I just looked at my EXP report online and noticed AMEX changed and updated the DOLA regarding my charge-off. Originally, it was charged off 06/2000 and now according to CreditExpert, it is showing as being charged off 08/10/02. Isn't this illegal, changing a charge off date? The only action I did recently was send a validation letter via CRRR to the collection agency and now AMEX has started to call me and send me correspondence via mail. They also stated in their reply that "At my request, we ceased collection efforts" What should I do now cause from what I recall reading a while ago, CCC are not supposed to change the date of a charge off?
I only sent the validation to the CA and NOT to AMEX directly. Also, the stupid post office lost my green card so I have no proof they received it, just the receipt from when it was sent. However I know it was rec'd cause now I started getting settlement letters from the CA and AMEX is also trying to get a hold of me after several months of silence. The CA offered me 65% settlement. I was actually considering renegotiating that lower maybe to like 30-40% if possible. Any other suggestions would be appreciated.
Can I ask a dumb question of the board here? Doesn't the DOLA field of a trade reflect exactly that, the date of last activity? There can be activity after a charge off, so updating this field on a charged off debt should be allowed, right? Now I agree that it is wrong for Amex or anyone else to attempt to move the start date of the 7 year clock for credit reports. But the start date is 180 days after the event that lead to the delinquincy, not the DOLA. Based on FCRA. the charge off date of a debt has nothing to with anything. When a creditor decides that a debt is to be charged off, they can reflect that decision in the information the send to the CRA. The date that this charge off occurs can update the DOLA, but so can lots of things. The FCRA requires that information contained in a credit report to be truthful and accurate. Is this poster claiming that the DOLA is not correct? Would the answer depend on what is defined as "activity"? Would the OC assigning the debt to a CA be "activity"? Or does "activity" only occur when the debtor does something? It obiously can't be since the creditor can update this field when they decide to charge off the debt. So why is what Amex did here considered illegal? Thanks!
It seems to me that by moving the charge off date up, AMEX is basically charging off the debt twice. A charge off has a specific definition -- the date they moved the debt off their books, to oversimplify. That can obviously only happen once with a given debt (once it's off their books, it's off); so how can something they charged off in 2000 be charged off again in 2002? If it isn't illegal it should be.
But where on the credit report does it say what date it was charged off? The poster said they updates the DOLA field. Who says that field is the charge off date of a delinquent debt?
That is incorrect, the actual definition is in the FCRA and the following FTC staff letter deals with that issue: Section 623(a)(5) requires a creditor that reports a chargeoff to a CRA to notify the agency (within 90 days of reporting the account) of "the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded" the chargeoff. Section 605(a)(4) provides that the credit bureau may report the chargeoff for seven years. Section 605(c)(1) provides that seven year period begins 180 days from that date. In the scenario your reported, it is our view that the delinquency that led to the charge-off "commenced" in January 1997, the month the first payment was missed. Thus, that is the month and year that the creditor must report to the CRA, and that the CRA must use to calculate the time period dictated by Section 605. We are not in accord with the contention that the date "when (the creditor) first reported" the chargeoff to the CRA constituted the start of the delinquency. Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) were recently added to the FCRA to correct the ineffectiveness of the previous FCRA, under which the date that started the seven-year period was uncertain or under the control of the creditor.(1) The legislative history of these provisions makes it clear that they were designed to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from delayed creditor action: Current law generally prohibits consumer reporting agencies from including in a consumer report accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years. The Committee is concerned that this seven year limitation is ineffective. In some cases, the ... action occurs months or even years after the commencement of the preceding delinquency. ... Consequently, the consumer report may contain such information even if the delinquency commences more than seven years before the date on which the report is provided to a user. The Committee bill specifies that the seven-year period with respect to information concerning a delinquent account charged to profit and loss . . . may begin no more than 180 days after the commencement of the delinquency immediately preceding the ... action. S. Rept. 104-185, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 39-40 (emphasis added). Thus, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- the start of the delinquency -- to begin the obsolescence period (now seven years, plus 180 days). JohnM
I read this, as well as some other things, and I don't see a definition for a charge off. It is my understanding that a charge off occurs when a creditor moves a loan off its books as non-performing. Would someone like to provide a correct definition, if this is incorrect?
