Hello everyone. I just found this forum and it looks like there is some good info here. If you don't mind please take a moment to read about my problem. Maybe someone can provide some advice? I had a MBNA CC back in 1995 when I was 18. Talk about a life lesson! It went delinquent in 1996 as I was late quite a few times. I stopped paying all together in 1998. When I pull my credit report (all 3) is says there was activity as recently as 2005!! To top it all off my Experian report shows an account with "Hilco Receivables" with activity as recently as Feb. 2007!! This was the ONLY credit account I've ever had that I paid late or never paid on. Every loan I've had since then has been paid on time and in full. But, because it shows recent activity (which is NOT true) it's still having a big effect on my credit. I contacted the Comptroller of Currency who brought up my credit report and stated that the debt is well out of the SOL, but they don't get involved in issues with Credit Reporting. I've sent letters through the years to MBNA and I sent a letter to Hilco Receivables when I they first contacted me a year or two ago asking for Validation of the Debt but I heard nothing back and now they are reporting on my Credit Report. How should I handle this? Should I just hire an attorney and be done with it? I would love to rectify this situation myself but this is getting old fast and I'm tired of the run around. Any help or advice would be GREATLY appreciated thanks everyone!
"Activity" can mean the last time it was reported. First, dispute it with the CRAs as being obsolete. It should drop off your report. If it doesn't, it's time to go after the CA.
Thanks for the quick reply Hedwig! I did dispute with the three CRA's in April of '05. They sent me the findings of their "Investigations" which equates to a summary of account activity. The problem is this summary shows activity (late payments) occurring as late as 2003, 2004 and 2005 when I know I sent them no money past 1998/1999 or so. My concern is that if the CRA's think I made payments as late as '03, '04 or '05 then that is the date they will use to determine the 7 year reporting period. Do you think I should try disputing again, this time as the accounts being Obsolete? It has been almost three years since I disputed the last time. I just don't want to play the run around game with these guys. Thanks for you post,
Well I've been researching on this forum and found two interesting statements from different threads that pertain to my situation: STATMENT 1: "If a CA "sells the account" to another CA, per industry guidelines, the first CA is required to remove their TL." -----It appears that MBNA sold the account to Hilco Receivables (It is stated on the Investigation performed by Experian under Creditors statement - "Purchased by another Lender". If the above statement is true than MBNA should not be showing up on my report should it? Here is another statement I found on this forum in another thread: STATMENT 2: "It's not reaging if they report the same date of last delinquency as the OC. What some do, however, is report the date the CA gets the account as the date of last delinquency which (is illegal and) makes it look newer and puts a bigger dent in your credit score." ----Hilco Receivables shows up on my Credit Report with an "Account Opened" date of 05/2004. If the above statement is correct than they should show up with the same "Account Opened" date as MBNA's original date. Can someone please verify if my above suspicions are true? If so can someone tell me where I can find the actual laws that pertain to these statements? thanks again,
You need to read the FCRA and the FDCPA, which is where most of the information originates. If MBNA is the original creditor, they should show it as closed/sold or transferred, with a zero balance. The OC and one CA can report.
Thanks again Hedwig I've read through the FCRA and FDCPA I've never seen specific information on either situation. I will read through both again tomorrow and see if I missed it. MBNA does show as closed/transferred (but they report payment activity several years after any payment activity took place). Hilco shows on all three reports now (last time I looked they were only on one report) active in '03 to '05 when again no activity took place. How to I prove that they are re-aging the debt?
Regardless of the fact that Hilco got the account in 2007, the debt is still time-barred for suit and is also time-barred for reporting under FCRA. The only way this could even be on your credit report is if Hilco re-aged the account, which is a FCRA and possibly a FDCPA violation. The DOLA is not the same as teh Status Date. The DOLA in this case is the date Hilco got the account. DOLA has nothing to do with FCRA reporting. The Status Date, which is the date you stopped paying, is what governs FCRA reporting and cannot legally be changed by any creditor. I smell a lawsuit coming Hilco's way.
I am the author of that statement, to "clarify", the above is what a CA "SHOULD" do, this in no way means they WILL actually do it (as I'm sure you're finding out!). The grounds for this industry "practice" are rooted in the philosophy of the FCRA, "fair and accurate reporting". If a CA sells an account, they are relinquishing all legal rights to collect the debt, this includes the "collection activity" of reporting to the credit reporting agencies. MBNA can, and will, report the account/tradeline. It SHOULD be reported as "Sold/Tranferred", with a $0 balance. It should show on your report under "negative items", but NOT in "collection accounts". I did not make this statement, but it is essentially accurate. First, BOTH accounts should show the same date of "FIRST DATE OF MAJOR DELIQUENCY". This is the date the account first went deliquent, and NEVER was brought current. The CA can show a newer date of "Account Opened", but this is just reference data. It is the "Date of First Major Deliquency" that is the crucial date. However, though this date is the most critical, and required by law, you rarely see it listed. So, the CRAs often "default" to the "Date of Last Activity" as that date. In theory, this is helpful, as it may be the date of the last payment. But, CAs can use this "default" to make the account appear newer, and report longer. Hope this helps.
Thanks Bizwiz41 for the explanations and clarifications. Yes it was a big help to me. I'm getting a better and better understanding of my situation each time I come to this forum. Given my situation what course of action would you guys take if you were in my shoes? Dispute MBNA about the DOL and dates of activity which if they can't provide proof of what they are posting demand the tagline be removed from my report? Go straight to Hilco and dispute them? Maybe hit them both with disputes? Dispute the entry on my reports with the Credit Bureaus? I'd really like to know what course of action the knowledgeable folks here on the forum would take. I should add that I cant' find date of first delinquency listed anywhere on my report for either Hilco or MBNA Tradelines. Thanks again for taking the time to help me,
OK everyone I have been studying the forum here religiously for the past two days and I think I found a post that describes a good course of action for me given my situation: http://consumers.creditnet.com/Discussions/credit-talk/t-b-o-a-take-10-yrs-to-choff-65703.html It almost seems too simple but If I dispute with the CRA's based on the date the account was opened (1995 just like the OP of the post above) and the date of first delinquency (1997) It seems I should be able to have both MBNA and subsequently Hilco Receivables removed due to the Trademark being obsolete and well past the 7 year reporting period. I'm going to draft up a letter to the CRA's this evening and pending the opinions of those on this forum get them in the mail tomorrow CRRR! Thanks everyone it took a little while but I think I found the answer I was looking for on this GREAT forum!
Looks like you found the answer; dispute as "Past Statute of Limitations for Reporting", cite "Date of First Major Deliquency occured in 1997....since this is a legally required date, then let them prove you wrong..
