Sears/CBNA ancient account negatives

[ctbungalow]

Hubby and I each had a Sears card (and both were authorized on the other's card), went into a credit counseling program with a fixed debt plan.  Paid off one in 2007, one in 2010.  Just finally paid off the rest of the old debt too and feeling like we're finally out of the woods.

A week ago, the one paid in 2007 suddenly reported as "Paid Collection / Chargeoff" and "120 days or more late" even though it still showed a balance of zero and last activity in 2008.  Called Sears, they said to mail in a dispute.  After researching on here, found that people seem to advise disputing through the bureaus first, then the creditor.  So yesterday I pulled all 6 reports for us and got ready to do the bureau disputes online, once I could make sense of the reports.

Today, got a FICO alert that the other Sears card is now doing the exact same thing.  I do NOT want to spend $60 on credit reports to dispute these, but I can't have these derogatories on there.  Shouldn't the bureaus be smart enough to notice that the reports don't even make sense?  Any advice?  Suck it up and spend the $60? Dispute with Sears first and hope they fix all 6 (and then do I have to spend $60 anyways just to check up on them?)?  Shout my frustration from the rooftops?  I'm probably being dumb given that we spend $30/mo on FICO monitoring for the two of us, but it irks me to spend money because Sears is moronic.

[fused]

Welcome to the forums, ctbungalow!

Since your questions are about "fixing" your credit, I'm moving this thread to the rebuilding credit forum.

[Scuba]

It is not Sears that is moronic, but Citibank.

Good luck with Citi, they are on the ropes and I don't think they even will listen to anyone cos they don't have to.

[thankfulheart]

I have had ZERO luck with GWing Sears over a settled account from 2007. I was even part of a FEMA disaster area at the time and no-dice.  In fact, it's only gotten worse as they have put an "account disputed by consumer" notation on my CRAs, even after I specifically said I was NOT disputing.  Now I'm trying to get THAT off.

[ctbungalow]

I don't think I'm trying to GW, that means good-will, right? The accounts never went to collections, were not charged off. They were never even more than 30 days late. The information is flat out wrong. So I've still got my original question, can anyone help?

[RobertEG]

Were there any delinquencies on the account prior to paying it off?

The issue is whether delinquencies occured, and at what time, not when they were reported.

As for disputing first through a CRA before filing a direct dispute, that is bad advice.

Once a dispute has been resolved via the CRA, a subsequent direct dispute with the credtior can be dismissed without any investigation as being on substantially the same basis.

[ctbungalow]

It did go up to 30 days late a couple of times.  It never went 120 days late, or even 60.  The point is, when those late payments originally happened, they reported them.  They're saying the accounts are now late.  Here's the alert we got:

	Previously reported	Newly reported
Balance:	$0	$0
Past due:	$0	$0
Status:	Pays account as agreed	At least 120 days or more than four payments past due
Last activity:	6/1/2010	6/1/2010
Description:	Closed or Paid Account/Zero Balance Account closed by credit grantor Amount in H/C column is credit limit	Paid collection Account closed by credit grantor Amount in H/C column is credit limit

The "last activity" date is older on the other account.  You see my issue?  How can it be balance 0 and past due 0, but currently 120 days or more past due??  It never went to collections either.  So it's just flat out wrong.

So I should basically take the old statements, print them off and send them to the address Sears gave me along with a letter politely telling them they're idiots?

[RobertEG]

If you dig into the credit reporting history, you will most likely find that the reference to the 120 late is not based on current status, but rather on prior occurances.

Yes, a current balance of $0 would update the current status, but that is not the end-all.  Prior delinquencies and/or a charge-off are retained in your credit file under various codes, such as payment rating and payment history profile.  They can be reported, as long as they are accurate, long after their actual occurance, and even after payment of the account back into good-standing.  It is not inherently inaccurate for an old derog to be reported after the derogatory stauts of the account has been overcome.

If the delinquency or charge-off occured, it can be reported.  It wont update current status to derogatory, but can still be provided as past history.

[ctbungalow]

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something.  But that's exactly the problem.  The current status is reporting as 120 days or more past due.  That's what it shows in the alert, and what it shows in the current status when I pull the actual credit report.

But okay, bottom line, the advice is to contest directly with Sears, not through the CRAs, correct?

[Anonymous]

SEARS/CBNA: Exact same thing happened to me. Do NOT waste your time talking to Sears or CBNA-

File  all 3 credit reports and "Hope" you receive a fare outcome, "Account information disputed by consumer, meets FCRA requirements"