Which would be better?

[Anonymous]

I am trying to figure out what would be the better move for me right now. I will have enough money this month to pay down my one revolving credit account to less than 9% (from over 90% as of February). Would it be better to focus on that or do a PFD (if they agree to it) on a 5 year old verizon wireless account for $112 and put the rest towards the revolving debt, which would bring it to about 20% util? Will getting a 5 year old collection removed really have that big of an impact? I have a more recent (2 year) paid collection that we are trying to get deleted, but if it doesn't happen, I am assuming that the more recent collection will negate any score change that would have occured with removing the 5 year old collection. Is that correct? Also, with regards to paying down the revolving debt, this month I paid it down to about 70% and it should report in the next few days, should I expect an increase in score or will it no increase until it is down to the 9% ideal?

[Anonymous]

anyone?

[llecs]

I'd do the PFD and revolving. Verizon Wireless could opt to sell the CO to a CA in the future. I'd start with the PFDs now. It may take dozens to get them to accept.

Removing the VZW CO could net you some points. It all depends on how it is reporting. Same goes for the CA. It is all in relation to the other stuff on your CR.

Paying down CC utilization, if overall down to 20%, will result in an improved score.

[Anonymous]

Remember, SOL on wireless accounts have a 2 year federal SOL, so DV that account first, and if they validate, then make them a low-ball offer. If not, you can write them a FOAD letter if you would rather. They can still report, but they can't sue. I would also check to see that the DOFD is accurate... might be soon out of CRTP anyway...

[Anonymous]

---

likewise wrote:
Remember, SOL on wireless accounts have a 2 year federal SOL, so DV that account first, and if they validate, then make them a low-ball offer. If not, you can write them a FOAD letter if you would rather. They can still report, but they can't sue. I would also check to see that the DOFD is accurate... might be soon out of CRTP anyway...

---

If Verizon Wireless is reporting you can't DV them, they are an OC.

To the OP --  Do you have other accounts as old as this Verizon Wireless? Is it included up in the accounts section of your report? How does the age of your other accounts compare?

I had a 5 year CO removed, lost around 30 points. I had one account older by 2 years and several accounts that were 0-4 years old.

[mauve]

So if it's out of SOL, the CA cannot report?  Does my letter from NCO confirming that it's a collection for Sprint (I have not had Sprint since....2005 maybe?) proof enough to get the CRAs to delete?

[RobertEG]

As sidewinber has said, you cant DV an OC, only a third party CA.

I agree with llecs.  CC %util is only month to month, and can be remedied in the future.  Just dont let the CC go over limit or miss a min. payment.

Delay concerns over monthly % util on a CC in good standing. That would not be my focus.  You have lingering demons to deal with first.

I would concentrate on the existing major derogs. The CO can easily turn into a collection, with a new major derog in your CR. 

A collection agency may continue to report a debt forever if not paid.  The FCRA does not put limitations on when a CA can report.

What the FCRA puts limitations on is not what the CA can report, but rather what the CRA may include in their credit reports.  The CRA is limited to inclusion in any credit report they issue, the reporting to them of any collection that normally exceeds 7 1/2 years from the DOFD on the OC account.

But that is not an absolute exclusiion.  See FCRA 605(b).

SOL expiration has no relevancy to credit reporting.  They can report as permitted by the FCRA,

[llecs]

---

mauve wrote:
So if it's out of SOL, the CA cannot report?  Does my letter from NCO confirming that it's a collection for Sprint (I have not had Sprint since....2005 maybe?) proof enough to get the CRAs to delete?

---

In or out of SOL, it can report. SOL differs from CRTP. IMO, no, because you can't prove you never had Sprint. Did you send a DV to NCO?

[mauve]

I did, that's how I found out that my "open account" with NCO (with no creditor listed on my report) was Sprint.  Or not, because I got a triple report through an agency that lists the OC as Progressive (same balance).  They also are listing me as 120+ days late.  Their letter stated that they sent a request to validate to Sprint, but they were going to delete the info.

[llecs]

---

mauve wrote:
I did, that's how I found out that my "open account" with NCO (with no creditor listed on my report) was Sprint.  Or not, because I got a triple report through an agency that lists the OC as Progressive (same balance).  They also are listing me as 120+ days late.  Their letter stated that they sent a request to validate to Sprint, but they were going to delete the info.

---

I just responded to your other post. I did forget to mention, while I think CAs should report in the Collections section, there's nothing legally stopping them from reporting lates or in the Accounts section. IMO, ignore it. Per your FICO, the damage is the same. FICO sees it as a collection, not as an OC account. FICO also reads the worst delinquency which is the collection itself. On rare occasions, a CA can report like an OC and not be coded as such, but that would be to your favor. Also, 3rd party reports like CCT often misreport. If you pull directly from the source you may see it differently. Score-wise, it doesn't matter either.