credit clean-up question

[mac]

Can the CRA keep the "account closed by credit grantor" on your account after bk discharge?

Other posts have said only "included in bankruptcy" is allowed but what if both are listed?("account closed by credit grantor" & "included in bankruptcy")

Anybody have success using online disputes with CRA's?

[Grace]

It's better to have an account listed as "Closed by Creditor" than it is to have it listed as "Closed by Creditor and Included in Bankruptcy".

[HHM]

You can dispute it, but strictly speaking, the information contained in your CR is true and accurate. If the creditor closed the account, they are allowed to report that and if the account was in your bankruptcy, then they can report IIB.

Basically, you would be disputing in hopes that the creditor, (because the account is closed) won't bother to verify the info. But beyond on that, you don't really have any grounds to dispute the entry based on it being false or inaccurate.

The other posts you are referring to about the creditor only reporting IIB is in relation to the "Charge Off" entry. The creditor cannot both report Charge Off and IIB. Once a debtor has filed bankruptcy (and ultimately received their discharge), the creditor must report that the debt is IIB, as the "Charge Off" entry no longer accurately portrays the status of the account.

[poorme]

For some reason, I was of the impression that the charge-off indication could stay if the account was truly charged off prior to the bk filing. ???

[HHM]

For some reason, I was of the impression that the charge-off indication could stay if the account was truly charged off prior to the bk filing. ???

Nope. If you have any creditor reporting charge-off and the debt preexisted your BK, it should now be reported as IIB.

The reason being, implied within the "charge off" entry is the idea that you are still liable for the debt. Charge off is basically an accounting designation for the creditor, but its used on the credit report to indicate that the "original creditor" is no longer actively seeking collection (i.e. they have reported your account as a loss for tax purposes and sold the account as bad debt). Listing your account as a "charge off" is the creditors way of telling every other creditor that you are a dead-beat.
However, the "charge off" designation has no legal bearing on the debtors contractual obligation to pay the debt. Whereas, if you declare bankruptcy, you have eliminated (discharged) your contractual obligation to pay the debt. Thus, it would be inaccurate to for a creditor to report an account as "charge off" if, in fact, that account has been discharged in BK.

[BK'd-Betty]

I'd be interested to know if anyone has actually been sucessful wtih getting creditors to removed the "charge off" statement.

I've been reading that it's difficult and that creditors are starting to refuse to do so and that if you have included the FTC's opinion letter regarding the subject, the creditors are basically saying that an FTC opinion is not binding.

I think too many people have used that letter and the Goodfellow VS. Discover example and the creditors are starting to reject it.

I'd really like to hear from some people that actually got the Charge Off indication off their report and how they did it??

[BK'd-Betty]

Hi Grace! It's interesting what you wrote here, having an account as listed closed by Grantor rather than IBB, will that have a more favorable impact on the credit score itself, or just look better in your history?

It's better to have an account listed as "Closed by Creditor" than it is to have it listed as "Closed by Creditor and Included in Bankruptcy".

[HHM]

Hi Grace! It's interesting what you wrote here, having an account as listed closed by Grantor rather than IBB, will that have a more favorable impact on the credit score itself, or just look better in your history?

Neither is particularly good. Whether a specific account references a BK really doesn't matter in the large scheme of things because the BK is reported in the public records section of your CR. The IIB notation is a better notation (and IMO, and many others) than charge off, late payments, behind etc. My instinct tells me that the difference between having any one account list "closed by grantor" vs. IIB is marginal. I don't think it really matters.

When it comes to credit clean up and BK, all your tyring to accomplish is to make sure you don't have entries related to your accounts that are "worse" than having them being IIB. As I said, the BK will be reported in the public records...so all you want to make sure is that all accounts that were discharged have a zero balance (to help improve you outstanding balances, high balances are bad, low balances are good), and to get rid of negative entries, like charge off.

[BK'd-Betty]

That's what I thought HHM, unfortunately, ALL of my accounts say CHARGE OFF in the "condition" field and IBB in the "remarks" field

Neither is particularly good. Whether a specific account references a BK really doesn't matter in the large scheme of things because the BK is reported in the public records section of your CR. The IIB notation is a better notation (and IMO, and many others) than charge off, late payments, behind etc. My instinct tells me that the difference between having any one account list "closed by grantor" vs. IIB is marginal. I don't think it really matters.

When it comes to credit clean up and BK, all your tyring to accomplish is to make sure you don't have entries related to your accounts that are "worse" than having them being IIB. As I said, the BK will be reported in the public records...so all you want to make sure is that all accounts that were discharged have a zero balance (to help improve you outstanding balances, high balances are bad, low balances are good), and to get rid of negative entries, like charge off.

[niteflytes]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what does IIB stand for? Thanks

[confusedinVA]

IIB mean Included in Bankruptcy.