On September 5, 2011 Chase reported my client’s old charged off credit card with NUMEROUS late payments after the account was charged off. From the myFICO Equifax report:
My client disputed these incorrect late payments and Chase then reported the account with the “CO” notation in the payment history to Equifax. Unfortunately, myFICO rated the “CO” notations as LATE PAYMENTS (fictitious lates):
My client disputed with CSC as it maintained his Equifax file at the time and he included the myFICO Equifax showing how the fictitious lates lowered his FICO score:
The NEGATIVE SCORE FACTOR:
The length of time since the “most recent late payment” is a MAJOR FICO negative score factor and obviously your score will be a LOT lower if your most recent late payment was a month or two ago instead of 5 years ago.
NO credit card can have late payments AFTER the account was charged off because charge-offs are CLOSED accounts and closed accounts can’t be late!
In response to my client’s dispute Chase changed the “CO” back to “real” 180 day late payments.
The 4/10/12 Equifax reporting of the Chase account:
My client disputed with CSC and it VERIFIED these OBVIOUSLY INCORRECT late payments.
There is NO need for a credit bureau to contact the furnisher of these clearly INCORRECT late payments!
The account was charged off in 12/07. You can not possibly have ANY late payments after an account was charged off.
My client’s Equifax FICO score was way too low for a mortgage with these RECENT lates.
I contacted Chase directly.
On 5/8/12 I faxed to Chase:
… Despite my client’s disputes with the credit bureaus, you are reporting this old charged off account as 120+ days late as recently as 1/12. This INCORRECT credit reporting is seriously lowering his credit scores. …
On 5/11/12 we got the Chase response:
Talk about FRUSTRATION! Not only did Naveena Vismanath fail to delete the incorrect late payments, but she also made this blatantly false statement:
Please understand that all accounts must be reported and will remain a part of your credit report for a minimum of seven to ten years from the date that your account was paid in full or closed and reflecting a zero balance, whichever is recent..
Apparently Naveena Vismanath is in India and maybe she is referring to INDIA credit reporting laws?
In the United States, derogatory accounts have to be removed from credit reports no later than 7 years from the date of chargeoff and for Equifax it is seven years from the date of last activity — when the account first became permanently delinquent — NOT 7 or 10 years after the account has a $0 balance, which would result in having an unpaid account on the credit reports FOREVER.
The 5/20/12 Equifax reporting is almost identical, but apparently Naveena Vismanath had the dispute notation removed and additional INCORRECT RECENT LATE PAYMENTS were added:
I have seen late payments after accounts were charged off many times and if you have chargeoffs on your credit reports, make sure that there are no lates after the chargeoff.
Chase sent a 1099 and my client had to include the forgiven balance as income on his tax return.
It is very important to check the code on the 1099:
G Decision or policy to discontinue collection
My client disputed the balance with all three credit bureaus and he INCLUDED a copy of the 1099.
Incredibly, CSC (Equifax) VERIFIED the balance. Experian REFUSED to investigate and demanded documentation! Only Trans Union changed the balance to $0.
Obviously Chase has to delete the balance when it chooses to discontinue collection. If the balance remains, my client will have to pay it to get a mortgage!
My client filed a small claims suit against Chase, Equifax and Experian.
Both Chase and Equifax called him a couple of weeks ago, but he was out of town on business and plans to call them today.
The Chase account on the 7/7/13 Equifax report:
Despite notice of this outrageous incorrect credit reporting, Chase and Equifax did NOT correct anything!
How can this be?
It makes my blood boil to see the DISRESPECT they have for consumers even when they’re being sued.
At one point Chase added the DISPUTE NOTATION again which has to be DELETED to get mortgage approval!
My client’s last round of disputes included the request for removal of dispute notations:
My mortgage broker advised that NO account can be reported as “disputed” by the creditor.
Please ensure than no account is reported by the creditor with a dispute notation.
Of course Equifax and Experian IGNORED this request.
While it’s nice to have higher FICO scores because derogatory data in disputed tradelines (NOT collections!) is ignored by scoring software, it’s devastating to be under contract to purchase a home, have the lender require removal of the dispute notation and then the FICO score goes down 50 or 100 points (not unusual with these RECENT incorrect late payments.)
My client should retain an ATTORNEY.
Credit bureaus and creditors really don’t care when you sue them pro se because they don’t have to pay for your work as a pro se litigant. It’s quite common that the consumers’ attorneys get $20k or more in attorneys fees at settlement while the consumers get $1,000 or so. It’s a lot of work to litigate!
We need MINIMUM statutory damages for FCRA violations and I sure wish that more consumers were interested in lobbying legislators. Of course the people who care don’t have any money to bribe legislators while the finance industry contributes MANY millions to their campaigns and they employ professional lobbyists.
Busy as I am, I’ll try to draft my client’s complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau next week.
That the credit bureaus and Chase continued to report the OBVIOUSLY INCORRECT late payments and balance several weeks AFTER they were served with the lawsuit documents their contempt for the law and consumers.
If my client doesn’t settle soon, I’ll compile all the disputes and the investigation results and I’ll start a new blog for the CFPB complaint.
And we’ll start looking for an attorney to take this into “real” court and make Chase, Experian and Equifax PAY for their willful FCRA violations. I’d like to see the depositions of the people who decided to verify this obviously INCORRECT reporting.