Dispute or Not to Dispute????

[midnite_7]

Hello.....I am having a bit of trouble tying to figure out how accounts should be reporting to the CRA after filing BK.  I filed in July 2013 and have a few accounts that in the "Account Status" of my reoprt are listed as 120+ past due, 61-90 days past due or Charge off.

All of the accounts are showing $0 past due and $0 balance. All other accounts are reporting correct showing account "Included In Bankruptcy".  My delima is this....most of the accounts showing the late or charged off status were reported in Aug 2013, although one does show charge off as of Sept 2015!  

Would it help me or hurt me (score wise) to dispute the account status to show IIB or should I just let them be and fall off after the seven years?  I am not sure what affect it would have if I were to have those accounts update to IIB since it has almost been three years since they have been reported.  I don't know if it is worth hitting the "bee hive".  ANY advice would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks!!

[RobertEG]

Creditors do not actually report the date that they did a charge-off to the CRAs.

The date of reporing simply reflects when they made the voluntary decision to report that they have, at some prior point, taken a charge-off.

The relevance is that they can report a charge-off that was taken prior to BK, but case law has held that they cannot report a charge-off that was taken after BK.

The trick is determining when they took the CO.

[Revelate]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Creditors do not actually report the date that they did a charge-off to the CRAs.

The date of reporing simply reflects when they made the voluntary decision to report that they have, at some prior point, taken a charge-off.

The relevance is that they can report a charge-off that was taken prior to BK, but case law has held that they cannot report a charge-off that was taken after BK.

The trick is determining when they took the CO.

---

Generally speaking a CO is still on a tradeline so it should have the date it first reported which I would assume would be the month that the creditor decided to charge the account off?

Sure it's mandatory to report anything but it's not like lenders are shy about furnishing negative information.

[RobertEG]

The date that a creditor reports a CO is not the date they took it.  It is only the date they sent notice to the CRA that they took a CO.

There is no requirment to or need for recording when the creditor opened their accounting ledger and scribed the charge-off, or otherwise internally did some act that constitutes the actually "taking of the charge-off."

The only credit reporting requirement is that once they have stated that they took a CO, they must, within 90 days thereafter, also report to the CRA the date of the first delinquency on their account that preceded their taking of the charge-off.  The CRA must have that DOFD to then calculate when it must exclude the CO.

[RonM21]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

The date that a creditor reports a CO is not the date they took it.  It is only the date they sent notice to the CRA that they took a CO.

There is no requirment to or need for recording when the creditor opened their accounting ledger and scribed the charge-off, or otherwise internally did some act that constitutes the actually "taking of the charge-off."

The only credit reporting requirement is that once they have stated that they took a CO, they must, within 90 days thereafter, also report to the CRA the date of the first delinquency on their account that preceded their taking of the charge-off.  The CRA must have that DOFD to then calculate when it must exclude the CO.

---

This is correct.  I had a few collections that I got deleted for them not being accurate, and when going through the process, the date of delinquency was when the clock started on the 7 years.