10-02-2012 05:11 AM
I stopped at one point on working on my credit but I'm now on that journey again. I am trying to decide what to pay first. Looking at my credit report on here for Equifax, I have some 120+ days past due but one has a flag for the negative indicator and other 2 doesnt have a flag but it's showing 120+ days past due. i will paste below. can you tell me which ones I should pay first?
As for Midland, I contacted them back in June for a pfd, they didnt agree to this but posted a 120+ days late on my credit report. For all of you who have veen successful, please recommend a path for me to take. Thanks in advance!
10-02-2012 05:34 AM
The first two are nearing the CRTP, it only lists DOLA but the DOFD is at that time or before. As far as MCM listing the 120 day late, they can't list key derogatories like that. They and the other 2 are misleading by posting as factoring companies. I would consider the BBB and State AG approach to this.
10-02-2012 05:35 AM
Keep trying pfd with both, and pay off the one that agrees first.
10-02-2012 12:44 PM
The presumption that, just because a 120-late is showing on your credit report under a heading related to a collection, it was reported by the debt collector is not necessarily so. Commercial credit reports are notorious for mixing information related to OC and debt collector "accounts" in a manner that implies reporting by one or the other.
Reporting codes for collections do not even provide for monthly delinquencies, which of course can only result from delinquencies in billing done by the creditor, not a debt collector. The only way to know the source of any reported item is to get the information from the CRA. I would exercise caution in filing complaints with the FTC, a BBB, etc., without knowledge of the full facts.
As for reporting as a factoring company, they are legitimate and recognized businesses that buy receivable, delinquent assets from creditors. They may not have stellar reputations in the consumer world, but they are legitimate, and the CRA provides reporting codes to identity themselves as such.
10-03-2012 08:52 AM
10-03-2012 10:10 AM
That's why you file the complaint. And no, it's not a legitimate method of reporting. It is a flaw in the system that is being exploited. That is how a CA is reporting lates. Continue with filing your complaints.
10-03-2012 04:44 PM
I have a similar issue with my utility company (electric) which somehow has the right to report its customers regularly to the CRAs as if they were a credit card. (I find that wrong for so many reasons but so far no one has started a class action suit so I guess we're stuck).
Anyway, it has me as OK for every month - which I am because I ALWAYS pay my light bill! I mean, you MUST! Even if the bill is $150 and I can only pay $50, that still counts as a payment and cannot be considered "late". Anyway, it says OK for every month then all of sudden one month says 120 Days Late, then the next month is OK again and all of the rest are OK. This appears twice over the last two years! No 30 days, or 60 days, just OK then 120. You would NEVER be allowed to be 4 months behind in your lights!
I disputed it across each of the CRAs so hopefully they will correct that somehow. It looks horrible!
10-03-2012 06:59 PM
I have the same problem with a few collections on my report also. I did some research and found that LVNV, Midland, and Asset Acceptance tend to report this way. I also found that neither company is a factoring company (had to do my research). I also filed a complaint with the BBB and disputed with the CRA's. This seems to be a big problem for so many people. I will keep all posted and let you know how it goes. I'm just worried because my dispute was very lengthy, but contained all the supporting documentation I needed to hopefully get the items removed or corrected so that it can stop effecting my score.