Applying DOFD as Argument?

After reading a post begun by KEMCOS (DOLA vs Date of First Delinquency) I was inspired to attempt a request for deletion via letter to CA on an account that was never marked for collection but was past due from 9/95 until 3/2000 using DOFD as argument.

This account, according to my records, was never brought to current and there is even a field on each bill 'Delinquency Charges' with an amount inserted almost every month for 5 years.

The last activity date, 3/2000, is when the debt was paid off, but even then it was past due (the entire amount owed was listed as 'past due'). So it was never current until it was already paid off.

I am hoping for some advice about using this tactic. If I can use DOFD, then this should fall off 7 yrs after 9/95, which would be 9/02. RIght now if looks like if I leave it alone it could be until 2006.

The account was never brought current until the last day a balance due existed. It was already in collection and finally paid off by then (although it is not listed as a collection on my CR).
Any thoughts would be helpful.

 

"When is it listed come off on your reports?"

Well, how do I answer that for Equ and TU?
For Exp, at least they list it to be on record until 8/2006 ver'd 5/99, DOLA 3/2000, bal 0
For TU, the DOLA is 2/2000, ver'd 4/2000 bal 0
For Equ, DOLA is 11/1997, ver'd 4/2000 bal 0
Equ lists it under a different 'collector' name than the other two.

So they are all reporting the same info differently, as well as payment history.

 

kathy, yes this info from 1995 to 2000 is from records I have saved.

ON my CR, there is no where it says 'collection account' but Equ lists it as a 'Delinquent' acct and 120 days+ past due, TU lists it as 120 past due, and Exp 180+ days past due.

 

Re: Re: Applying DOFD as Argument?

THat is what all 3 CRA's list this entry as under their 'status' TL. However, where it says 'balance', all 3 report '0'.

It's true, the TL status is contrary to the balance reported. But this is not what I am really after.

Even though none of the TL's mention 'collection' or similar on the CRA reports, the account was delinquent and should have been marked a collection account. Being that is was past due it's entire existence makes me believe I can justify DOFD as a strong argument for deletion.

If I follow the opinion of Mr Brinkerhoff on the following question, you can see where I am going with this:

"Specifically, you ask (1) how the date is determined if there are multiple obsolescence dates where "you have several delinquencies preceding a collection or charge off (8/91 60+, 9/91 60+, 10/91 30+, 11/91 account closed by creditor)..."

"....it was Congress' intent in enacting Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) to establish a single date -- the start of the delinquency -- to begin the obsolescence period on these accounts. This avoids the "multiple date" problem that arguably existed prior to the 1996 amendments. In the case you described, the date of the "commencement of the delinquency" that led to the creditor's chargeoff or collection action would be July 1991 or earlier (depending on how long the account was continuously delinquent before that). The seven year period would start no later than January 1992 (180 days later), with the result that the chargeoff or collection could no longer be reported in most cases beyond January 1999."

I believe I can reasonably apply this statement towards this debt.


I am trying to make sense, but I can only be as sensible as the information provided by the CRA's...

 

59,

Please look at previous msgs on this post, you posted this question earlier and my answer. Tks.