I recently had 2 SL TLs (from the same loan) both reporting inaccurately. After asking EX to change these errors, they came back looking worse. Please take a look at them and let me know if I am reading this correctly. The stuff in black is what the reports originally looked like. The stuff in blue is what was changed. The stuff in red is my concern about a particular item.
US Dept of ED/FISL/SF
Status: Collection account $1,217 past due as of Apr 2006 Collection account $1,181 past due as of May 2006
Date Opened: 01/2002
Reported Since: 01/2005
Date of Status: 01/2005
Last Reported:: 04/2006 05/2006
Type: Installment
Terms: 36 months
Monthly Payment: $0 I pay $50/mo
Responsibility: Individual
Credit Limit/Original Amount: $3,034 I still don't know why this amount differs from the amount reported on the TL below this one. They are the same loan.
High Balance: N/A
Recent Balance: $1,217 as of 04/2006 $1,181 as of 05/2006
Account History: Collection as of Jan 2005 to Apr 2006 Collection as of Jan 2005 to May 2006 I obviously HAVE made a recent payment ($50) since the recent balance changed from 04/2006 to 05/2006
US Dept of Education
Status: Collection account Claim filed with the government/Collection account Shouldn't this read something like "paid after CO/CA" since it has been paid?
Date Opened: 01/2002
Reported Since: 12/2004 02/2002 Why would this move backwards almost 3 years?
Date of Status: 12/2004 04/2006 I though that this is the same as when it was paid by whoever was backing the loan? If so, did it just restart the 7 year reporting clock?
Last Reported:: 12/2004 05/2006
Type: Installment
Terms: 36 months
Monthly Payment: $0 $50 If the balance was $0 before the changes and the balance is $0 after the changes, why would this entry go from $0 to $50?
Responsibility: Individual
Credit Limit/Original Amount: $2990 I still don't know why this amount differs from the amount reported on the TL above this one. They are the same loan.
High Balance: N/A
Recent Balance: $0 as of 12/2004 $0
Account History: Collection as of Dec 2004 Claim filed with government as of May 2006 WHY would a claim be filed in May 2006 if the balance has been $0 since December 2004 (when it was paid by whoever was backing it)?? This is the part that really concerns me.
Collection as of Dec 2004
180 days as of June 2004 to Nov 2004
150 days as of May 2004
120 days as of Apr 2004
90 days as of March 2004
60 days as of Feb 2004
Just to clarify, I am not looking to start any kind of dispute with the US Dept of ED, nor with their CAs. I am currently paying off the part of the loan that I still owe. I just want to understand my reports, why they are reporting as they are, and get the things changed CORRECTLY if they are not correct. I assume even though they are government loans, they are still have to be reported correctly. I am particularly concerned with the "claim filed with gov in 6/2006" part.
Thanks,
Creditmomma
EQ FICO = 555 (4/28), 565 (6/02)
TU FICO = 539 (5/28)
EX FICO = Not Yet Purchased
Full Version: SL reporting errors
These are defaulted loans and reporting is done as a status as of a certain date. Since you are in default, you technically no longer monthly payment and even though you are making payments, they are not reflected on your CR. Your balance may go down due to payments but it wont say monthly payment. From what I am seeing, it is reporting correctly. This is the consequence of default.
Okay ...
- Why did the second entry's "monthly payment" change from $0 to $50 when there is $0 balance?
- Why does it now say "Claim filed with government as of May 2006" when there has been a $0 balance since 12/2004?
- Did they restart my 7 year reporting clock by changing the "Date of Status" from 12/04 to 4/06? I am still a little confused as to what date actually starts this clock. I know that its not the date of first delinquency as it is for other debts, but I assume it can't be a date after it was paid.
- Why are the original amounts on both enteries different?
- Why does a loan that is paid still have the notation of a CA, rather than "Paid/closed CA account" or "Paid after claim was filed"?
Creditmomma
EQ FICO = 555 (4/28), 565 (6/02)
TU FICO = 539 (5/28)
EX FICO = Not Yet Purchased
- Why did the second entry's "monthly payment" change from $0 to $50 when there is $0 balance?
- Why does it now say "Claim filed with government as of May 2006" when there has been a $0 balance since 12/2004?
- Did they restart my 7 year reporting clock by changing the "Date of Status" from 12/04 to 4/06? I am still a little confused as to what date actually starts this clock. I know that its not the date of first delinquency as it is for other debts, but I assume it can't be a date after it was paid.
- Why are the original amounts on both enteries different?
- Why does a loan that is paid still have the notation of a CA, rather than "Paid/closed CA account" or "Paid after claim was filed"?
Creditmomma
EQ FICO = 555 (4/28), 565 (6/02)
TU FICO = 539 (5/28)
EX FICO = Not Yet Purchased
The second TL on your list is the actual loan. When you defaulted, a claim is filed by the lender with the guarantor. That's the first TL on your list. It gets weird here because your lender and your guarantor are both USDOE (I've got the same thing -- it's confusing to no end!). That's why your second TL is marked as $0 balance -- it's been transferred to the guarantor. As Lynn said, your payments are not reflected on your report while you're in default, until you either finish rehab or consolidate the loan. "Claim filed with the government" means the same thing as "charged off." That means that it was transferred to the guarantor (the government) for payment. So, "claim filed with the government" combined with a $0 balance means the exact same thing as "paid after claim was filed". That's just the notation that SLs use and it's correct.
Your 7-year clock started when DOE as guarantor paid off DOE as lender. When was that? The date of status doesn't mean anything. It's just when the CR was last updated. It doesn't have any effect on your reporting period. It's often almost impossible to tell from a CR entry when it's going to fall of your report. Oftentimes, there really isn't a "Date of Last Activity" line, especially when dealing with SLs. Again, claim filed with government as of May 2006 just shows what the status was as of May 2006, not when it was actually paid.
The lines don't match (I believe) because there is generally a penalty due when you default (which, for these purposes, means when the loan is paid off by the guarantor). That's added to the amount owed. Sux, doesn't it?
The "original amount" on the lender TL just means the original amount you borrowed. The "original amount" on the guarantor TL means how much it paid off to the lender, plus the penalties and fees.
The "monthly payment" on the lender TL just means what "should" have been paid, not necessarily what was paid. For example, on CCs, that line usually shows your required minimum payment, not what you actually paid (which is on a different line). This is the installment loan version of the same thing. You're not going to have a "monthly payment" on the guarantor TL because there isn't a monthly payment due -- when you default, the entire loan is due in full; there is no more "minimum due". The minimum due is the full amount.
Hope this helps! I know it's horribly confusing -- it's taken me years to figure out mine!! Good luck!
Your 7-year clock started when DOE as guarantor paid off DOE as lender. When was that? The date of status doesn't mean anything. It's just when the CR was last updated. It doesn't have any effect on your reporting period. It's often almost impossible to tell from a CR entry when it's going to fall of your report. Oftentimes, there really isn't a "Date of Last Activity" line, especially when dealing with SLs. Again, claim filed with government as of May 2006 just shows what the status was as of May 2006, not when it was actually paid.
The lines don't match (I believe) because there is generally a penalty due when you default (which, for these purposes, means when the loan is paid off by the guarantor). That's added to the amount owed. Sux, doesn't it?
The "original amount" on the lender TL just means the original amount you borrowed. The "original amount" on the guarantor TL means how much it paid off to the lender, plus the penalties and fees.The "monthly payment" on the lender TL just means what "should" have been paid, not necessarily what was paid. For example, on CCs, that line usually shows your required minimum payment, not what you actually paid (which is on a different line). This is the installment loan version of the same thing. You're not going to have a "monthly payment" on the guarantor TL because there isn't a monthly payment due -- when you default, the entire loan is due in full; there is no more "minimum due". The minimum due is the full amount.
Hope this helps! I know it's horribly confusing -- it's taken me years to figure out mine!! Good luck!
Thank you so much ziggypop. I think I understand both enteries now.
Okay, the loan was paid by the guarantor in 12/04 (I am fairly certain of this), so the first one will fall in 12/11 and the second won't fall until 7 years after it is paid off, correct? Man, I'm glad I only had one of these suckers.
SLs are confusing. Thanks for helping me out!
Creditmomma
EQ FICO = 555 (4/28), 565 (6/02)
TU FICO = 539 (5/28)
EX FICO = Not Yet Purchased
Okay, the loan was paid by the guarantor in 12/04 (I am fairly certain of this), so the first one will fall in 12/11 and the second won't fall until 7 years after it is paid off, correct? Man, I'm glad I only had one of these suckers.
SLs are confusing. Thanks for helping me out!
Creditmomma
EQ FICO = 555 (4/28), 565 (6/02)
TU FICO = 539 (5/28)
EX FICO = Not Yet Purchased
No problem!
Actually, the negatives will all fall off 7 years from the date it was paid by the guarantor, not just the lender TL. It might be a little after 12/2011, though, because the CRAs have an additional 6 months after the 7 years date to remove the line, so it may end up being around 6/2012.
Good luck!!
Actually, the negatives will all fall off 7 years from the date it was paid by the guarantor, not just the lender TL. It might be a little after 12/2011, though, because the CRAs have an additional 6 months after the 7 years date to remove the line, so it may end up being around 6/2012.
Good luck!!
I guess this is a YMMV thing bec my guarantors report all monthly pmts that I make on defaults. Also, my status for guarantor pd loan says "Paid,Closed/Collection account." Another YMMV thing, I guess.
My SLs are the only TLs on which the date of status and the date last reported do not match (EXP), probably because I disputed them until they changed the status back to the original status date. Even tho the status date is not supposed to mean anything, and doesn't as far as reporting period goes, too many consumers have realized that it affects FICO -- which is why I was not content to let EXP change it on my SLs.
I am always reading horror stories abt the reporting by SL data furnishers. Nonetheless, I have not been reticent abt disputing/arguing the TLs with my lenders/guarantors nor abt pointing out their FCRA and/or FDCPA violations. They can soon pay off my loans for me.
Any monthly late pays reflected in acct history will fall off at the seven yr anniversary of that missed pmt. (I have been successful in getting the lates deleted on closed/paid SLs via disputes.) The guarantor TL will usually fall off at seven yrs fm claim date (for govt backed SLs), but could also be seven yrs fm the date the TL was first reported (per HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1080a).
OTOH, according to the CRAs, my estimated date for removal of original lender TLs coincides with DOFD, just like non SL TLs. Again, I think it is YMMV.
Actually, the CRAs don't have an additional 6 months after the 7 years date to remove trade lines. Only if the data furnisher is reporting an inaccurate date to the CRA will the CRA be accorded flexibility up to 180 days to remove. If the data furnisher is reporting accurately, the CRA must remove at the seven yr mark. See FTC opinion letter to Johnson: "The additional 180 day period accords a measure of flexibility to credit bureaus whose furnishers may provide them with the wrong date. However, the expansion of the time period that Section 605 allows chargeoffs and similar actions to be reported accents the desirability of treating the "commencement" of the delinquency as the first missed payment -- not some later date that would further extend the period." If the data furnisher is reporting inaccurately, the consumer should get that corrected if he/she wants their TLs to age correctly.
To be honest, it doesn't make sense to report:
My SLs are the only TLs on which the date of status and the date last reported do not match (EXP), probably because I disputed them until they changed the status back to the original status date. Even tho the status date is not supposed to mean anything, and doesn't as far as reporting period goes, too many consumers have realized that it affects FICO -- which is why I was not content to let EXP change it on my SLs.
I am always reading horror stories abt the reporting by SL data furnishers. Nonetheless, I have not been reticent abt disputing/arguing the TLs with my lenders/guarantors nor abt pointing out their FCRA and/or FDCPA violations. They can soon pay off my loans for me.
Any monthly late pays reflected in acct history will fall off at the seven yr anniversary of that missed pmt. (I have been successful in getting the lates deleted on closed/paid SLs via disputes.) The guarantor TL will usually fall off at seven yrs fm claim date (for govt backed SLs), but could also be seven yrs fm the date the TL was first reported (per HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1080a).
OTOH, according to the CRAs, my estimated date for removal of original lender TLs coincides with DOFD, just like non SL TLs. Again, I think it is YMMV.
Actually, the CRAs don't have an additional 6 months after the 7 years date to remove trade lines. Only if the data furnisher is reporting an inaccurate date to the CRA will the CRA be accorded flexibility up to 180 days to remove. If the data furnisher is reporting accurately, the CRA must remove at the seven yr mark. See FTC opinion letter to Johnson: "The additional 180 day period accords a measure of flexibility to credit bureaus whose furnishers may provide them with the wrong date. However, the expansion of the time period that Section 605 allows chargeoffs and similar actions to be reported accents the desirability of treating the "commencement" of the delinquency as the first missed payment -- not some later date that would further extend the period." If the data furnisher is reporting inaccurately, the consumer should get that corrected if he/she wants their TLs to age correctly.
To be honest, it doesn't make sense to report:
- Terms: 36 months
Monthly Payment: $0
IF your guarantor is TGSLC, then yes, they do report the payments monthly. BUT they are the exception, not the rule. Mine also reported "Paid as agreed" after three monthly payments that were ontime.
The thing is, TGSLC does a LOT of things that others do not.
The thing is, TGSLC does a LOT of things that others do not.
QUOTE(TxQuiltGirl @ Jun 13 2006, 09:35 AM) 
IF your guarantor is TGSLC, then yes, they do report the payments monthly. BUT they are the exception, not the rule. Mine also reported "Paid as agreed" after three monthly payments that were ontime.
The thing is, TGSLC does a LOT of things that others do not.
The thing is, TGSLC does a LOT of things that others do not.
NYHESC reports monthly pmts for me.
edited to say: should have sd ALSO. both TG and NY report monthly pmts.
Also, today, the last of the lates were removed fm all other student loans that are/have been pd in full, now reporting pd as agreed never late. it was just the one 7500 loan left with a couple of 30 day lates but it's nice to see those deleted finally!
I don't know, macuser, it may be one of those YMMV things because I've seen it both ways, ya know?
QUOTE(TxQuiltGirl @ Jun 14 2006, 08:47 AM)
I don't know, macuser, it may be one of those YMMV things because I've seen it both ways, ya know?
Right, that's what I'm thinking also, TxQuiltGirl. Of course, I've disputed nine ways to Sunday until I think they have begun to make every effort to report "accurately" - maybe just to get me to let them go back to their desk jobs.
On a positive note: Finally, finally, it looks like, per the online reports, my latest round of disputes may have removed all of EQ's Current Status 120+ days late from my closed/paid/zero balance loans.
Can't wait for my hard copies to arrive so I can confirm!
I'm guessing you are fm Tx based on yr moniker. Do you also quilt? One of my favorite pastimes, altho I don't always get to devote as much time as I'd like to it! And also born and raised in Tx.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.