Need help please!

[notw1031]

I disputed this to be IIB as I filed April 2008 and it was discharged 8/2008 and this debt was included. Is it legal to update this account to read like this as this has changed my credit score?

Status as of	Apr, 2011
Date opened [?]	Jun, 2006
Date of last activity [?]	Jun, 2007
Largest past balance [?]	$500
Account Type [?]	Revolving
Account holder [?]	Individual
Scheduled Payment Amount [?]	$0
Industry	All Banks

Descriptions [?]

Account transferred or sold

Charged off account

No contact information provided by Equifax

Balance [?]	Current Status [?]
$0	Bad debt/collection

Seven year payment history [?]

30 days late    1 time
60 days late 1 time
90+ days late	43 times (Mar 2011, Feb 2011, Jan 2011, Dec 2010, Nov 2010, Oct 2010, Sep 2010, Aug 2010, Jul 2010, Jun 2010, May 2010, Apr 2010, Mar 2010, Feb 2010, Jan 2010, Dec 2009, Nov 2009, Oct 2009, Sep 2009, Aug 2009, Jul 2009, Jun 2009, May 2009, Apr 2009)

Recent payment history [?]

CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO	CO
4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	1	2	3
2009	2010	2011

Collection

Worst Delinquency [?]

Bad debt/collection

[RobertEG]

Looks proper

BK discharges your legal obligation to pay the debt, and thus requires that the creditor update the current balance owed to $0.  That was done.

Discharging your obligation to pay the debt does not make the prior, accurate reporting of delinquencies and derogs that occured prior to the discharge of the debt inaccurate. 

[kjm79]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Looks proper

BK discharges your legal obligation to pay the debt, and thus requires that the creditor update the current balance owed to $0.  That was done.

Discharging your obligation to pay the debt does not make the prior, accurate reporting of delinquencies and derogs that occured prior to the discharge of the debt inaccurate. 

---

I agree.  Only thing that looks improper is the contiued reporting of lates/CO AFTER the bk discharge in 2008.  They go into 2009 and 2010.   Edited to add:  and 2011

[notw1031]

---

@kjm79 wrote:

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Looks proper

BK discharges your legal obligation to pay the debt, and thus requires that the creditor update the current balance owed to $0.  That was done.

Discharging your obligation to pay the debt does not make the prior, accurate reporting of delinquencies and derogs that occured prior to the discharge of the debt inaccurate. 

---

I agree.  Only thing that looks improper is the contiued reporting of lates/CO AFTER the bk discharge in 2008.  They go into 2009 and 2010.   Edited to add:  and 2011

---

That was my concern as they have continued to report a derogatory comment after a BK. With this happeneing it lowered my score a lot because 4 accounts recently did it after disputing that it should have been IIB. I am fine with the charge off but they were still reporting money owed and had it as a bad debt/collection and that is why I disputed as they were IIB so they shouldn't be allowed to report current information right?

[kjm79]

Right.  Anything after the discharge should not be reported.  In my own experience, nothing after the date of filing was permitted, but that seems to differ here on the forums.  The date of last activity was in 2007.  Was the account charged off before the 2008 bk?  If so, it is reporting correctly.  Minus, the continued collection reporting post bk. 

[notw1031]

---

@kjm79 wrote:

Right.  Anything after the discharge should not be reported.  In my own experience, nothing after the date of filing was permitted, but that seems to differ here on the forums.  The date of last activity was in 2007.  Was the account charged off before the 2008 bk?  If so, it is reporting correctly.  Minus, the continued collection reporting post bk. 

---

Yeah, it did CO before the BK filing and I'm ok with them reporting it as a CO. I guess my concern was that they updated the status to a current, like I still owe and I thought since I did file BK, that prevented any creditor prior to the BK from updating any info. I guess I'm confused.  I disputed them as they were showing as still owing and that's what my issue was and then they update like it's current and it lowered my score. It just seems like BK didn't stop all the collection process or something.

[kjm79]

---

@notw1031 wrote:

---

@kjm79 wrote:

Right.  Anything after the discharge should not be reported.  In my own experience, nothing after the date of filing was permitted, but that seems to differ here on the forums.  The date of last activity was in 2007.  Was the account charged off before the 2008 bk?  If so, it is reporting correctly.  Minus, the continued collection reporting post bk. 

---

Yeah, it did CO before the BK filing and I'm ok with them reporting it as a CO. I guess my concern was that they updated the status to a current, like I still owe and I thought since I did file BK, that prevented any creditor prior to the BK from updating any info. I guess I'm confused.  I disputed them as they were showing as still owing and that's what my issue was and then they update like it's current and it lowered my score. It just seems like BK didn't stop all the collection process or something.

---

Since it CO'd before the BK they can list is as a bad debt/charge off as that is accurate reporting.  What you need to dispute is the monthly CO reporting since the BK.  I personally would call the OC and 1) ask them to list the status as IIB (they are not obligated to but might), and 2) to remove the post BK CO's.  Just mention the date of filing and the discharge and say that any reporting past those dates is a violation of the automatic stay and the discharge protection.  Be nice about it first.  If you don't get anywhere on the phone, then follow up in writing and send a copy of your Notice of Filing/Meeting of 341 Creditors Notice and MAYBE your discharge.  I had to follow up with creditors quite a few time to get all our accounts to report IIB and delete a few post BK reporting errors.  Some were easy, some were a little harder.  Just got to stick with it.