How is this possible

[Anonymous]

I fell behind 120 late a few times in 2011. In 2012 I had the payment come out every month. Well from then on I am seeing 150 120 150 days late every month since I started having it come out of my checking account. How can I be 150 late in May then June 120 then July 150 days late. Makes no sense. They were getting the payment. I bank statement shows it. Does this make sense? I'm lost.

[Anonymous]

Does this sound like inaccurate reporting??

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I fell behind 120 late a few times in 2011. In 2012 I had the payment come out every month. Well from then on I am seeing 150 120 150 days late every month since I started having it come out of my checking account. How can I be 150 late in May then June 120 then July 150 days late. Makes no sense. They were getting the payment. I bank statement shows it. Does this make sense? I'm lost.

---

Did you pay up to current before you started the auto-draft in 2012? That's the first thing that comes to mind, since I had something similar happen several years ago. I'd missed a payment in August 2012, it reported 30 days late, then when I started auto-draft in September, it kept showing 30 days late for two months before I realized I had the outstanding balance from August. Once I paid that, it went to paid on time and has remained that way for the last 2.5 years.

[Anonymous]

I don't think so, but how can it go 150 120 back to 150 when I was making the full payment? Shouldn't it have stayed at 150 or 120 not bounce around within a months time.

[RobertEG]

It is common and acceptable practice for creditors to report a level of delinquency that may be less than the actual level of delinquency.

While it may not be accurate reporting of the actual level of delinquency, it is common for creditors to cease reporting every update, which often leads to apparent inconsistncyeis.  Consumers rarely dispute delinquencies that are acutally of a higher level, and are willing to ignore reporting as long as it is less, but not greater, than th actual delinquency level in a given month.

It can be argued that it is not inacurate, for example, to report an account was at least 60-late when the delinquency was actually 90 late.

If you dispute, you will most likely get correction that results in the reporting of each and every delinquency at its actual level.

[Anonymous]

It was originally HSBC which is no longer in business, and bought by Springleaf financial, who doesn't really have any info on the account.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I don't think so, but how can it go 150 120 back to 150 when I was making the full payment? Shouldn't it have stayed at 150 or 120 not bounce around within a months time.

---

On the bright side, at least it never charged off - that would be even worse.

Could be how they applied payments. Also, the monthly payment amounts may not have been sufficient to fully satisfy past-due statement periods due to extra fees, higher interest, etc.

Even one 90+ day late is very derogatory. The difference between 120 and 150 is little to nil. Easiest to leave it be and wait for it to fall off; asking for early exclusion. However, there's little to lose disputing. It could work out good with the monthly payment information being deleted or even the entire TL removed.

[Anonymous]

What would constitute a to removal?

[Anonymous]

Trade line not to

[RobertEG]

Deletion as a result of a dispute only appplies to the information under dispute, not to the account.

They have the opportunity to either verify the accuracy as reported or correct any inaccuracy.  Deletion would only be required if they could not verify or correct, and would only pertain to the delinquencies disputed, not the trade line itself.

It would not be basis for compelling deletion of the account.