Reply
Regular Contributor
bicknar
Posts: 175
Registered: ‎12-22-2009
0

Multiple 30 60 90s

Hi Again Everyone,

 

As you have seen by my other threads I've been cleaning up my score.  Reports are looking pretty clean and accurate.  However, I have one account that is standing out like a sore thumb.   It's a citifinancial account that had some screwy payment stuff when I switched from writing them checks to making electronic payments. 

 

 When this had happened I called and worked with them to clear up the accounting and made a double payment.  to "catch up"  After which the electonic payment went through and everything was ahead, or so I thought.  Apparently they counted the double payment as 1 payment or something..... I can't exactly figure out what math they were using.  I'm thinking the Mayan calendar.

 

 I had called earlier in my cleanup process and was told nope cant remove the late payment entries.  I sent a GW letter with no luck.  I finally got around to going through all of my bank records and put together the payments I made.  It's nothing like what they are saying.  I have a payment to them every month with the exception of the double payment month, and even then if they applied the next payments to the previous month it should be showing multiple 30 days late, until the time I made two separate payments.

 

So worst case I figured it out.  If they are mean, it should be 10 - 30 day lates while the whole accounting thing was being worked out.  However they are listing 11 - 30s, 3- 60s, and one 90 day late. 

 

I'm thinking a good will letter asking for them to correct the error.  Play dumb and say Look I have records that you were paid every month with the one exception and it looks like two payments were accidentally counted as one, can you please remove the lates from my credit reports or something like that. 

 

Any other thoughts on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated though,

 

Thanks again,

 

A

 


Starting Score: 556
Current Score: 672
Goal Score: 700


Take the FICO Fitness Challenge
Mega Contributor
RobertEG
Posts: 17,456
Registered: ‎03-19-2007
0

Re: Multiple 30 60 90s

[ Edited ]

Hmmm...

You have two obligations to meet every month to avoid being delinquent on your account agreement.

First is that you pay at least the minimum stated in your last billing statement, and second, that the billed minimum amount be received by the statement due date.

If you pay more than the min one month, of course they will consider it as one payment that month, and not apply it to subsequent monthly billing obligtions.

 

When you go delinquent in either min billed amount paid or date of receipt in one month, you then get a new billing statement the next month, with a next due date, and an increased min payment, probably with the addition of late fees for the prior month.

If, in that next month, you make a payment, the simple act of any payment alone wont bring the account back into satisfactory, paid as agreed, status unless it is both timely received, and meets the full payment terms in the subsequent billing statement.

A delinquent account can be repoted to the CRA as a 30-day late after 30-days from the billing due date.  If not brought back into timely and paid status the next month, it can  properly be reported as a 60-day late.  And so on.

 

I am kinda perplexed.  You need to line up your billing statements, and show that you timely made, at least the min amount billed, each month, to forstall escalation of subsequent delinquencies. Hiow have they inaccurately reported?

 

Is the account now back in open, paid, good-standing?

If not, they maY arrive at the point of frustration where they might just close the account, and either/or charge off the delinquent debt, or refer it for collection.

 

 

Regular Contributor
bicknar
Posts: 175
Registered: ‎12-22-2009
0

Re: Multiple 30 60 90s

Right on,  Got that,  Minimum made every month.  The ones in question because of the electronic billing put it after the due date, but after that all good.  Minimums made, and on or around the due dates all over with a miss here and there, but nothing over 30 days except for that one. 


Starting Score: 556
Current Score: 672
Goal Score: 700


Take the FICO Fitness Challenge
Mega Contributor
RobertEG
Posts: 17,456
Registered: ‎03-19-2007
0

Re: Multiple 30 60 90s

[ Edited ]

LOL!

OK, I am still very confused.  Walk me through it.

You say that you had a billing statement, lets assume only  for date purposes, was sent to you on 9/15/2007, that set a min amount due of, lets say, $150, with a  30-day due date of 10/15/2007.  Clear?

You then responded to this billing statement by paying double the amount, or $300, prior to 10/15/2007 due date, assuming that then excess above the min would cover your next month's bill, which had not even been sent. 

They applied the full "double payment" to your payment of the 9/15/2007 billed balance.  That was proper on their part. So your so-called "double payment" was not considered by the OC  as any payment against the statement sent on 10/15/2007.

Then, they sent you a bill on 10/15/2007, setting a due date of 11/15/2007, and a min amount due of, lets say, $125. 

You, erroneoulsy assuming that the prior month payment would be transfered to the 10/15/2007 biliing statement, not meet the 10/15/2007 billing statement date  by making the, lets assume, addit min payment prior to 11/15/2007 of $125. 

Is that correct?  I think that is the thrust of your post.

 

if that is the correct scenario, then the OC could only post a 30-day late to your CR if you had not brought the debt back into paid, good standiing until after 30-days from the due date of the 10/15/2007 ststement , plus 30-days, which would only have permitted the OC to report a 30-day late to the CRA until after 12/2007.

 

OK, then the double-payment issue was hopefully resolved. Misunrstanding that would, at the most, result in one 30-day minor derog being posted.

 

If you then paid the minimum billed amt as stated as due in their statement posted 11/15/2007 prior to its due date of 12/15/2007, as is asserted, and ALL mins by due date therafter, how could you possibibly have anything more than, at the most,. one single 30-day late posted to your CR?

 

There is a HUGE disconnect here.

 

 

 

 

 

Regular Contributor
bicknar
Posts: 175
Registered: ‎12-22-2009
0

Re: Multiple 30 60 90s

Robert,

 

Not only are you not confused, you are spot on.  Now it's my turn to catch up on the coffee while reading your post, but you have it right.  I mapped out the payment dates with the due dates from the start of the account until after the lates that are reported.  Right now I'm just trying to figure the best way to present it to the OC for them to look at it and go woah, we gotta fix this.

 

A

 

Close with the payment too, it was $127.  But I'll round up to 150 for me being bad at math stuffs.


Starting Score: 556
Current Score: 672
Goal Score: 700


Take the FICO Fitness Challenge
Mega Contributor
RobertEG
Posts: 17,456
Registered: ‎03-19-2007
0

Re: Multiple 30 60 90s

[ Edited ]

Once you get all the dates and postings sorted out, I dont recommend your next step as filing of a dispute through the CRA under FCRA 611(a).

Your dispute should, in my opinion, be clearly be directed straight to the OC.

Dont interject the CRA into the dispute process, and allow them to dilute your dispute through their e-Oscar process.

You shoulld directly dispute with the OC under FCRA 623(a)(8), and bypass the CRA entirely.

A dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8) requries OC response back, diretctly,  to  you wiithin 30-days. 

If you need a suggested dispute letter,  I will be glad to provide.  I think they are giving you the run-around.

 

Here is what you need as a mimum to file a direct dspute:

Notice of direct dispute filed by the consumer (FCRA 623(a)(8)(D)):

    a. sufficient information to identify the account or other relationship
        that is in dispute, such as consumer name and account number;
        While the rules specificy that an address and/or telephone number are

        not required, their inclusion is recommened to assure proper identification

    b. identification of the specific information that is being disputed and

        a basis for the dispute. 

    c. all supporting documentation or other information reasonably

        required to substantiate the basis for the dispute.
        This is the contentious area.
        What is “reasonbably required?”
        Under the final rules, the consumer must at least provide a copy of

        the “relevant portions” of a consumer credit report, that substantiates the disputed reporting, but not a copy of their

        entire credit report.  The relevant portions of the credit report establish
        substantiation of the basis for the dispute.  Other supporting documentation
        should also be provided.

 

 

Regular Contributor
bicknar
Posts: 175
Registered: ‎12-22-2009
0

Re: Multiple 30 60 90s

Hi Robert,

 

Sorry I missed the last paragraph before on your earlier post quoted below...  Yes the account is in good standing.  However it's closed as it was paid off a year ago.  0 Balance.  Non revolving.  So nothing for them to come back to me with.  Debt is satisfied.  Just the CR cleanup mess now :smileyhappy:

 

After laying out all of the payment (I went with received dates, when the OC cashed the checks)  Not one was ever 30 days past the billing due date except in the instance after the double payment that was incorrectly applied.  That's the only way I can figure their system started pushing the lates to my CR.  Even so i'm looking at it now and the payments I made were before the end of the next billing cycle, so unless it was an exceptionally long month, even some of them should be within the 30 days.  So at the very least there should not be any 60 or 90s listed at all, and the 30s are disputable.

 

I think at this point since I've only talked to a front line person, I'll keep with the catching flies with honey routine and if that does not work go with the OC dispute.

 

Wish me luck folks.

 

A

 

 

 

 

Hmmm...

You have two obligations to meet every month to avoid being delinquent on your account agreement.

First is that you pay at least the minimum stated in your last billing statement, and second, that the billed minimum amount be received by the statement due date.

If you pay more than the min one month, of course they will consider it as one payment that month, and not apply it to subsequent monthly billing obligtions.

 

When you go delinquent in either min billed amount paid or date of receipt in one month, you then get a new billing statement the next month, with a next due date, and an increased min payment, probably with the addition of late fees for the prior month.

If, in that next month, you make a payment, the simple act of any payment alone wont bring the account back into satisfactory, paid as agreed, status unless it is both timely received, and meets the full payment terms in the subsequent billing statement.

A delinquent account can be repoted to the CRA as a 30-day late after 30-days from the billing due date.  If not brought back into timely and paid status the next month, it can  properly be reported as a 60-day late.  And so on.

 

I am kinda perplexed.  You need to line up your billing statements, and show that you timely made, at least the min amount billed, each month, to forstall escalation of subsequent delinquencies. Hiow have they inaccurately reported?

 

Is the account now back in open, paid, good-standing?

If not, they maY arrive at the point of frustration where they might just close the account, and either/or charge off the delinquent debt, or refer it for collection.


Starting Score: 556
Current Score: 672
Goal Score: 700


Take the FICO Fitness Challenge

myFICO is the consumer division of FICO. Since its introduction 20 years ago, the FICO® Score has become a global standard for measuring credit risk in the banking, mortgage, credit card, auto and retail industries. 90 of the top 100 largest U.S. financial institutions use the FICO Score to make consumer credit decisions.

>> About myFICO
FICO Score - The Score that matters
Click to Verify - This site chose VeriSign SSL for secure e-commerce and confidential communications.
Fair Isaac Corporation is a BBB Accredited Financial Service in San Rafael, CA
FOLLOW US Social Media Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google+