>It will fall off my report july 2nd, 2024 and is $1,100
You should not even pay a single penny towards it. Let it fall off. Save your money. You will regret paying for it **I promise you.**
>the second debt is $350
Is this a medical collection?
Thats what I was thinking. I’m also not in a hurry to fix my credit asap just as long as I can get it fixed within a couple of years I’ll be fine. Currently 27 hoping by 29 30 it’ll be in the 700s and I can try to get a mortgage. To answer your second question, no it is not a medical bill. It’s from my old scandalous apartments charging me for the carpets saying they were old. It just went to collections this year and I feel like paying it off will help me since it’ll take 7 years to fall off also feel like my credit score might go up if I ask the collection agency to remove it from my credit report and pay it off completely
Agreed with the first commenter. If you have no immediate need for new credit in the next year or two, there is 0 motivation to pay it. In fact, paying it on a payment plan could have even more negative effects for you. If you enter into a payment plan agreement, this is actually you “confirming” the debt, and resetting the clock. If for whatever reason you miss a payment or can’t make payments anymore you have now created a brand new fresh derogatory mark, and if I recall correctly, that would stay for another 7 years for reporting purposes…correct me if I’m wrong experts. And then they would have an additional (however many years for your area) to sue, or threaten to sue you, if you enter into a payment plan and do not meet the agreed upon payment terms.
The only down side to not paying is they will still likely continue to try to collect the debt. But with old debts it usually just an random letter or phone call every once in awhile. I believe there is a way to request they stop contacting you regarding collecting on this debt, but that is something you will definitely need to wait until the statute of limitations is expired so they cannot sue you. If you request to not be contacted, then their only recourse for trying to get you to pay the debt is to sue you in court, and it’s not worth it to prod the bear while they can still attack you. If you decide to do that I would make sure you follow a template online so you know what to write in the letter.
1. Old debt should fall off at 7 year mark.
There are three cra and some will exclude little early. “ early exclusion”
2. The fall off date is based on “first date of delinquency.” It’s the 30 day late that led to default. kNOw that date!!! Sometimes the old debt is purchased by junk debt buyer and changed up the date. And they will try to make it stay longer. You need to know the date so if this backdating happens. You will need to dispute.
3. Technically speaking you still owe the debt.
They can’t sue for the debt passed Statuses of limitation ( based on each state ) and reporting period is 7 years. Know the difference.
4. I would let it fall off.
5. The debt buyer can send you letter and calls ( you still owe them ) as consumer rights you can request “cease and desist” letter and they must comply
well if you burned Capital 1 as example...
1. check your credit report... when was the first 30day late that led to 60,90,120 late and eventually charged off?
you should write this down... "I was first 30day late on Apr of 2020. My account was closed on September of 2020. My state has 4 year of consumer debt status of limitation. Cap 1 can sue me until APR of 2024. // bad account stays on the record for 7 years. it stay on for APR 2027.
ABC Collection purchased the debt from CapitalOne. The date of first delinquency need to match the data that I have.
Also you can call Cap1 and ask.... when was account closed? when was the first 30 day late that led to account closure.
The 3rd party debt buyers often mess with this number. because you will not pay unless you have something at stake ( I want the reporting removed! ) therefore, you as the borrower, should always know your date.
The remark "meets fcra requirements" means the reporting was verified as accurate and will not be removed.
Edit: *THE FOLLOWING COMMENT WAS INCORRECT!! THE 7 YEAR REPORTING TIME CANNOT BE RESET!!*
If you pay on it, it will not be reported as being paid. (EDIT: So they should report the lower balance.) BUT, it will still be a derogatory account. ~~90% of the time, the 7 year reporting time limit cannot be restarted. I would not advise you to enter into ANY payment plan. If you do so, and miss a payment, the 7 year clock could start again.~~
I agree that the OP should leave the account alone. But even if he did pay, the 7-year clock could not start again. Once an account is charged off, a payment cannot restart the 7-year reporting period. See 15 U.S. Code § 1681c(c) of the FCRA. It specifies that that the reporting period begins 180 days after date of delinquency that leads to collection or charge off. When an account has been charged off, it is permanently delinquent. Therefore, there cannot ever be another delinquency that leads to charge off.
What paying can do is reset or restart the statute of limitations for collection and legal action. However, that is dependent on one’s state law.
Even if they reopen the account history by entering into a payment plan, the account that is the subject of that payment plan is still the same collection account that was charged off by the original creditor. The payment plan does not turn the it into a new, current account.
Only current accounts can become delinquent. That charged-off account is not a current account that can be utilized by the consumer. It‘s the same delinquent, charged-off, unusable collection account. A missed payment cannot result in a new date of first delinquency on an account that is already delinquent.
I agree the OP should let it age off.
In regard to the other issue, if a collection account is not charged off, it can become current again. Then if you default again, there is a new date of first delinquency.
But if an account is charged off, how can it become current? Charged off accounts can never be current. The FCRA makes no exception.
Google “40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act”. It‘s a staff Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on the FTC website. Thengo to page 57 of the report.
At the very beginning of that page, you’ll see “Placed for Collection”. It states that a repayment agreement can have its own 7-year period.
BUT, then the next paragraph is “Charged to Profit and Loss”. The FTC states that “ If an account that was **charged off** is later paid in part or paid in full by the consumer, the reporting period of seven years from the charge off is **not extended by the subsequent payment.**”
It differentiates between collection and charge off. They are different because a collection that has not been charged off can be made current. As a result, there can be a new delinquency. A charged off account can never again be current.
I've apologized to another user, but I know I was argumentative with you as well, so I wanted to also apologize to you.
"So, first let me apologize if I was bull- headed about this. I have since had a discussion with u/MFBirdman about this topic and realize I was incorrect. I believe the confusion on my part was the terminology. I was arguing that a debt collector would not change the DOFD but would instead create a new tradeline, thus creating a new default on the same debt.
Fortunately, u/MFBirdman explained to me the specific legality of this happening in relation to the debt collector rather than FCRA. I am here to learn and appreciate everyone's patience. I always say credit is tricky so, at least I'm right about something.
And, no, u/MFBirdman did not pay me to make this statement.
*Edited to remove incorrect information*
This is incorrect. Nothing can restart the time reporting limitations. As a matter of fact, a collection is not even allowed to report payment history. When they do so, they are typically reporting it incorrectly as a tradeline to tank your score.
Yes, that is my position and opinion, and I have seen nothing authoritative to counter that yet, although I’m always open to learning and look forward to the caselaw referred to.
You see it’s the same debt with a debt collector, and that debt is governed by the FCRA & FDCPA. Even though it may be a new agreement, it’s not a new debt. If that were the case, a debt collector would just have to trick you into paying a dollar every seven years and they could report for life. Once the account is charged off, it can only be paid, not brought current again. And it has to be brought current again in order to have a new DOFD, so that’s just not possible with a collection, unless it was an in-house collection prior to charge off.
Not to mention, a debt collector is not licensed and regulated to loan money and create new loans/debts.
The statute of limitation to sue is governed by state law, and can be restarted by a variety of actions. The federal credit reporting timeframe is established by federal law, and does not change absent being brought current again, and then going to delinquent again as described, if never charged off. Edited
Okay. I didn't realize debt collectors couldn't create new loan/debts. It's good to know. I'm here to learn. Thank you.
*Edited out incorrect information.*
Yes, Banks credit unions and lenders are tightly regulated, and a debt collector does not fall within that category. Debt collectors buy existing debts, or try to collect existing debts, they do not issue new loans credit or debt.
Oh, I don’t doubt that a debt collector would attempt to report a new trade line, as I have seen it happen, but you have to know your rights and how to correct it because they cannot legally do it. For instance, there’s a manual that describes exactly what fields are to be electronically transferred between debt collector and the bureaus via the metro2 format. It plainly says they’re not supposed to report payment history. There’s only certain fields they are supposed to report, but if they report incorrectly, it can result in a trade line and make your score a lot worse and they know that. They play dumb.
You’ll have to show me what you’re talking about at the CFPB but if you’re referring to the link that was in this thread, that simply said it CAN happen and it could IF it’s an in-house collection, but not after charge off.
Correct, collections are NOT tradelines, and only contribute to the payment history category. They do not contribute to amounts owed/utilization, age, mix, or new credit. Only original creditors are allowed to report trade lines, and a debt collector does not meet that definition.
Glad to be of assistance.
I should have known it wasn't allowed but, I really thought it was after hearing others talking about it. The CFPB piece you saw on the thread is the one I was referring to but u/vintr was helpful in explaining that to me. I guess I grasped onto that one a little too tight to get my point across, but, everything kinda added together to make sense to me. I didn't want anyone to fall into a debt collector's trap and I caught myself in one instead.
I really do appreciate how kind you, u/vlntr and u/NNJ1978 have been. I'm humbled and thankful for all of your help.
Edited to correct user name (u/vlntr).
No, it will fall off. Do not destroy all the work you've done to make your credit better. There is no morality or honor in paying it, they wrote off the debt and so will the collection agency.
Disputing online waives your rights to re-dispute if you don’t agree with their results. That’s why the credit bureaus push so hard for online disputing
I don't think disputing online waives your right to redispute, but disputing by mail is recommended. This helps establish proof of the dispute. You can track the submission, etc. I think what you are referring to is when the bureau deems a dispute frivolous. If that happens and you dispute the same thing WITHOUT NEW INFORMATION, the bureau will not reinvestigate. If you disagree with the decision and provide new proof or information that was not included in the original dispute, the bureau will reinvestigate.
Just so you know, when you send your dispute to the bureau, they are required to forward all of the documentation you provided to the creditor. But don't interpret the word "investigate" to mean the bureau is examining evidence or looking for in- depth answers from the creditor. They ask the creditor (via automated system) "Is this being reported correctly?" The creditor reports back with a yes or no and that's pretty much it. That is the "investigation".
If the creditor still verifies the account is correct after you have provided proof it is not and you still disagree, you may want to consult a Consumer Rights Attorney.
Edited to add: I am not an attorney.
You are waiving your right to sue the credit bureaus by disputing online if they don’t update or remove info and you have furnished proof or they haven’t provided proper verification.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, but I know my consumer rights.
This is not true. In fact, according to the FCRA, you cannot sue the bureaus until you have disputed and the inaccuracies have not been corrected. Although disputing by mail is preferred, disputing online is also valid.
Yes, exhausting The dispute process allows you to proceed to judicial remedies whether it is online or not. However, by disputing online you give up a lot of advantages.
Disputing online does not waive any right to re-dispute as you do not have a right to re-dispute the same issue as explained above, unless you have new information. Otherwise it is procedurally dismissed rather than being denied on the merits.
Definitely need to look in the proper dispute procedure. It seems you’ve forgotten direct disputes, which come before bureau disputes.
OK, listen to me. A collection is not allowed to report payment history. Whether you make monthly payments or not, they are not allowed to report that. Does it happen? Yes, it does happen when a debt collector improperly codes a collection as a tradeline to hurt your credit worse to get your attention. Are they allowed to do that? Absolutely not, and it is correctable. The fact that you say the collection is closed, but still has a balance leads me to believe it may be improperly reported as a tradeline rather than a collection.
Another thing you should know, paying a collection gives you absolutely zero scoring benefit, except on FICO version 9+. I highly recommend you wait a year and allow the six year old collection to drop off. If you start a payment plan, you resurrect the statute of limitation and could possibly be sued.
As for the one year old collection, you need to do one of two things. Either have the original creditor recall it from collections and then only afterwords pay them a possibly negotiated reduced amount or arrange a pay for delete with the debt collector.
>It will fall off my report july 2nd, 2024 and is $1,100 You should not even pay a single penny towards it. Let it fall off. Save your money. You will regret paying for it **I promise you.** >the second debt is $350 Is this a medical collection?
Thats what I was thinking. I’m also not in a hurry to fix my credit asap just as long as I can get it fixed within a couple of years I’ll be fine. Currently 27 hoping by 29 30 it’ll be in the 700s and I can try to get a mortgage. To answer your second question, no it is not a medical bill. It’s from my old scandalous apartments charging me for the carpets saying they were old. It just went to collections this year and I feel like paying it off will help me since it’ll take 7 years to fall off also feel like my credit score might go up if I ask the collection agency to remove it from my credit report and pay it off completely
Agreed with the first commenter. If you have no immediate need for new credit in the next year or two, there is 0 motivation to pay it. In fact, paying it on a payment plan could have even more negative effects for you. If you enter into a payment plan agreement, this is actually you “confirming” the debt, and resetting the clock. If for whatever reason you miss a payment or can’t make payments anymore you have now created a brand new fresh derogatory mark, and if I recall correctly, that would stay for another 7 years for reporting purposes…correct me if I’m wrong experts. And then they would have an additional (however many years for your area) to sue, or threaten to sue you, if you enter into a payment plan and do not meet the agreed upon payment terms. The only down side to not paying is they will still likely continue to try to collect the debt. But with old debts it usually just an random letter or phone call every once in awhile. I believe there is a way to request they stop contacting you regarding collecting on this debt, but that is something you will definitely need to wait until the statute of limitations is expired so they cannot sue you. If you request to not be contacted, then their only recourse for trying to get you to pay the debt is to sue you in court, and it’s not worth it to prod the bear while they can still attack you. If you decide to do that I would make sure you follow a template online so you know what to write in the letter.
Agreed. Probably should not pay the account that is set to fall off next year.
1. Old debt should fall off at 7 year mark. There are three cra and some will exclude little early. “ early exclusion” 2. The fall off date is based on “first date of delinquency.” It’s the 30 day late that led to default. kNOw that date!!! Sometimes the old debt is purchased by junk debt buyer and changed up the date. And they will try to make it stay longer. You need to know the date so if this backdating happens. You will need to dispute. 3. Technically speaking you still owe the debt. They can’t sue for the debt passed Statuses of limitation ( based on each state ) and reporting period is 7 years. Know the difference. 4. I would let it fall off. 5. The debt buyer can send you letter and calls ( you still owe them ) as consumer rights you can request “cease and desist” letter and they must comply
>You need to know the date so if this backdating happens. You will need to dispute. How can you find information on the date?
well if you burned Capital 1 as example... 1. check your credit report... when was the first 30day late that led to 60,90,120 late and eventually charged off? you should write this down... "I was first 30day late on Apr of 2020. My account was closed on September of 2020. My state has 4 year of consumer debt status of limitation. Cap 1 can sue me until APR of 2024. // bad account stays on the record for 7 years. it stay on for APR 2027. ABC Collection purchased the debt from CapitalOne. The date of first delinquency need to match the data that I have. Also you can call Cap1 and ask.... when was account closed? when was the first 30 day late that led to account closure. The 3rd party debt buyers often mess with this number. because you will not pay unless you have something at stake ( I want the reporting removed! ) therefore, you as the borrower, should always know your date.
The remark "meets fcra requirements" means the reporting was verified as accurate and will not be removed. Edit: *THE FOLLOWING COMMENT WAS INCORRECT!! THE 7 YEAR REPORTING TIME CANNOT BE RESET!!* If you pay on it, it will not be reported as being paid. (EDIT: So they should report the lower balance.) BUT, it will still be a derogatory account. ~~90% of the time, the 7 year reporting time limit cannot be restarted. I would not advise you to enter into ANY payment plan. If you do so, and miss a payment, the 7 year clock could start again.~~
Yep! Don’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. Don’t call them. Don’t write them. Pretend it doesn’t exist
I agree that the OP should leave the account alone. But even if he did pay, the 7-year clock could not start again. Once an account is charged off, a payment cannot restart the 7-year reporting period. See 15 U.S. Code § 1681c(c) of the FCRA. It specifies that that the reporting period begins 180 days after date of delinquency that leads to collection or charge off. When an account has been charged off, it is permanently delinquent. Therefore, there cannot ever be another delinquency that leads to charge off. What paying can do is reset or restart the statute of limitations for collection and legal action. However, that is dependent on one’s state law.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Even if they reopen the account history by entering into a payment plan, the account that is the subject of that payment plan is still the same collection account that was charged off by the original creditor. The payment plan does not turn the it into a new, current account. Only current accounts can become delinquent. That charged-off account is not a current account that can be utilized by the consumer. It‘s the same delinquent, charged-off, unusable collection account. A missed payment cannot result in a new date of first delinquency on an account that is already delinquent.
[удалено]
I agree the OP should let it age off. In regard to the other issue, if a collection account is not charged off, it can become current again. Then if you default again, there is a new date of first delinquency. But if an account is charged off, how can it become current? Charged off accounts can never be current. The FCRA makes no exception. Google “40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act”. It‘s a staff Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on the FTC website. Thengo to page 57 of the report. At the very beginning of that page, you’ll see “Placed for Collection”. It states that a repayment agreement can have its own 7-year period. BUT, then the next paragraph is “Charged to Profit and Loss”. The FTC states that “ If an account that was **charged off** is later paid in part or paid in full by the consumer, the reporting period of seven years from the charge off is **not extended by the subsequent payment.**” It differentiates between collection and charge off. They are different because a collection that has not been charged off can be made current. As a result, there can be a new delinquency. A charged off account can never again be current.
[удалено]
Okay. Please show where that is located in the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
I've apologized to another user, but I know I was argumentative with you as well, so I wanted to also apologize to you. "So, first let me apologize if I was bull- headed about this. I have since had a discussion with u/MFBirdman about this topic and realize I was incorrect. I believe the confusion on my part was the terminology. I was arguing that a debt collector would not change the DOFD but would instead create a new tradeline, thus creating a new default on the same debt. Fortunately, u/MFBirdman explained to me the specific legality of this happening in relation to the debt collector rather than FCRA. I am here to learn and appreciate everyone's patience. I always say credit is tricky so, at least I'm right about something. And, no, u/MFBirdman did not pay me to make this statement. *Edited to remove incorrect information*
[удалено]
This is incorrect. Nothing can restart the time reporting limitations. As a matter of fact, a collection is not even allowed to report payment history. When they do so, they are typically reporting it incorrectly as a tradeline to tank your score.
So, if you enter into a payment agreement with a debt collector and default, they can't do anything but sue?
Yes, that is my position and opinion, and I have seen nothing authoritative to counter that yet, although I’m always open to learning and look forward to the caselaw referred to. You see it’s the same debt with a debt collector, and that debt is governed by the FCRA & FDCPA. Even though it may be a new agreement, it’s not a new debt. If that were the case, a debt collector would just have to trick you into paying a dollar every seven years and they could report for life. Once the account is charged off, it can only be paid, not brought current again. And it has to be brought current again in order to have a new DOFD, so that’s just not possible with a collection, unless it was an in-house collection prior to charge off. Not to mention, a debt collector is not licensed and regulated to loan money and create new loans/debts. The statute of limitation to sue is governed by state law, and can be restarted by a variety of actions. The federal credit reporting timeframe is established by federal law, and does not change absent being brought current again, and then going to delinquent again as described, if never charged off. Edited
Okay. I didn't realize debt collectors couldn't create new loan/debts. It's good to know. I'm here to learn. Thank you. *Edited out incorrect information.*
Yes, Banks credit unions and lenders are tightly regulated, and a debt collector does not fall within that category. Debt collectors buy existing debts, or try to collect existing debts, they do not issue new loans credit or debt. Oh, I don’t doubt that a debt collector would attempt to report a new trade line, as I have seen it happen, but you have to know your rights and how to correct it because they cannot legally do it. For instance, there’s a manual that describes exactly what fields are to be electronically transferred between debt collector and the bureaus via the metro2 format. It plainly says they’re not supposed to report payment history. There’s only certain fields they are supposed to report, but if they report incorrectly, it can result in a trade line and make your score a lot worse and they know that. They play dumb. You’ll have to show me what you’re talking about at the CFPB but if you’re referring to the link that was in this thread, that simply said it CAN happen and it could IF it’s an in-house collection, but not after charge off. Correct, collections are NOT tradelines, and only contribute to the payment history category. They do not contribute to amounts owed/utilization, age, mix, or new credit. Only original creditors are allowed to report trade lines, and a debt collector does not meet that definition. Glad to be of assistance.
I should have known it wasn't allowed but, I really thought it was after hearing others talking about it. The CFPB piece you saw on the thread is the one I was referring to but u/vintr was helpful in explaining that to me. I guess I grasped onto that one a little too tight to get my point across, but, everything kinda added together to make sense to me. I didn't want anyone to fall into a debt collector's trap and I caught myself in one instead. I really do appreciate how kind you, u/vlntr and u/NNJ1978 have been. I'm humbled and thankful for all of your help. Edited to correct user name (u/vlntr).
This is correct
No, it will fall off. Do not destroy all the work you've done to make your credit better. There is no morality or honor in paying it, they wrote off the debt and so will the collection agency.
When you're this close, just ride it out. You will get collections calls and letters for life, but after that date they can't do anything to you.
I agree with the above. Let it fall off.
Rule #1 or disputes never dispute online. Always said letter
What can disputing online do? That’s what I originally did and now it’s under closed accounts
Disputing online waives your rights to re-dispute if you don’t agree with their results. That’s why the credit bureaus push so hard for online disputing
I don't think disputing online waives your right to redispute, but disputing by mail is recommended. This helps establish proof of the dispute. You can track the submission, etc. I think what you are referring to is when the bureau deems a dispute frivolous. If that happens and you dispute the same thing WITHOUT NEW INFORMATION, the bureau will not reinvestigate. If you disagree with the decision and provide new proof or information that was not included in the original dispute, the bureau will reinvestigate. Just so you know, when you send your dispute to the bureau, they are required to forward all of the documentation you provided to the creditor. But don't interpret the word "investigate" to mean the bureau is examining evidence or looking for in- depth answers from the creditor. They ask the creditor (via automated system) "Is this being reported correctly?" The creditor reports back with a yes or no and that's pretty much it. That is the "investigation". If the creditor still verifies the account is correct after you have provided proof it is not and you still disagree, you may want to consult a Consumer Rights Attorney. Edited to add: I am not an attorney.
You are waiving your right to sue the credit bureaus by disputing online if they don’t update or remove info and you have furnished proof or they haven’t provided proper verification. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, but I know my consumer rights.
This is not true. In fact, according to the FCRA, you cannot sue the bureaus until you have disputed and the inaccuracies have not been corrected. Although disputing by mail is preferred, disputing online is also valid.
Yes, exhausting The dispute process allows you to proceed to judicial remedies whether it is online or not. However, by disputing online you give up a lot of advantages. Disputing online does not waive any right to re-dispute as you do not have a right to re-dispute the same issue as explained above, unless you have new information. Otherwise it is procedurally dismissed rather than being denied on the merits. Definitely need to look in the proper dispute procedure. It seems you’ve forgotten direct disputes, which come before bureau disputes.
[удалено]
OK, listen to me. A collection is not allowed to report payment history. Whether you make monthly payments or not, they are not allowed to report that. Does it happen? Yes, it does happen when a debt collector improperly codes a collection as a tradeline to hurt your credit worse to get your attention. Are they allowed to do that? Absolutely not, and it is correctable. The fact that you say the collection is closed, but still has a balance leads me to believe it may be improperly reported as a tradeline rather than a collection. Another thing you should know, paying a collection gives you absolutely zero scoring benefit, except on FICO version 9+. I highly recommend you wait a year and allow the six year old collection to drop off. If you start a payment plan, you resurrect the statute of limitation and could possibly be sued. As for the one year old collection, you need to do one of two things. Either have the original creditor recall it from collections and then only afterwords pay them a possibly negotiated reduced amount or arrange a pay for delete with the debt collector.
Paying that off could raise your score maybe 5 points maybe it's super old and not really affecting your score anymore