cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Did Target really do this?

tag
Brian_Earl_Spilner
Credit Mentor

Re: Did Target really do this?


@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.

    
Message 11 of 17
VanderSnoot
Established Contributor

Re: Did Target really do this?


@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?

Message 12 of 17
Brian_Earl_Spilner
Credit Mentor

Re: Did Target really do this?


@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.

    
Message 13 of 17
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: Did Target really do this?

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.

Message 14 of 17
vntrsc
Established Contributor

Re: Did Target really do this?


@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.

Message 15 of 17
jons998877
Regular Contributor

Re: Did Target really do this?

Yes, it’s supposed to fall off in August so I am not paying it, will just let it drop off
Begin of Journey ( 9/2018) EX 508 TU 506 EQ 498






Message 16 of 17
AverageJoesCredit
Legendary Contributor

Re: Did Target really do this?

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.
Message 17 of 17
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.