Macy's CO ... Questionable Reporting and PTD Questions

[Anonymous]

To make a long story short, I studied abroad in 2011 and completely forgot about, and thus, neglected, my Macy's charge card in the process. The kicker? The balance was only $58. The debt has been charged off, but there are some discrepancies in how it is being reported.

1. Equifax shows a status of "charged off account/account closed by credit grantor." It shows the account as derogatory in September, October and November 2012 and then it doesn't show as derogatory again unti August 2015. It currently still shows as derogatory. 

2. Transunion is not reporting it as derogatory at all, but shows its status as "account closed by credit grantor."

3. Experian shows a status of "account closed at credit grantor's request." Experian began reporting it as derogatory in July 2013. However, it started showing as "ok/paid as agreed" for almost all of 2015 even though I haven't touched it.

I called Macy's today to try to pay off the $58 since I just found out it still exists because my fiance and I are planning on applying for a mortgage soon. The automated message asked me to enter my SSN and then it told me it doesn't recognize that SSN as associated with a Macy's account.

1. Any ideas why my SSN wouldn't be found in their system? There are no indications that Macy's ever sold my debt.

2. Any ideas as to why Experian would randomly show the account as ok throughout 2015? (Hoping this is not a sign of potentially fraudulent activity on my account).

3. Should I try my luck with a pay to delete? 

Any help is greatly appreciated!

[RobertEG]

It is not a case of each CRA having access to the same information, and yet "reporting" it differently.

The CRAs only show what is reported to them by the funisher (in this case, the creditor).

The creditor can choose to report delinquencies and/or the charge-off to no CRAs, to only one or more, or to all.

The statutory requriment is that what is reported cannot knowingly be inaccurate.

It is quite possible that the creditor decided to only report delinquencies and/of the charge-off to only one or two CRAs.

That is not basis for dispute of accuracy of their reporting.

Additionally, an account is "derogatory" if it contains any form of negative information.

An account can, for example, be paid and thus in good standing, and yet still have prior reported derogs, such as delinquencies and/or a charge-off.

As for reporting as "OK", it is common for CRAs to insert an "OK" or "NA" whenever an account is not reported that month, and thus insertion of months of OK or NA does not mean the account is either currently in good standing or is has no derogatory reportings.

If you dispute, you are likely to receive an update that shows the "real" delinquency/derog status for each and every month the account was delinquent.

The creditor can simply correct to show consistent delinquencies each month.

I would let it be as to filing any dispute.

Yes, I would offer a pay for delete if the account is reporting and it has any prior derogs.