cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

tag
Anonymous
Not applicable

What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

I have seen repeatedly that paying a CO can be hurtful to the score, due to the renewal of activity. However, I have seen a few people mention that their score either stayed somewhere around the same, or went up after paying off CO's. I'm curious to know if an account is absolutely maxed out and CO'ed, could it possibly be beneficial to pay the delinquency just because of the damage being done by the utilization? Which is more hurtful, recency of delinquency, or the high balance?
Message 1 of 65
64 REPLIES 64
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

Hi ssstevie.
It is illegal under the FCRA to "reset" the period that a neg remains on your CR due to any payments, full or partial, made after a CO or CA is established.  The date that it can remain is 7 1/2 years from the date of the last delinquency prior to the CO or CA.  That date is fixed as a matter of law.  Paying a CO or CA, while not directly beneficial to your score, could help a lot when you app for a loan that conducts a manual review.  In fact, most mortgage lendors will require payment of the CO or CA as a condition of any loan.
And also, if you app for any loan of $150,000 or more, the 7 1/2 year drop off provision of the FCRA is exempted.
 
Message 2 of 65
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

Hi, and thanks for your response. I'm not so sure you fully understood my question/statements, however. I know that a derog can only stay on a credit file based on the DOFD. However, many have commented that their score LOWERED when paying off a CO, simply because the date of last activity was made recent. As derog's age, the impact they have on your credit score lowers. In other words, say, you have a paid derog over two years old, it is no longer doing much harm to your score itself...due to the time. In this case, I know making the activity recent is not a good thing & can usually lower the score. What I am wondering is if having such high utilization on the derog account is more hurtful than the amount of time it has been derog. Know what I mean? I am seriously thinking of just settling and dealing with the fact it's still on the file. I'm trying ONE LAST TIME to PFD, but, given the lack of willingness to PFD the past couple years, I am not so confident I can squeeze it out of them this time. In any event, I want it paid, because, although I do not need any loans now, I want to get on with getting a mortgage within the next few months, and this is going to have to be off anyhow. Also, I've been denied limit increases because of it, and I would love to have it out of my way.
Message 3 of 65
fused
Moderator Emeritus

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency



ssstevie wrote:
I have seen repeatedly that paying a CO can be hurtful to the score, due to the renewal of activity. However, I have seen a few people mention that their score either stayed somewhere around the same, or went up after paying off CO's. I'm curious to know if an account is absolutely maxed out and CO'ed, could it possibly be beneficial to pay the delinquency just because of the damage being done by the utilization? Which is more hurtful, recency of delinquency, or the high balance?

When paying a CO, your score will more than likely improve because they are included in utilization calculations while collections are not. If the CO is more than two years old, you might not be taking a big hit to your scores. High util almost always tanks scores. What's the balance on the CO, and is there a CL reporting?
Message 4 of 65
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency



@fused wrote:


@Anonymous wrote:
I have seen repeatedly that paying a CO can be hurtful to the score, due to the renewal of activity. However, I have seen a few people mention that their score either stayed somewhere around the same, or went up after paying off CO's. I'm curious to know if an account is absolutely maxed out and CO'ed, could it possibly be beneficial to pay the delinquency just because of the damage being done by the utilization? Which is more hurtful, recency of delinquency, or the high balance?

When paying a CO, your score will more than likely improve because they are included in utilization calculations while collections are not. If the CO is more than two years old, you might not be taking a big hit to your scores. High util almost always tanks scores. What's the balance on the CO, and is there a CL reporting?



This is what I'm hoping. I'm at 650 dead even w/EQ, TU is higher, and EX is around 630, but due to an error (lowered my limit). Anyhow, EQ's Simulator does not list the CO as derog, but includes it in my utilization, and claims I'll be between 710-750 if I pay off all my revolving balance. The rest of my credit is pretty much excellent (besides some three year old paid CO's of less than $1k each); my utilization on the other cards is $0 for most, and up to 35-50 on maybe two. So, the rest all looks good. Unfortunately, the CO is reporting from late 04. The limit is ~$3300, which is ~$300 over its reported limit of $3000. What do you think?
Message 5 of 65
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

Good points, stevie!
As I understand it, and others can chime in, a closed account continues to score in %util until it becomes in good standing (paid off).  So I see your concern.  So paying off or paying down the account would, in my understanding, improve your util.
But paying off the account will not alter the delinquency date leading to the CO, so all you can do about that is let it age to 7 1/2 years from the DOFD.
Other concerns also remain.  You are still subject to collection activities, which are clearly an annoyance.  And, until the SOL has run, you can be sued for the debt.
A lot to ponder!  Good luck!
Message 6 of 65
fused
Moderator Emeritus

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

PAY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message 7 of 65
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

Thanks for your insight. Actually, FYI, the debt is out of SOL and I cannot be sued. As well, they know better than to collect from me; their arrogance and lack of cooperation with trying to resolve the matter has led them to waste tons of money, and they are smart enough to not invest any more money in me. The last collector was shady, harassed me, and his law breaking earned me an easy settlement. At this point they have left me alone completely. However, I want this paid and off my back completely. My fear, however, is given their lack of willingness to delete, the recent activity would case my score to go down. By the way, remember, even if a CO is PIF, it is still a derogatory account, and will show as such. This is why I'm worried about the date of last payment, because, the fact it was a few years ago is helping my score right now; bringing it recent scares me a bit. I know it won't be on my credit file any longer, but, just the damage is my concern.
Message 8 of 65
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency



@fused wrote:
PAY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Are you saying this for moral reasons, or because it will be improve my credit? I am more than willing to pay for moral reasons, however, I do not want my credit score to hit the rocks as a result.
Message 9 of 65
fused
Moderator Emeritus

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

There are other mods that will agree with me, I'll ask them to chime-in. I really believe if you pay this, your scores will improve. Hang tight!
Message 10 of 65
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.