[Credit Diva]

I sold my home in March 2002 and paid this debt off. I discovered in December of 2006 that the OC was reporting this account incorrectly. I know I should have looked at my credit reports sooner, and I did order them through the years, but I was so happy to not have to deal with all of the problems that losing a job can cause, I didn’t look back to see what other problems there might have been on the horizon.

Because I didn’t look back to check my credit and deal with the issues I left behind, this OC has been reporting a paid in full account incorrectly for the last five years.

I started disputing this information with the CRA’s in April because it was reporting this account as “Not Paid: Bad debt; placed for collection; skip;” “Charged-Off 10/2003”.

There is no way a paid account can be charged-off after payment…is there?? Anyway, after the first dispute came back verified I disputed a second time and listed, as I did in the first dispute, everything that was reporting inaccurately on the account. When I got the hard copy of the report back, yes, you guessed it, it was verified also. That is when I decided to dispute directly with the OC.

When I asked why the account was being reported as not paid, I was told because I didn’t pay it and they charged it off. I explained, to the "very rude" person that answered the phone, that I paid the account off in March of 2002 and the account was reporting as not paid and a charge-off, so I asked her, when did you charge-off the account?

She answered, in December 2000. In December 2000 the account was just getting near 90 days delinquent. Is it possible to charge an account off after 90 days? To my understanding, I thought it was 180 days to charge-off, and 90 days to report to the CRA’s the first date of delinquency. When I told this person this, she said that they could charge-off delinquent accounts whenever they wanted. I didn't respond to her because I felt my blood boiling.

To make a long story short, I told the “nice lady” that I would send her proof that I paid the loan off and asked her to correct the information when she received it. I faxed to her the escrow closing statement to show the payment made to the OC and I sent the payoff demand letter that was faxed to the escrow company that the OC faxed to them. After many calls and faxes and eating tons of Tums, still to this day, she did not correct the problem and that is, as my mother would say, when things went from sugar to shit.


I started monitoring in April on my second dispute with the CRA's. Here are some of the alters that I received.

Dispute 1 with CRA

Changed Accounts
Date reported: 04/29/2007
Reporting Agency: Equifax
Comments:
Rate/Status: Bad debt; placed for collection; skip
Narrative Code 1 changed to: CONSUMER DISPUTES - REINVESTIGATION IN PROGRESS
Narrative Code 2 changed to:


Changed Accounts
Date reported: 05/21/2007
Reporting Agency: Equifax
Comments:
Rate/Status: Bad debt; placed for collection; skip
Narrative Code 1 changed to: PAID CHARGE OFF
Narrative Code 2 changed to: HOME EQUITY


Dispute 2 with CRA

Changed Accounts
Date reported: 06/27/2007
Reporting Agency: Equifax
Comments:
Rate/Status: Bad debt; placed for collection; skip
Narrative Code 1 changed to: CONSUMER DISPUTES - REINVESTIGATION IN PROGRESS
Narrative Code 2 changed to:


OC changed but still not correct, so I disputed with the OC

Changed Accounts
Date reported: 07/19/2007
Reporting Agency: Equifax
Comments:
Rate/Status: Bad debt; placed for collection; skip
Narrative Code 1 changed to: PAID CHARGE OFF
Narrative Code 2 changed to: HOME EQUITY


The change listed below is what happen when I sent a letter to the CRA’s to request the date of obsolescence because I couldn’t get it out of the person I was dealing with. May last payment was made in September 2000. She told me that she wouldn’t know the date because they didn’t have the records for the account anymore. I haven’t received a response yet from the CRA’s on the date that they have.

Thank goodness for credit monitoring and alerts. I’m sure she thinks that she had the last word and I would never find out she screwed me over worst than I was the first time.

My scores decreased from 662 to 606 on Experian, 647 to 595on Equifax. After it was removed from TransUnion on the second dispute and re-inserted this month, my score decreased from 649 to 595. I have not received the reinsertion notice from TU yet.

Changed Accounts
Date reported: 07/26/2007
Reporting Agency: Equifax
Comments:
Rate/Status changed to: At least 120 days or more than four payments past due
Narrative Code 1 changed to: FORECLOSURE
Narrative Code 2 changed to:

Can I sue the OC for willfully reporting infomation that they had knowledge and proof of what they were reporting was incorrect?

Thanks to all that will respond,

Credit Diva

[Credit Diva]

Originally Posted by Credit Diva

I sold my home in March 2002 and paid this debt off. I discovered in December of 2006 that the OC was reporting this account incorrectly. I know I should have looked at my credit reports sooner, and I did order them through the years, but I was so happy to not have to deal with all of the problems that losing a job can cause, I didn’t look back to see what other problems there might have been on the horizon.

Because I didn’t look back to check my credit and deal with the issues I left behind, this OC has been reporting a paid in full account incorrectly for the last five years.

I started disputing this information with the CRA’s in April because it was reporting this account as “Not Paid: Bad debt; placed for collection; skip;” “Charged-Off 10/2003”.

There is no way a paid account can be charged-off after payment…is there?? Anyway, after the first dispute came back verified I disputed a second time and listed, as I did in the first dispute, everything that was reporting inaccurately on the account. When I got the hard copy of the report back, yes, you guessed it, it was verified also. That is when I decided to dispute directly with the OC.

When I asked why the account was being reported as not paid, I was told because I didn’t pay it and they charged it off. I explained, to the "very rude" person that answered the phone, that I paid the account off in March of 2002 and the account was reporting as not paid and a charge-off, so I asked her, when did you charge-off the account?

She answered, in December 2000. In December 2000 the account was just getting near 90 days delinquent. Is it possible to charge an account off after 90 days? To my understanding, I thought it was 180 days to charge-off, and 90 days to report to the CRA’s the first date of delinquency. When I told this person this, she said that they could charge-off delinquent accounts whenever they wanted. I didn't respond to her because I felt my blood boiling.

To make a long story short, I told the “nice lady” that I would send her proof that I paid the loan off and asked her to correct the information when she received it. I faxed to her the escrow closing statement to show the payment made to the OC and I sent the payoff demand letter that was faxed to the escrow company that the OC faxed to them. After many calls and faxes and eating tons of Tums, still to this day, she did not correct the problem and that is, as my mother would say, when things went from sugar to shit.


I started monitoring in April on my second dispute with the CRA's. Here are some of the alters that I received.

Dispute 1 with CRA

Changed Accounts
Date reported: 04/29/2007
Reporting Agency: Equifax
Comments:
Rate/Status: Bad debt; placed for collection; skip
Narrative Code 1 changed to: CONSUMER DISPUTES - REINVESTIGATION IN PROGRESS
Narrative Code 2 changed to:


Changed Accounts
Date reported: 05/21/2007
Reporting Agency: Equifax
Comments:
Rate/Status: Bad debt; placed for collection; skip
Narrative Code 1 changed to: PAID CHARGE OFF
Narrative Code 2 changed to: HOME EQUITY


Dispute 2 with CRA

Changed Accounts
Date reported: 06/27/2007
Reporting Agency: Equifax
Comments:
Rate/Status: Bad debt; placed for collection; skip
Narrative Code 1 changed to: CONSUMER DISPUTES - REINVESTIGATION IN PROGRESS
Narrative Code 2 changed to:


OC changed but still not correct, so I disputed with the OC

Changed Accounts
Date reported: 07/19/2007
Reporting Agency: Equifax
Comments:
Rate/Status: Bad debt; placed for collection; skip
Narrative Code 1 changed to: PAID CHARGE OFF
Narrative Code 2 changed to: HOME EQUITY


The change listed below is what happen when I sent a letter to the CRA’s to request the date of obsolescence because I couldn’t get it out of the person I was dealing with. May last payment was made in September 2000. She told me that she wouldn’t know the date because they didn’t have the records for the account anymore. I haven’t received a response yet from the CRA’s on the date that they have.

Thank goodness for credit monitoring and alerts. I’m sure she thinks that she had the last word and I would never find out she screwed me over worst than I was the first time.

My scores decreased from 662 to 606 on Experian, 647 to 595on Equifax. After it was removed from TransUnion on the second dispute and re-inserted this month, my score decreased from 649 to 595. I have not received the reinsertion notice from TU yet.

Changed Accounts
Date reported: 07/26/2007
Reporting Agency: Equifax
Comments:
Rate/Status changed to: At least 120 days or more than four payments past due
Narrative Code 1 changed to: FORECLOSURE
Narrative Code 2 changed to:

Can I sue the OC for willfully reporting infomation that they had knowledge and proof of what they were reporting was incorrect?

Thanks to all that will respond,
w
Credit Diva

Hi everyone,

I'm bumping this up.

What I really need to know is, can an OC add negative infromation to a TL that they know is not true, especailly, when the consumer has given them the correct information to correct their mistake? I beleive what they have done is illegal.

Here is what I found in the FCRA and the California Civil Code:

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies
[15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]
(a) Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information
(1) Prohibition
(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not
furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting
agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the
information is inaccurate.
(B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person
shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer
reporting agency if
(i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by
the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and
(ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.



CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
SECTION 1785.25-1785.26

1785.25. (a) A person shall not furnish information on a specific
transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if
the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or
inaccurate.
(b) A person who (1) in the ordinary course of business regularly
and on a routine basis furnishes information to one or more consumer
credit reporting agencies about the person's own transactions or
experiences with one or more consumers and (2) determines that
information on a specific transaction or experience so provided to a
consumer credit reporting agency is not complete or accurate, shall
promptly notify the consumer credit reporting agency of that
determination and provide to the consumer credit reporting agency any
corrections to that information, or any additional information, that
is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the
consumer credit reporting agency complete and accurate.
(c) So long as the completeness or accuracy of any information on
a specific transaction or experience furnished by any person to a
consumer credit reporting agency is subject to a continuing dispute
between the affected consumer and that person, the person may not
furnish the information to any consumer credit reporting agency
without also including a notice that the information is disputed by
the consumer.
(d) A person who regularly furnishes information to a consumer
credit reporting agency regarding a consumer who has an open-end
credit account with that person, and which is closed by the consumer,
shall notify the consumer credit reporting agency of the closure of
that account by the consumer, in the information regularly furnished
for the period in which the account is closed.
(e) A person who places a delinquent account for collection
(internally or by referral to a third party), charges the delinquent
account to profit or loss, or takes similar action, and subsequently
furnishes information to a credit reporting agency regarding that
action, shall include within the information furnished the
approximate commencement date of the delinquency which gave rise to
that action, unless that date was previously reported to the credit
reporting agency. Nothing in this provision shall require that a
delinquency must be reported to a credit reporting agency.
(f) Upon receiving notice of a dispute noticed pursuant to
subdivision (a) of Section 1785.16 with regard to the completeness or
accuracy of any information provided to a consumer credit reporting
agency, the person that provided the information shall (1) complete
an investigation with respect to the disputed information and report
to the consumer credit reporting agency the results of that
investigation before the end of the 30-business-day period beginning
on the date the consumer credit reporting agency receives the notice
of dispute from the consumer in accordance with subdivision (a) of
Section 1785.16 and (2) review relevant information submitted to it.

(g) A person who furnishes information to a consumer credit
reporting agency is liable for failure to comply with this section,
unless the furnisher establishes by a preponderance of the evidence
that, at the time of the failure to comply with this section, the
furnisher maintained reasonable procedures to comply with those
provisions.


Am I on the right track?

I'm way out of my league on this one and any and all advice would be very much appriciated.

Thanks,
CD

[apexcrsrvc]

You'd have to make your claim under 1681s-2b insofar as 1681s-2a allows only administrative enforcement. I don't particularly like subsection (g) of the California statute for the langauge of "reasonable procedures" in that it is open for interpretation.

I believe that an original creditor can charge-off an account whenever it's past due since that is just an accounting term. I may be wrong on that however, you'd be hard-pressed to make an argument for willfulness if the company believes that what they're reporting is accurate.

[Credit Diva]

Thanks, apexcrsrvc, for responding. I don't have a problem with the OC reporting the account as a charge-off, my problem is with it being reported as a foreclosure.

In the remarks, which I think is really hurting my score are:


[TransUnion] Foreclosure redeemed
[Experian] Unpaid balance reported as a loss by credit grantor.
[Equifax] Foreclosure

My home was never foreclosed nor did I redeem a foreclosure. I sold my home and there is not a public record anywhere that says other wise. I also sent the documentation of the sale to the OC to prove that they were paid in full at the close of escrow.

Those remarks made by the OC are false, and when this information was entered on my credit my score decrased because of it. When the OC listed the account "Paid charge-off" I didn't have a problem with that. When they changed it to the negative remarks and my score decreased, that I do have a problem with and I want them to correct that information or delete the account. I'm would rather a correction or deletion of the account, but if they don't fix their mistake then I want to know, for sure, if I have any recourse on this issue.

Thanks again for responding.

My scores weren't very high but they were fair and better than they are now, and it will hurt me in getting a decent interest rate for a loan or credit card if I applied today.

[Enigma]

Welcome to the law of Unintended Consequences.

This was for a home equity loan?

If so it cannot be charged off. So in that sense it was reporting incorrectly.

You disputed it and the loan company changed it to foreclosure status which would reflect a more accurate status.

However, a foreclosure is a legal proceeding. Did you receive a Notice of
Lis Pendens? If not, I would check with your local clerk of the courts.

If a Lis Pendens was filed, then a foreclosure proceeding was started, but you stopped it by selling the house and paying off the loan.

If you were in fact late on payments, then paying off the loan will not negate the late reporting.

If you had left well enough alone it would have fallen off your reports in two years. You screwed yourself by disputing it. It pays to look at the whole picture.

[hannah]

Originally Posted by Enigma

If you had left well enough alone it would have fallen off your reports in two years. You screwed yourself by disputing it. It pays to look at the whole picture.

No offense, Enigma, but it should still fall off her reports. As long as there was no court proceeding and no public records, if it was charged off in 2000, it should fall off by around September of this year since she says it was around 90 days late in December, 2000. Seems to me the OP was trying to get it to report positively.

[Enigma]

No offense, but she paid it off and that will reage it because it was brought current.

I am hoping there were no papers filed and if so, then you are correct in that it fall off.

But if papers were filed then.....................

[hannah]

Originally Posted by Enigma

No offense, but she paid it off and that will reage it because it was brought current.

I am hoping there were no papers filed and if so, then you are correct in that it fall off.

But if papers were filed then.....................

You will notice I said, "As long as...." In addition, if the account was charged off before the house being sold then the account was not brought current minus an agreement to do so with the OP.

[Credit Diva]

[quote=Enigma;45145]Welcome to the law of Unintended Consequences.

This was for a home equity loan?

If so it cannot be charged off. So in that sense it was reporting incorrectly.

You disputed it and the loan company changed it to foreclosure status which would reflect a more accurate status.

However, a foreclosure is a legal proceeding. Did you receive a Notice of
Lis Pendens? If not, I would check with your local clerk of the courts.

If a Lis Pendens was filed, then a foreclosure proceeding was started, but you stopped it by selling the house and paying off the loan.

If you were in fact late on payments, then paying off the loan will not negate the late reporting.

If you had left well enough alone it would have fallen off your reports in two years. You screwed yourself by disputing it. It pays to look at the whole picture.


Thanks for responding, Enigma, my home never went into foreclosure. I never received any notice of any legal proceeding. Nothing. I never had a conversation with the OC of the original loan about a foreclosure. I was behind in my payments but the OC home loaner worked with me and gave me 6 months to bring the payments current, but I found someone to buy my home the first day it went on the market.

In fact, the OC that I had my home loan with was kind enough to delete the account from my credit report.

The OC of the home equity loan is, in fact, reporting incorrectly. Wouldn't I have received notice from the court or have to appear in court for a foreclosure?

Thanks,
CD

[Credit Diva]

Originally Posted by hannah

No offense, Enigma, but it should still fall off her reports. As long as there was no court proceeding and no public records, if it was charged off in 2000, it should fall off by around September of this year since she says it was around 90 days late in December, 2000. Seems to me the OP was trying to get it to report positively.

Hi Hannah, the account was reporting correctly. I don't have a problem with the account reporting "Paid charge-off" I have a problem with the way it is reporting now.

The person that I contacted is the only one that can change infomation with the CRA's, She was not very nice and did not like it that I was telling her that she was reporting my account incorrectly. I sent her proof and if a legal proceeding was started, I am very sure that the OC of the original loan would have demaned that I pay them for starting it. That never happen.

My last payment was in September 2000 and it should fall off in September.

[Credit Diva]

Originally Posted by Enigma

No offense, but she paid it off and that will reage it because it was brought current.

I am hoping there were no papers filed and if so, then you are correct in that it fall off.

But if papers were filed then.....................

Enigma, the OC of the equity loan will not report that it was paid in full or the date. When I asked why, I was told that is not the way they report charged-off account. One more thing I fortgot to mention. This OC was reporting the charged-off as October 2005. When I asked for them to correct it, I was told that they didn't put it there and I had to take that up with the CRA's. Of course, they pointed the finger at the OC and that is why I disputed with the OC because the CRA's will not investigate it anymore.

[hannah]

Originally Posted by Credit Diva

Hi Hannah, the account was reporting correctly. I don't have a problem with the account reporting "Paid charge-off" I have a problem with the way it is reporting now.

The person that I contacted is the only one that can change infomation with the CRA's, She was not very nice and did not like it that I was telling her that she was reporting my account incorrectly. I sent her proof and if a legal proceeding was started, I am very sure that the OC of the original loan would have demaned that I pay them for starting it. That never happen.

My last payment was in September 2000 and it should fall off in September.

If you are sure it will fall off in September, I would just wait for it to fall off. Your goal is to clear up your CR, right? If by the end of October it is still there, I would dispute again with the CRA's as obsolete. September won't be long in coming...

[Credit Diva]

Originally Posted by hannah

You will notice I said, "As long as...." In addition, if the account was charged off before the house being sold then the account was not brought current minus an agreement to do so with the OP.

You are correct, Hannah, there was no agreement with the OC to bring the account current. However, it should fall off in September because they will not admit that the account was paid in full, even with proof.

Maybe, they didn't report the payment to the IRS and that is why they will not show the account being paid on my credit report.

Another thing, the OC never tried to collect from me nor did they sale it to a collection agency. If someone owed me $15,000 I would do everything in my power to collect, at least, some of it. They did nothing. Not even try to sue me.