Jump to content

HoustonLynne

Members
  • Posts

    5224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HoustonLynne

  1. OP, I don't know if this helps you, but I learned that Sallie Mae's policy is to NOT report you late until you're 90 days late -- it's basically an unofficial grace period to help us avoid wrecking our FICO. I don't know how long this has been the policy, but here's a paragraph from a letter I received in the past 60 days from Sallie Mae when I contacted them about late payments reported in 2012: Federal regulations require lenders to report the status of the student loans they hold to at least one national credit bureau a minimum of every 90 days. In order to avoid unnecessary confusion and damage to the borrower‘s credit history, it is recommended that lenders wait until a borrower is at least 60 days delinquent before reporting that borrower to a credit bureau. However, Sallie Mae does not report a valid delinquency on a Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loan until the 90th day of delinquency.
  2. BW, you're making my lil heart go pitter-patter cuz ONE more week will get rid of the LAST of 15...! I've skated under the radar for months with only EC (and a few random stray 3-pullers) but I feel C* in my future way down in my bones! :/
  3. Just thought I should back up and go through all the "Start Here" steps -- been lurking and meandering through this info off and on for quite a while. So...Hi, CB Peeps! First, you guys ROCK. This is like a 12-Step Program (or in my case, perhaps 142-Step) for those with less-than-desirable credit. And you guys are so incredibly awesome for Paying it Forward! I feel like my brain is mush, and the compulsion I feel to consume info from these forums has me feeling like I'm chasing some illegal/illicit substance! LOL...information OVERLOAD. But I've made significant progress already, and some of it I didn't even intend. For instance, in my obsessive daily pulling of my reports on EC (to check for any effects from my DVs) landed me in B*-ville. Honestly, I really was a skeptic on the B* issue, since I was so new and it seemed so complex. But dumb luck got me there...down from 15 to 1, but there are 12 softs between me and that last one. Fingers crossed that I don't end up on the C* Block. I can feel it in my bones, though, that I'm gonna end up there. Anyway, I'm hoping to refinance an auto loan that I was GRATEFUL to get financed for 10% in December 2012, but that rate still costs me A LOT of money in interest. And I hope to stop renting and purchase my very first home sometime next year. Thanks so much for being here for us Newbs...Happy Score Elevating!
  4. I had a question about the address thing, now that you mention it. My name is rather unique, and I HAVE moved, but only to a different apartment number at the same address. Very slim chance of anyone else in Houston having my name, let alone in my complex. Would deleting help? Also, interesting turn of events: I contacted my former insurance provider that was billed for these invoices 4 yrs. ago. EoBs are on the way by mail. The healthcare provider should have billed for the PPO discounted rate on the 2 remaining invoices, even though the diagnosis wasn't covered. So they may be in breach of contract, according to the rep. My math tells me that I owe these jokers $102.80...NOT the $284 they have reported via 3 TLs on my reports! Grrr... It was a stark reminder that we gotta do our homework, folks!
  5. Thank you so much for your reply, WhyChat. I hear you, and I was afraid that I needed to start over. But just to clarify, the reporting CA is Receivable Solutions Specialists, Inc. When I called the OC (Concentra Urgent Care) yesterday, before I even identified myself, I asked the guy in billing if they are currently collecting through Receivable Solutions Specialists in Natchez, MS. The guy said yes, we are using their services. I asked him if MY past-due invoices were sent to them, and that’s when he asked me the account # or invoice #. I gave him an invoice number, and that’s when he said that particular invoice was later (after being sent to RSSI) settled by my insurance. But he DID confirm that my other 2 outstanding invoices are being handled by Receivable Solutions Specialists, Inc. So if I start at the top in 60 days, and I find that all is clear for me to pay the OC directly, using your HIPAA letter and Insert A, should I pay… Only the 2 invoices that are outstanding in the OC system? ($87 x2 = $174) Or… Could I pay the $174 PLUS another $20 that was written off on the 3rd invoice? (They wrote off $20 as being too small for collections. The $20 was what my insurance applied to my deductible and then paid the rest.) The reason I’m asking is because the OC assumes there are only 2 invoices being serviced by RSSI (the CA), because the OC was paid by insurance AFTER the account was sent to collections. By including that 3rd invoice, even though it doesn’t technically show a balance in the OC’s system, I have a reason to bring UP that invoice. Otherwise, the OC will only communicate a PAID status on 2 of the 3 that the CA is reporting. They don’t realize that the CA is still reporting obsolete info on a 3rd invoice. And I would hate for them to technically have a leg to stand on with that 3rd invoice, based on the fact that they (the OC) wrote off $20 as uncollectible. Does that make sense…?
  6. I've been hanging around CB for a few months and have made significant progress, but I admit that I didn't follow a very organized Game Plan. I've learned SO much, but I also made the mistake of following only bits-n-pieces of the advice I've seen on here along the way. Now I find myself somewhere in the middle of dealing with several medical collections, and I'm hoping that WhyChat The Wise & Wonderful can help me salvage something from the (albeit haphazard) work I've already invested. Go easy on me, WC...I'm a noob! Please keep in mind that I started the DV process on all collections before I found WhyChat's Method, and I was having success with the low-hanging fruit. But now I'm stuck on a few pesky ones from a total of 3 CAs. This post will focus on only ONE of those CAs, who lists 3 TLs showing in varying combinations on all 3 CRAs. It's also the only one that... 1. I KNOW is mine (actually, there are 3 small accounts listed by one CA, all from same OC) 2. I can pay in full immediately (under $200 combined total) 3. I have confirmed the CA is in a current relationship with the OC (I spoke to the billing dept of OC today. I KNOW...BAD idea, but it turned out to be a GOOD thing in this case. I'll explain in a moment.) Here are a few facts: A. The TLs are for an urgent care clinic (2 separate locations in a national chain) B. The dates of service are 8/2009 & 9/2009 C. I'm in Texas -- SOL is 4 years, so I'm up now & the end of next month D. I had some really crappy insurance at the time that denied more than 50% of all claims for a full year b/c they hadn't received an affidavit I sent regarding pre-existing conditions. After a year of this, I finally got to the bottom of it and they went back and re-processed about 2 dozen claims (labwork, imaging, specialists, etc.) that they previously denied. (This is important to the story!) Here's the scoop: I spoke to the OC today, because the CA validated when I disputed a couple of months ago. Actually, they sent several screen shots from the patient invoicing system of the OC, which listed my insurance info and itemized my diagnosis and all billing activity. BUT since there's no date on the documentation that indicates they obtained it from the OC RECENTLY, I wanted to be sure, as the debts are 4 years old. So I called the corporate office of the OC and spoke to the billing department. The guy was super nice and gave me his direct number to call back if I need to. Here's what I learned from Jim in Patient Accounting: 1. The largest of the 3 "outstanding invoices" listed by the CA ($110) was PAID by my insurance carrier at a later date, with the exception of $20 of it that was applied to my deductible. And they wrote off the $20 b/c it was too minimal to assign to collections. So that one is null, unless I want to pay that $20 on principle (which I'm seriously considering doing, and that's part of my upcoming question.) 2. I DID ask him if he can send me anything in writing that shows that invoice for $110 as being "paid" (bearing in mind that the $20 was written off,) but I really don't think he was listening because he was busy keying around to confirm the info he had just given me. He was clearly "thinking out loud" of how he could best help me. (see #4 below) 3. The remaining 2 invoices are for $87 each, and they were for something that I am certain was NOT covered by my crappy insurance. 4. He said I can pay them (OC) directly if I want to, but he cautioned me that he has no way to remove the reporting from my CRA reports. He said the only thing he, personally, can do is take a payment if I choose to do that, and then he will "email the lady who handles Texas" (whatever that means) and let her know I've paid the 2 delinquent accounts and that the other one is reported in error. But he never claimed that his email would result in any specific CRA action. Of course, I graciously declined his offer and told him I'll call back if I have any other questions. So now for the question: Should I pay the OC (with bank-issued cashier's check) and use insert A for ONLY the two invoices THEY show as still due, and also insert B for billing error on the $110 invoice (except that I don't HAVE proof of payment, since he only told me via phone today that it was paid)...? Keep in mind that when I gave that invoice number to Jim today, he was really confused because he saw immediately that it had a $0 balance on his end. So the OC had no idea that the CA was reporting that one in error. Or would it be okay for me to use only insert A and INCLUDE (b/c technically I owed it to them before they washed it off their hands) the $20 that they wrote off (ins. applied to my deductible) and make a note of that in the itemization of what the payment includes? Would doing this be a bad move for some unknown (to me) reason, with respect to having these totally deleted after they're paid in full? Of course, I would send the CRA follow-up letters, as well...and follow the rest of your instructions. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer me!
  7. This is my very first post on the boards, although I've been studying them for several weeks. Please go easy on me...I'm a noob. So that no one feels they have to start right at the top for me, please know that I've learned that a retroactive forbearance does NOT remove reported lates (although there's some disagreement as to whether that's legal.) I've disputed and had no success. I also sent GW letters with no luck, yet. I'm dealing with 2 different lenders, but let's focus on one at a time, starting with the one that has 2 TLs and, therefore, harms my score more. Citibank was the original lender of my consolidation loans in 2002. Both TLs are listed as late March-July 2011 (30-150 days.) They were sold in August 2011, immediately after I was approved for a retroactive forbearance (Jan. 2011-Jan 2012) Disputes didn't help. I sent a GW letter a month ago with no acknowledgement. I also emailed the Citigroup VP of Corporate Ops Compliance, and he hasn't acknowledged my email in 48 hours (but I didn't necessarily expect him to.) I know that Citibank pretty much disbanded their SL customer center, and their online site is routed to Discover (although my loans were federal and went to Sallie Mae.) But I called the Citibank Student Loan Customer Care number today to ask for a history of my loan activity, specifically for documentation of the dates I was in forbearance. I was told that they no longer have any of that info -- they sold it WITH the loans back in 2012. So she said I'd have to call Sallie Mae for that info, as it belongs to them now. But she also cautioned me that when I call SLM I will most likely be told by a 1st-line CSR that they ALSO don't have that info. She instructed me to ask for a supervisor so that he/she could order that info to be retrieved from archives. I also asked her why the Citibank TLs hadn't been updated since March of this year, and she said they are no longer reporting that info to the CRAs. Hmmm...okay. So what happens if I ask for a re-investigation by CRA...?? (I last disputed more than a year ago.) So my question is...what is my best course of action here...? Ask for re-investigation by CRA? Dealing with Salie Mae is maddening, and Citibank just basically told me they washed their hands of all of it when they sold the loans (although they contiuned to report for several more months.) While we're at it, let's also cover what I learned from SLM in response to my GW letter to the Office of the Customer Advocate, because there's a question after item #3 on the list below. I was later in the same situation in 2012 with Sallie Mae (only 1 TL, retro forbearance...all this was serious medical stuff) and have a 90 & 120 day late. I sent a GW letter via email and received a reply that was rather standard, but I learned three (3) things: 1. Sallie Mae doesn't report to the CRA until you're 90 days late. 2. They are required to report to "at least one of the CRAs" and update every 90 days. 3. Their policy requires that they "report the last 24 months of account activity." (Does this mean I can dispute after 24 mos and they'll no longer verify?) So that's it...sorry so long, but it's a convoluted thing. And I hope the two (2) questions in my post are not too burried. Many thanks in advance...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines