Citibank reporting chargeoff every month

farmerracing · 08-06-2006, 01:08 AM

Citibank is reporting chargeoff every month for the last 24 months on Experian. So the 24 month history shows CO - CO - CO - CO etc...

Obviously this is wrecking havoc with scoring? Also will this affect DOLA?

I've disputed and called attention to this with Experian three times now over the past two years and they keep blowing me off (I have CMRRR on each).

What's the next move?

boyblue_77 · 08-06-2006, 01:58 AM

Hi farmerracing,

I believe if I'm not mistaken, this is ok for the credit card company to do. If they continue to do it past the 7 year reporting period required by FCRA, I would then dispute it as obsolete with the CRAs. Unfortunately, you have 5 more years to go for that to happen. What is the SOL in the state you are in? I would keep low in the meantime if these debts are within SOL of your state as you will probably wake up a sleeping giant if you dispute. As far as the DOLA, the CO notations should not affect the DOLA. DOLA basically means the last date you made a payment on the account. That's the date the SOL begins on the charge off. So for example, say you last paid Citibank in March 2004 and it was charged off 180 days after that, and you live in Arizona. AZ has a 3 year SOL in which the creditor (Citibank) can sue you. The 3 year clock begins on the DOLA, which is March 2004. That means Citibank has until March 2007 for them to sue you for this debt. After this date, they can sue you but you will have the SOL defense. The 7 year reporting rule also starts on the DOLA, March 2004. So that means that this CO won't fall off your reports until March (maybe April) 2011.

But like I said, for now (if your CO is within your state's SOL) I would keep low.

Cheers!

Hedwig · 08-06-2006, 02:08 AM

boyblue is right that they may show it in chargeoff status, but what do they show as date of last activity? That should be some time in the past, close to when you last paid. And that's when the reporting period clock should start.

Does it say when it's scheduled to fall off your reports?

Hopefully the SOL in your state is only three or four years. After that, you can go after them. You don't need to wait the entire seven years, but you may want to stay low until the SOL has passed, unless you have the money to settle.

Pale Rider · 08-06-2006, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boyblue_77

The 7 year reporting rule also starts on the DOLA, March 2004.

Slight clarification if I may. The better term for the start of the 7 year period is "Date of First Delinquency". The DOLA may be the same date, but could change if a payment is later sent, or the creditor takes an action on the account. We know that payment does not restart the 7 year period and DOFD will never change, while DOLA possibly could.

Hedwig · 08-06-2006, 03:16 AM

Good catch. I'm tired.

You're correct, of course, Pale Rider.

farmerracing · 08-06-2006, 03:28 AM

They already sued via Forster and Garbus. It's been two years since the suite began. Actually the DOLA was 2001. They were quick to settle and never took it before the court, we've been playing settlement release games for the past six months. Should be over soon.

farmerracing · 08-06-2006, 03:30 AM

I'm surprised they can show charge off every month. Wouldn't this tell the scoring model that a new chargeoff is appearing every month on your file? That's the way TU alerts show, every month I get an alert from this entry.

boyblue_77 · 08-08-2006, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerracing

I'm surprised they can show charge off every month. Wouldn't this tell the scoring model that a new chargeoff is appearing every month on your file? That's the way TU alerts show, every month I get an alert from this entry.

Well, I'm not sure if the monthly reporting screws up the scoring model. However, based on my experience, my chargeoffs haven't affected my scores much since they are so old, but the credit card companies do update each month as "CO". So who knows.

farmerracing · 09-15-2006, 10:16 PM

Thank you everyone for the previous replies. I'd like to ask a little bit more about this charge off situation. Can someone shed light on what a creditor can report during a lawsuit. Example OC charges off the account, and then sues you. You have disputed it iaw FCRA and the creditor has noted the dispute on your credit file, but is continuing to report the entry during the lawsuit (which takes two years). Further as a defendant in the suit, you continue to deny any responsibility, and highlight a number of defects with the claim, (balance is wrong etc).

To sum up the question, what can be reported during a lawsuit, I know it has an affect on SOL, but shouldn't they have to cease reporting while this whole matter is being tried in court? The reason I ask is we ended up settling without any admission on my part, and it seems they would have to delete the entry. I've no basis to know this, but it certainly seems like it --- I mean a OC could drag a suit out for many years like mine and all the while they are damaging your credit, and you very well could win the case...

Thanks-

centex · 09-16-2006, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerracing

Thank you everyone for the previous replies. I'd like to ask a little bit more about this charge off situation. Can someone shed light on what a creditor can report during a lawsuit. Example OC charges off the account, and then sues you. You have disputed it iaw FCRA and the creditor has noted the dispute on your credit file, but is continuing to report the entry during the lawsuit (which takes two years). Further as a defendant in the suit, you continue to deny any responsibility, and highlight a number of defects with the claim, (balance is wrong etc).

To sum up the question, what can be reported during a lawsuit, I know it has an affect on SOL, but shouldn't they have to cease reporting while this whole matter is being tried in court? The reason I ask is we ended up settling without any admission on my part, and it seems they would have to delete the entry. I've no basis to know this, but it certainly seems like it --- I mean a OC could drag a suit out for many years like mine and all the while they are damaging your credit, and you very well could win the case...

Thanks-

No requirement under the law to cease the reporting. However, it would certainly be something to raise in a very early motion associated with the litigation. The Court could order the relief if you can demonstrate a probability of success...in short, the same basic criterion that Jay would have had to demonstrate in his house case.

Don't forget the other beauty, though, of a case you win that is dragged through the eons and that included reporting detrimental to your fiscal health...increased damages. With a properly pleaded DTPA claim, that could mean a mini-lottery on the back end.

hannah · 09-16-2006, 12:33 PM

If you have disputed the tradeline then it must show as a disputed tradeline. Write a letter CMRRR to the CRA's and dispute it again. FCRA violation if not showing as disputed after the CRA investigation. If you have disputed to the data furnisher and they know or should have known the alleged debt is disputed, then an FDCPA violation.

Hedwig · 09-16-2006, 05:27 PM

They only have to show it as disputed until the DF sends the verification, not forever.

You can enter a statement, but an automatic pull will not take it into account. In something like a mortgage, where there is manual underwriting, a creditor's statement can be taken into account.

While the account is marked in dispute it is not supposed to be included in scoring calculations. Some people used to dispute an account and immediately apply for a credit card or auto loan, so the score would be temporarily increased. That tends to not work for a mortgage because there is a manual review of the scores.

centex · 09-16-2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannah

If you have disputed the tradeline then it must show as a disputed tradeline. Write a letter CMRRR to the CRA's and dispute it again. FCRA violation if not showing as disputed after the CRA investigation. If you have disputed to the data furnisher and they know or should have known the alleged debt is disputed, then an FDCPA violation.

No FDCPA violation exists except and unless it goes to a third party.

hannah · 09-16-2006, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex

No FDCPA violation exists except and unless it goes to a third party.

Unless the OC is being represented a collection law firm that does collections and little else which from what the OP said, I assumed that it was. I could be wrong, however, as you know what assume means.

It may violate state laws though and that should be looked into. Many states including my own, consider an OC a collector if collecting a charged off or deliquent debt.

centex · 09-16-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannah

Unless the OC is being represented a collection law firm that does collections and little else which from what the OP said, I assumed that it was. I could be wrong, however, as you know what assume means.

It may violate state laws though and that should be looked into. Many states including my own, consider an OC a collector if collecting a charged off or deliquent debt.

It does not matter who the OC is represented by...it won't impact their ability to report. The third party may have their own obligations, but I read the OP to be discussing the first party claimant.

And while state statutes might apply, that is not what one typically is referring to with an FDCPA claim. The majority of posters tend to use FDCPA as being synonomous with federal action...never mind that the F is Fair not Federal.

hannah · 09-16-2006, 06:26 PM

Forster and Garbus

http://www.fgny.com/

and more interesting

http://www.lawcash.com/attorney/3307...us-lawsuit.asp

http://www.newyork.bbb.org/reports/b...bersOnly=False

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/st...9/tidbits.html

Seems they are registered in several states as a Collection Agency.

farmerracing · 09-18-2006, 11:49 PM

Thanks for all the replies. Let me give you what EXPERIAN shows for this TL...

CITI
PO BOX 6241
SIOUX FALLS SD
Date Opened: Feb 1990
Reported Since: Mar 2003
Date of Status: Apr 2003
Last Reported: Aug 2006
Type Revolving
Terms NA
Monthly Payment
NA
Responsibility
Individual
CL $11,400
High Balance: $16,288
Recent Balance: $16,288 As of Aug 2006

Status: Account Charged off/Collection account. $16,288 written off. $15,216 past due as of Aug 2006.
Account History: Charge off as of Aug 2006, Jul 2006, Jun 2006, May 2006, Apr 2006, Mar 2006, Feb 2006, Jan 2006, Dec 2005, Nov 2005, Oct 2005, Sep 2005, Aug 2005, Jul 2005, Jun 2005, May 2005, Apr 2005, Mar 2005, Feb 2005, Jan 2005 , Dec 2004, Nov 2004, Oct 2004, Sep 2004, Aug 2004, Jul 2004, Jun 2004, May 2004, Apr 2004, Mar 2004, Feb 2004, Jan 2004, Dec 2003, Nov 2003, Oct 2003, Sep 2003, Aug 2003, Jul 2003, Jun 2003, May 2003, Apr 2003
Collection as of Mar 2003.

This account is shceduled to continue on record until Jan 2009.
Your Statement "Y ITEM DISPUTED BY CONSUMER"
Creditor's Statement "Account closed at grantor's request"
Comment: "Account information disputed (Meets the requirements of the FCRA)
This item was verified and updated on Oct 2005.