Advice needed..

[Anonymous]

Hello All,

 I had a CO from Sallie Mae that I tried for year to PFD with no luck. Finally worked out a settlement, so that I could get rid of it and move along..So we agreed to a 50% setttlement with the Language " Settled in Full " I got a letter from them specifying this langand and sent payment.. TU updated 0 balance PIF..But EQ and EX updated to a 0 balance BUT settled for less amount. This is what i didnt want on there  in case of a manual UW one day. I guess it probably doesnt effect the Score, but should I email Sallie Mae back and raise heck about that way they updated?? Thoughts? and if they dont fix it what next FTC?

[dodfire]

IMO I would contact them and have them update it per your agreement.

[Anonymous]

The way they wrote "Settled in Full" only really means that they consider the debt settled and no further collection attempts will be made. This still does not change the fact that you settled the debt for less than the full amount. Hence "settled for less than full amount on your report". They still have to report a 0 balance.

You can ask them if they could change it for you. They really do not have to though. I also would be prepared to see a possible 1099c next year if the amount you settled on saved you over $600.

[DaBears]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hello All,

 I had a CO from Sallie Mae that I tried for year to PFD with no luck. Finally worked out a settlement, so that I could get rid of it and move along..So we agreed to a 50% setttlement with the Language " Settled in Full " I got a letter from them specifying this langand and sent payment.. TU updated 0 balance PIF..But EQ and EX updated to a 0 balance BUT settled for less amount. This is what i didnt want on there  in case of a manual UW one day. I guess it probably doesnt effect the Score, but should I email Sallie Mae back and raise heck about that way they updated?? Thoughts? and if they dont fix it what next FTC?

---

If the letter you got from the CA in fact does state "Settled in full" I would submit it to the 2 CRA's showing proof you did in fact settled in full. they would need to update accordingly to reflect "Settled in full" You should not receive a 1099-C based on their letter. If you do. you can fight it based on actual evidence that they stated in there letter "Settled in full" That would be a binding agreement!!!

[Anonymous]

Thanks Bears..Yes i made sure my letter speciffically said " Settled in Full "

[Anonymous]

I would get them to change it to PIF or settled for full amount.  The settled does not look good.

[RobertEG]

Any furnisher has a statutory obligation under FCRA 623(a)(2) to timely update the accuracy of any reporting so as to maintain its current accuracy.

Reporting the same info differently to different CRAs is prima facie inaccuracy in one or the other.

Sending complaints to the FTC for violations of the statute should, in my opinion, be reserved until after administrative remedies have been exhausted under the FCRA.

If a simple call, reminding them of their statutory obligation to maintain the accuracy of their reporting with each CRA, doesnt do the trick, then I would send them a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8), with the dispute being based on lack of compliance with section 623(a)(2).

If they then verify the accuracy of conflicting reporting, that would be the time for a formal complaint to the FTC.

[Anonymous]

I have no idea where you guys and gals are coming up with that Settled in Full means the same as Paid in Full. Every UW will would know a Settled in Full is almost the same as a settled for less than full amount. The difference being that with that letter of Settled in Full would keep the OC/CA from selling off the remaining debt.

I fought and lost against Cap One for this exact same thing. I told Cap One that I would not pay the over $2,000 in interest after my CO but I would pay the amount that I owed up to the month before it went into CO. I dealt with their in house CA over this. I got a letter stating I Settled in Full. Well Cap One decided to report to all three of the CRA's the remaining balance that I did not pay them. They even sent me a letter saying that they could do this. So in return I sent my Settled in Full letter to all three CRA's they all changed my balance to 0 then put a paid for less than full amount. So I got a lawyer to look into it. I came away with. A) I either paid the full amount owed " Paid In Full" B) Settled in Full to avoid dealing with it later C) Getting a settled letter and possibly having to pay the remaining debt off later.

If I am wrong then I would love to know how to change it. I still have a CO with a Settled for less than full on my report even after I paid what I owed before the ridicules  interest after six years.

Oh and Robert please explain this then. In regards to your statement "Reporting the same info differently to different CRAs is prima facie inaccuracy in one or the other." 

Cap One reported different information on all three of my reports.  Here is what they have to say to this matter. "Cap One reports the same data to all credit reporting agencies. Once they receive this information, the agencies apply their own guidelines to determine how the data is presented in their reports. Delinquency dates may vary based on how the data is interpreted. The agencies also determine how long the data is displayed on a consumer's file and whether it will have any impact on the consumer's credit score".

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I have no idea where you guys and gals are coming up with that Settled in Full means the same as Paid in Full. Every UW will would know a Settled in Full is almost the same as a settled for less than full amount. The difference being that with that letter of Settled in Full would keep the OC/CA from selling off the remaining debt.

I fought and lost against Cap One for this exact same thing. I told Cap One that I would not pay the over $2,000 in interest after my CO but I would pay the amount that I owed up to the month before it went into CO. I dealt with their in house CA over this. I got a letter stating I Settled in Full. Well Cap One decided to report to all three of the CRA's the remaining balance that I did not pay them. They even sent me a letter saying that they could do this. So in return I sent my Settled in Full letter to all three CRA's they all changed my balance to 0 then put a paid for less than full amount. So I got a lawyer to look into it. I came away with. A) I either paid the full amount owed " Paid In Full" B) Settled in Full to avoid dealing with it later C) Getting a settled letter and possibly having to pay the remaining debt off later.

If I am wrong then I would love to know how to change it. I still have a CO with a Settled for less than full on my report even after I paid what I owed before the ridicules  interest after six years.

Oh and Robert please explain this then. In regards to your statement "Reporting the same info differently to different CRAs is prima facie inaccuracy in one or the other." 

Cap One reported different information on all three of my reports.  Here is what they have to say to this matter. "Cap One reports the same data to all credit reporting agencies. Once they receive this information, the agencies apply their own guidelines to determine how the data is presented in their reports. Delinquency dates may vary based on how the data is interpreted. The agencies also determine how long the data is displayed on a consumer's file and whether it will have any impact on the consumer's credit score".

---

Settled is settled, settled for less is paid, settled in full is paid,  and legally they cannot sell off the remaining balance. 

The only 2 CRAs that come up with a fall off date is TU and EX. The CRAs fall off dates can and are incorrect a lot of times. EQ has the DoFD and EQ can't change and/or manipulate that.  The agencies don't determine that.  The FCRA does.

[RobertEG]

Lots of terminology flowing about, with different interpretations by different folks.

The legal designation is whether the debt is satisfied, meaning the creditor no longer asserts the debt.

What $ amount the creditor accepted as satisfaction of the debt, be it the full amount of the debt or less, is irrelevant to the issue of whether they have any remaining claim to debt..

Then the subjective termonology arises.

Any debt that is satisfied is settled.  However, current use of the term "settled" is often used to denote the debt was satisfied of less than the full amount.

So it depends upon how the reader interprets the term "settled" as distinguished from "paid in full."

From a credit reporting point of view, the status of a satisfied debt is reported as paid, requiring the current debt status to be updated to $0.

That reporting alone does not inform the reader of the CR the terms of payment between the creditor and consumer.

However, the creditor has the option to additionally report the terms of payment of the debt if they accepted less than the full amount of the debt as its satisfaction.

That is done by way of the provision of a special comments code of "paid for less" or "settled for less."  If the consumer's credit report is reading paid for less on one but not on others, then the credtior made different reporting to those CRAs.  I suppose they could argue that supplementing their reporting to one CRA by posting the terms of the satisfaction as having been for less than the full amount does make the absence of that reporting to another CRA inaccurate.  That may be a tough nut to assert as a lack of accurate reporting, but it is clearly inconsistent.

When a creditor agrees to report "paid in full," that infers to the consumer that they wont report that additional special comment.

With the absence of reporting of that special comment, the consumer's credit report will then read the same as if the debt were paid in full.

My recommendation when a creditor offers to report paid in full is that one show modify that agreed terminology to read that the creditor agrees not to report any special comment of paid or settled for less.