Double Reporting how is it legal?

[Anonymous]

So when you have an account in collections the creditor and the Collection agency can both report negatives on your single account so in my cases I have student loans that defaulted 9 of them so total of 18 accounts show as paid but still negative. I can't believe they allow double reporting and nothing has been done to change it. 

I am going to write my congress and senators about this. I feel like that would also make a good lawsuit. The accounts should be merged togther if you want to remain some accuracy or only one should be on file listing all information.

[calyx]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

So when you have an account in collections the creditor and the Collection agency can both report negatives on your single account so in my cases I have student loans that defaulted 9 of them so total of 18 accounts show as paid but still negative. I can't believe they allow double reporting and nothing has been done to change it. 

I am going to write my congress and senators about this. I feel like that would also make a good lawsuit. The accounts should be merged togther if you want to remain some accuracy or only one should be on file listing all information.

---

While the same debt can result in multiple negative trade lines, it could be argued that it is not "double reporting"  because the negative information doesn't overlap.

For example:
If a loan has a DOFD in 10/2012 and is then closed 11/2013.
It is reassigned to a collection agency, and the new tradeline is opened 1/2014

That's a single negative, two accounts, but no overlap in negative reporting.
In 10/2019, assuming these negative lines have been paid, BOTH tradelines 'age off' (4/2020 possibly for the CA tradeline).

It's definitely messier with student loans because of the multiple nature of them, but the pattern is the same without overlapping.   That's why I always recommend that SLs be the last thing someone messes up in their finances (heaven knowns, I learned the hard way).

[Anonymous]

I know its allowed but it should not be. It is double reporting any which way it is worded . 2 negatives on the same account both are doing hits to the credit report. The one account should just specify that SOSO is creditor and PRA is Collection Agency - One account One hit to the report. Its bad enough it stays 7 years which is a long time . Even after so many years when it doesnt weigh as much it still affects you. 

People in congress should look at these laws and revamp them. The New York 5 year period is much more acceptable and allows people who have gotten back on track to get rid of bad history. **bleep** happens but to have it double hit you and then stay for 7 years on top of that is not acceptable. 

[vntrsc]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I know its allowed but it should not be. It is double reporting any which way it is worded . 2 negatives on the same account both are doing hits to the credit report. The one account should just specify that SOSO is creditor and PRA is Collection Agency - One account One hit to the report. Its bad enough it stays 7 years which is a long time . Even after so many years when it doesnt weigh as much it still affects you. 

People in congress should look at these laws and revamp them. The New York 5 year period is much more acceptable and allows people who have gotten back on track to get rid of bad history. **bleep** happens but to have it double hit you and then stay for 7 years on top of that is not acceptable. 

---

Just a note:  The collection agencies’ entries will fall off your credit report at the same time the entries of the original creditors fall off.   

[RobertEG]

It is longstanding and acceptable reporting procedure for a single debt to result in the reporting of multiple derogs.

Delinquency on an original creditor account can lead to payment history profile showing each individual prior monthly delinquency.

If the account is then charged-off, a CO can additionally be reported. 

If civil action is filed and a judgment granted by the courts, a judgment can additionally be added.

If the creditor either assigns or sells the debt to a debt collector, the separate conduct of collection efforts by the debt collector can also be reported.  That is not double reporting of the same thing, it is reporting that additional collection activities followed those of the original creditor.

You could certainly file a civil action asserting that reporting of both account history by an original creditor and collection activity by a debt collector is double reporting of the same thing, but there is no such support in either the FCRA or in decades of case law.

I would opine that any such basis for civil action would not prevail.

Writing your congressman or senator seeking amendment of the FCRA would be the proper step.....

[nax]

This one confused me so I pulled my TU report, I have a $36 dollar CO from a utility company who reports as well as a collectioin agency. It's paid and was just a "I moved misunderstanding" 

TU Shows these notes:

OC : Estimated month and year that this item will be removed: 06/2022

CA: Estimated month and year that this item will be removed: 06/2024

So does this mean that the CA will also "fall off" on 06/2022 ?

[Anonymous]

Yes they should fall off together. They must be reporting a date wrong. I would ask them to correct it or dispute it.

[Anonymous]

The point of FICO and credit reporting is to get an accurate assessment of your risk factor but if your getting double dinged for a collection how I'd that an accurate assessment.

Also there is no double reporting for positive reporting so why only negative.

[Anonymous]

---

@nax wrote:

This one confused me so I pulled my TU report, I have a $36 dollar CO from a utility company who reports as well as a collectioin agency. It's paid and was just a "I moved misunderstanding" 

TU Shows these notes:

OC : Estimated month and year that this item will be removed: 06/2022

CA: Estimated month and year that this item will be removed: 06/2024

So does this mean that the CA will also "fall off" on 06/2022 ?

---

If the debt has been paid you can try a GW letter campaign to both the OC and the CA, it is defiantly worth your time and effort.

Good Luck!

[nax]

I did try and persistantly GW this and got a big no about 20 times.

Good news it!!! After reading and kinda hijacking OP's post (Sorry) I disputed the dates on all 3 and got an Ex alert, they removed it!!! Collection free as far as EX is concerned!!!