AGE OF ACCTS VS. DEROGS

[rom828]

As some may know from my previous posts, I 've had some difficulty getting some accts to report correctly (after 2+ yrs!) so I have an attorney helping me.

At issue: Providan CO now showing 35 90 day lates that were not reported until it was paid off 11-05. Per agreement, I made payments from 11-03 to 11-05 and those payments were shown as 'OK' on reports in 04 and 05 (I have copies) and no 90s reported.  On this acct I actually had contacted them to close the acct back in May 03 (on hardship basis), they agreed, made 4 on time pyts then it was turned over to collection, which of course was not what was agreed.  CA never reported, just providian.

 Anyway, paid the acct off 11-05, much sooner than the arranged time by doubling the payments in 05. Rec'd a "Congrats, your acct is now satsified"  on WAMU letterhead, and then in 06 the account started reporting all the payments I made during that time as 90 day lates!  I was never 90 days late on this acct.....I contacted them after 1 60 day late to close the acct and arrange payoff.  After it was turned over to CA, it began reporting as CO, but I was told once it was paid it would report correctly. Stupid me didnt know any better, got nothing in writing, and paid the acct off assuming it would report correctly when I did so. 

Repeated requests for correction to  CRAs has only returned "verified".

The other is a FKA Cross Country, now reprting as Applied.  I closed it in 11-03 (only had a handful of 30 days from 02and 03 and was not 30 OR 60 days in Nov when I contacted them to close.   I arranged to close (to avoid chance of falling behind and having more penalties,  etc) and pay off with monthly payments.   After it was paid off, I saw it showed the date of Nov 03 as a 30 day late AND a 60 day late. Again, disputing has not been successful.   

These Prov 90 day lates are shown on EX and EQ (not on TU) and 30/60 day lates on Applied  are shown on all 3 CRs.  In addition, EX and EQ do not show the date closed or the status as closed.

Needless to say, the are "mentioned' in FICO's 'what's hurting your score'.

My concern now, though, is the attorney has advised that sometimes in this type dispute they just delete the whole TL, and both of these were opened in 1998 and contribute to the 'what's helping my score" age of accts.

My other accounts are:           6 store & catalogue cards( 2 @ '06, 2 @ 07, 2 @ 08),

                                                 3 Car loans(paid/never late)  '97, 00, 03

                                                 Mortgage  '07

                                                 CCs 2 @ '99           1 @ '05              4 @  '08

After my scores went up, I did do some apping in April, which so far hasnt hurt my score, actually got 2 pts for one of them   My older CC were Orchard, and the new are Discover and Amex, and I got Target and Walmart just to incr CLs.   I only use the catalogue cards intermittently just to keep them reporting, and they did help me rebuild.  But the derogs did cause me denial from Citi.

I'm wondering and worrying what the effect will be if these 2  1998 accts do actually get deleted.  Will having younger history hurt me more that the derogs?!?!?  There are no negatives on any of these other accts and my util is about 26% and will be lower (goal of 7%) in just a few months.

I'm sorry this is so long, but I hope someone out here will take the time to read it and give me their advices.  Can't really pull back as the letters have been sent and I guess we'll know what happens in either 5 days or 30 days, but I'd like opinions so I can get myself prepared!!!

I'd be grateful to anyone who will chime in!!!!

Message Edited by rom828 on 05-06-2008 07:29 AM

[Anonymous]

The important thing here is that your oldest account, your 1997 account, will remain intact thereby giving you an 11 year credit history. So you may lose a few points for the decrease in average age of accounts, but your total length of credit history will remain intact.

[rom828]

Thanks, NewWorld, for taking time to read this lengthy post!

And your comment is really encouraging!  I thought I might be in for a serious hit if my average acct age went down, and I guess I was sort of confusing average age of acct with history age.

DH and I are really working on getting these scores up for a future refi,  but other than the car loans, all of DH's credit is relatively new.  Added him as AU on the catalogue cards, which finally got him a score (higher than mine, I might add!) and then he apped for Amex, Citi and Discover and his scores went up more. He'd pretty much been a "cash on the barrel" kinda guy, but had to convince him the only way to get a score was to get credit.

I've worked since 03 to get all aold debts paid and get back on the good foot, so I didnt want to be shooting myself in that good foot getting these  erroneous derogs corrected.

Thanks again!

DH's  FICO  TU  726     EQ 691     EX 692        MY FICO   TU 687    EQ 658     EX 691

[haulingthescoreup]

The Cross Country/ Applied thing might be more helpful than hurting. As an example, I disputed a store card that wouldn't update the balance to $0, and it had a 30-60-90 that was 2 years old, much more recent than your 2003 30-60. When it came out of dispute and resumed being counted in my scores, I only lost 10 points. So your Cross Country/ Applied account is bound to be hurting less than that (it's 3 years older, and it doesn't have a 90), so it might be more useful for your average score. But that Providian is poison. If you can't get them to fix it, it's definitely worth flushing.

The one maybe-not that I have about my CC/ Applied thought is that if this account and the Providian are your only baddies, you might do better to lose both of them, because you would move into a no-lates bucket. But if you have another couple of 30-days scattered around, I'm guessing it's barely hurting, and might already be positive.

(Welcome to the nothing-is-simple world of predicting effects of changes on your credit reports! )

[rom828]

Thanks so much for the  input, Hauling!  I've sure learned a lot from all your posts and I appreciate your advices on this one!

I did sort of waffle about having the atty help w/Applied for the reason you mentioned, but from other posts I was advised the 60 day late is a major derog and  could really be hurting.  And since I've been working so hard to get everything corrected, I hate to have something bad on there, especially an incorrect bad! 

Unfortunately, these are not the only baddies. 

I have a PAID tax lien, filed in 98 for 96 taxes  that was paid in 04. Didnt even know I had it (I promise!) til I ran report in 05!  I just got copy of paid lien today from County Clerk because the State did not have any documentation in their office, just the record of it being filed and paid. State agent said it was paid by "off set" in 04 and the copy does show it as paid and satisfied and released in 04.  I do have to get this corrected on mine and DH's reports as they all show status date 04-04 but date paid shows "?  not reported".  I dont have anything in my tax records that supports any of this, but my records only go back to 2000 so I dont have my 96 taxes, but I also dont have anything from 04 indicating a refund was used to offset a lien.   This one may be a nightmare to get straight, but at least I guess I should try to get it to show as paid on my reports (?).

My understanding on tax liens is that if they dont show paid they can stay on your report forever. Kind of  odd, though, that when I click on the 'dispute' tab on myfico, it highlights this lien advising I should dispute as it's old and past reporting time according to FCRA?!?!?!

Is this another myfico glitch?!

Previous efforts to dispute on my reports  have done nothing to change the status; submitted one today on DH's EX just to see what happens. May need atty's help with this one also.

I have a Cap 1 charge off that was just sold to Midland.  This acct is the only one of my previous CCs that I was unable to get the creditor to work with me on. I contacted them several times trying to close the acct &  make some sort of pyt arrangement, but never could get them to do so. I concentrated on all other debts, and other than this Cap 1, ALL accts, including car loan, credit cards, etc have been paid absolutely on time, not even one 30 day late since 2003 (actually no lates on the car loans since 97)

The attorney is doing DV to Midland for me (just got letter dated 4-17)  and based on my paper statements, ect, I am past SOL, even tho Cap 1 didnt charge off til 05-05 and didnt sell til 04-08. DOFD is 03-03 .  Well, at least on 2 reports. I disputed with EX and it came back as will be removed 06-11 so they obviously did some date changing after my dispute, as all previous reports showed 06-10 for delete.  Cap 1 had been very inconsistent with reporting dates thru the history of that acct,  but fortunately I have old credit reports and my statements which clearly show the discrepancies, which very much appear to be attempts to re-age.    Not sure what the outcome will be, but for now, Cap 1 acct, opened in 1999, is shown as  "sold/transfered, with 0 balance.

So, now that I've made the short story long, I do have these other 2  baddies,  so maybe if Prov and Applied get removed, I'll be hurt more that I would expect.  But I have to tell you, it sure would feel good to look at a report and not see all those derogs!  And the sad thing is, if both of those accts had reported correctly in the first place, I wouldnt have to go thru all this, and I'd have my history and longer average acct age.  If there's once thng I've learned on this forum, it's GET IT IN WRITING!

And just when I think I'm starting to understand how to play the game, the rules change, or a new one is added.  It's like FICO dodge ball....and I was never good at dodge ball!

AND I'M ADOPTING YOUR LONG TERM GOAL FOR MYSELF!!  Just hope I live that long!!!!!!!!

Any other thoughts on the other issues mentioned above are appreciated, if you have a chance.

Thanks again....and sorry again for the 'wordiness'! 

[RobertEG]

You are correct regarding tax liens.  Under section 605(a)(3) of the FCRA, the date of the  lien itself has nothing to do triggering drop of the lien derog from your CR by the CRAs  It is the date of payment of the lien, and then runs 7 years thereafter.  The 7 year period from payment of the lien is not discretionary by the CRA, it is regulated by law.  You should not have to dispute to get it removed once the 7 years tolls, as the CRA is prohibited by law from further reporting it after that date.  Just make sure it shows as a paid lien with all three CRAs.

There is no provision in the FCRA that mandates droppiing a tax lien derog from a CR if it remains unpaid, and theoretically, it could remain forever if unpaid.

Message Edited by RobertEG on 05-07-2008 11:06 PM

[rom828]

Thanks,  Robert!

Guess the myfico thing is just another instance where the program is a little off.  I was sort of hoping against hope that maybe there was some valid reason it showed to dispute it.

But because the date paid is what dictates the reporting period, I am very anxious to get it reported correctly as "paid" and with the date shown.  At least then I'll know it should delete at some point!

I am really frustrated by the State's inability, though, to give me any further info or documentation.  The State agent I talked to had actually given me  a date of May 03 as when the off set that paid the lien was done. But he says he has no documentation to support it.  The only date that's every shown on my CRs is status date of 04-04, and those reports also just show date paid as not reported.  But the copy clearly shows paid and satisfied in 04. Maybe it was offset in 03 but they didnt notify the county until 04, I dont know. 

As I said, I have my tax records and dont have anything showing the offset. The agent said federal refund couldve been used, but in 2003 and 2004 I did not have any federal refund,. so I dont know how it got paid,  but maybe I shouldnt even rock that boat.  And my records dont go back far enough to even see how I owed taxes in 96, and I truthfully dont recall ever receiving lien notice.  I certainly wouldnt have ignored it, I know that much. 

But all this "is what it is" I guess.  Doesnt seem to me that there's too much hope of fighting any of this, so I just have to live with it, but if I would like to  at least get it to report correctly.