Bank of America's bizarre reporting.

[Anonymous]

Hey everybody, my BOA credit card chargeoff will finally fall off my reports this year. As is it first went delinquent in November of 2008 (dofd) and thus is scheduled to fall off this November (2015). But Experian has some information that is slightly off. On Experian there's the calender-like map with all the years the account has been open and I think it is called the "payment history" chart, it shows notations like "OK" and "30 day" late notations among other things. So on the payment history chart, it shows the "30 day" late notation on December 2008. And the way they have it listed, one might misconstrue the dofd (time it first went 30 days late) as having occurred in December of 2008 (although it was actually in November 2008). Should I dispute this 30 day late notation on the grounds that the 30 day late notation should be relocated and placed in the November 2008 slot, instead of the December 2008 slot?

[MarineVietVet]

You have two threads talking about the same thing. Which one would you like to keep?

[Anonymous]

---

@MarineVietVet wrote:

You have two threads talking about the same thing. Which one would you like to keep?

---

Actually, I would like to remove the earlier, more lengthy post, and keep this shorter one. 

[MarineVietVet]

No problem.

[Revelate]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hey everybody, my BOA credit card chargeoff will finally fall off my reports this year. As is it first went delinquent in November of 2008 (dofd) and thus is scheduled to fall off this November (2015). But Experian has some information that is slightly off. On Experian there's the calender-like map with all the years the account has been open and I think it is called the "payment history" chart, it shows notations like "OK" and "30 day" late notations among other things. So on the payment history chart, it shows the "30 day" late notation on December 2008. And the way they have it listed, one might misconstrue the dofd (time it first went 30 days late) as having occurred in December of 2008 (although it was actually in November 2008). Should I dispute this 30 day late notation on the grounds that the 30 day late notation should be relocated and placed in the November 2008 slot, instead of the December 2008 slot?

---

Generally speaking the DOFD is in the month prior to the 30 day late being reported; the 30 day late is the mark that you went 31+ days deliquent, which puts your DOFD in the previous month when it was 1 day late.

Credit to RobertEG on this, but sounds like Experian has it correct?   Or did you actually go 1 day late in October, 31 in November?

If the tradeline isn't reporting accurately, (what did the other bureaus have out of curiosity?) then in general that's grounds for a dispute, but not certain from your description that it is?  Personally for a one month difference I wouldn't quibble over it, disputes suck even when the consumer is absolutely right if you're looking to apply for something in the near future... and if you're not, then might as well let time do it's magic on that one.

[Anonymous]

---

@Revelate wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hey everybody, my BOA credit card chargeoff will finally fall off my reports this year. As is it first went delinquent in November of 2008 (dofd) and thus is scheduled to fall off this November (2015). But Experian has some information that is slightly off. On Experian there's the calender-like map with all the years the account has been open and I think it is called the "payment history" chart, it shows notations like "OK" and "30 day" late notations among other things. So on the payment history chart, it shows the "30 day" late notation on December 2008. And the way they have it listed, one might misconstrue the dofd (time it first went 30 days late) as having occurred in December of 2008 (although it was actually in November 2008). Should I dispute this 30 day late notation on the grounds that the 30 day late notation should be relocated and placed in the November 2008 slot, instead of the December 2008 slot?

---

Generally speaking the DOFD is in the month prior to the 30 day late being reported; the 30 day late is the mark that you went 31+ days deliquent, which puts your DOFD in the previous month when it was 1 day late.

Credit to RobertEG on this, but sounds like Experian has it correct?   Or did you actually go 1 day late in October, 31 in November?

If the tradeline isn't reporting accurately, (what did the other bureaus have out of curiosity?) then in general that's grounds for a dispute, but not certain from your description that it is?  Personally for a one month difference I wouldn't quibble over it, disputes suck even when the consumer is absolutely right if you're looking to apply for something in the near future... and if you're not, then might as well let time do it's magic on that one.

---

Bank of America decided to remove their reporting from Transunion entirely according to the lady who works on behalf of the CEO's office, and she said the reason they removed it from Transunion is because it is going to fall off all the reports anyway in November this year, so they removed it early from Transunion (but not the other 2). I guess that is a good thing. Overall, both Experian and Equifax are reporting the correct dofd (November 2008), but the "payment history" chart for both Experian and Equifax currently show that "30 day late" mark in the December 2008 field.

Initially I did not know that creditor's put the 30 day late mark on the subsequent month after the dofd happened, but upon reading your response to my post, it makes sense, because even though the account when delinquent in November 2008, it was not reported to the CRA's until 30+ days later, thus resulting in it showing a 30 day late for the December 2008 field.