No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
Timothy wrote:Do you have copies of both reports?Did the DOFD change?Did derogs get removed?It is posible if the negative information was removed- it is now a positive account and will stay on longer- we need more DATA
Boscoe wrote:Just by looking at what you wrote, it appears that EX thinks that the first reporting was incorrect. Why would the status date be changed? Did the creditor re-report it late as of Feb 08? Can you give more background on why you disputed it and why they would say it was settled in Feb?
butterflygirlinluv wrote:
Timothy wrote:
Do you have copies of both reports?Did the DOFD change?Did derogs get removed?It is posible if the negative information was removed- it is now a positive account and will stay on longer- we need more DATA
Timothy,I have a report from 6/25/08 and then the report that was emailed to me for the investigation results.I do not see the DOFD but this is what is was reporting on 6/28/08:Reported since: June 1998Date of Status: Jan 2005Last reported: jan 2005Status: Paid in settlement/past dueThis acct is scheduled to continue on record until Oct 2010This is what was on the investigation results report:Reported since: July 2001Date of Status: Feb 2008Lat reported: June 2008Status: Paid in settlementThis account is scheduled to continue on record until July 2015 and was verfied and updated.WHY?? would should I do?? It's still a negative account.Thank you..please let me know if you need more info!
FTC News Report
For Release: May 13, 2004
NCO Group to Pay Largest FCRA Civil Penalty to Date
One of the nation’s largest debt-collection firms will pay $1.5 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by reporting inaccurate information about consumer accounts to credit bureaus. The civil penalty against Pennsylvania-based NCO Group, Inc. is the largest civil penalty ever obtained in a FCRA case.
According to the FTC’s complaint, defendants NCO Group, Inc.; NCO Financial Systems, Inc.; and NCO Portfolio Management, Inc. violated Section 623(a)(5) of the FCRA, which specifies that any entity that reports information to credit bureaus about a delinquent consumer account that has been placed for collection or written off must report the actual month and year the account first became delinquent. In turn, this date is used by the credit bureaus to measure the maximum seven-year reporting period the FCRA mandates. The provision helps ensure that outdated debts – debts that are beyond this seven-year reporting period – do not appear on a consumer’s credit report. Violations of this provision of the FCRA are subject to civil penalties of $2,500 per violation.
The FTC charges that NCO reported accounts using later-than-actual delinquency dates. Reporting later-than-actual dates may cause negative information to remain in a consumer’s credit file beyond the seven-year reporting period permitted by the FCRA for most information. When this occurs, consumers’ credit scores may be lowered, possibly resulting in their rejection for credit or their having to pay a higher interest rate.
The proposed consent decree orders the defendants to pay civil penalties of $1.5 million and permanently bars them from reporting later-than-actual delinquency dates to credit bureaus in the future. Additionally, NCO is required to implement a program to monitor all complaints received to ensure that reporting errors are corrected quickly. The consent agreement also contains standard recordkeeping and other requirements to assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants’ compliance.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to refer the complaint and consent decree to the Department of Justice was 5-0. The Department of Justice filed this matter at the FTC’s request in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 12, 2004.