EVERYONE HAS BEEN LIED TO

[Anonymous]

Hello Iced.  Earlier in this thread RobertEG lays out how it works.  When your account becomes late, but is not yet 30 days late, then you are charged late fees by the issuer but the delinquency is not yet reported to the CRA.  Indeed, if you clear the delinquency through appropriate payments prior to day 30, then it never gets reported.

If something does get reported as a Day 30 late prior to Day 30, then of course you begin taking the setps outlined by RobertEG.

---

@RobertEG wrote:

What does or does not comprise a reportable 30-late to a CRA is not defined by statute, it is defined by CRA policy in their joint credit reporting manual, the "Credit Reporting Resource Guide."

The definition in the manual is that a late becomes reportable to a CRA once it reaches 30-59 days past the billing due date.

A late that is less than 30 days past its billing due date is a delinquency under the account agreement, but does not become reportable until it reaches 30 days past the billing due date.

There is no legal controversy over what is or is not a reportable 30-late.

If you have a late that fails to meet the clear and standard definition and yet is reported to a CRA, you begin by filing a formal dispute of its accuracy.

If that fails, you have the option then of a complaint to the CFPB or of bringing your own civil action contesting the verification provided by the CRA.

---

[UncleB]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hello Iced.  Earlier in this thread RobertEG lays out how it works.  When your account becomes late, but is not yet 30 days late, then you are charged late fees by the issuer but the delinquency is not yet reported to the CRA.  Indeed, if you clear the delinquency through appropriate payments prior to day 30, then it never gets reported.

If something does get reported as a Day 30 late prior to Day 30, then of course you begin taking the setps outlined by RobertEG.

---

@RobertEG wrote:

What does or does not comprise a reportable 30-late to a CRA is not defined by statute, it is defined by CRA policy in their joint credit reporting manual, the "Credit Reporting Resource Guide."

The definition in the manual is that a late becomes reportable to a CRA once it reaches 30-59 days past the billing due date.

A late that is less than 30 days past its billing due date is a delinquency under the account agreement, but does not become reportable until it reaches 30 days past the billing due date.

There is no legal controversy over what is or is not a reportable 30-late.

If you have a late that fails to meet the clear and standard definition and yet is reported to a CRA, you begin by filing a formal dispute of its accuracy.

If that fails, you have the option then of a complaint to the CFPB or of bringing your own civil action contesting the verification provided by the CRA.

---

---

^^^ This exactly. 

[iced]

Interesting. If I were a lender, I would not like this stipulation - if someone was late paying me even 1 day, I'd want every other one of their lenders to know.

Good to know, and thanks for the information!

[Anonymous]

---

@iced wrote:

Interesting. If I were a lender, I would not like this stipulation - if someone was late paying me even 1 day, I'd want every other one of their lenders to know.

Good to know, and thanks for the information!

---

Very welcome, Iced.

Actually, the idea you mention above (in green) tends to cut in the other direction.  It's generally in the interest of any particular lender or creditor to abide by the general practice of the lending community, when such a consensus exists, and not to go out of its way to be harsher in how it deals with credit reporting than the rest of the pack. 

Suppose for a second that the CRAs didn't have any clear instructions on when a late could be reported.  If BOA (say) was the only CC issuer that reported you for being 1 day late, then BOA would start to lose a lot of customers -- being late by a couple days can happen to almost anybody.  Having your credit report become dirty for seven years because you were 1 day late would upset tons of people.  So it's actually in the interest of any particular creditor to avoid appearing exceptionally harsh -- harsh is fine but only when everybody is being punitive in the same way.  Otherwise you are perceived as a mean bully, which is bad for your business.

The whole question you raise came up in a thread a month or two ago when I was trying to wrap my head around why some creditors do indeed break from the pack and punish customers in a way their competitors don't (it's uncommon but does occasionally happen) -- specifically in the matter of soft vs. hard pulls.  Going out of your way to make punitive data available on one of your customer's reports benefits your competitors, rather than yourself -- and in a capitalist economy that's an odd thing to want to do.

[iced]

As I'm not a lender, it's an academic discussion. Fun thought though!

I would still be fine with a smaller customer base knowing that the borrowers I do have are rock solid about repayment. I can recoup some customer base by offering lower rates or better rewards and reposition my service as premium or exclusive. I think if the CSR reported to CRA lates of even 1 day, there would be a lot of people wanting it.

Neither side is right or wrong, but we obviously see this aspect of credit from two distinct perspectives.