Late payments for Chargeoff

[Anonymous]

I have been disputing my USAA credit card account for several weeks since I completely paid it in full a few months ago.  They were reporting it as settled for less than the full balance with 1 90 day late in May 2003.  It finally updated on my EQ report today - paid charge off, now with 37 90+ days late (ranging from Sept 2005 through June 2007, when I paid off the account)!!!  Is this correct???  Should they still be reporting me as 90+ days late even after the account went to chargeoff??  I feel like I should have kept my big mouth shut and accepted the settled for less than full balance with 1 late payment!!

[Anonymous]

**Bump**

Please help )

[John060675]

Dispute it online with the CRA 's and then send a letter to USAA asking them to correct the mistake.  If this does not work, do it again and again and again.  I do not think it will be a problem to get it corrected. 

[haulingthescoreup]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I have been disputing my USAA credit card account for several weeks since I completely paid it in full a few months ago. They were reporting it as settled for less than the full balance with 1 90 day late in May 2003. It finally updated on my EQ report today - paid charge off, now with 37 90+ days late (ranging from Sept 2005 through June 2007, when I paid off the account)!!! Is this correct??? Should they still be reporting me as 90+ days late even after the account went to chargeoff?? I feel like I should have kept my big mouth shut and accepted the settled for less than full balance with 1 late payment!!

---

HeidiBoo, have you called USAA and asked how they reported the updated info to EQ? I ask this because I keep seeing the identical problem with updates from different creditors, and I'm beginning to think that the problem lies with the CRA's. It's hard to imagine that suddenly every lender would be getting this vindictive in the identical manner. Anyone?

[Anonymous]

---

@haulingthescoreup wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I have been disputing my USAA credit card account for several weeks since I completely paid it in full a few months ago. They were reporting it as settled for less than the full balance with 1 90 day late in May 2003. It finally updated on my EQ report today - paid charge off, now with 37 90+ days late (ranging from Sept 2005 through June 2007, when I paid off the account)!!! Is this correct??? Should they still be reporting me as 90+ days late even after the account went to chargeoff?? I feel like I should have kept my big mouth shut and accepted the settled for less than full balance with 1 late payment!!

---

HeidiBoo, have you called USAA and asked how they reported the updated info to EQ? I ask this because I keep seeing the identical problem with updates from different creditors, and I'm beginning to think that the problem lies with the CRA's. It's hard to imagine that suddenly every lender would be getting this vindictive in the identical manner. Anyone?

---

Yes, I've contacted USAA and am awaiting a call back from someone in their "reporting department".  I'm just curious to see if it is legal for them to report an account as late after chargeoff.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

As long as you received 1 "Intent to report adverse action" they can report is as late.

Charge off is purely an accounting term "Charged to profit or Loss"

This means the balance has come off of their Financial statement as a receivable they expect to be paid on.
This also entitles this amount to be treated differently tax wise.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure about the "intent to report..." I'm still concerned that they are reporting 36 more lates now that they updated it to paid in full. Just doesn't make since to me... (

[Anonymous]

They MUST tell you they intend to report negative information.

www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies
[15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

(7) Negative Information

(A)
Notice to Consumer Required
(i)
In general. If any financial institution that extends credit and regularly
and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency described in section 603(p) furnishes negative
information to such an agency regarding credit extended to a customer,
the financial institution shall provide a notice of such furnishing of
negative information, in writing, to the customer.
(ii)
Notice effective for subsequent submissions. After providing such notice,
the financial institution may submit additional negative information to
a consumer reporting agency described in section 603(p) with respect
to the same transaction, extension of credit, account, or customer
without providing additional notice to the customer.
(B)
Time of Notice
(i)
In general. The notice required under subparagraph (A) shall be
provided to the customer prior to, or no later than 30 days after,
furnishing the negative information to a consumer reporting agency
described in section 603(p).
Page 71
71
July 30, 2004
(ii)
Coordination with new account disclosures. If the notice is provided to
the customer prior to furnishing the negative information to a
consumer reporting agency, the notice may not be included in the
initial disclosures provided under section 127(a) of the Truth in
Lending Act.
(C)
Coordination with other disclosures- The notice required under subpara-
graph (A)--
(i)
may be included on or with any notice of default, any billing statement,
or any other materials provided to the customer; and
(ii)
must be clear and conspicuous.

[Anonymous]

I have not received anything from them recently stating that they were intending to report negative information...only that they were updating to Paid In Full.  Now what?

Sorry to be such a pain the bu*t about this !!!