I had some traffic tickets about (I am estimating) seven years ago which I was not able to pay. The amount owed for them was turned over to a collection agency, although they have never been very agressive They have never called me even once, only sent me two or maybe three letters over the years, but it's on all my credit reports, and it's listed as a separate collection account for each individual ticket, totalling four accounts. My driver's license was also suspended for not paying, though, and that's the kicker. I am getting close to being able to pay these off, and I *must* pay them off because I need to get my license back, but is this going to re-age the collection accounts? Am I looking at seven more years now of having these on my credit? Is there any way to avoid that? Thanks in advance for all advice. I really do appreciate all the help I get here.
the fair credit reporting act STRICTLY PROHIBITS the reaging of debts after they have been paid. also, you said you got these tickets close to seven years ago. have they been on your reports that long with the big 3? if so, time is almost up for them to be off anyways. so when you pay them, it will not restart the 7 year clock. i'm just a newbie so you may want to see what the others post. also the federal trade commission website is www.ftc.gov. here you will find the fcra and the fair debt collections practices act [fdcpa]. hope this helps.
Maybe "re-aging" wasn't the right word for me to use. My understanding has been that collection accounts (or all accounts, I guess) are reported for seven years from the date of the last activity. That's why I've read that it's a bad idea to pay off a collection account that's more than three or four years old - because then the account will stay on your credit report for seven more years from the date of that payoff. Am I incorrect in this? If I am understanding this correctly, then my paying off these tickets would cause me to have these collection accounts on my credit for seven more years, but I *have* to pay them off, so I'm not sure what the right thing to do is. And yes, they have been showing up on all three reports for about six to seven years.
I hope you can pay the "court" and not the CA. Seems like you have no choice, if you want your license back. I think you should pay them and then start disputing with the CRA's as "not mine, please delete". See how far that gets you.
Oh, I am quite sure I can pay the court and not the CA. I don't know how far "not mine" gets you when it's your driver's license that's at issue...lol. I guess my only hope is that if I wait a little while and then dispute over some minor thing I can find, maybe they won't verify. After all, they haven't been agressive at all in collecting this, so I am hoping maybe they just aren't all that "on the ball". Maybe. Any other ideas out there?
Well ... here it is again lol. There is considerable disagreement on this issue. Under the OLD system if one paid a debt and brought it current, it would in fact change the DLA. That's why the new 1996 revision sought to fix the date at 180 after the first delinquency that led to the adverse action. Provision was made to "Grandfather" OLD debt to remain under the old system. It's rather complex but to put it simply, don't pay a penny without a written agreement that they will not change the original DLA. Or better yet maybe they'll delete. You'll see many dsinters on this opinion (dont'cha love this country) You'll even hear people say that they did pay off an old debt without a DLA change. Just because the CA is lazy or doesn't follow the law to the letter doesn't mean they can't. All one need do is run into a collector who is both knowledgeable and vindictive. I do think most CA's today ignore this distinction between old and new debt and treat everything as if it were under the new law, (afterall it does make their life and job easier, an item of extreme priority)so you'd probably be ok either way. But like I said you do run a slight risk of a DLA change if you pay in full. Do a search under "dla" posted by butch. I've outlined in gory detail, my opinion. I'm also not a lawyer nor would I wish to be. But I DO know how to read.
OOPS! I hit "submit" too soon! Sorry 'bout that. Anyway, in this case I have no choice but to pay, unless I want to go without a driver's license for the rest of my life, and I am sure they know that and won't negotiate squat (why would they?). I had no idea, though, that there even was any new law as of 1996 (I'm pretty new to all of this). So, in a nutshell, after 1996 accounts can only be reported for seven years after 180 days after the delinquency? I'm not sure of the grammar in that sentence, but am I getting the concept right? I will do a search on "DLA" as you suggested, but just wanted to know if I am seemingly grasping the general idea.
Yeppers, You'll probably be ok not worrying about it. Hell they even usually ignore the additional 180 days too.
Thanks much. Now, I have another question. I am looking at my TU report that I got online at TrueCredit.com. It shows all four of these collection accounts as "Date Opened: 12/01/1999." Is this supposedly the date that the collection agency took on the account? I'm not sure that this is the orignal CA that had the accounts; they may have been sold. I know the matter was in collections long before December of 1999. It surely isn't anywhere near the date of the original delinquency, which was around seven years ago. This TU report doesn't show any kind of DLA or give a date that the item is due to drop off. Should I assume, based on what I am seeing on this report, that they are basically *claiming* that the account went into collections in December of 99? If it's only supposed to be reported for seven years from the delinquency (even after the 180 days), it may actually be beyond that now, but I am not sure. I'm not quite sure how to view what I am seeing on this report. Any input?
Well, I suppose what I'll probably do is just pay them and then dispute all the reports as being over seven years. Then I will just see how they come back at me and take it from there. After all, in reality, even these aren't seven years old now they are very close to it, so by the time all of this happens I will absolutely be right in my dispute. Obviously I can document the age of them pretty easily if asked to, since it's all a matter of court record. Maybe I'll just get lucky and it'll all go easily away. Thanks for all the help!
