"included in bk" notation - required ?

[LadynRed]

I think I saw a thread about this subject recently, but my searches don't yield anything I *thought* I read before. Am I losing my marbles ?? Today may be my 47th b'day, but I don't think the "senior moments" are kicking in yet.. LOL

 

If I am losing my mind.. can you enlighten me on whether or not this kind of notation post-bankruptcy is required for an entry to be accurate ?

A person has an FUSA account that, after discharge, is STILL being reported as a charge-off, but does NOT say 'included in bankruptcy', and they verified this on dispute !

 

Isn't this, at the least, INACCURATE reporting and therefore a violation of the FCRA ??

 

Any input or links to the thread I may or may not have imagined would be greatly appreciated !

[NanaSi]

And,yes, that is inaccurate reporting!

[hodag]

this just happened to me also and am wondering what to do about it. i would rather have it "included in bk" than a chargeoff with a balance still due.

[juliedealer]

Happy "menopause is lookin you in the face!" excuse me but these days this is all I can think about!

 

Julie

[NanaSi]

ewwwwwwwwwwww....bad visual........

[piggycat]

Ladies!!!!!!

 

hormones!!!! go get some hormones! not the synthetic ones, go natural which reduces the risks tremendously...... the estrogen patch is WONDERFUL! :wink:

 

ok, I too have this BK mess where they are reporting charge off and balances due. I am jsut now starting to dispute these. I have yet to get anything removed or corrected....... still waiting. :roll:

 

any suggestions???????

 

filed aug 2001

dischged nov 2001

 

fico is 640 and climbing.......

 

and got a 30 yr fixrd rated fha mortgage at 6 % on in december 2002!!! :shock:

 

cheers,

 

piggycat 8)

[crofttk]

Pardon the intrusion ladies.

 

I just wanted to say to piggycat, I am reliving my past here in Houston this week (business trip). Although I told you I am a dual citizen, I'm afraid my Yankee blood has a shorter memory and I stayed in with the air conditioner cranked up all day today !

 

Here's an FTC Opinion letter relevant to OP's question: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/lovern51.htm

 

I wouldn't show a CRA or OC this one, but this letter kind of counterbalances the one above:http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/mccorkel.htm

[piggycat]

crofttk,

 

darling, we all stay in the AC in Houston!!!! agh, it is like taking a shower when you walk out the door.

 

cowtown is much better. still hot!!!

 

thnaks I will check out the links,

 

cheers,

 

piggycat 8)

[LadynRed]

Thank you all for the b'day wishes .. and for the links.

 

I guess the charge-off notation, since it IS charged-off is accurate.. but by NOT reporting that it was also included in bankruptcy its still an inaccurate entry.

 

Ok.. so does the person threaten FUSA with FCRA violation for NOT adding the bankruptcy notation ??

[piggycat]

Everything I have read on this board and others, is that the CRA's are supposed to report included in BK 7 (or whatever it is) that is it. once you file the stay kicks in and they cannot report derogatory info after filing.

 

Experts, is this correct?

 

There has been discussion about the reporting once the BK is discharged. Some have spectulated that it is detramental to the consumer to even report the BK as discharged at this point. this is based on the intent of the BK laws.... to give the consumer a fresh start.

 

the other thought is that it should read BK 7 discharged and date. Nothing more.

 

My CRs are reporting different conditions on each account. charge offs, collections, late pays........

 

and I NEVER was late, or had charge offs, or collections.... this occurred after I filed and some after discharged, as my co-debtor never filed bk and got stuck with all the accounts.

 

I am OPEN for suggestions and guidence from the guru's around here.

 

cheers,

 

piggycat 8)

[cjsmom]

Everything I have read on this board and others, is that the CRA's are supposed to report included in BK 7 (or whatever it is) that is it. once you file the stay kicks in and they cannot report derogatory info after filing.

 

Experts, is this correct?

 

There has been discussion about the reporting once the BK is discharged. Some have spectulated that it is detramental to the consumer to even report the BK as discharged at this point. this is based on the intent of the BK laws.... to give the consumer a fresh start.

 

the other thought is that it should read BK 7 discharged and date. Nothing more.

 

My CRs are reporting different conditions on each account. charge offs, collections, late pays........

 

and I NEVER was late, or had charge offs, or collections.... this occurred after I filed and some after discharged, as my co-debtor never filed bk and got stuck with all the accounts.

 

I am OPEN for suggestions and guidence from the guru's around here.

 

cheers,

 

piggycat 8)

 

Hi Piggycat, we talked about these issues on this thread:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...3551&highlight=

 

Your first statement in your post is what I've often heard also, but WHERE this is to prove our case no one seems to know. Links are on this thread (and Thanks to Crofttk for posting them on this one too! :wink: ) to the two conflicting FTC letters, unfortunately, the latter one is the one that doesn't help us at all.

 

From what I understand from reading posts on bankruptcy boards is basically that the automatic stay serves to prohibit them from actually proceeding with collection of the debt, so they can't send us bills or keep calling etc. I don't know that it says they can't still "report" lates etc. It's just attributed to their "record keeping". Otherwise I think we would have had someone successfully fight that one by now with something solid to stand on.

 

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl...ter_first_match

 

I've tried disputing specifics on my IIB accounts (sounds like I have all the same stuff you have!) and have had no luck but others have probably been more persistent and have gotten them to change the reporting and delete these other notations (How specifically they did it I don't know but believe me, I've asked!! ). I even tried a direct letter to Discover because they have it listed as "petition for ch. 7 BK/Chg off". The dates are all wrong also. They just flat out ignored me. :x I don't think there's any one way to proceed with these except to just keep at the disputes, maybe try the letter with the FTC opinion in favor of it, but who knows, maybe someday we'll get this one figured out!

 

Experian is the thorn in my side, they seem to list so much detail on everything. EQ and TU are just simple "included in bk" with no lates etc. Weird.

 

I think it's good to keep rehashing this though, and just keep being persistent in your disputes. I'm just hoping they'll give up at some point, not verify and just delete.

 

Cjsmom

[Alex]

LadynRed

 

If an account was discharged through CH 7 BK, then both the CRA's and the OC's are in violation of the FCRA. When you dispute with a CRA, they just have their computers contact the computers at the OC. If the account comes back verified, what that is telling you is the account is being incorrectly reported in the computer at the OC.

 

The way the accounts should be reported is "account included in bankruptcy" with Equifax, "chapter 7 bankruptcy / unrated", with Trans Union, and "discharged through chapter 7 / debt included in chapter 7 bankruptcy" with Experian. 8)

 

Also, some of these accounts will be reported as "closed at credit granters request." I have no idea if this is correct but when I have disputed it, it has come off most of the time.

 

What I have done is to write a mild letter of complaint to the OC asking them to have the credit bureau delete the account or report the account properly. Ask them to send you a letter stating they have done so. Send it CMRRR and keep a photo copy of the letter. Then, if the creditor does not reply, complain to the states attorney generals office in the state the company works out of and the Better Business Bureau. Complain that they are in violation of the FCRA. If the OC is a NA (national bank), also, write a letter to the Office of Comptroller of the currency.

 

http://www.bbb.org

 

http://www.thecomplaintstation.com/stateattorneys.htm

 

http://www.occ.treas.gov/customer.htm

 

The idea is that if you dispute with a CRA, they may manually change the account to the correct status but the negative will remain. Now, later on, you dispute the account again. The account gets changed back into a charge off. You have gained nothing.

 

My idea here is that because the debt is discharged the OC has no motivation to be in violation of the FCRA. If you make enough trouble for the OC the OC may give up and tell the CRA's to delete the account.

 

I have had good luck using this tactic myself. There is a good chance the creditor will ask the CRA's to delete the account and send you later stating that. If you get such a letter, keep the envelope it came in. If the CRA's do not respond, you can send a copy of the letter and envelope to the CRA's and they should delete the account.

[NanaSi]

It's inaccurate! Period! What are the facts? This account was included in BK...therefore, it must be reported correctly as included in BK. Boom-da-da-boom...the end (I don't know where that just came from!)

 

Well, we have heat AND Dust...dust, dust, dust, cement, and dust!

[crofttk]

Yep. Definitely inaccurate !

 

Erik's tactic, in similar form, worked for us to get the one last stubborn IIB account removed from DW's TU file which was a duplicate of the original IIB account which was already reported IIB. Infuriating thing was this account was shown as real estate account foreclosed when the account it duplicated was an IIB unsecured Line of Credit account !

 

Anyways, I do think a reference to the Lovern FTC Opinion letter reinforces your position when writing to the OC to get them to cease their inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading reporting to CRAs.

[pearlsgirl]

I posted a topic about this, but this thread seems to be getting more hits. so I'll see what everyone has to say....

 

The OP's question relates to the reporting of the original creditor.....what about secondary creditors, like CAs and attorneys? The debts with the OCs do reflect "Included in BK" on the CRs, but all the CAs show as "Open/Late Payment." All were included in the filing/discharge. Is this legal?

 

Sorry to hijack, but I'm new here and don't even know where to begin. This is all very daunting.

[crofttk]

Heck no ! If those accounts were included in a BK7 filing, the CA's and attorneys (possibly OC too when they sold the account) are violating the automatic stay against further collection activity !

 

I just can't get over how OC's continue to report late, charge-off, etc. as if: 1) They just want to vindictively casue you all the harm they can assuming we're so ignorant of the law we'll never hold them to account for it, and 2) Even though they get notified when you file, they perpetuate the false existence of the debt, so they can fool the poor ignorant CA's into buying the accounts !

 

BTW, I also think Bank United did this with me and DW's accounts, although IIB, they misrepresented the accounts to WaMu to inflate their value when WaMu acquired them back in 2000 or so, thus the inaccurate duplicate reporting of these accounts as foreclosed real estate !

[NanaSi]

Is this legal?

 

Sorry to hijack, but I'm new here and don't even know where to begin. This is all very daunting.

 

Nope, not legal!

 

Welcome! Just take it one step at a time, that's what worked for me.

[pearlsgirl]

So then, what is the first step? Dispute? Validation? Or, damn the torpedoes and bring in the Nutcase series?

 

I'm so lost....

[crofttk]

Sorry for the OT interjection:

 

Nana, you have just got to be the Queen of the Smilies !

What software are you using to make them do your bidding ?

[NanaSi]

I would first dispute with CRA..others may do it differently but that would be my approach! (has been my approach, actually!)

 

Queen of smilies!

[cjsmom]

The way the accounts should be reported is "account included in bankruptcy" with Equifax, "chapter 7 bankruptcy / unrated", with Trans Union, and "discharged through chapter 7 / debt included in chapter 7 bankruptcy" with Experian.

 

I agree, and that's my main question, WHERE does it say that it HAS to read this way? I've always heard the "zero balance, Discharged in Ch. XX and Closed".

 

Also, some of these accounts will be reported as "closed at credit granters request." I have no idea if this is correct but when I have disputed it, it has come off most of the time.

 

I have some of these too! What did you say to dispute?

 

 

 

Here's how mine look now and hubby has some of the same stuff on his (like Merrick claiming lates all the way through our case up to the discharge date and Fleet charging off the account).

 

 

Cap 1 - Reads as Discharged through BK Ch 7, 11, or 12

7/17/01 to 6/30/02 (Why it says June 02 I have no idea!!)

Status is Included in bk/never late.

Last time verified: 8/01

 

Citibank - Status IIB

Discharged through BK Ch 7, 11, or 12

7/31/01 to 7/31/02 (again I have no idea why it says though July 2002!) This one has "closed at credit grantors request".

Last time verified: 8/01

 

Discover - Petition for Ch 7 Bk/Acct charged off

History: Charged off as of 8/2001.

Last time verified 6.02

 

FUSA - Discharged thru BK ch.7/past due 90 days.

Has the "closed at credit grantors request".

Last time verified 10/2001.

 

Sears - IIB/never late.

Discharged through BK Ch 7, 11, or 12

7/17/01 to 7/24/02 (again those dates?? I don't get it!)

 

Should I try to dispute specifics again thru the CRA's and then go thru the OC's again? One item or all for each account? I said before, Discover and Merrick bank flat our ignored our letters but I didn't send copies to the SAG's in both states and I should have.

 

I'm way worse off than I thought!! :oops: Feeling pretty bummed out about now.....

 

Cjsmom

[NanaSi]

Don't be bummed out...it'll get better, you'll see!!

[Cascades]

Ok... here's one.

 

Had an Auto loan that I AFFIRMED in my BK7 and EQ is reporting it as "Included in Bankruptcy". Since I re-affirmed the loan, I made all of the remainder of the payments and kept the car. In other words, we excluded the car from the BK7.

 

I have sent two letters to EQ with no luck. I can't get them to understand that I paid on the contract and the account was in good standing. The OC didn't loose one penny in interest. How can I get EQ to report it as "paid as agreed' or to remove the damn TL?

 

EQ doesn't seem to want to budge on this.

 

Cas

[cjsmom]

Ok... here's one.

 

Had an Auto loan that I AFFIRMED in my BK7 and EQ is reporting it as "Included in Bankruptcy". Since I re-affirmed the loan, I made all of the remainder of the payments and kept the car. In other words, we excluded the car from the BK7.

 

I have sent two letters to EQ with no luck. I can't get them to understand that I paid on the contract and the account was in good standing. The OC didn't loose one penny in interest. How can I get EQ to report it as "paid as agreed' or to remove the damn TL?

 

EQ doesn't seem to want to budge on this.

 

Cas

 

Have you tried getting the lender to change that status of reporting? One of the main reasons people DO reaffirm is to have the history HELP them post discharge!

 

I'd start asking them why they didn't update correctly and demand that they do with Eq. Tell them you signed and filed that agreement specifically to REBUILD and you're right, it does eliminate your bk protection on that asset. It's like setting up a whole new contract.

 

Question: It was filed in the COURT and approved by your trustee right? Sometimes people get them signed etc, but they're never actually FILED and that leads people to assume it's been taken care of. You probably have a copy in your schedules of all your documents, or call the bk clerk's office and find out if one was filed.

 

You are right in fighting this one. It should be changed. The CRAs will report what they get so I'd try to get the creditor to fax them something with a change of verbage and status. It should be as if it was never affected by your bk. Paid/never late etc.

 

Cjsmom

[cjsmom]

Don't be bummed out...it'll get better, you'll see!!

 

Thank you Nanasi!! You've had to babysit me all day!!! I'm the "problem child" that's all!! :wink:

 

You guys have really helped me refocus today! You know how crazy us women can get at certain times!! I get too caught up in things! (As I sit here with credit reports strewn all around me!)

 

But now I feel calmer (was it Jerry Sienfeld -repeating "serenity now" LOL!!) and just plan to try it with that one FTC letter. Then I'll go on to the OC with the same game plan. Then in 6 months start all over!

 

Thanks Bunches!!

 

Cjsmom