Jump to content

LadyRelm2

Members
  • Content Count

    1,674
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Great! Good to know that.... I was concerned that it would report as a new account. They seem to report a month behind so I'm not sure WHEN they will report the new account. This month, maybe? Either way, I will be watching... I was just concerned that the monitoring tagged it as "new, potentially damaging information" and when I looked it was marked "Closed." there is no balance being reported though...
  2. About a month ago, I tried to log into Orchard to pay my bill but was unable. At first I thought it was a computer glitch, but after trying at various different computers in different locations - no luck. So I called Orchard and they told me that my account had been suspended due to "suspicious activity" on my card. They asked me about a $.05 charge which I confirmed was NOT anything I had approved or knew about. They flagged the account as "Lost or Stolen," shut down the account, and immediately issued me a new card. I was glad they caught the suspicious activity and went on my merry way....until I got a notice from credit monitoring that I had "New, potentially damaging information" on my CR. I logged in to check my account and learned that the "New, potentially damaging information" was that Orchard (HSBC) had marked my card "Lost and/or Stolen" and CLOSED my account. I've had that credit card account since 2004 and it had a PERFECT history on it. For the most part, I never use the card so it had a zero balance on it. Just by chance, I had used it in October to pay for conference fees so I currently had a balance on it. So, now I'm trying to determine how this will affect my credit. Will Orchard (HSBC) transfer the history to my new card? Or will they list the new card like a new account? I will be PI$$ED if this drops my credit score. My current FICOs are in the 740s - 750s. These are scores I've worked HARD to maintain as I've been out of work since June!! If Orchard/HSBC does post the new card as a new account, do I have a legitimate argument to make them transfer the history? How is this typically handled??? Thanks!
  3. About a month ago, I tried to log into Orchard to pay my bill but was unable. At first I thought it was a computer glitch, but after trying at various different computers in different locations - no luck. So I called Orchard and they told me that my account had been suspended due to "suspicious activity" on my card. They asked me about a $.05 charge which I confirmed was NOT anything I had approved or knew about. They flagged the account as "Lost or Stolen," shut down the account, and immediately issued me a new card. I was glad they caught the suspicious activity and went on my merry way....until I got a notice from credit monitoring that I had "New, potentially damaging information" on my CR. I logged in to check my account and learned that the "New, potentially damaging information" was that Orchard (HSBC) had marked my card "Lost and/or Stolen" and CLOSED my account. I've had that credit card account since 2004 and it had a PERFECT history on it. For the most part, I never use the card so it had a zero balance on it. Just by chance, I had used it in October to pay for conference fees so I currently had a balance on it. So, now I'm trying to determine how this will affect my credit. Will Orchard (HSBC) transfer the history to my new card? Or will they list the new card like a new account? I will be PI$$ED if this drops my credit score. My current FICOs are in the 740s - 750s. These are scores I've worked HARD to maintain as I've been out of work since June!! If Orchard/HSBC does post the new card as a new account, do I have a legitimate argument to make them transfer the history? How is this typically handled??? Thanks!
  4. Any updates??? Would love to know how court went.
  5. Thanks LKH!! Is IDare still around these parts??? I'd love to ask some questions.... First, the CRA has not said anything about the tradeline being suppressed. They are specifically stating that no such tradeline exists on my account AND that they have no record of Slimebag Co "X" ever pulling my credit report. However, I do have a copy of my online report directly from the CRA website that shows the tradeline as clear as day. I read through the posts that IDare had on suppression ( http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=175406&hl=suppress&st=25 for those following at home) and her posts mention that the DF can do the suppressing without the CRA evening knowing it. However, one would logically assume if the DF is doing the suppressing that the item is still visible to the CRA? Secondly, wouldn't the CRA still be liable to tell me which potential creditors viewed my report with this bogus data on it? Let's use a hypothetical situation to analyze the liability. Let's say CA#1 put a collection on my report for Joe Smith and I am NOT Joe Smith. Let's say as a result of this collection, I am denied a mortgage or a credit card. Now, let's say CA#1 realizes I am NOT Joe Smith and removes the collection from my record before I have the opportunity to dispute it with the CRA. Is the CRA not liable to tell me which mortgage company or credit card company reviewed my file when Joe Smith's collection was erroneously on my credit report???
  6. Still no resolution on this (for those still following it). They haven't posted an update since August, but it looks like there are plaintiff's who are not cool with the settlement. Wish I had access to better records on these hearings. I would love to be in that courtroom to hear what's going on... Should be interesting. My husband and I are both on the settlement list along with thousands of others, I'm sure. I'm not expecting a check really, but it would be a nice surprise if one came before Christmas! Just kidding....I'm not holding my breath on getting ANYTHING out of this.
  7. Yep, beli! You hit it.... I have not worked in the credit industry for 5 years (I used to write computer algorithms for credit scoring related to insurance), but I am damn near GUARANTEE you that what this attorney is telling me is WRONG. I know that this data was regularly backed up at least 5 years ago. They DON'T just "throw it away" and it is irretrievable. Can you imagine the liability if they DID? What I'm interested to know is if Equifax is willing to make that statement in writing and in court. If so, God help them.... I may just have to file suit against them too....just for that stupidity.
  8. Again, it comes down to the payment arrangements that were made. In our case, it was agreed that a stipulation of the new terms that if we made the payments according to the new agreement, the slate would be wiped clean FOR ALL PAYMENTS GOING FORWARD. This "clean slate" did not apply to anything prior to the arrangement. So contrary to the posted belief, my DH did not have a clean credit report for simply setting up an arrangement. However, that does not give BOA (or any creditor) the right to continue reporting lates when the card holder is meeting the new terms and conditions of the card. As I stated above, in case someone missed it: asically what it comes down to is if a renegotiation of the terms of your account applies to a change in terms and conditions of your account under federal banking laws. If they agree to new terms and you abide by those new terms, you cannot be marked as late. In the OP's case and my DH's case, they were sent the terms via letter. They abided by those terms. Regardless of what the old terms were, they were meeting the new requirements. You can't mark someone late who is following a contract.
  9. After having been through a BK, I am leery of racking up any credit card debt. I currently have about $5K of CC debt to my name and most of that is the new $3500 Tempurpedic bed that I bought a month ago (on a store CitiFinancial, no less). The only reason why I even applied to the Citibank card was because of the 21 month 0% interest on balance transfers. Well, the BT and the fact that I would love to dump Crap One. To me, the 0% BT was enough of a "reward" for me to want to apply.... I'm not sure what to make of the BK thing with Citi. They DID approve my husband for a $5800 CL and he has BK on his record too (unless they pulled his TU which does not contain the BK record - I'll have to look....). But he did not BK on THEM because he never had a card with them or was an AU on my card with them.
  10. CSC legal stopped short of telling me, officially, that they do not keep records of data that a creditor posts to a report and then later removes. They are telling me, although not officially YET in writing, that they cannot make any verification that Slimebag Co. X ever posted something to my credit report and then later removed it. They also said they cannot tell me WHO (as in potential other creditors) might have seen the tradeline on my report when it WAS there. As someone who has worked in this industry...I'm really having a hard time believing these statements. We'll see what they want to put on record in court, eh?
  11. They are paying the full amt of renegotiated payment, but it may be below the standard 1.5% or 2% of balance they charge the rest of us. Its basically down to, if you are in trouble and can't afford normal payments, should the reduced payments you do make count as late? On one hand, you are not making the full payments so they are correct in reporting lates - but on the other, the lender agreed to a reduced payment plan (generally with a reduced interest rate, removal of late fees, and possibly balance reduction). I can certainly see the lenders side - why should they help someone who can't pay their bill have perfect credit? At least during the payment plan, the lates should be expected- they were for people in trial periods for HAMP. toopooor, Basically what it comes down to is if a renegotiation of the terms of your account applies to a change in terms and conditions of your account under federal banking laws. If they agree to new terms and you abide by those new terms, you cannot be marked as late. In the OP's case and my DH's case, they were sent the terms via letter. They abided by those terms. Regardless of what the old terms were, they were meeting the new requirements. You can't mark someone late who is following a contract.
  12. Ironically, EQ's outside legal counsel responded within 24 hours.... We'll see how long it takes to get my discovery docs, eh?
  13. I get the picture and its good advice. Think outside the box...

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines