Hello once again all,
As I spend thest past few weeks working on my CR, I kept noticing something not quite like the rest with my discover account accross the boards. Despite having settled it yesterday ( I know it will not update yet) not only is the balance wrong by discover and CA records, they are reporting 38 charge offs on EX, 24 on EQ, and 30 on TU. There are not even 6 late payments on this. After calling Discover to clarify, she stated "well it wouldnt report all those charge offs, just one. " Well obviously... thats why im calling lol. Anybody seen this before- if so what does it mean, and can I get it fixed- if one charge off is better than the 30
My apologies- should get better at this. I am logged into my experian account, and 3 reports refreshed yesterday. showing under the fico reporting
I'm assuming you're referring to chargeoff notations in the payment history?
It's a single charged off account but they are updating it monthly with a new payment status - and that status is 'charged off'.
Just like how positive accounts update with 'ok' or 'paid' notations each month - it's still just a single, paid account with 36 paid notations representing 36 months of payment history - not 36 paid accounts.
The confusion on this issue often lies in how the fluff user-friendly software used by online credit reports (specifically, Experian) relays this data to consumers. The interface will offer a Credit summary including the number of chargeoffs and use the number of notations in the payment history - which is a misrepresentation.
FICO is penalizing you for one chargeoff but the additional chargeoff notations (when the account is continuously
updated) prevents the account from aging and your scores from recovering.
Now, the innacuracy, in your case, is in the payment history - it should be the same number of chargeoffs notations for each bureau, representing the number of months the account has been in chargeoff status. But that's niether here nor there because it's an insignificant discrepency.
Once the account updates to reflect payment it will show a $0 balance and reflect 'paid' in the comments - though it will still be categorized as a chargeoff. The payment history may or may not remain.
@thornback This helps, i appreciate it. So, regardless it seems that Discover is reporting the payments wrong, despite me disputing this. DOFD was March of 2018. So by basic math that would be roughly 24 charge offs- not the 30 ish being reported? Am I on the right track?
@dacv01 wrote:@thornback This helps, i appreciate it. So, regardless it seems that Discover is reporting the payments wrong, despite me disputing this. DOFD was March of 2018. So by basic math that would be roughly 24 charge offs- not the 30 ish being reported? Am I on the right track?
Yeah... If the first 30 day late occurred in March 2018, and you never again brought the account current, then it would have entered chargeoff status approx 180 days later. Perfect reporting would be:
March 2018: 30 days
April: 60 days
May: 90 days
June: 120 days
July: 150 days
Aug: 180 days
Sept and on: chargeoff or *repeated 180 day lates.
*Not all creditors chargeoff at 180 days... they will continue to pursue payment instead so may report several months as 180days prior to entering chargeoff status.
I feel like you're itching to use this discrepancy as a basis for dispute and, ultimately, removal. Am I right?
@thornback That would be correct, sir. This has been a very long road with Disco and I have had to fight them every step of the way regarding fraud and ID theft. I imagine I would write a letter to CRA for delete under this clause?
@dacv01 wrote:@thornback That would be correct, sir. This has been a very long road with Disco and I have had to fight them every step of the way regarding fraud and ID theft. I imagine I would write a letter to CRA for delete under this clause?
It's Ma'am 😉 and nope. Give me a minute to get back to my desktop to respond in more detail. I hate responding on mobile...
@dacv01 wrote:@thornback My apolgoies
, appreciate the guidance
No worries - happens all the time - and you're welcome!
Disputing something like this with the CRAs will get you nowhere. The account will just come back as verified -- while they may make some changes to the payment history, they will also update the 'last reported' date to the date of the dispute resolution -- this is almost as bad as having the payment history updated to reflect another month of 'charge-off' status - it keeps the derogatory looking 'new'. This type of dispute will simply not result in the removal of the account unless the lender fails to respond within the allotted time-frame - and that won't happen with a seasoned lender like Disco.
The other problem is you just paid the account so a new update is coming. That update to reflect payment status may also include a final update to the payment history per Disco's records -- and may correct everything you are complaining about now - making your dispute moot.
Also, it seems you are basing all of this from web-generated credit reports - which are notorious for misrepresenting the data actually present on your reports because the software misreads the data. Have you reviewed your paper reports? If not, you should. You can request each bureau mail you a copy of your hardcopy reports. You can also pull all 3 from annualcreditreport.com -- these are online versions that most closely represent your paper reports. You may find that the payment history is not innaccurate afterall (it happens).
All that said, if you are hellbent on disputing -- then I recommend you first get your hands on your hardcopy reports (or at least download the reports from annualcreditreport.com) and review them to ensure the data is incorrect. Highlight all of the innaccuracies of the tradeline and prepare that section of your reports to be sent along with your dispute letter as supporting documentation. Your dispute letter will need to list everything that is reported innaccurately for that tradeline and demand removal based on continued innaccurate reporting, post previous disputes. Keep in mind -- they don't have to remove it just because you say so; they can simply correct it.
Your dispute would be a Direct Dispute (Notice of Direct Dispute under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(D) and 16 CFR 660.4) and sent to Discover, not the CRAs.
FCRA §623(a)(8)(D): https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0092-notice-to-furnishers.pdf
*16 CFR 660.4 refers to the furnisher's responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation of the Direct Dispute: https://www.govregs.com/regulations/expand/title16_chapterI_part660_section660.4
Your other issue is that you've disputed this all before so Disco could deem it as Frivolous or Irrelevant based on § 660.4 (linked above) and ignore you (but they probably won't on the first Direct Dispute go-round):
1) A furnisher is not required to investigate a direct dispute if the furnisher has reasonably determined that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant. A dispute qualifies as frivolous or irrelevant if:
(i) The consumer did not provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information;
(ii) The direct dispute is substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted by or on behalf of the consumer, either directly to the furnisher or through a consumer reporting agency, with respect to which the furnisher has already satisfied the applicable requirements of the Act or this section; provided, however, that a direct dispute is not substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted if the dispute includes information that had not previously been provided to the furnisher;
So... there you go. It's up to you whether or not you want to pursue it (assuming the reporting is still inaccurate after it updates to reflect your payment).