My confusion continues..the more I read the more confused i get! lol 7 years from the DOLA, negative item should be removed right? Tell me if this is right... From friend's CR - CREDIT STORE - DOLA on Eq is 12/95..so this should come off this year right? Now here is one I'm confused on also: COLLECTION ACCOUNT - DOLA on EQ reads 12/95, debt was assigned to CA on June 1999 and reported to EQ on august 2001 (it was only reported after he paid!!!). So will this come off in December as well? Here is why I am confused. On the EQ entry for the OC it lists DOLA as 9/98 not 12/95????
You need to send a letter to the oc that they are reporting incorrect info and need to corredt it. But, only if it is past the sol would I do this. Or, if you haven't disputed the dola with equifax yet, you should do that first.
Well..I am wondering if it is beneficial to even dispute it b/c here is the thing...I think it is the CA that has the wrong DOLA. The First Financial is correct in that the delinquency started in 98 but the CA lists it as 95 so why should i dispute it. But...am i right in that the CA tradeline will off Dec. 2002 ?
Actually LKH you're absolutely right but I gotta tell ya where I'm at with this at this point Somebody already reaged her account and a violation has occured. I would, were it my problem, file an immediate intent to sue and a bill for $1,000. Demanding deletion to avoid the suit within 3 business days and "*MAYBE*" I will decide not to run your sorry butt's through the legal system, thus costing you thousands of dollars to defend. I'm sick and tired of these jokers. It's time to make them pay. Partly because, for the first time, I logged into your thread "We're being watched". I'd never read that thread before, only heard about it. How did that ever resolve, btw. email me if you want.
Wait a second...hold your horses guys!! Where do you see that it has been reaged..and by whom? Like I said before, it looks like the OC has the right DOLA but the CA has the wrong one. The wrong one is 3 years earlier. So why would I sue for that!!! Hasn't the CA "deaged" the account...lol.??
Great question Vanili, The law requires that the correct dla be reported. It matters not wheather they reaged forward or backward it's still wrong. The reason I might push the issue is to get deletion. Obviously I would NOT send them a letter stating they should correct or get sued, I'd just sue and then agree to "consider" dropping it when they delete. On the other hand if it's close to expiring I'd leave it alone, depending on your individual situation. see?
Ahh..I see your point now Butch But yes, since it helps in his example, we will probably leave it alone. If only I could find a way to have the OC deage as well and come off sooner...hehe.
Well I have a question now. What is the DOLA? Is it 90 days after the payment that initiated the charge-off was due? Is it 180 days later? Is it when they last tried to contact you? What consititutes the DOLA? What type of activity?
The 7 year reporting clock ends 7 years plus 180 days after the initial delinquency that led to the charge off. I forget the exact precise wording. As for what constitutes the date of last activity, I think it means activity by either you or the creditor, i.e. a payment, a charge off,
I think it means activity by either you or the creditor, i.e. a payment, a charge off, vanili ============= It's only the customers activity not the creditors. lb 59
