FIRST PREMIER - DOESN'T SEEM ACCURATE

[tagreen0927]

I think FP isn't reporting right; what do you think?

Report lists:

Charge Off as of 9-2008

Paid Settlement in November 16, 2011

Collection as of Dec 2011

How can they list it as a collection in 2011 when they even report the account was paid and settled in November, 2011?

I think this one is having the greatest damage to my credit score as it then places my most recent deliquency as .2 years ago.  Am I thinking about this correctly?  Do I have a legitimate dispute?

Thanks!  Any advice/thoughts appreciated.

[rckstrscott]

---

@tagreen0927 wrote:

I think FP isn't reporting right; what do you think?

Report lists:

Charge Off as of 9-2008

Paid Settlement in November 16, 2011

Collection as of Dec 2011

How can they list it as a collection in 2011 when they even report the account was paid and settled in November, 2011?

I think this one is having the greatest damage to my credit score as it then places my most recent deliquency as .2 years ago.  Am I thinking about this correctly?  Do I have a legitimate dispute?

Thanks!  Any advice/thoughts appreciated.

---

Consumer reports are a little iffy to read, but essentially the way I see it is: Charge Off/Collection in 2008, Paid in Nov, and updated in Dec 2011 -- that date doesn't matter and will not change -- If you paid in November, they needed to update their reports to reflect.  Usually they will update in cycles. This is how I read it at least. I don't think you have a disputable issue.

Since its a charge off/collection account, its damage hit when it was inserted into your file, not when you paid or it was updated anyway; so its hurting the same as it would if it was last updated in 2008.

-scott

[tagreen0927]

Thanks, Scott.  I noticed on my Experian report it also lists that they are reporting 120+ plus late throughout all of 2011, including December when debt was paid off in November, 2011.  Really stinks they can report EACH month being 120 days late when they also have it classified as a Charge-Off/Collection.  Doesn't seem right!  But I guess that's what I get for having this go to collection in the first place.  

[RobertEG]

I agree, it is often confusing when trying to differentiate between the date an event occured and the date it was either initially reported to a CRA, or their earlier reporting was updated.

The facts provided are that the debt was charged-off by the OC in 9/2008, and was ultimately satisfied in 11/2011.

How the collection sneaks in there is a separate issue.  The OC does not report a collection, that was done by a debt collector.

The issue of whether a debt collector was authorized to report a collection to the CRA is not dependent upon when they choose to report it, such as 12/2011 in your case, but rather whether they had collection authority at a time prior to satisfaction of the debt.  Nothing in the dates posted establishes that date.

If the debt collector received collection authority from the OC prior to payment of the debt, they are entitiled to report that fact to the CRA, and if the debt was paid at the time of their reporting, it should have reflected that the collection was closed at the time of its reporting, with a $0 debt due.  Kinda unnecessary reporting on their part, as it serves no collection purpose for the debt collector, but not prohibited.

It appears you may have been shafted.