Since the reporting agencies go for 7 years, it would seem silly to pay off any ‘debts’ valid or not, at say, 5 years, since the clock will start at 7 years again, once it is paid. Is this correct?
If you challenge a creditor after they verify the item on your credit report, the assumption is that they can substantiate the debt.
Understand this: they might think they can substantiate it, because someone might have defrauded you, them, and the whole industry. Then you claim Fraud.
However, the burden is not on the consumer to “disprove” anything. The creditor/data furnisher is obligated to investigate your dispute when you contact them directly. The burden is on them to substantiate the way they are reporting an item to the credit reporting industry…
Yes, technically they could be ass wipes and do almost nothing to susbstantiate that you have “x” account in “y” condition. That pretty much is true for everyone we do business with, not just creditors who report to credit bureaus. These are extreme cases that require one to follow-up with police reports of fruad and possibly litigation for companies that don’t respond to disputes.
THUS the FTC’s new look at data furnishers: they know the source of the misinformation is data furnishers, so they have new language in the FCRA and are looking to set new precedents in the courts for companies that send crap to the bureaus.
ok?
Nonsense. The oldest date of deliquency sets the clock ticking. If you pay a bad debt, the “paid date” does not reset the clock. …the clock is still ticking from the original deliquency that led to the debt going bad.
Most NEGATIVE info can’t stay for more than 7 years, so the original date is preserved and it sets the clock.
On a good account, if it is paid or closed, the paid date or closed date marks the date…and 7 years later…poof, it’s gone. However, there is no actual limit on how long a good trade can be reported. Bureaus just don’t want old info, as it’s not very valuable in scoring models.
Perhaps we shall. But until then, take it to Great Debates, please.
Philster, so let me get this straight. If I dispute a mark on my credit report with the company that reported it (in my case a bank) they are REQUIRED to investigate? I have done this and they have not responded at all, ever. What recourse do I have with them in this case?
Philster and Johnny L.A., would your employers report that BlinkingDuck owes $34, or would it report that Sharky’s Collection Service claims BlinkingDuck owes $34? It seems to me this would make a large difference, since the later could be true even if the former were false.
What recourse? I’m not quite sure. They are required to investigate it, and they have to notify the credit reporting agencies that the account is in dispute, and the item has to be marked as such (remember - this is in cases where you went right to the creditor and disputed the account status with them).
I know our (credit reporting agencies)governing body is the FTC, but I’m not sure which creditor is governed by which office (FTC< Attorney General, etc) I would go to my state attorney general and ask them to mediate the dispute…upon which the creditor would go along I’m sure…no gurantees, of course.
More of the latter…we really just report data as per the wishes of our members. “Legally accurate” to us means that we have reflected, via our reports, the accounts and their status that our members (banks, mortgage companies, etc)want reported. It’s their data…it’s their claim, since legally THEY are THE source of the data. We make no assumptions, or bear no responsibility.
If we report that X account is a ‘collection’, but the creditor wanted it to report as “current”, and you could show this cost you some money somehow, we’d be liable for your costs. If you could show we were willfully non-compliant with the FCRA, then we can suffer punitive damages. Without punitive damages, it ain’t worth suing us.
The gist of this post is this: creditors are responsibel for their data, even though we store it and report it - provided we domthat accurately.
Philster said:
NOTE: A paid debt does not “come off”. It is updated to paid/closed and stays on for seven years since the original deliquency, or from the date paid (if it’s a “good” account.) if the debt was ‘reported in error’, then it’ll come off,sice it should never have been there in the first place.
What is a “good” account?
good account: contains no adverse information.
Actually, the law specifies how long delinquent information can be reported, and how long public records like bankruptcy, tax liens and judgements can be reported.
If it ain’t deliquent or never was, and if it ain’t a bankruptcy, and it aint a lien or judgement, it doesn’t have a limit onn how long it can be reported. By default, we call these accounts “good”.
You could have an account that reflects late payments, and the account could stay on forever, provided we get the late payments off at 7 years. (late= delinquent)
I have worked with all three credit reporting agencies in the past, and in my experience, they are not deserving of the venom, guys. They were helpful when they were able to be, and at least they pointed me in the right direction when they couldn’t help. I was trying to clean up the wreckage from hubby’s wild youth.
Save your venom for the collection agencies, who really deserve it. These people get a kick out of fucking with you, I have come to believe.
Or simply never have a bad debt. Not hard, most of us go our whole lives without having anything go to collections. It’s called being responsible, or a grown up. It is very simple to keep track of your own finances, and follow up on things that don’t seem right. It’s probably the ones who have lots of collection accounts who do the most screaming about the unfairness of it all.
And few of the arguments made by Blinking Duck have been the least bit persuasive (or even coherant), while Philster and Johnny LA seem to have made reasoned, well-informed statements. Statements like this one- “Well, I did have something reported on once for $34 and I disputed it. It went off and came back on almost immediately. I ignored it,” don’t lend credence to your arguments.
Duck, methinks you do protest too much…
EJsGirl – My arguments haven’t been coherent? I’ve re-read them and, while I’m not a good writer, they are at least coherent. You may not agree with them but that doesn’t make them incoherent.
Of course they make well reasoned arguments with well-informed statements. That’s because they are! The current law supports them. I am only pointing out that there is a strong possibilty that this will change in the near future and explained my reasons for thinking that way.
“I protest too much”. What does that mean? Also, why does my giving an example of my not really being victimized and a statement saying I believe credit reporting agencies serve a neccessary purpose weaken my argument? Does a personal experience on the part of the writer weaken his argument or should it stand on it’s own logic?
Also, I’m not trying to win any argument here. I am just trying to point out that the credit reporting agencies are probably on very thin ice.
Blink
Blink, you have done nothing to substantiate this point.
The credit reporting agencies are benefitting from the FTC’s pursuit of data furnishers as the responsible party in the case of disputed and verified information that remains challenged by a consumer.
The new FCRA contains language that makes data furnisheres responsible for their data.
Credit reporting agencies are not on “thin ice”, because they are critical cogs in the U.S. economy, they have processes in place that resulted fromm consent decrees signed years ago (when we were approaching thin ice), and they have be the beneficiaries of a recent ruling that reaffirmed that “willful non-compliance” would have to be present for a credit reporting agency to be liable.
The case was “someone vs. TU, Equifax and Experian”…I’m trying to find the plaintiff’s name…on tip of my tongue.