topic Re: Did Target really do this? in General Credit Topics

Did Target really do this?

jons998877 — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 10:26:12 GMT

So last week I requested EE for a Target card that’s due to fall off in July... requested it for TU and EX only, today I got an alert that Target updated the status of that card on EQ, which is the first tine in many years, dropping my score on EQ 11 points..

Re: Did Target really do this?

VanderSnoot — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 14:45:11 GMT

Wow, sorry to hear this, Jon. I hope someone else chimes in with helpful advice.

Re: Did Target really do this?

jons998877 — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 18:15:53 GMT

And today got a message that it bounced back up 36 pt to 620... TU from 623 to 640

Re: Did Target really do this?

VanderSnoot — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 18:46:27 GMT

Any movement on EX?

Re: Did Target really do this?

jons998877 — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 19:52:09 GMT

Nothing on EX.. but I have a few PFD and another collection I just paid... plus 7 lines that should fall off in next 3 months... so not sure what happened

Re: Did Target really do this?

VanderSnoot — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 21:07:58 GMT

@jons998877 wrote:
Nothing on EX.. but I have a few PFD and another collection I just paid... plus 7 lines that should fall off in next 3 months... so not sure what happened

Try posting in the Rebuilding thread. I think you might get more relevent feedback from folks there.

Re: Did Target really do this?

RobertEG — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 21:45:13 GMT

A creditor is permitted to report updates to a CRA on any delinquent account, which informs that the account remains delinquent, and thus the period since intital delinquency has increased.

Continued updating of a delinquent account is totally proper, and can even be argued as required under FCRA 605(a)(2) in order to maintain the accuracy of the current period since initial account delinquency. It can also be updated to show any increase in balance due to assessment of additional interest or late fees.

It is a very common reporting practice.

Re: Did Target really do this?

Brian_Earl_Spilner — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 21:47:43 GMT

I could see it happening for a dispute request. Target receives the dispute and fires back the correct info to all the bureaus, but for EE, it seems a little weird. You're not disputing, just requesting they remove it ahead of time.

Re: Did Target really do this?

VanderSnoot — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 21:58:01 GMT

@RobertEG wrote:
A creditor is permitted to report updates to a CRA on any delinquent account, which informs that the account remains delinquent, and thus the period since intital delinquency has increased.

Continued updating of a delinquent account is totally proper, and can even be argued as required under FCRA 605(a)(2) in order to maintain the accuracy of the current period since initial account delinquency. It can also be updated to show any increase in balance due to assessment of additional interest or late fees.
It is a very common reporting practice.

What are OP's options? It sounds like OP needs to pay off the balance. Is this a scenario where PFD applies? Or some other technique? I'm new to this side of things.

Re: Did Target really do this?

Anonymous — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 22:02:40 GMT

Experian sometimes sends the request to the creditor. They did the same thing to me with a Ford charge off earlier this year. The same day it came off of EX, I got an alert from Credit Karma that my EQ score went down. Sure enough, they went ahead and updated the charge off despite the fact it has been $0 since 2014. I now have CO marks from 2012 til 2014 where before I had a single CO mark 11/2014. FICO has rebounded, Vantage is still annoyed, and I’m on my third dispute with EQ because the DOFD isn’t even correct on the account.

If I ever have any negative information again you can be certain I won’t be asking any of the bureaus except TU for EE! Best of luck getting it fixed, EQ is a nightmare.

Re: Did Target really do this?

Brian_Earl_Spilner — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 22:05:01 GMT

@VanderSnoot wrote:
@RobertEG wrote:
A creditor is permitted to report updates to a CRA on any delinquent account, which informs that the account remains delinquent, and thus the period since intital delinquency has increased.

Continued updating of a delinquent account is totally proper, and can even be argued as required under FCRA 605(a)(2) in order to maintain the accuracy of the current period since initial account delinquency. It can also be updated to show any increase in balance due to assessment of additional interest or late fees.
It is a very common reporting practice.
What are OP's options? It sounds like OP needs to pay off the balance. Is this a scenario where PFD applies? Or some other technique? I'm new to this side of things.

He shouldn't pay anything. He's trying to get early exclusion which means he's outside of any state's statute of limitations. Making a payment would renew the 7 years of reporting. They just need to sit tight until it falls off. Maybe try EE again in a month.

Re: Did Target really do this?

VanderSnoot — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 22:17:49 GMT

@Brian_Earl_Spilner wrote:
He shouldn't pay anything. He's trying to get early exclusion which means he's outside of any state's statute of limitations. Making a payment would renew the 7 years of reporting. They just need to sit tight until it falls off. Maybe try EE again in a month.

So what effect did Target's action have? Did it restart the 7 yr timetable?

Re: Did Target really do this?

Brian_Earl_Spilner — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 22:26:15 GMT

@VanderSnoot wrote:
@Brian_Earl_Spilner wrote:
He shouldn't pay anything. He's trying to get early exclusion which means he's outside of any state's statute of limitations. Making a payment would renew the 7 years of reporting. They just need to sit tight until it falls off. Maybe try EE again in a month.
So what effect did Target's action have? Did it restart the 7 yr timetable?

They just updated his report with additional time for the charge off and balances. It would be like if you were 30 days late on a card but they didn't report it, then 6 months later reported it. He got the ding he should have had the whole time. Doesn't really matter as the account will be removed off his report in the next 2-8 months. The 7 years would restart if he made a payment or agreed to some sort of payment.

Re: Did Target really do this?

RobertEG — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 23:45:34 GMT

The credit report exclusion periods for monthly delinquencies, a charge-off, or a collection, are NOT reset based on any payments made or any other factors. The exclusion for monthly delinquencies is 7 years, and the exclusion for collections and charge-offs is no later than 7 years plus 180 days from the DOFD. Payments (or firm or written offers to pay) do not reset the credit report exclusion periods under the FCRA.

Payments can, under some state statutes, reset an SOL for bringing civil action seeking a judgment, but SOL on debt is unrelated to credit report exclusion periods under the FCRA.

Re: Did Target really do this?

vntrsc — Sun, 02 Jun 2019 17:09:41 GMT

@Brian_Earl_Spilner wrote:
@VanderSnoot wrote:
@Brian_Earl_Spilner wrote:
He shouldn't pay anything. He's trying to get early exclusion which means he's outside of any state's statute of limitations. Making a payment would renew the 7 years of reporting. They just need to sit tight until it falls off. Maybe try EE again in a month.
So what effect did Target's action have? Did it restart the 7 yr timetable?
They just updated his report with additional time for the charge off and balances. It would be like if you were 30 days late on a card but they didn't report it, then 6 months later reported it. He got the ding he should have had the whole time. Doesn't really matter as the account will be removed off his report in the next 2-8 months. The 7 years would restart if he made a payment or agreed to some sort of payment.

Making a payment or agreeing to pay would NOT restart the 7-year reporting period.

Re: Did Target really do this?

jons998877 — Sun, 02 Jun 2019 11:16:54 GMT

Yes, it’s supposed to fall off in August so I am not paying it, will just let it drop off

Re: Did Target really do this?

AverageJoesCredit — Sun, 02 Jun 2019 11:47:48 GMT

This is why i recommend letting sleeping dogs lay when it comes to requesting EE. 2 months to wait is nothing really and always a chance an EE backfires. When you involve Eq your chances of playing with fire increase.