bad debt/collection vs. 120 day late?

[shasta]

As I am going over my credit report with a fine tooth comb, I noticed some more discrepancies. On my TU, it shows 4 bad debt/collections. These credit cards were closed and paid in full about 7 years ago. On my Eq report, it shows the same 4, but 2 are listed as 120 day lates. They were paid in full like I mentioned.

Is there a difference between being bad debt vs. 120 day late? Is that something that I can dispute? I don't have any documentation to prove when I paid them off, but I'm wondering if banks are looking at me as a late payer because of this. I haven't been late on payments in 4 years.

[rckstrscott]

---

@shasta wrote:

As I am going over my credit report with a fine tooth comb, I noticed some more discrepancies. On my TU, it shows 4 bad debt/collections. These credit cards were closed and paid in full about 7 years ago. On my Eq report, it shows the same 4, but 2 are listed as 120 day lates. They were paid in full like I mentioned.

Is there a difference between being bad debt vs. 120 day late? Is that something that I can dispute? I don't have any documentation to prove when I paid them off, but I'm wondering if banks are looking at me as a late payer because of this. I haven't been late on payments in 4 years.

---

Were you ever late on these cards? Were they charged off? Becoming current won't remove the fact that the accounts were late..

How old are these late payments at this point?

-scott

[bettercreditguy1]

Did I interpret your post that the accounts are paid in full?, closed? and showing 120 day lates?  +1to the first answer.  Even though the accounts are paid in full and closed, the payment history will follow for seven years. If they were charged off or collected and paid in full, the lates may remain upto 7 years plus 180 days on your reports. Eventually, the late payments fall off of the accounts from aging as new (hopefully) positive payments report. While your Fico score will be hit for the full period of the 120 day lates, most lenders only peruse back 4 years on payment for decisions although they will see the seven year payment history. YMMV with your respective lender.

[sarahcatherinemay]

It's showing the worst delinquency reported - so even though it's paid off, it's still reporting that you were at one point 120+ days delinquent. You might try asking the OC (or whoever is reporting) to update your current account status as Bad Debt/Charged off or whatever it is rather than the 120 days late. I had an old HSBC account that was CO and they still had it as 120 days late, so I just disputed that information and it was updated. Not that it makes any difference at all. 120+ days is just as bad.

[guiness56]

---

@shasta wrote:

As I am going over my credit report with a fine tooth comb, I noticed some more discrepancies. On my TU, it shows 4 bad debt/collections. These credit cards were closed and paid in full about 7 years ago. On my Eq report, it shows the same 4, but 2 are listed as 120 day lates. They were paid in full like I mentioned.

Is there a difference between being bad debt vs. 120 day late? Is that something that I can dispute? I don't have any documentation to prove when I paid them off, but I'm wondering if banks are looking at me as a late payer because of this. I haven't been late on payments in 4 years.

---

How it can report depends on whether it is the OC or CA that is reporting.

For an OC debt, the lates can be reported monthly until the debt is PIF.  Once that happens, your current status should say paid, closed, paid after CO or something to that affect.  If it was reporting currently 120+ days late that should be moved to worst delinquency.  It may also say, somewhere, bad debt/collection or CO.

If it is a CA reporting, they cannot report lates.  The only thing they can do is report the worst delinquency of the debt as received from the OC.  It may also state bad debt/collection.