Quote:
|
It's not a "duplicate" account. The OC can report the original tradeline, but it should show aero balance, charged off, closed, and sold/transferred.
|
This is making a little more sense now that you pointed out the zero-balance part. I was looking at the 'High Credit' section which is listed as the same amount as the new account.
This revelation quells the fears I had about a double collection attempt on the same account.
However, adding a new delinquent account, with no references to the old, has had an affect on the FICO which led to demands for higher interest on a current CC.
Any Creditor who looks at the current CR will think that a new delinquency has occured. It will not know that the CA has simply revived an old...almost dead account.
I believe the CA is engaging in subterfuge. It has listed the opening of its account as N/A. Why wouldn't this date be applicable?
Then the CA goes on to report its account's DOFD as 2008 rather than the old accounts DOFD as 2004. Keep in mind that the debtor has made no agreements with any of the succeeding CA's to the delinquent account. DOFD should not have changed, isn't this correct?
I think the CA has purposely and deceptively reported its account so that it appears new regardless to the fact that it knows that the account is actually old.
It knows the SOL is coming soon. It knows that adding an addtional new delinquent account to the debtor's CR is negative information which will affect the FICO. It knows that this adverse information will now stay on the debtor's CR longer than the old account would have allowed.
Isn't this misrepresenting of the debt inappropriate procedure and libelous?