I think somebody just violated the automatic stay...

[df04527]

This is a grey area for me with regards to the BK. If Asset was NOT listed in your BK - and they bought the debt from the OC and you were not aware of it until AFTER you filed (by looking at your reports) can they still try to collect then?

In this case though, they obviously know it was IIB, so the red you highlighted with that balance/past due is not allowed - I don't care who you are, so to speak, they ARE aware of the BK and the fact they have a balance listed IS an act of collection and is not allowed.

I would personally put them on my list to dispute once your discharged and you are actually post discharge 60-90 days is best. I'm almost positive there will be others that will show up.

As a side note -- Disputing online may also not yield the desired results. Best results come from letter writing campaigns and are quicker.

[IBroke]

This is a grey area for me with regards to the BK. If Asset was NOT listed in your BK - and they bought the debt from the OC and you were not aware of it until AFTER you filed (by looking at your reports) can they still try to collect then?

In this case though, they obviously know it was IIB, so the red you highlighted with that balance/past due is not allowed - I don't care who you are, so to speak, they ARE aware of the BK and the fact they have a balance listed IS an act of collection and is not allowed.

That is EXACTLY how I see it. Many people believe the automatic stay has nothing to do with the credit-reporting. That, however, is simply wrong. Reporting can and often is considered collecting.
What I don't understand is why they thought it was a great idea to ADD this account with a past due balance ALTHOUGH they already knew it was part of my BK. Where's the sense in that?

As a side note -- Disputing online may also not yield the desired results. Best results come from letter writing campaigns and are quicker.

That's true. The reason I disputed now online is that I'm getting the ducks in the row. I'm speculating on the verification of some errors on my files. I guess some will not respond due to my BK and they will drop out. However, if some verify the errors, they will be notified by CMRRR right away that they should either remove the TL from all CRs or they will be subject to a lawsuit.

The ultimate weapon will be the CMRRR to fight those entries but disputing online has the biggest chance of success that they "verify errors", providing me with the tools I need for my CMRRRs. The next disputing-round will be post discharge with a different CRA but online as well.

[tcreegan]

Hi all, Hi JustBroke,

first off, apply my brother Eds law: never attribute to malice things adequately explained by incompetetence

The CA got the acct. in July, hence the date incurred/opened...10-1 odds they reported it sometime in August/Sept and the credit bureau got around to putting it on your report after you filed.

Getting a stay/discharge injunction violation will be next to impossible b/c it has to be 'willful' The CA will produce a document showing they sent the report b4 the file date, the credit reporting bureau will hem and haw and say it just reported what was sent so they are not responsible. If I remember correctly, the CA didn't get the BK notice right? And neither would the credit bureau.

Send the CA the BK notice or discharge papers w/ case # and file date...just a CYA move, but it might save lots of hassle further down the road.

Now, after you send them the BK notice and you have a return recpt, and they do something, that is a willful violation

Also, CA's like lump sum, but they expect monthly payments. Either way, they report X months past due for every month they didn't get $$ ...no law against that.

Sounds like you are figuring out that you can get credit bureaus to do lots of things for you if you pester them enough. For some reason, folks get the idea that what a credit bureau does/does not do is the "law" The law is the FCRA and it makes for a good read...if you have lots of caffeinated beverage handy. Contrary to popular belief, they do not have to report anything. Credit reporting is voluntary and the bureaus are private companies. They do what their customers want them to do...and you are not their customer. People paying for FICO scores (and whatever Experian is doing now) are their customers and they expect an industry standard. Required by law to report a BK? Think again, it is industry standard not law. Leave it on for 10 yrs....industry standard not law. Leave it on past 10 years? Nope, that is the law. Report the entry is disputed by consumer...law. Report 'closed by consumer' (if true)...law Verify a disputed entry or remove it...law

...and that last one is your ticket to cleaning up your credit report. Sometimes it is not worth their time to verify and they just remove it. Likewise being a pain-in-the-posterior, it becomes easier to just change the d*** report to get rid of you.

Sorry, just rambling on here...

Tom in Colo

[IBroke]

Getting a stay/discharge injunction violation will be next to impossible b/c it has to be 'willful' The CA will produce a document showing they sent the report b4 the file date, the credit reporting bureau will hem and haw and say it just reported what was sent so they are not responsible. If I remember correctly, the CA didn't get the BK notice right? And neither would the credit bureau.

That would leave the question why it is reported as IIB. If neither the CA nor the CRA were aware of my filing, I'm wondering who reported it as such.

Anyway, I'm not interesting in actually filing a suit against ANY creditor or CA on my report. My goal is it to keep the number of derogatory accounts on my reports as low as possible. It is possible that the CA was not informed about my filing (but again, who added the notation to it?) - that gets them off the hook for a "willful" violation. However, once they are notified that they reported after my filing, I think they have to remove the account. I know for sure that it doesn't take a CRA 4 months to report a new account. When the CA actually obtained the debt or the "job" to collect is actually none of my business.

What counts is the time of the "attempt to collect" - in this case the actual credit-reporting. That occured 6 weeks post filing. I'd also like to add the info that the automatic stay even applies to creditors or CAs that are UNAWARE of the filing - but in that case - as you pointed out correctly - they can't be sued for non-compliance. Going back to my CC-card example and the 30 day late rule: It is almost certain that the CC-company wouldn't be aware of the filing when they would report the account 30 days late. Can they be sued for doing so? NO. Are they required to remove the derogatory reporting once they are notified of the filing? YES. Now imagine they would report 30 days late AND IIB. That would indeed be a willful violation.

And here's detailed information about "xxx days late reported by a CA". I found it on myfico:

"Technically, the answer to your question is no, a CA can never report a 120-day late.
There are no reporting codes available to debt collectors to report delinquencies on an OC account. They are not the original creditor. Only an OC can report monthly account delinquencies on the original debt.

Debt collectors report the date the collection was first reported, and then can report monthly status updates therafter of the current status of their separate collection "account," such as unpaid, paid in part, paid in full, but they cannot report monthly delinquencies, for you have no legal account with a debt collector.

So why does a 120-day late show now? Crappy commercial credit reports. It does not mean that it was reported by the CA. Credit reports are kinda misleading when it comes to information reported.

In most commercial credit reports, the report will list a CA, and then indented under that listing, may also list lates on the OC debt that led up to it. Misleading. What that really is is a merging of OC and CA account information. It does not mean that the original reporting source was the CA.(...)
I can almost guarantee that the 120-day late will show under only the OC account reporttings, and not the separate CA reportings."