National City sold/went out of business - how can they be reporting?

[diabla]

I BK'd National City back in 2006 and they subsequently sold to PNC (I think), but at any rate, they no longer exist.  I had a new report show up today on my TU from National City and it states in BK, but show zero for past due and zero for payment.  Under contacts, it shows National City Servicing.  

Should I DV it, or just dispute it with the CRA?  If it was from a CA I would understand but I'm curious about it being directly from National City.  I have PNC reporting on both EX and EQ, reporting this National City debt as IIB.  I can't find out until tomorrow whether this is reporting on EX and EQ as a new account.

[llecs]

You can't DV because it's not a CA.

Even though it should say PNC instead of NatCity, it's reporting correctly. Now if it appears twice in the other two, then there's an issue there.

Can you afford to lose the length of history without losing points? If so, try sending a GW to see if they wouldn't mind deleting.

[diabla]

I checked my other two reports and it is the same account, most of the dates match up - not exactly, but enough, and there's no account number, but odds are they are the same.

So the length of history is still a good thing, even if its a IIB account?

Oh, but it was discharged off so it doesn't show any amount owing.  I think the ending balance was the full credit limit of $250.  Eh.

[RobertEG]

By purchase of the debt, the new creditor is heir to the account and all of its associated responsibilites.

If they purchased a debt that was later discharged by BK, they are prohibited from reporting an outstanding debt, but they inherit the statutory obligation to maintain the accuracy of whatever has been reported to the CRAs.  So, yes, they are authorized to report. 

By including in their reporting that the debt is $0, I see no inaccuracy.

If you do dispute the accuracy of whatever they have reported, they have the obligation to investigate its accuracy and either verify, correct, or delete that reporting.

With the OC out of business, their ability to verify the accuracy of their actions would depend upon the sufficiency of information provided to them upon purchase of the account.  If their records are sufficient, in their opinion, to confirm accuracy, they can certainly verify, so the passing of the OC would not, in and of itself, result in their inability to verify.

But first, there would have to be some issue of inaccuracy upon which to base a dispute.  From what is posted, I see none.

As previously stated, the DV process involves dealings with debt collectors, and does not apply to creditors unless the debt was delinquent at their time of purchase.

If the debt was delinquent at the time of their purchase, case law has interpreted their actions to qualify them as debt collectors within the definition of the FDCPA, and thus subject to its provisions, even if they assert themselves as a "creditor."

So DV is not, in my opinion, necessarily out of the question. 

However, I see nothing to be accomplished by a DV, other than shutting the door on any subsequent collection actions, which they cant conduct anyway based on discharge of the debt.  They have no obligation to respond to a DV.

Even if they chose to respond, in my opinion, verification would be simple.  "We verify that the debt is $0."

[llecs]

The length of history can help your FICO in some cases. Depends on your credit, AAoA, length of history, age of the TL, how it reports, etc. I've personally have lost points when COs have dropped but that was because the accounts were among my oldest or the oldest, and/or older than my AAoA. If you have a recent TU FICO for comparison, you can always pull to see if your TU increased.

[diabla]

Thanks for all of the responses!

So if a "new" report shows up for an account that was IIB, and the report accurately states that it is IIB - does that really impact your score at all?  I mean, the BK is already there, along with a slew of other reports that were discharged in that same BK.  I'm wondering if a new report of this old account really matters at all.  It's not like it's a new account with a balance waiting to be collected.

Also, will the IIB accounts still drop off at their own expiration date, or do they stay as long as the BK (10 years)?

[RobertEG]

"Accounts" deletion from a consumer's credit file is an administrative act by the CRAs that has no basis in statute or regulation.  It is simply their internal policy.

They seem to avoid any deletions prior to 7 years, as accounts may still have unexcluded adverse items that have not passed their CR exclusion dates.

So they seem to focus on an arbitrary date of around 10 years.

Yes, a BK can remain in your CR for up to 10 years after discharge, so logic would mandate that the CRA would not delete an account with a still-reportable derog until that information became excluded.  However, I highly doubt whether the CRAs do a manual review of each account prior to exercising their arbitrary deletion, so I doubt that will be a factor.

[diabla]

Weirdly, the National City account deleted.  I wonder if the CRA just pulled that account from some database and stuck it on there, like they do public records?  Very strange.  Because my other two reports show this same account by PNC, who owns NC.  It's almost like they refreshed and this old account popped back up.  Like when I take the battery out of my cellphone and put it back in, it fills my address book with names I deleted, and I have to sit there and delete them again!

Anyway, glad its gone!  Hopefully for good.