Hubby has a couple paid collections, well I called the original creditor for one of them, and they had no record of that account. SO I wrote a validation letter to the CA for the pdones,well apparently the CA is OWNED by the CRA. It only reports on TU. The CA is Credit Bureau Service os NH, the TU affiliate is Credit Bureau Service of Upstate NY. So I gave the CA 30 days to respond, and they didn't, so I sent the CRA MY letter saying the CA could not validate, and the CRA sends hubby the ORIGINAL emergency room form that hubby signed, back in 4/98, then on Saturday the CA sends the same thing. Apparently they have their sh!t together!! So I've come to realize that this CA doesn't PAY to have an account with the CRA, so it will be there for the full 7 years! My question is is it on there from 7 years from the date of service (4/98), or 7 yrs. from the day the CA got a hold of it, 6/99? Sorry for the bad grammer my keyboard is all screwed up!
My guess is that its 7 years from date of last activity on the account (4/98). I think that's the rule laid out in FDCRA.
But they still violated the 30day rule. For this violation she can sue for $1000 as per the FDCPA, right?
Is it really so simple as all of that? In my experience (not specific experience, just in general in my job capacity), a company will go in front of a judge and give a really good excuse as to why something happened and they will get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again. If a judge orders that networth statements be turned over to the other party within ten days of the court date, one of the lawyers can always say "your honor, I was in court (out of town, home sick) every day for the past ten days and was not able to get the statement of net worth finished. May I please have another week to complete" and the judge will say "yes, another week is fine" and that's that. No penalties involved. Are the courts really so strict on the CRAs about them not getting a response out in 30 days? This is one of the reasons I've been somewhat dreading having to actually go the route of going to court over any of this. I've seen too many cases where it seems like that other party has violated the law or a court order, only to see the judge say..."oh that's okay...just don't do it again".
Running of reporting period. (1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6) ** of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action. ---------------------------------------------------------- This is an interpretation from www.faircreditmovement.org This means that the 7 year time limit on reporting negative information starts 180 days after you missed the first payment that led to the delinquency. If you stopped paying on your loan in May of 2000 and it wasn't charged off until December of 2000, the 7 year reporting period starts 180 days after you missed the payment in May 2000 (6 months or November 2000). The listing is to be removed from your credit report NO LATER than November 2007, NOT December 2007.
