Why do some closed accounts continue reporting?

[heavyjay]

How does it show on your real EQ report?

[Anonymous]

Real?  I didn't know a report pulled from a monitoring service like CCT or CK was "fake" but to humor you... 

It shows exactly the same:

[Revelate]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Real?  I didn't know a report pulled from a monitoring service like CCT or CK was "fake" but to humor you... 

It shows exactly the same:

---

All the third parties have idiosyncratic presentation issues at times (read as: software bugs).  It is an absolutely reasonable thing to ask, as a matter of fact it's always recommended to pull the bureau reports to see precisely what is there whenever there's something the slightest bit off.

Obviously something is odd in this case, if you dislike it just dispute it as it's clearly wrong or call and ask the bureau.  Why your individual file has so many inconsistencies I haven't the faintest idea but clearly something got munged somewhere.  Otherwise just relax and let it go, personally I'd take that tradeline as a win but that's me.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Cross-purposes?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

---

Hi BBS, I've been checking back in on this thread with interest because I have the same issue as you, but with four of my accounts that were included in BK. The interesting thing is that one of mine doing this is also Sears/CBNA, the others being two Macy's store and on Amex Macy's. I'm wondering if certain companies do this? Mine were on TU and the status on them literally still says Satisfactory; Paid or Paying as Agreed, with the OK's in the payment history up to date a year after BK. Now I'm going to go back over my EQ and EX now. I missed it on TU the first time I skimmed through so it's possible I missed the other two as well.

[Anonymous]

---

@Revelate wrote:

---

---

All the third parties have idiosyncratic presentation issues at times (read as: software bugs).  It is an absolutely reasonable thing to ask, as a matter of fact it's always recommended to pull the bureau reports to see precisely what is there whenever there's something the slightest bit off.

---

I understand that, but if there was an inconsistency between my actual hard copy report and what I saw from monitoring service(s) regarding this issue I either wouldn't have posted in the first place or would have disclosed that up front in the original post.  I'm not trying to play games here.

[Revelate]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Revelate wrote:

---

---

All the third parties have idiosyncratic presentation issues at times (read as: software bugs).  It is an absolutely reasonable thing to ask, as a matter of fact it's always recommended to pull the bureau reports to see precisely what is there whenever there's something the slightest bit off.

---

I understand that, but if there was an inconsistency between my actual hard copy report and what I saw from monitoring service(s) regarding this issue I either wouldn't have posted in the first place or would have disclosed that up front in the original post.  I'm not trying to play games here.

---

Wasn't suggesting that you were; you've been around long enough to see it likely several times that the 3rd party report interprets a tradeline differently than the bureau (I have a tradeline that is misparsed from EQ on both MF and CK FWIW and that's been an issue for years) has it listed as... and you've also likely seen a number of folks who believe CK is their actual credit report.

Since you didn't state what you were looking at, which would've shortcut the inquiry, it was a reasonable question is all I'm getting at and not something to take umbrage at.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

Hi BBS, I've been checking back in on this thread with interest because I have the same issue as you, but with four of my accounts that were included in BK. The interesting thing is that one of mine doing this is also Sears/CBNA, the others being two Macy's store and on Amex Macy's. I'm wondering if certain companies do this? Mine were on TU and the status on them literally still says Satisfactory; Paid or Paying as Agreed, with the OK's in the payment history up to date a year after BK. Now I'm going to go back over my EQ and EX now. I missed it on TU the first time I skimmed through so it's possible I missed the other two as well.

---

That interesting.  From what I've read there seems to be more of a tendency of this to happen with BK accounts, but mine are a perfect example of non-BK related issues.  It would be good to know if there are certain creditors (like Sears) that for whatever reason simply never stop reporting.  Perhaps starting a thread and compiling a list of them would provide insightful data.

Another thing, I have also seen closed accounts that continue reporting past being closed for a period of time, say a year or so, and then one month just stop reporting.  Again, this may be creditor-specific (rather than profile-specific) but we simply don't have enough data on the subject at this time to make any solid calls.

[Revelate]

I guess this is a more common issue than I thought.

Wally:

Closed 3/2016

DOLA: 12/2016

Pretty OK's every month even though the closed date is listed in the tradeline details...closed account w/$0 balance shouldn't factor anywhere on the revolving side, but I guess the question is if I do absolutely nothing and it continues to report brokenly, will it ever start the 10 year clock?

I suppose will see in a decade, reporting identically to EQ/TU but EX has it correctly.

Positive tradeline so I'm not going to touch it but it's definitely a bug in Synchrony's systems somewhere.

[Anonymous]

My guess here is that with these creditors they're used to people having closed accounts with balances still being paid off, they don't know what to do with closed zero balance accounts

[Anonymous]

I would think that accounts would fall off of reports based on the closing date of the account (after 10 years) not the date last reported.  If the date last reported mattered, people could contact their creditors at the 9 year mark and some up with some BS to try to get them to update (report) it... like their name or address, something basic to reset the clock.  That to me would just seem too easy and surely someone would have figured out that loophole at this point already to artificially inflate AAoA.