Re: Profit and Loss I understand it to be date of first reported delinquency in which you never caught up plus 180 days. It would be valuable to have CRA reports just prior to any delinquency and also to order reports when you first become delinquent bc as Kristy is saying creditors sometimes try to reage the debt (when it is sold, given to CA etc.) and by having an earlier credit report on hand it will prove the date of first delinquency and when the 7-years ends and the negative tradeline must fall off your report. Again this is just how I interpret the 7-year reporting rule. tml
Re: Profit and Loss KristyW I think I understand what you are saying. If I missed a payment in May, June, July and the July statement said $300.00 was needed to bring the account current, but I was only able to send $20.00 and then in August I sent in another $20.00 but after that I wasn't able to send in anything and never made another payment. Then the first date of delinquency would be in May since I was never able to catch up and bring the account current and the 7-year rule would be from May plus 180 days. Is this right? tml
Re: Profit and Loss Ummm, okay, the FTC opinion letter states that in cases prior to the 1997 reform, they go by the date the account was written off. So, that account can be reported for 7 years from the date of the write-off. If the original creditor accepts a payment after they have written the account off, they have to "un-write it off" for lack of a better term, and pay those taxes, so the date of the write-off, technically no longer applies. However, my comment that common practice does not equal law is applicable here too. I think most of the cases I know of where the original creditor accepts payment, the debtor has contacted them and is making restitution for conscience or other reasons, and I really don't know of any company that has taken punitive actions for that. So, say you want to get off AmEx's or Citibank's blacklist, so you contact them and offer to pay. No one on here or the other boards I frequent has ever posted that AmEx or Citi restarted the clock on them. I think in many cases, they changed the reporting to unrated, or zero balance or something that wouldn't hurt the person. But if they wanted to restart the clock they could. The CRA's are another matter. They can and do restart the clock based on what is reported and how it is reported. Like the guy posting in this thread - Citi keeps reporting on a regular basis on a charged off account, Experian keeps changing the date. Experian will change it back (I know from experience) but someone has to let them know what is happening - it's their software, not somebody sitting there going "AHA!! Got him again!!" So, if someone makes a payment on a charged off account to original creditor, and they just report the activity, and don't do soomething out of the ordinary to stop it, the clock would start over, and legally, it can. Paying a collection agency would not start the clock, because the FTC opinion is that it is the date of the write-off that applies, and the account is still written off - therefore, clock is not restarted. I can't keep this up much longer... brain hurts. We may have to continue tomorrow, hahaha. Marie would be good at explaining how the write-off works, but I think she is off filing lawsuits, hehe. She has the required degree for that stuff.
Ed this is what Kristy and I are discussing, among other things. I say, legally, according to the FTC opinion letters, it is the date of the charge off. Common practice varies, and if they keep reporting it I would dispute it based on the revised FCRA, and hope they deleted it based on the delinqency in 1994. But if they want to stick to their guns and keep reporting it based on the charge off date (1996), they can. I had one like this and Equifax & TU stuck to their guns, Experian deleted.
Somebody is wrong, jmart. The clock would not be reset by you payment in 9/99. Keep your credit reports showing the date charged off, so when the time somes for them to take it off, you will have your proof in hand. Disputing it now is fine, but the time to worry about it is when it is time for it to come off. Most likely it is a software problem.
Breeze, It's nice to have a debate with an intelligent person. Really. I am and have been looking at the same opinion letter you are and I don't see where your assertion that the clock can be restarted is validated. I see specifically, that the FTC is stating that the start of the delinquency is the date that counts, and 180 days after that is the date from which the 7-year period starts. I have read the letter bunches o'times and cannot honestly see anything regarding new payments. What am I missing???
Well, do you see where he refers to the 7 yr reporting time starting with the date the account is charged off?
a summary There are two types of delinquent/charged off accounts which are being reported to CRA's 1. Those prior to 1997 amended FCRA 2. Those post 1997 FCRA Accounts prior to 1997 do not fall under under the amendments which were enacted in 1997.in regards to start date of 7 yr reporting time. These accounts are the only ones where a payment (or anything else) could trigger a new beginning date for the 7 yr reporting period. For accounts prior to 1997, there was no set date, no one event that signaled the beginning of the 7 yr reporting period. Therefore, any type of change in the account was considered "activity" and that is where "date of last activity" became the standard. Since a payment is "activity" it could trigger a new date for the start of the 7 yr reporting period. However, in an opinion letter, an FTC attorney stated that all this was true, but that they did not consider activity that takes place after the account is charged to P&L by the creditor. So, no activity that takes place after charge off will reset the date of the start of the 7 yr reporting period. Once an account is charged to P&L, they can no longer accept payments, and still maintain the status of that debt as a "charge off." When they accept a payment on a charged off account, they have to put that account back on the books. So, it is no longer charged off, the payment constitutes activity, and the payment restarts the clock.
Re: a summary For reasons of conscience (and lack of awareness of any alternatives), my wife and I went the CCCS route (since completed-yeah!). As I'm working on clearing up our credit reports, I see few accounts where the status is "Paid Charge Off". This seems like one of George Carlin's oxymorons (Jumbo shrimp, military inteligence, airline food, etc.). Does your statement imply that there is some obvious course of action that I'm not grasping? Please enlighten me.
Re: a summary That is some oddity that the CRA's have come up with. I guess to document what happened - this is how they do it. That is the problem with CCCS- you pay it all and still get your credit trashed.
Re: a summary On the plus side; as soon as we were finished and had everything documented, we were able to get a MasterCard (no security deposit, no annual fee, 16.9% APR) from Citibank through a program they have for CCCS grads. Part of that whole yin and yang thing, I guess.
Re: a summary That is good to hear!! I think it is a shame more banks don't have programs like that. When someone makes all that effort, and repays their debts in spite of hardship, they should get some consideration.
Re: a summary Back to my question, though; if an account has long since been charge to P & L, then they accept payments, do I have any recourse as to changing its' status on my CR?
Re: a summary What year was the charge off? The only way to change anything is to dispute it. The fact that you went through CCCS and paid it doesn't change the fact that they charged it off at one point. They can still report that. But you can dispute it anyway. You can dispute anything.
Re: a summary Have done the dispute thing with some success. the ones that came back "verified", I've asked the CRA to explain their method of verification within two weeks and, dang it, they did; albeit in a totally unsatisfactoy way. No response from EQ yet (they've got a few more days), but EXP and TU both basically gave the account names and phone numbers and said "go verify it yourself, nimwad!" I've got to research the FDCPA a bit, but my imression is that they have a higher degree of obligation than that. I'll look it up, but any ideas on this?
Re: a summary Well, I think you meant FCRA not FDCPA, but anyway, the FCRA says that they have to give you the name and address of whoever verified the information. So the trick is, once you get this information, you contact them and find out whether they did indeed verify the information. There are numerous threads on here where it is obvious that the information was never actually verified. Then you have a lawsuit for FCRA violations. That is what all the threads about lawsuits are about. It is to force them to comply because they are just blowing off disputes and saying they verified when they really didn't. In many cases the accounts really do not belong to the person!! And the company that is supposed to have verified the information doesn't even have the account on record!!
Re: a summary When you say "who" they talked to, do you mean the specific person, date, etc.? Because if that's the case, I'm on Easy Street. They didn't give me a single contact name. Just a Company name and phone number.
Re: a summary their exact words: § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] and here is (6)(B)(iii) So no, not the exact individual they spoke with. However, in cases like the ones on the board where the address they gave was old and the phone number disconnected, or where you contact them and they can find no account for you... bingo.
