cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Impact of correcting a 60, 90, 120 late to 30, 60, 90 late

tag
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: Impact of correcting a 60, 90, 120 late to 30, 60, 90 late

"They are reporting 60, 90, 120 days late (April, May, June) when in fact March is showing paid. Therefore, I'm thinking it should be reporting 30, 60, 90 days late, since they can't just jump to 60 days late if I was current the month before. Would having this corrected increase my FICO scores, or am I better off leaving the sleeping giant alone?"

______________________________________________________-

 

What do your account records show? CRA postings are not legal records.  Incorrect reporting by them in March wont win your day in a disptue, or in court. 

 

So what really happened?  One needs to step back to January 2007 to assess your account records with them.

I assume that through yur account statement in January 2007, your account was showing paid timely and they sent you a statement sometime in January, with a due date, and min amt due, sometime in February.  Were you late in your Feb, 2007 payment due date, or failed to remit the min payment due in Feb?  That is the issue.

 

Lets assume that you were either late by a few days,but less than 30-days, in fulling your min Feb payment.  That does put you into default on the account, but that alone does not permit the reporting of the delinqency to the CRA.  If you then paid the total amt due within 30-days of your Feb delinquency date, then they could not report it to the CRA.  If you did not, then the reportng of a 30-day late to the CRA was legal and justified.

That same pattern repeats for subsequent months. 

 

In my opinion, if your account records do not show that you paid all contracted minimums due to them within 30-days of going into default with the OC back ion the Feb, 2007 due date, then their posting of a 30-day late in the contested month of March would have been legit.  The creditor never has to post a derog to your CR.  If your CR then shows an entry of "paid" for March, I would not dispute or go to court on that.  Maybe they just did not choose to update that portion of your credit history in March.  That would not make later posting inaccurate.

Dispute, and it might well result in a revision of your CR to show an addtional 30-day late in March. Or it could get the desired deletion of the 120-day late, and just shift your derogs back a month. The 60/90's are still major derogs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Message 11 of 12
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: Impact of correcting a 60, 90, 120 late to 30, 60, 90 late

Is it a closed BOA account with $0 balance because you have paid the debt, or ony because BOA has sold the debt? If they sell the debt,then they post a 0$ balance.

That alone does not mean the debt is paid.

What is the status of the basic debt itself?

They cant make things worse if the debt has been paid to them.

But if the debt remains unpaid, and BOA has sold the debt, it is still subject to reporting by the purchasing debt collector to your CR, or worse yet, bringing legal action.

 

 

 

Message 12 of 12
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.