topic Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps in Student Loans

Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

lowspender — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:10:09 GMT

This will be a mouthful, proceed at your own risk My C.O. seems to have changed itself, and I don't understand why- that's in the shorter 2nd post.

My student loan debt was never a "loan," federally or privately. Called a "tuition loan," as I understand. I simply got into a bad situation my last semester, planned to pay it off a few months later, and.. well, didn't work out that way.

After a few years of small payments, the (school) emailed me a payment schedule. It was too high and < 2 weeks into that, they (the rep) decided the entire plan had gone on too long, closed options and sent it to a debt collector. The collector had even higher monthly payment options, done < 12 months. They wouldn't address how it would update with the bureaus.. and said I couldn't talk to the school about it anymore (didn't think that was true, but guessing collectors probably spend a lot of time in gray areas).

Did try talking to the school a couple times back then and they referenced me back to the collector. So, it went a year without payments. Not their responsibility, but since I didn't know how to handle it and since they (collector 1) wouldn't take any amount (I offered to double my original payment multiple times, they just wanted me to make up the difference in month 2), so it went nowhere.

This repeats with collector 2. Pretty much exact repeat of collector 1. 6 months in, as the year ends, it becomes a charge off.

I could've handled this better, and perhaps should've forced the school to have some sort of contact with me, rather than brush me off onto unhelpful agents.

After the C.O. notification, read I might have 30 days or less to try and make a deal with the creditor before it was sold off (not true here, see below). Results seem mixed on whether or not you can "negotiate" a settlement in these situations, especially if you're trying to have the charge off marked "paid as agreed" instead of "settled."

Spoke to the rep at the school who originally took my payment plan off the table a few years ago. They said multiple things that made me doubt their credibility/knowledge regarding credit, and what their promises might actually mean. Not being a credit analyst and making a reference to their credit department more than once, some of it is probably an estimate. Wondering about enough of the points to dig in further, though..

This point is mine alone- the charge off amount includes a "fee" somewhere in the fine print of when I enrolled, about a debt collectors fee. That is added to my original balance. It assumes I have never paid down any of the original balance (incorrect) and adds $1k on top of it. So it's aboute a $2500 difference. The rep multiple times mentioned the actual amount I do owe. Which would it be, the charge off amount reported, or what they say is needed for this to be "paid off." What if the amount changes next time I talk to them, with no outside buyer of the debt involved (none to date)- is that allowed?

-They said they do not negotiate the debt at all (standard perhaps, though isn't that the start of a stiff negotiation?)

-The payment has to be made all at once (reasoning was that multiple payments put them at risk of a chargeback, a single charge did not. Which makes no sense to me.. maybe multiple charges looks more fishy (?), but couldn't one chargeback a single payment also? Not considering this, just illustrating my concern with their knowledge of the topic, before I proceed.

-They do not offer a pay for delete option, but would've during the delinquency process with the collectors (which they did not address when I called them and said it was between me and the collectors).. wow that would've been good to know at the time. They are willing to work with the bueaus and mark it as "paid in full" I believe, but it "won't delete").

-The debt stays at the university "forever," they never sell it to a creditor. Is forever possible? Maybe you can't take another class before paying off old debt.. but nothing stays on a report forever ? Can they update your DOLA for life, so it never falls off? Seems impossible.

If they never sell it and it stays forever, wouldn't it fall off by itself? I'm not willing to trade that time for the blemish to sit there, but.. don't understand. From my understanding, if it was "paid," fico 9 has minimal if any penalty against your score for that, all the more reason to have it paid.

-Said "your transunion record is there for your whole life, nothing is ever gone." Specifically pointed to TU. Well, that's not true..

-Credit bureaus are often behind in updating reports and it "often takes 8 months for that to show up on a report. Is 8 months "standard"? Delays happen, but.. standard?

Takeaways? I assume negotiating isn't really an option. Their policy is against pay for delete- is a post payment goodwill letter an unlikely option? Know it can be frowned on by the bureaus to have it reported if it wasn't really an "error." Are inaccurate collections agent statements grounds for any sort of "legit" error in disputing the debt (pre or post payment)?

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

lowspender — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:08:42 GMT

4 days after talking with the rep (gotta be a coincidence?)- (and I just found out today, about 25 days later.. I log on to get screen grabs for here since I am confused about that discussion and.. it no longer reports on my Ex. It reports on TU and EQ, though differently on each.

Paid 100% on TU, 0% on EQ. EQ and EX were about the same score last time, EX went up 120 points, to about where it was before any of this went to collections, showed up on report, etc. These are all same as current- EQ updated has same info as before.

Have no idea what's going on, why it shows this way on the other 2, or what changed I do want to capitalize on apping for a new card if EX is clean for now. Maybe a cli for my boa on TU also.

I hoped to do a balance transfer to a card and have it report within a month so my scores would go up and I'd quality for something better, but from reading, it could definitely take more time to update and that's risky.

So, why is reporting differently to each bureau?

Is it telling me the difference between paid in full (TU) and 0% paid (EQ) is the 20 point score increase I would get if EQ read the same? Cause that would not be very motivating..

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

Slabenstein — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:13:17 GMT

I can't speak to how this particular lender handles recovery of their charge-offs, but I do notice a couple of things in the CMS screenshots you posted:

1) TU and EQ have very different dates that they were last updated, neither of which is very recent. In the TU screenshots, it shows that the reporting for this tradeline is as of 07/06/2022; in the ones for EQ it's 10/04/2023. This could be some or all of the reason why the reporting on these two bureaus is different, depending on the status of the tradeline on each of these two dates. (It's not uncommon for a CO to stop updating, which can artificially boost your score as time passes by making the delinquency look older than it is.)

2) TU is reporting like a charge-off that was sold to a collection agency, with a balance of $0 and a status of unpaid charge-off.

3) From the other two bureaus, I'm not sure why the tradeline would have fallen off your EX report. The oldest delinquency in the EQ payment summary is 07/2022, which is already at full CO status. Even with some number of months of lead-up delinquency, that's still pretty far off from 7 years. It may just be a bank error in your favor. Do you have any older EX reports showing the status and payment history of this tradeline before it fell off?

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

Slabenstein — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:03:31 GMT

Here are the best answers I can give to a few of your other questions:

@lowspender wrote:

-The debt stays at the university "forever," they never sell it to a creditor. Is forever possible? Maybe you can't take another class before paying off old debt.. but nothing stays on a report forever ? Can they update your DOLA for life, so it never falls off? Seems impossible.

They can update DOLA if and whenever there's activity on the tradeline (e.g. a partial payment), but that's different from the DoFD (date of first deliquency), which is the date the tradeline first went delinquent without being brought current again. That's the date that determines reporting timelines for CO and CA, and creditors can't move this date forward, which would be illegal re-aging.

If they never sell it and it stays forever, wouldn't it fall off by itself? I'm not willing to trade that time for the blemish to sit there, but.. don't understand. From my understanding, if it was "paid," fico 9 has minimal if any penalty against your score for that, all the more reason to have it paid.

Whether or not you pay the CO, it should fall off your reports at the end of its reporting timeline (7 years from DoFD). I don't know how FICO9 handles paid COs, but there are two things I can point out: 1) a paid CO will look better for manual underwriting and 2) paying a CO that hasn't been updating (like yours) can drop your score in the short term, b/c all the delinquent months between the most recent update and date of payment will now be reported.

-Said "your transunion record is there for your whole life, nothing is ever gone." Specifically pointed to TU. Well, that's not true..

I don't know what TU's retention policies for data that has aged off of reports are, but a CO on TU will have the same reporting timeframe as on the other two major bureaus (7 years).

-Credit bureaus are often behind in updating reports and it "often takes 8 months for that to show up on a report. Is 8 months "standard"? Delays happen, but.. standard?

8 months wouldn't be a standard delay for regular reporting. More like 1-2 months, if any. Whether 8 months would be standard for this particular creditor reporting a CO as paid, I can't say.

Takeaways? I assume negotiating isn't really an option. Their policy is against pay for delete- is a post payment goodwill letter an unlikely option? Know it can be frowned on by the bureaus to have it reported if it wasn't really an "error."

I think a post-payment goodwill letter is pretty unlikely to yield any results, both because this is a student loan and because the delinquency is severe. It can still be a good idea to send them, though, since the cost in time and resources to do so is low and the potential reward is high (if unlikely to be realized).

Are inaccurate collections agent statements grounds for any sort of "legit" error in disputing the debt (pre or post payment)?

I'm not completely clear on what you're asking in this last question, but grounds for disputing reported data will just be whether that data is accurate, which is independent of anything a collection agent might or might not say. (If the collection agent has made statements in the course of trying to collect your debt that break the law, then there are other things that you can do with that, ofc.)

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

lowspender — Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:11:57 GMT

@Slabenstein wrote:
1) TU and EQ have very different dates that they were last updated, neither of which is very recent. In the TU screenshots, it shows that the reporting for this tradeline is as of 07/06/2022; in the ones for EQ it's 10/04/2023. This could be some or all of the reason why the reporting on these two bureaus is different, depending on the status of the tradeline on each of these two dates. (It's not uncommon for a CO to stop updating, which can artificially boost your score as time passes by making the delinquency look older than it is.)

Thanks for all this detail in your response. Can the CO ever resume updating, and is that likely? Is the point difference more likely due to the additional year of aging on the TU report, or the balance showing 0% paid on EQ, and 100% paid off (as if debt was sold) on TU? Also, notice EQ does not show the status as a charge-off, in the pics in my previous post. TU does though. Another mistake? That is the newest report from each bureau.

2) TU is reporting like a charge-off that was sold to a collection agency, with a balance of $0 and a status of unpaid charge-off.

If I sign up with them, can I look at older reports they issued? I rarely do 3 bureau pulls on Experian, so I have no other TU reports to look at that are recent enough to help. So the balance of $0 and the status of it being unpaid make it seem as if it was sold off- does the 100% paid off at the top, just below "balance details," also point to that? No "company sold" details exist on any report, for any bureau, any month.. and to me that is the most unlikely option. They said repeatedly it would never be sold.. why spend time talking to me and suggesting ways to pay, if it was sold off.. ? Who is TU suggesting it is sold to, with no purchasing company listed? Even seeing an older report still wouldn't explain why the current one looks this way.

3) From the other two bureaus, I'm not sure why the tradeline would have fallen off your EX report. The oldest delinquency in the EQ payment summary is 07/2022, which is already at full CO status. Even with some number of months of lead-up delinquency, that's still pretty far off from 7 years. It may just be a bank error in your favor. Do you have any older EX reports showing the status and payment history of this tradeline before it fell off?

Yeah, this one is just pure "monopoly bank error in your favor" territory- side by side are how this looked in December, before the charge off (in early Jan), and the change in Feb, before now disappearing in March. Can it return? Assuming that is not grounds for a dispute? Impossible for it to have aged off.

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

lowspender — Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:52:46 GMT

@Slabenstein wrote:
They can update DOLA if and whenever there's activity on the tradeline (e.g. a partial payment), but that's different from the DoFD (date of first deliquency), which is the date the tradeline first went delinquent without being brought current again. That's the date that determines reporting timelines for CO and CA, and creditors can't move this date forward, which would be illegal re-aging.

I've heard of re-aging happening, debt buyers not checking dates, or it be done with shady intent etc- can it be legally done in my favor? I'm guessing at the charge off stage, it's too late for this to happen? Making it current again, basically. What about reaging the debt to be at the point of falling off the report?

Whether or not you pay the CO, it should fall off your reports at the end of its reporting timeline (7 years from DoFD). I don't know how FICO9 handles paid COs, but there are two things I can point out: 1) a paid CO will look better for manual underwriting and 2) paying a CO that hasn't been updating (like yours) can drop your score in the short term, b/c all the delinquent months between the most recent update and date of payment will now be reported.

To how fico 9 handles paid COs, I think this is the answer. So to point 1, if a request goes past automated approvals, the paid CO looks better for manual- got it. All the delinquent gap months being reported is definitely a concern. Thinking the trade off from point 1 approvals may help, but.. still an effect on score. Not sure how much, referenced that above with the slight differences between EQ and TU- TU looking sold may be playing the bigger role there.

8 months wouldn't be a standard delay for regular reporting. More like 1-2 months, if any. Whether 8 months would be standard for this particular creditor reporting a CO as paid, I can't say.

This was them simply blaming the bureaus for being slow. Said they couldn't control when it was reported (not true, once they submit the report, right?) and that they often heard it was taking that long to report.
It came up bc I thought I'd resolve this in part, by basically maxing out my card and paying it, expecting them to update the bureaus, boost my score, and I would qualify for a better card (get a year of 0% interest) do a balance transfer, etc. That would have to happen within 2 statements. So when they said they can't control when the bureaus report things, it became a much higher risk option.

I think a post-payment goodwill letter is pretty unlikely to yield any results, both because this is a student loan and because the delinquency is severe. It can still be a good idea to send them, though, since the cost in time and resources to do so is low and the potential reward is high (if unlikely to be realized).

Delinquency is severe in terms of time, or amount? Does the payment record before the delinquency record have nothing to do with odds of it being granted? I assume statements made by collections agents, or anyone involved in collection attempts, don't play any role there?

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

Slabenstein — Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:17:51 GMT

Answers, as best I can give them, in blue:

@lowspender wrote:
@Slabenstein wrote:
1) TU and EQ have very different dates that they were last updated, neither of which is very recent. In the TU screenshots, it shows that the reporting for this tradeline is as of 07/06/2022; in the ones for EQ it's 10/04/2023. This could be some or all of the reason why the reporting on these two bureaus is different, depending on the status of the tradeline on each of these two dates. (It's not uncommon for a CO to stop updating, which can artificially boost your score as time passes by making the delinquency look older than it is.)
Thanks for all this detail in your response. Can the CO ever resume updating, and is that likely? It could resume updating at any time, if the creditor sends an update to the bureaus. That's most likely to happen when there's something to prompt them to do so, like a payment or a dispute.  Is the point difference more likely due to the additional year of aging on the TU report, or the balance showing 0% paid on EQ, and 100% paid off (as if debt was sold) on TU? Score differences between two bureaus will be due to all differences in scorable data between the two, as well as minor differences in how the algos are customized for each bureau. Without both of your full reports, it would be hard to say what the most likely cause of the score difference is. I don't know how charged-off installments are factored into scoring for installment current-balance-to-original-loan-amount ratio, so I'm not sure what the impact of $0 balance vs. over 100% on one would be. 15 additional months of aging on a charge-off is a decent chunk of time, but charge-offs also hold your score down significantly the whole 7 years, so I don't know how much of the score difference would be due to this, either. Also, notice EQ does not show the status as a charge-off, in the pics in my previous post. TU does though. Another mistake? That is the newest report from each bureau.  From the screenshots below, I'd guess that EQ is reporting a payment status of collection account from 7/2022 through 9/2023. The CMS you took the screenshots from should have a key somewhere that tells you exactly what the payment status symbols mean. Really, to verify exactly how this tradeline is reporting on each bureau, you'll want to pull your ACR's, since that's as close to the source as a consumer can get.

2) TU is reporting like a charge-off that was sold to a collection agency, with a balance of $0 and a status of unpaid charge-off.
If I sign up with them, can I look at older reports they issued? TU's website only lets you pull a fresh report. Other CMS will show reports you've previously pulled, but no CMS lets you pull a new, backdated report. To my knowledge, that's not something the bureaus could even offer.  I rarely do 3 bureau pulls on Experian, so I have no other TU reports to look at that are recent enough to help. So the balance of $0 and the status of it being unpaid make it seem as if it was sold off- does the 100% paid off at the top, just below "balance details," also point to that? No "company sold" details exist on any report, for any bureau, any month.. and to me that is the most unlikely option. They said repeatedly it would never be sold.. why spend time talking to me and suggesting ways to pay, if it was sold off.. ? Who is TU suggesting it is sold to, with no purchasing company listed? Even seeing an older report still wouldn't explain why the current one looks this way.  TU isn't suggesting it was sold to anyone. It's just that a delinquent tradeline can only report its balance once, so if a collection agency is reporting a debt that was charged off, the OC can't also report the balance on the CO tradeline. So if you see an unpaid CO with a $0 balance, usually the only way that should have happened would be if there was also a CA reporting the debt. Most often that happens if the OC has sold the debt to a CA, but I could also happen if the OC has only hired a collection agency to collect but retains the debt, and the CA reports. It's possible this latter scenario is why the tradeline is showing on TU the way it is. A reporting error is ofc another possibility.

3) From the other two bureaus, I'm not sure why the tradeline would have fallen off your EX report. The oldest delinquency in the EQ payment summary is 07/2022, which is already at full CO status. Even with some number of months of lead-up delinquency, that's still pretty far off from 7 years. It may just be a bank error in your favor. Do you have any older EX reports showing the status and payment history of this tradeline before it fell off?
Yeah, this one is just pure "monopoly bank error in your favor" territory- side by side are how this looked in December, before the charge off (in early Jan), and the change in Feb, before now disappearing in March. Can it return? It's possible it could return, as long as the new reporting is accurate. These screenshots for Experian are intersting, since they have the most recent reporting on this tradeline. It looks like the tradeline was reporting with a payment status of collections and a past-due balance owed up through 11/2023. Then it was reported as CO status with a $0 balance for 12/2023, and then it fell off your report in March. If I'm correctly understanding that you took the loan out directly from the school, this progression could indicate that they've passed the debt on to the guarantor.  Assuming that is not grounds for a dispute? Impossible for it to have aged off.  Again, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, regarding grounds for a dispute, but grounds for any dispute is just the reported information being inacurate. That's it. Generally, the most a dispute will accomplish is any inaccurate information (including bank errors in your favor) being made accurate.

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

Slabenstein — Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:25:55 GMT

@lowspender wrote:
@Slabenstein wrote:
They can update DOLA if and whenever there's activity on the tradeline (e.g. a partial payment), but that's different from the DoFD (date of first deliquency), which is the date the tradeline first went delinquent without being brought current again. That's the date that determines reporting timelines for CO and CA, and creditors can't move this date forward, which would be illegal re-aging.
I've heard of re-aging happening, debt buyers not checking dates, or it be done with shady intent etc- can it be legally done in my favor? To my knowledge, the only time reaging is allowed is when the reported DoFD is inaccurate (in which case it isn't really re-aging).  I'm guessing at the charge off stage, it's too late for this to happen? The scenario described there wouldn't happen for a student loan. (It looks like they're talking about a creditor reporting an account current because the borrower has started a negotiated repayment plan. I personally wouldn't call that re-aging, since it's just a DoFD reset due to the account being considered as brought current, the same as would happen if the debt was brough current according to the original terms of the note.)  Making it current again, basically. What about reaging the debt to be at the point of falling off the report?  If you're asking whether a creditor would move a DoFD more recent than 7 years so it was 7 years in the past, no, they wouldn't.

Whether or not you pay the CO, it should fall off your reports at the end of its reporting timeline (7 years from DoFD). I don't know how FICO9 handles paid COs, but there are two things I can point out: 1) a paid CO will look better for manual underwriting and 2) paying a CO that hasn't been updating (like yours) can drop your score in the short term, b/c all the delinquent months between the most recent update and date of payment will now be reported.
To how fico 9 handles paid COs, I think this is the answer. That's talking about how FICO9 & 10 score paid CA's, not CO's. 9 & 10 aren't very widely used, in any case.  So to point 1, if a request goes past automated approvals, the paid CO looks better for manual- got it. I just meant that even though a paid CO can still have a significant negative score impact, paid is generally going to be much, much better than unpaid to a loan officer reviewing a credit app. All the delinquent gap months being reported is definitely a concern. Thinking the trade off from point 1 approvals may help, but.. still an effect on score. Not sure how much, referenced that above with the slight differences between EQ and TU- TU looking sold may be playing the bigger role there.  If you're debating paying vs. not paying due to score effect, imo the near-term score loss is going to be outweighed by the benefits of payoff. If you pay it off, it can start to age in truth and won't be a flashing red flag for however much of 7 years its weird reporting has left. Garnishment is also pretty much a given with delinquent student loans (and I would personally rather wait out some delinquency aging than deal with that). Another thing to consider is that the parts of the weird reporting that are currently in your favor won't necessarily stay that way. From my experience with delinquent student loans, they can pop on and off of your report and go long periods without updating before updating again, as well as doing these things inconsistently across the bureaus. (I think this happens because who is servicing the debt and who is holding it can both change over time.)

8 months wouldn't be a standard delay for regular reporting. More like 1-2 months, if any. Whether 8 months would be standard for this particular creditor reporting a CO as paid, I can't say.
This was them simply blaming the bureaus for being slow. Said they couldn't control when it was reported (not true, once they submit the report, right?) and that they often heard it was taking that long to report. It's true that they can't control what the bureaus will do once they submit their data, the bureau's part of the process should be pretty quick. Like, afaik, on the order of days quick. (One thing that comes to mind as to why they could see a longer delay is that, like most smaller creditors, they're probably using an intermediary to format their data into Metro 2 and submit that to the bureaus on their behalf. I guess it could be the case that their intermediary just really sucks.)  It came up bc I thought I'd resolve this in part, by basically maxing out my card and paying it, expecting them to update the bureaus, boost my score, and I would qualify for a better card (get a year of 0% interest) do a balance transfer, etc. That would have to happen within 2 statements. So when they said they can't control when the bureaus report things, it became a much higher risk option.  Sounds risky to me in any case; I wouldn't count on a large score increase from paying it off, esp if the debt reappears as a revolving utilization hit.

I think a post-payment goodwill letter is pretty unlikely to yield any results, both because this is a student loan and because the delinquency is severe. It can still be a good idea to send them, though, since the cost in time and resources to do so is low and the potential reward is high (if unlikely to be realized).
Delinquency is severe in terms of time, or amount? Both. Highest severity of delinquent payment status, long string of delinquent payments.  Does the payment record before the delinquency record have nothing to do with odds of it being granted? When you're asking for a goodwill deletion, you're ultimately asking for a particular person to grant it (i.e. whoever your letter ends up with). So, really, it will just be what that particular person thinks about it--but with the length of the delinquency in this case I wouldn't expect it to matter at all.  I assume statements made by collections agents, or anyone involved in collection attempts, don't play any role there?  I don't see how they would.

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

lowspender — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:23:42 GMT

@Slabenstein wrote:
If you're debating paying vs. not paying due to score effect, imo the near-term score loss is going to be outweighed by the benefits of payoff. If you pay it off, it can start to age in truth and won't be a flashing red flag for however much of 7 years its weird reporting has left. Garnishment is also pretty much a given with delinquent student loans (and I would personally rather wait out some delinquency aging than deal with that). Another thing to consider is that the parts of the weird reporting that are currently in your favor won't necessarily stay that way. From my experience with delinquent student loans, they can pop on and off of your report and go long periods without updating before updating again, as well as doing these things inconsistently across the bureaus. (I think this happens because who is servicing the debt and who is holding it can both change over time.)

To the first part, not debating paying vs not paying, more the timing of payment to avoid tanking my score (by paying) and giving myself the best chance at some good cards as I pay it down and let the DoFD and DoLA get further away. Won't the weird reporting also most likely chance to current & accurate, when the dent is reported as paid? Why all the bureaus stopped updating, I don't know.. but since they will update the bureaus when it's paid, that will have to at least update the DoLA, right?

I don't want to deal with it coming and going for 7 years, although some of those consequences (e.g. garnishment) are pretty unlikely since the loan isn't federal. Again technically, it's not even private. There aren't terms or interest, it's simply a LONG overdue invoice. To your last line, that partly depends on whether this agent (head of the office) was accurate in their statement that "we never sell the debt," which would make who services/holds it a constant.

@Slabenstein wrote:

It's true that they can't control what the bureaus will do once they submit their data, the bureau's part of the process should be pretty quick. Like, afaik, on the order of days quick. (One thing that comes to mind as to why they could see a longer delay is that, like most smaller creditors, they're probably using an intermediary to format their data into Metro 2 and submit that to the bureaus on their behalf. I guess it could be the case that their intermediary just really sucks.) It came up bc I thought I'd resolve this in part, by basically maxing out my card and paying it, expecting them to update the bureaus, boost my score, and I would qualify for a better card (get a year of 0% interest) do a balance transfer, etc. That would have to happen within 2 statements. So when they said they can't control when the bureaus report things, it became a much higher risk option. Sounds risky to me in any case; I wouldn't count on a large score increase from paying it off, esp if the debt reappears as a revolving utilization hit.

To the first part, I do wonder if they're classified as a small creditor- very large public university, I have to imagine they're not too small.. but perhaps the intermediary, as you mentioned, is.. bad. Honestly it came off more like some of the other statements they made outside of institutional policy (which I hope they were more accurate about, in their claims)- half accuracies with some confusion woven in.

Great point on the lack of score boost re: revolving credit- the low score reports all show it as an installment loan. Does that have a more dramatic affect on score change? I guess most of all is the overall effect on my dti ratio.

Somewhat separate from all of this- to at least carry part of my payoff plan out- apping for favorable cards that will likely have my best reports pulled would be good timing, yes? Finding out who mainly uses Ex Chase is likely to offer me a sp increase on my current card, but the 0% period is long gone. They're preapproved me for 2x and 3.5x my current chase limits with the CS/CSR card- I don't recall if cli's from them tend to come at the expense of the ceiling on new cards from them, or not. They're a soft pull cli, but I'd rather not limit the cap of something else from them. I'd like to get a cli on my other card first to possibly encourage a higher limit (ymmv), but that increase won't show until the next report is out, which.. may be different

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

Slabenstein — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:00:39 GMT

@lowspender wrote:
@Slabenstein wrote:
If you're debating paying vs. not paying due to score effect, imo the near-term score loss is going to be outweighed by the benefits of payoff. If you pay it off, it can start to age in truth and won't be a flashing red flag for however much of 7 years its weird reporting has left. Garnishment is also pretty much a given with delinquent student loans (and I would personally rather wait out some delinquency aging than deal with that). Another thing to consider is that the parts of the weird reporting that are currently in your favor won't necessarily stay that way. From my experience with delinquent student loans, they can pop on and off of your report and go long periods without updating before updating again, as well as doing these things inconsistently across the bureaus. (I think this happens because who is servicing the debt and who is holding it can both change over time.)
To the first part, not debating paying vs not paying, more the timing of payment to avoid tanking my score (by paying) and giving myself the best chance at some good cards as I pay it down and let the DoFD and DoLA get further away. Won't the weird reporting also most likely chance to current & accurate, when the dent is reported as paid?  In your shoes, I would operate under that assumption. They should send an update the the bureaus when you pay, and that should have an account status of paid & closed and should have historical payment status for all of the reportable months up through the month of payment.  Why all the bureaus stopped updating, I don't know.. The short answer is that the creditor stopped reporting, either due to a glitch or deliberately.  but since they will update the bureaus when it's paid, that will have to at least update the DoLA, right?  DoLA will update whenever there's reported activity, which a payment would be. DoLA isn't a scored metric and it doesn't have any bearing on the reporting timeframe; I wouldn't worry about it.
I don't want to deal with it coming and going for 7 years, although some of those consequences (e.g. garnishment) are pretty unlikely since the loan isn't federal. Again technically, it's not even private. There aren't terms or interest, it's simply a LONG overdue invoice. Ah, okay, I had been operating under the assumption that this was student loan debt. From what you say here, it sounds like this is a collection tradeline for charges you incurred at the school that were never paid in any way, either with a student loan or out-of-pocket. Is that correct?  To your last line, that partly depends on whether this agent (head of the office) was accurate in their statement that "we never sell the debt," which would make who services/holds it a constant.  What I was saying about servicers and holders really only applies to student loans. (Servicer is who administrates your loan, e.g. Nelnet, MOHELA, etc; holder is who owns the debt, e.g. the federal government, the school's guarantor, a bank.) I can't speak to what this particular instituion might or might not do, but, since it sounds like you're dealing with an unpaid bill rather than a delinquent loan, I'd expect the debt would stay with them.

@Slabenstein wrote:
It's true that they can't control what the bureaus will do once they submit their data, the bureau's part of the process should be pretty quick. Like, afaik, on the order of days quick. (One thing that comes to mind as to why they could see a longer delay is that, like most smaller creditors, they're probably using an intermediary to format their data into Metro 2 and submit that to the bureaus on their behalf. I guess it could be the case that their intermediary just really sucks.)  It came up bc I thought I'd resolve this in part, by basically maxing out my card and paying it, expecting them to update the bureaus, boost my score, and I would qualify for a better card (get a year of 0% interest) do a balance transfer, etc. That would have to happen within 2 statements. So when they said they can't control when the bureaus report things, it became a much higher risk option.  Sounds risky to me in any case; I wouldn't count on a large score increase from paying it off, esp if the debt reappears as a revolving utilization hit.
To the first part, I do wonder if they're classified as a small creditor- very large public university, I have to imagine they're not too small.. but perhaps the intermediary, as you mentioned, is.. bad.  I just meant that they don't have the scale for it to make sense to develop a way to do it in-house. (They don't, e.g., have the payment status of 150 million credit cards to report every month.)  Honestly it came off more like some of the other statements they made outside of institutional policy (which I hope they were more accurate about, in their claims)- half accuracies with some confusion woven in.
Great point on the lack of score boost re: revolving credit- the low score reports all show it as an installment loan. Does that have a more dramatic affect on score change? I guess most of all is the overall effect on my dti ratio.  Revolving utilization has a larger score impact than installment balance-to-starting-principal ratio, if that's what you're asking. DTI isn't scored (your income isn't part of your credit report), but it will be considered separately as a part of underwriting for any loan application.

Somewhat separate from all of this- to at least carry part of my payoff plan out- apping for favorable cards that will likely have my best reports pulled would be good timing, yes? Finding out who mainly uses Ex   When you have large differences among bureaus like this, looking for lenders that are more likely to pull your favorable bureau can be a good strategy. Just keep in mind that, anymore, a lot of lenders are going to look at more than one of your reports, whether via SP or HP, even if they favor EX.  Chase is likely to offer me a sp increase on my current card, but the 0% period is long gone. They're preapproved me for 2x and 3.5x my current chase limits with the CS/CSR card- I don't recall if cli's from them tend to come at the expense of the ceiling on new cards from them, or not. They're a soft pull cli, but I'd rather not limit the cap of something else from them.  Moving limits around with Chase is very easy. If you're approved for a new card but have hit the limits they feel comfortable offering you, they'll usually pull some limit from an existing card to open the new one.  I'd like to get a cli on my other card first to possibly encourage a higher limit (ymmv), but that increase won't show until the next report is out, which.. may be different   In your shoes, I would focus on getting this collection from the school taken care of first, and then move forward from there. Kind of a personal priorities thing, which I know will be different for different people, but I tend to look at credit from sort of a "put down your foundation before you raise the walls" point of view.

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

lowspender — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:05:59 GMT

@Slabenstein wrote:
The short answer is that the creditor stopped reporting, either due to a glitch or deliberately. but since they will update the bureaus when it's paid, that will have to at least update the DoLA, right? DoLA will update whenever there's reported activity, which a payment would be. DoLA isn't a scored metric and it doesn't have any bearing on the reporting timeframe; I wouldn't worry about it.

Ok, yes DoLA isn't a scorable metric is a good reminder, I thought it played a role in the 7 years on your report rule.. but that's only DoFD, as you said earlier. Thanks again for such quick responses and detail- it's very much appreciated.

@Slabenstein wrote:

Ah, okay, I had been operating under the assumption that this was student loan debt. From what you say here, it sounds like this is a collection tradeline for charges you incurred at the school that were never paid in any way, either with a student loan or out-of-pocket. Is that correct? To your last line, that partly depends on whether this agent (head of the office) was accurate in their statement that "we never sell the debt," which would make who services/holds it a constant. What I was saying about servicers and holders really only applies to student loans. I can't speak to what this particular instituion might or might not do, but, since it sounds like you're dealing with an unpaid bill rather than a delinquent loan, I'd expect the debt would stay with them.

Right, that's the forum category I have it under on here, not sure how else to classify it..it is student debt, but not officially a loan. Odd situation. I think a collection tradeline is a fair description. Yes, the agent's accuracy is a big deal, which is why some of their other statements on credit being clearly not accurate are of concern, to me. Those were more general statements on "credit knowledge," though, so whether I should hold that as a concern against their credibility on their claims regarding their internal institutional policies, I'm unsure. Seems like you agree the type of bill makes it likely to remain with the school- does this categorization factor into any other previous details here? Less/more likely the reporting inconsistencies are a glitch/error, lower/higher odds of goodwill approval, etc?

@Slabenstein wrote:

When you have large differences among bureaus like this, looking for lenders that are more likely to pull your favorable bureau can be a good strategy. Just keep in mind that, anymore, a lot of lenders are going to look at more than one of your reports, whether via SP or HP, even if they favor EX. Moving limits around with Chase is very easy. If you're approved for a new card but have hit the limits they feel comfortable offering you, they'll usually pull some limit from an existing card to open the new one. I'd like to get a cli on my other card first to possibly encourage a higher limit (ymmv), but that increase won't show until the next report is out, which.. may be different In your shoes, I would focus on getting this collection from the school taken care of first, and then move forward from there. Kind of a personal priorities thing, which I know will be different for different people, but I tend to look at credit from sort of a "put down your foundation before you raise the walls" point of view.

Yes, I've heard this with Chase... it may be a ymmv topic, but what I'm trying to figure out is whether I should first app for a new card with them (dp's on here seem to suggest that with chase, your next account gets better SL's than cli's on current accounts in good standing with them), or request a cli and then app for a new card. Since both cards say I'm preapproved, in app, and are double my current limit with them, I think some cli is very likely. What I do NOT want to do is lower the starting point of my next card with them, by raising the ceiling of my current card. It sounds like they might just pull from the smaller card, to then issue more on the larger one.

Some issuers tend to "match" sl's than others, so having cli's might encourage better sl's from a new issuer.. but that can't be considered as much given how much could change month to month in my billing changes

I definitely have some reading to do on latest feedback re: which issuers most often use primary which bureaus in which states. My BoA card uses TU, so it does have those bad marks (where I assume the debt looks sold, on their end).. but is sitting at 705, so it's possible they would issue me a cli. I see them as an unlikely app right now, since they're already looking at one of my worst scores though. There's some rolling of the dice regardless on how many bureaus each issuers will look at though, agreed.

Perhaps I should've said this first, but I agree with your last sentence, definitely. The reason I'm approaching it this way is (according to the agent), they will only consider a single payment, for the loan. Writing a check would be somewhat taxing and not a good use of the money upfront vs a cc that's managed correctly. They said they wouldn't even consider multiple cc payments, as mentioned earlier, due to concerns of a chargeback (weird imo, would think repeated charges authorized on a recorded line are as secure as a single time).

Since I've been in the garden and hoped to app before this turned into a CO, I do have some hp's to give, none in a few years. If I can add to my total credit available (which is needed/will help as this goes from installment to revolving and 10x's my average util rate), get 15 billing cycles at 0%, and take another step toward thickening my file, all at once, it seems like a good idea.

Another big reason being that now this glitch exists on at least 1 of the bureaus, and even TU is at least 700.. I was originally coming to ask whether this could all lead to a point boost that I could turn into a strong approval for a BT card within just 2 billing cycles and make the payment.. so part of the problem has temporarily been delayed from full impact.

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

Slabenstein — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:11:25 GMT

@lowspender wrote:
@Slabenstein wrote:
The short answer is that the creditor stopped reporting, either due to a glitch or deliberately.  but since they will update the bureaus when it's paid, that will have to at least update the DoLA, right?  DoLA will update whenever there's reported activity, which a payment would be. DoLA isn't a scored metric and it doesn't have any bearing on the reporting timeframe; I wouldn't worry about it.
Ok, yes DoLA isn't a scorable metric is a good reminder, I thought it played a role in the 7 years on your report rule.. but that's only DoFD, as you said earlier. Thanks again for such quick responses and detail- it's very much appreciated.

@Slabenstein wrote:
I don't want to deal with it coming and going for 7 years, although some of those consequences (e.g. garnishment) are pretty unlikely since the loan isn't federal. Again technically, it's not even private. There aren't terms or interest, it's simply a LONG overdue invoice. Ah, okay, I had been operating under the assumption that this was student loan debt. From what you say here, it sounds like this is a collection tradeline for charges you incurred at the school that were never paid in any way, either with a student loan or out-of-pocket. Is that correct?  To your last line, that partly depends on whether this agent (head of the office) was accurate in their statement that "we never sell the debt," which would make who services/holds it a constant.  What I was saying about servicers and holders really only applies to student loans. I can't speak to what this particular instituion might or might not do, but, since it sounds like you're dealing with an unpaid bill rather than a delinquent loan, I'd expect the debt would stay with them.
Right, that's the forum category I have it under on here, not sure how else to classify it..it is student debt, but not officially a loan. Odd situation. I think a collection tradeline is a fair description. Yes, the agent's accuracy is a big deal, which is why some of their other statements on credit being clearly not accurate are of concern, to me. Those were more general statements on "credit knowledge," though, so whether I should hold that as a concern against their credibility on their claims regarding their internal institutional policies, I'm unsure. I would expect them to be on much surer ground w/ knowledge of their institutions policies than credit in general. I don't know what the background of the people they have collecting on debts like this is, but even among people that work in lending and deal with credit reports and credit scores every day general credit knowledge is, in my experience, pretty poor. Seems like you agree the type of bill makes it likely to remain with the school- does this categorization factor into any other previous details here? Less/more likely the reporting inconsistencies are a glitch/error, lower/higher odds of goodwill approval, etc?  With the kind of debt that it is, yeah, I'd expect it to stay with the school (but ofc expectations can always be surprised). I would say that it's probably pretty likely that the reporting inconsistencies are not intended. I think the odds of goodwill removal of the tradeline are probably zero, but before paying I would ask them if they do or can do pay-for-delete and remove the collection tradeline from all three bureaus if you pay.

@Slabenstein wrote:
When you have large differences among bureaus like this, looking for lenders that are more likely to pull your favorable bureau can be a good strategy. Just keep in mind that, anymore, a lot of lenders are going to look at more than one of your reports, whether via SP or HP, even if they favor EX.  Moving limits around with Chase is very easy. If you're approved for a new card but have hit the limits they feel comfortable offering you, they'll usually pull some limit from an existing card to open the new one.  I'd like to get a cli on my other card first to possibly encourage a higher limit (ymmv), but that increase won't show until the next report is out, which.. may be different   In your shoes, I would focus on getting this collection from the school taken care of first, and then move forward from there. Kind of a personal priorities thing, which I know will be different for different people, but I tend to look at credit from sort of a "put down your foundation before you raise the walls" point of view.
Yes, I've heard this with Chase... it may be a ymmv topic, but what I'm trying to figure out is whether I should first app for a new card with them (dp's on here seem to suggest that with chase, your next account gets better SL's than cli's on current accounts in good standing with them), or request a cli and then app for a new card. Since both cards say I'm preapproved, in app, and are double my current limit with them, I think some cli is very likely. What I do NOT want to do is lower the starting point of my next card with them, by raising the ceiling of my current card. Maybe I could just move that around between cards (from old to newer)? As long as it's personal to personal, you should be able to move from old card to new card or vice versa. I don't know whether the order of CLI-request-then-app or app-then-CLI-request would be better, or if it matters one way or the other; someone with more knowledge of Chase would have to answer that question.
I definitely have some reading to do on latest feedback re: which issuers most often use primary which bureaus in which states. My BoA card uses TU, so it does have those bad marks (where I assume the debt looks sold, on their end).. but is sitting at 705, so it's possible they would issue me a cli. I see them as an unlikely app right now, since they're already looking at one of my worst scores though. There's some rolling of the dice regardless on how many bureaus each issuers will look at though, agreed.  There is a thread here that lists what bureaus which issuers are known to pull, but it's no longer maintained. (Changes to the forum rules for editing posts meant that it couldn't be updated anymore.) I know that Amex at least used to be a pretty consistent EX single-puller, but I don't know if that's still the case. For your BoA card, if their CLI reqeusts are SP, there's not really any reason not to request one occassionally, since there's no cost to you if it's denied.

Perhaps I should've said this first, but I agree with your last sentence, definitely. The reason I'm approaching it this way is (according to the agent), they will only consider a single payment, for the loan. Writing a check would be somewhat taxing and not a good use of the money upfront vs a cc that's managed correctly. They said they wouldn't even consider multiple cc payments, as mentioned earlier, due to concerns of a chargeback (weird imo, would think repeated charges authorized on a recorded line are as secure as a single time).
Since I've been in the garden and hoped to app before this turned into a CO, I do have some hp's to give, none in a few years. If I can add to my total credit available (which is needed/will help as this goes from installment to revolving and 10x's my average util rate), get 15 billing cycles at 0%, and take another step toward thickening my file, all at once, it seems like a good idea.  If you have the credit to support an app for a card w/ enough SL for the payoff and if you know you can pay off the balance in full before the 0% promo ends, then, yeah, this sounds like a pretty good plan to me. With the delinquency still on some of your reports, I wouldn't do anything on any of your other cards that might spook lenders until you get the balance paid off.

Another big reason being that now this glitch exists on at least 1 of the bureaus, and even TU is at least 700.. I was originally coming to ask whether this could all lead to a point boost that I could turn into a strong approval for a BT card within just 2 billing cycles and make the payment.. so part of the problem has temporarily been delayed from full impact. At what point were you thinking you would see the point boost? I want to make sure I'm thinking about the same scenario you're envisioning.

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

Slabenstein — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:21:03 GMT

Forgot to post a link to the old thread: https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/General-Credit-Topics/The-quot-Which-Banks-Pull-Which-Report-For-Apps-quot-list/td-p/5542910

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

lowspender — Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:33:37 GMT

@Slabenstein wrote:
@lowspender wrote:
I would expect them to be on much surer ground w/ knowledge of their institutions policies than credit in general. I don't know what the background of the people they have collecting on debts like this is, but even among people that work in lending and deal with credit reports and credit scores every day general credit knowledge is, in my experience, pretty poor. Seems like you agree the type of bill makes it likely to remain with the school- does this categorization factor into any other previous details here? Less/more likely the reporting inconsistencies are a glitch/error, lower/higher odds of goodwill approval, etc? With the kind of debt that it is, yeah, I'd expect it to stay with the school (but ofc expectations can always be surprised). I would say that it's probably pretty likely that the reporting inconsistencies are not intended. I think the odds of goodwill removal of the tradeline are probably zero, but before paying I would ask them if they do or can do pay-for-delete and remove the collection tradeline from all three bureaus if you pay.

Agreed on people in the industry also having lots of gaps in their credit knowledge. I wanted to just excuse this as that, here.. but it affects me more than a "tip" from the average rep that's only partially correct, does. If they aren't willing to remove the tradeline, is there any other offer I can make that might make them consider that? I haven't read enough to know the significance, but I've heard that the reporting changes like that, are a modest cost to the creditor. Not sure if that's a constant.. would you estimate that offering to pay that cost, is likely to make any difference? I think it's too marginal, but don't know it well enough. I did find it interesting that they stated that they only accept the full amount, as payment. If they were to sell the debt, it's almost a guarantee that some level of settlement would happen. What about offering less in exchange for leaving the tradeline there? Doubt that would entice them to offer to remove it for the full amount, but since the situation really can't be worse, seems like all options are worth exploring..

@Slabenstein wrote:
As long as it's personal to personal, you should be able to move from old card to new card or vice versa. I don't know whether the order of CLI-request-then-app or app-then-CLI-request would be better, or if it matters one way or the other; someone with more knowledge of Chase would have to answer that question.
I know that Amex at least used to be a pretty consistent EX single-puller, but I don't know if that's still the case. For your BoA card, if their CLI reqeusts are SP, there's not really any reason not to request one occassionally, since there's no cost to you if it's denied.

If you have the credit to support an app for a card w/ enough SL for the payoff and if you know you can pay off the balance in full before the 0% promo ends, then, yeah, this sounds like a pretty good plan to me. With the delinquency still on some of your reports, I wouldn't do anything on any of your other cards that might spook lenders until you get the balance paid off.

At what point were you thinking you would see the point boost? I want to make sure I'm thinking about the same scenario you're envisioning.

I'm familiar with that thread, yes and thanks for posting it. Amex does seem to pull heavy Ex, but they also often double pull with TU. I'd prefer Amex for long term, but since my profile needs rehab right now, I'd rather get the most generous 0% terms and SL than benefits, for the time being. I'll have to look more into chase. My main concern there is having smaller SL's for new apps, based on relatively modest limits on old cards. Having larger limits from those same cards may bring me that exact result, among issuers who see low UR's as proof that too much credit has been issued, and subsequently make low SL offers, themeslves. Guessing ymmv based on issuer.. and yes, both Chase and BoA in this situation are sp cli's, so that minor penalty is gone.

The scenario I was picturing is outdated now- all bad scores, pay with daily non 0% card, assume reporting is done when billing cycle reports (bad assumption, it sounds like), scores go up (how much, not sure, but profile looks better with it marked as paid) get BT card, transfer balance before end of following cycle when lump amount is due.

It's simpler now, I think most of these cards would give enough SL to pay this.. the problem becomes my current limits are all an issuer can see.. and if they only match my current limits (that it seems current lenders are willing to raise by a lot), it could be very close. So, get sp's, let new limits report, and then app? If I knew EX would still be clean next month, sure.. maybe still a necessary risk to take, to demonstrate a higher floor.

How much change can I expect in scores? You said TU was reporting like an unpaid charge off that was sold off- is that score likely to increase, when marked as paid? Reporting 100% paid as if it was sold, but still overall better looking than EQ. How much are the missed months in the delinquency likely to ding my score, when that catches up? All the 30, 60 90 etc lates are there and not falling off, so how much more damage does that really do?

EQ is ~40 points lower than TU. Is this more likely to look like a better version of TU, when it updates as paid? Sounds like it's possible EQ jumps up to TU range, but could easily be less responsive. If they were all in the low 700 range and gradually went up, that would be enough, for me.

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

Slabenstein — Tue, 19 Mar 2024 15:23:24 GMT

@lowspender wrote:
@Slabenstein wrote:
@lowspender wrote:
I would expect them to be on much surer ground w/ knowledge of their institutions policies than credit in general. I don't know what the background of the people they have collecting on debts like this is, but even among people that work in lending and deal with credit reports and credit scores every day general credit knowledge is, in my experience, pretty poor. Seems like you agree the type of bill makes it likely to remain with the school- does this categorization factor into any other previous details here? Less/more likely the reporting inconsistencies are a glitch/error, lower/higher odds of goodwill approval, etc?  With the kind of debt that it is, yeah, I'd expect it to stay with the school (but ofc expectations can always be surprised). I would say that it's probably pretty likely that the reporting inconsistencies are not intended. I think the odds of goodwill removal of the tradeline are probably zero, but before paying I would ask them if they do or can do pay-for-delete and remove the collection tradeline from all three bureaus if you pay.
Agreed on people in the industry also having lots of gaps in their credit knowledge. I wanted to just excuse this as that, here.. but it affects me more than a "tip" from the average rep that's only partially correct, does. If they aren't willing to remove the tradeline, is there any other offer I can make that might make them consider that?  That's completely up to them. Either they will, or they won't.  I haven't read enough to know the significance, but I've heard that the reporting changes like that, are a modest cost to the creditor. Not sure if that's a constant.. would you estimate that offering to pay that cost, is likely to make any difference? I think it's too marginal, but don't know it well enough. The short answer is: no, it doesn't work that way. If a creditor is set up to report, then they're set up to report. It's not imposing a burden on them to do so in any particular case.  I did find it interesting that they stated that they only accept the full amount, as payment. If they were to sell the debt, it's almost a guarantee that some level of settlement would happen. What about offering less in exchange for leaving the tradeline there? Doubt that would entice them to offer to remove it for the full amount, but since the situation really can't be worse, seems like all options are worth exploring..  You can ask them whatever you want, but I wouldn't expect this to be a productive line of negotiation. If they're not interested in settling, then they're not interested in settling. Offering them something of no value to them in exchange for settlement wouldn't move the needle, in any case.

@Slabenstein wrote:
As long as it's personal to personal, you should be able to move from old card to new card or vice versa. I don't know whether the order of CLI-request-then-app or app-then-CLI-request would be better, or if it matters one way or the other; someone with more knowledge of Chase would have to answer that question.
I know that Amex at least used to be a pretty consistent EX single-puller, but I don't know if that's still the case. For your BoA card, if their CLI reqeusts are SP, there's not really any reason not to request one occassionally, since there's no cost to you if it's denied.

If you have the credit to support an app for a card w/ enough SL for the payoff and if you know you can pay off the balance in full before the 0% promo ends, then, yeah, this sounds like a pretty good plan to me. With the delinquency still on some of your reports, I wouldn't do anything on any of your other cards that might spook lenders until you get the balance paid off.

At what point were you thinking you would see the point boost? I want to make sure I'm thinking about the same scenario you're envisioning.
I'm familiar with that thread, yes and thanks for posting it. Amex does seem to pull heavy Ex, but they also often double pull with TU. I'd prefer Amex for long term, but since my profile needs rehab right now, I'd rather get the most generous 0% terms and SL than benefits, for the time being. I'll have to look more into chase. My main concern there is having smaller SL's for new apps, based on relatively modest limits on old cards. Having larger limits from those same cards may bring me that exact result, among issuers who see low UR's as proof that too much credit has been issued, and subsequently make low SL offers, themeslves. Guessing ymmv based on issuer.. If you're asking whether current CL's can affect SL on a new app, then I would say, yes, it's YMMV. I've had issuers start me at exactly the limit of my highest existing card, and I've had issures start me out higher. It depends on their underwriting and your particular profile. Some credit unions are very DTI-focused and might approve you, if you qualify, for whatever limit your income will support. Other issuers will take the highest revolving limit your credit history has shown you can manage responsibly into consideration, and that might cap your SL lower than you would qualify for from the rest of your profile.  and yes, both Chase and BoA in this situation are sp cli's, so that minor penalty is gone.

The scenario I was picturing is outdated now- all bad scores, pay with daily non 0% card, assume reporting is done when billing cycle reports (bad assumption, it sounds like), scores go up (how much, not sure, but profile looks better with it marked as paid) get BT card, transfer balance before end of following cycle when lump amount is due.  If part of this is timing apps to the collection tradeline reporting paid, then, yes, I don't think that's something you can count on since you don't know how soon or far out that would happen after payment.
It's simpler now, I think most of these cards would give enough SL to pay this.. the problem becomes my current limits are all an issuer can see.. and if they only match my current limits (that it seems current lenders are willing to raise by a lot), it could be very close. So, get sp's, let new limits report, and then app? That's one way you could do it. Since they're SP, I'd say might as well if you can wait for the new limit to report.  If I knew EX would still be clean next month, sure.. maybe still a necessary risk to take, to demonstrate a higher floor.  If the debt is staying with them, I'd expect the reporting to remain the way it is for a while, or until you pay it off (if it updates when you pay it off; since this one is gone from your reports already, it might not). If they've sold or sent it on to a collection agency, it could reappear under that agency some time in the near term.

How much change can I expect in scores? You said TU was reporting like an unpaid charge off that was sold off- is that score likely to increase, when marked as paid? Reporting 100% paid as if it was sold, but still overall better looking than EQ. How much are the missed months in the delinquency likely to ding my score, when that catches up? All the 30, 60 90 etc lates are there and not falling off, so how much more damage does that really do?  I can't give you an exact answer here, but I would expect a score drop after the payment posts, because, if the reporting is correctly updated, you'd have CA or CO months right up to the month before payment, which would bring your score down some as delinquencies that are more recent than what you have reporting now. I don't know what the exact amount would be, but CA and CO pull your score down significantly the whole time they report, so I wouldn't expect it to be as drastic a change as a fresh delinquency on an otherwise clean report. Do you have EX scores to go along with the snips of your Dec & Feb EX reports you posted above? That might give you a good idea of what kind of score shift could happen, since the delinqency is up-to-date on those.
EQ is ~40 points lower than TU. Is this more likely to look like a better version of TU, when it updates as paid? If it updates to accurate reporting when paid, then, no, I wouldn't expect that. TU would gain 20+ months of delinquency and EQ would gain 5+ months; both would have delinquencies that are that much more recent and be scored accordingly. Sounds like it's possible EQ jumps up to TU range, but could easily be less responsive. If they were all in the low 700 range and gradually went up, that would be enough, for me.

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

lowspender — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 03:50:29 GMT

@Slabenstein wrote:
If a creditor is set up to report, then they're set up to report. It's not imposing a burden on them to do so in any particular case. You can ask them whatever you want, but I wouldn't expect this to be a productive line of negotiation. If they're not interested in settling, then they're not interested in settling. Offering them something of no value to them in exchange for settlement wouldn't move the needle, in any case.

Does you mean they either have the capability to do this, or they don't? There's no cost associated with it that they want to avoid? The agent said deletion is something they consider before it reaches this stage, so it sounds like they do have the capability.. it's the misinformation they gave me prior that lead, in part, to the current situation. Whether or not they accept that is unknown, but I want to be clear that you're saying it causes them no financial burden, with either decision..

@Slabenstein wrote: That's one way you could do it. Since they're SP, I'd say might as well if you can wait for the new limit to report. If I knew EX would still be clean next month, sure.. maybe still a necessary risk to take, to demonstrate a higher floor. If the debt is staying with them, I'd expect the reporting to remain the way it is for a while, or until you pay it off (if it updates when you pay it off; since this one is gone from your reports already, it might not). If they've sold or sent it on to a collection agency, it could reappear under that agency some time in the near term.

Ok, this would be a big deal. You would expect the reporting to stay the way it is for some time- until it's sold (which they supposedly won't do, or it's paid, which I will be forewarned of ). You don't think it's simply a glitch for this billing cycle and will re-report on my next billing cycle? If there is good reason to believe that, I would definitely sp for cli's on both cards, and that would report in the next 2 weeks, or just over..

@Slabenstein wrote: I can't give you an exact answer here, but I would expect a score drop after the payment posts, because, if the reporting is correctly updated, you'd have CA or CO months right up to the month before payment, which would bring your score down some as delinquencies that are more recent than what you have reporting now. I don't know what the exact amount would be, but CA and CO pull your score down significantly the whole time they report, so I wouldn't expect it to be as drastic a change as a fresh delinquency on an otherwise clean report. Do you have EX scores to go along with the snips of your Dec & Feb EX reports you posted above? That might give you a good idea of what kind of score shift could happen, since the delinqency is up-to-date on those.
If it updates to accurate reporting when paid, then, no, I wouldn't expect that. TU would gain 20+ months of delinquency and EQ would gain 5+ months; both would have delinquencies that are that much more recent and be scored accordingly.

I have snippets of all the bureaus in the original post. ~40 point drop from TU to EQ, 100 point drop from EX to TU. So even though the reports already have lates showing in all the categories, the additional delinquent months make it that much worse, overall? To the point about TU showing 100% paid bc it looks like it was sold- you think that 100% part is less a factor/non factor in its current score vs the 20 additional months of delinquency it is missing vs EQ?

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

lowspender — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 19:57:47 GMT

Did a sp cli with boa- increased by just over 50%. Got me to the same total that chase is offering pre approved as a Chase Sapphire reserve card- question is, would they approve me for more, if they knew boa's new total?

from the messages I have sent here, and what I've read, chase tends to follow more than lead, with SL's and cli's. I think, waiting for the new amount to report in the next 10 days probably would only encourage Chase.

unless the odds of this reappearing on my EX report by my next statement is really high.

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

Slabenstein — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 22:12:26 GMT

@lowspender wrote:
@Slabenstein wrote:
If a creditor is set up to report, then they're set up to report. It's not imposing a burden on them to do so in any particular case.  You can ask them whatever you want, but I wouldn't expect this to be a productive line of negotiation. If they're not interested in settling, then they're not interested in settling. Offering them something of no value to them in exchange for settlement wouldn't move the needle, in any case.
Does you mean they either have the capability to do this, or they don't? There's no cost associated with it that they want to avoid? The agent said deletion is something they consider before it reaches this stage, so it sounds like they do have the capability.. it's the misinformation they gave me prior that lead, in part, to the current situation. Whether or not they accept that is unknown, but I want to be clear that you're saying it causes them no financial burden, with either decision..   I'm not completely sure what you're asking, but if it's whether reporting an update on a single tradeline to the bureaus imposes a financial cost on a creditor that a delinquent debtor can use as leverage in negotiation: no, not even remotely.

@Slabenstein wrote: That's one way you could do it. Since they're SP, I'd say might as well if you can wait for the new limit to report.  If I knew EX would still be clean next month, sure.. maybe still a necessary risk to take, to demonstrate a higher floor.  If the debt is staying with them, I'd expect the reporting to remain the way it is for a while, or until you pay it off (if it updates when you pay it off; since this one is gone from your reports already, it might not). If they've sold or sent it on to a collection agency, it could reappear under that agency some time in the near term.
Ok, this would be a big deal. You would expect the reporting to stay the way it is for some time- until it's sold (which they supposedly won't do, or it's paid, which I will be forewarned of ). You don't think it's simply a glitch for this billing cycle and will re-report on my next billing cycle? I don't know one way or the other; that it doesn't reappear in the near future if it isn't sold and there's no reportable update is just what I would expect. There aren't any guarantees with lapsed reporting; like I said before, expectations can be surprised. If there is good reason to believe that, I would definitely sp for cli's on both cards, and that would report in the next 2 weeks, or just over.. It's just my hunch, based on what I've observed with other tradelines on other profiles, and what I know about reporting on the creditor's side. The current (lack of) reporting is inaccurate, so an update of accurate reporting could occur at any time. It could also stay off your reports and never return, no matter what happens. As the creditor, the school is in control of the reporting, so, for as long as they own the debt, it's ultimately up to them.

@Slabenstein wrote:  I can't give you an exact answer here, but I would expect a score drop after the payment posts, because, if the reporting is correctly updated, you'd have CA or CO months right up to the month before payment, which would bring your score down some as delinquencies that are more recent than what you have reporting now. I don't know what the exact amount would be, but CA and CO pull your score down significantly the whole time they report, so I wouldn't expect it to be as drastic a change as a fresh delinquency on an otherwise clean report. Do you have EX scores to go along with the snips of your Dec & Feb EX reports you posted above? That might give you a good idea of what kind of score shift could happen, since the delinqency is up-to-date on those.
If it updates to accurate reporting when paid, then, no, I wouldn't expect that. TU would gain 20+ months of delinquency and EQ would gain 5+ months; both would have delinquencies that are that much more recent and be scored accordingly.
I have snippets of all the bureaus in the original post. I'd check what your EX scores were before this derogatory tradeline fell off of that bureau, if you have access to those historical scores. Those scores aren't in your original posts, and they might shed light on what EQ and TU would do if the tradeline updated on those bureaus. ~40 point drop from TU to EQ, 100 point drop from EX to TU. So even though the reports already have lates showing in all the categories, the additional delinquent months make it that much worse, overall? Most of the 114 difference between your TU8 on March 14 and your EX8 on March 14 should be due to TU having the delinquent tradeline and EX not. The 35 point difference between TU8 and EQ8 on two different dates would be harder to pin down; I've seen FICO8 point differences in that range between two bureaus with no reporting discrepancies. The difference in recency of delinquency, the difference in reporting installment balances, and aging differences could all be factors. What were the negative reason statements for TU on March 14 and EQ on Jan 12, and what were their respective orders? To the point about TU showing 100% paid bc it looks like it was sold- you think that 100% part is less a factor/non factor in its current score vs the 20 additional months of delinquency it is missing vs EQ? I would guess that the more recent delinquency is having a greater impact on your EQ score than the higher installment balance, since installment balance-to-starting-principal isn't a big factor in FICO8 scores and recency of delinquency is, but that's just a guess. The orders of the negative reason statements on TU and EQ could shed light on the question.

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

Slabenstein — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 22:18:13 GMT

@lowspender wrote:
Did a sp cli with boa- increased by just over 50%. Got me to the same total that chase is offering pre approved as a Chase Sapphire reserve card- question is, would they approve me for more, if they knew boa's new total?

from the messages I have sent here, and what I've read, chase tends to follow more than lead, with SL's and cli's. I think, waiting for the new amount to report in the next 10 days probably would only encourage Chase.

unless the odds of this reappearing on my EX report by my next statement is really high.

Congrats on your CLI! I don't know how much Chase does or doesn't care about limits of non-Chase cards when reviewing CLI requests, but having the higher BoA limit at least wouldn't hurt. Like I said above, there's no way to know what will happen in future months with lapsed reporting, but given how long the other two bureaus have gone without an update I think you'll be okay on EX in that respect.

Re: Confused by my SL charge off- need help interpreting convo w/creditor, & next steps

lowspender — Thu, 31 Oct 2024 18:06:32 GMT

So, an update on this. I was granted that BoA cli, and just 2 weeks ago, got another. Chase followed each time, with less overall. That's cool.

I was hoping initially I would get a good enough intro offer to put it all on a 0% card. I have delayed longer than I should, hoping to pay it all at once in the back of my mind, and not wanting to app with a lower score.

Last month I saw my TU score go way up in my BoA app which confused me, as I thought only my EX was clean before, but couldn't remember for sure. So I finally pulled all 3 CR's again. They all read about the exact same score.. and.. it seems the c/o is gone, What am I missing?

The EQ and TU reports read differently in displaying the debt, as @Slabenstein explained the reasoning behind.. but now, it's simply not either of them. There has been zero communication from the lender (school), or any creditor, to get in contact with me.. and they certainly have my contact info.

Is paying and hoping they don't re-report a C/O that is now paid, smart?

currentpriorWhat should my next step be?