Consumer complaint received 2020-08-03
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Nelnet, Inc. (VA)

Firstmark is reporting a balance & collection account status every month for an account that has an original delinquency date >7 years old, was included in ch XXXX bankruptcy in XX/XX/XXXX & discharged on XX/XX/XXXX. I have disputed multiple times, and to date the account has been removed from the other bureaus but still remains on XXXX 

Firstmark responded to previous disputes that the original date of delinquency is XXXX because they placed the loan in forbearance from XXXX due to me being in ch XXXX bankruptcy during that time, and that the loan obligation was not discharged through the ch XXXX bankruptcy proceedings because it is a student loan. They kept the reporting the same only removing the CO status from the months that I was in ch XXXX bankruptcy ( XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX ). 

The original date of delinquency is defined by the credit bureaus & FCRA as, '' the date the account first became delinquent and was not brought current.This date is used to determine when the late payment information is deleted from your credit report ''. 
Student loan due dates are determined by a promissory note, and this one states that it becomes due upon my graduation, which was in XXXX. Therefore, the account originally became due in XXXX. This account was never paid or brought current & the lender confirmed that in the previous dispute. From XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX I was in ch XXXX bankruptcy & this account was included. In XX/XX/XXXX I was in Ch XXXX bankruptcy and this account was again included because it was a surviving debt from the last bankruptcy. The problem is the lender re-aged the account to XX/XX/XXXX but also is reporting negative as if it is a new debt. If the lender placed the loan in forbearance from XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX it was at their own option for their own purposes of meeting the requirements of the bankruptcy law, and it has no variance on the original date of delinquency per FCRA definitions for credit reporting purposes. Firstmark is using XXXX as the original date of delinquency when this account became due in XXXX & was never paid or brought current.This is the very definition of illegally re-aging the account to extend the time period that they negatively report to the credit bureau. 

All I want is a clean slate credit-wise, which is what bankruptcy is intended to do, and I have had to file twice in order to get even remotely close to one, all because when I graduated I was unable to land a job that paid little more than minimum wage due to a recession that lasted almost a decade. I am entitled to have this negative information removed from my credit due to its age and I will continue to fight for it, even if it requires me to file suit and sue for damages, which are quite extensive at this point. This account has been negatively affecting my credit since XXXX. 

I do not agree that I owe this debt. No statements in this correspondence are an acknowledgement of any debt. 





.