had some inaccurate info on their reports. This fact is bringing them down to XPN report value that did not include the inaccurate info. I have had TUC & EQF correct their stuff and once I am assured it is corrected I will pull another report and get a better idea.
Thanks again
Frank |
