I have a couple questions regarding CA's reporting. Specifically, Sate Open: Does the date open refer to the CA or the OC? If the CA gets the account in 06/2003 but you last dealt with the OC in 04/2002, and opened the account in 1/2001, what is the CA required to post as Date Open? Can they list the date they acquired the debt as the Date Open? And does a CA always report the account as "Open" or if you no longer are dealing with OC, should it be reported as "Closed"? And what outlines PP for a CA to pull a Hard Inquiry? I don't want to open myself up to a lawsuit because this debt is still in SOL. But I haven't moved in years, they have my current phone number, never attempt to contact me, but every few months they pull my CR.
<<bump>> I would really appreciate someone sharing their knowledge on these. :-/ I am not getting much luck on seraching for the answers. Am I missing a FAQ someone wrote on reporting? A friend was thinking she read one here but I just can't find it...
Re: PP § 604 (3) To a person which it has reason to believe (A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer. The FCRA/FDCPA makes no differential between a hard or soft inquiry, the CRAs made soft available to give the company a way to obtain a report so that periodic reviews of your credit report, don't have to count against your scores, but nothing says when the company must do a soft, a company which is doing business with you could pull hard every day if they REALLY wanted to.
Re: Re: CA Reporting Not exactly, Jam ... here is what FCRA says about the promotional (i.e., soft) inquiries: [color=0066FF]§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports (c) Furnishing reports in connection with credit or insurance transactions that are not initiated by the consumer. (1) In general. A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report relating to any consumer pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (C) of subsection (a)(3) in connection with any credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer only if (B) (i) the transaction consists of a firm offer of credit or insurance; (2) Limits on information received under paragraph (1)(B). A person may receive pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) only (A) the name and address of a consumer; (B) an identifier that is not unique to the consumer and that is used by the person solely for the purpose of verifying the identity of the consumer; and (C) other information pertaining to a consumer that does not identify the relationship or experience of the consumer with respect to a particular creditor or other entity [/color] Now, back to the other questions ... Jam is right - for as long as you have a balance on the account, the owner of the account have PP to pull your CR. If the OC has sold the account to CA, then the OC does not have a PP. lbrown59 is right too - OC has opened the account in 01/2001 and there is no other date to report as "Date Open". You can't open the same account twice on different dates. OC sold the account to CA. Fine. It doesn't mean CA can report the date they bought the account. The date this account was opened stays the same and the CA is in violation of FDCPA for false representation.
Re: Re: CA Reporting Thanks vghost. How do I get the CA to update the tradeline? I sent a letter regarding them listing the single debt in triplicate and they stated in a phone call to me that it had to be fixed by the credit bureaus. She did state that EQ had never contacted them about my disputes but wouldn't provide a letter confirming that. The date should be 12/98 per the original contract and CA is listing as 2/02 as date open which is the date they acquired it. They should report it as closed? Their was never a payment made or any further dealings with the company after the 12/98 contract date.
Re: Re: CA Reporting <<bump>> Someone catch this please!! The CA called me again today to state that the date open (2/02) is correct because they are allowed to report the date they recieved it as the date open, even if it was 3 years after the contract was signed(12/98) for which the OC recieved not even one payment. She said the SOL for suing might be up, but each time a new CA gets it they can put the date open as when they got it. She stated their was no such thing as a 7 year clock. I did play dumb and just listened to her ramble and did say I thought that it could only be listed for 7 years from the last activity with the OC (the date I signed the contract, I didn't mention the 180 days after that). HELP! What do I reference in a letter to them to point them in the right direction of what laws they need to know about? I don't want to sue. I just want this fixed. But if I enlighten them and they don't promptly fix it, I will go from there. I really really need this fixed so it will prove any bad credit issues were from 1999 and prior when my daughter was having medical issues affecting our finances. Thanks!!
Re: Re: CA Reporting Section 623 lists the furnishers responsibilities... (a)(5) The DoLA is based on the date of the LAST delinquincy BEFORE the account was charged off, without being brought back to current... Open date they may be able to report, but reporing under Section 605, is based on the DoLA. But if they do, think of it this way, can an account have a date of last activity from before the date that the account was opened?
Re: Re: Re: CA Reporting Jam, just don't forget that according to § 623 (d) all violations under § 623 (a) could be enforced by the federal and/or state agencies, not by consumer ...
Re: Re: Re: CA Reporting 95207Chick Did you request that the CRA VERIFY the information with the furnisher? If yes, did they reaffirm the inaccurate information? If yes, then the (a) violations become (b) violations which you can sue for. It's not your job to educate the CA, I occasionally do when escalating, but it is their job to know the law. If no to the first question, this is your next step, dispute the account, if they reaffirm the incorrect account information, then you have a (b) violation. This may be when you want to educate them, hey, I have you for a $1,000 violation of the FCRA, but guess what -- I am such a nice person, if you delete I won't sue you for the $1,000.
I only disputed it as "Not Mine" with EQ. I didn't specifically say that the dates were wrong because until I got the validation I did not know what it was. Do I need to exactly tell them whats wrong? I thought it was better to be vague. It just updated with "checked" most likely right after the CA mailed me the validation with a note that my dispute was unfounded. I knew the date was wrong but it wasn't until I had the contract in my hand that I realized how wrong. I was surprised they even had all my paperwork from 1998! Should I go back and specifically tell the CRAs that the date open is wrong? I even realized the OCs entry is dated the same as the CA. But I think their is some wierd relationship there. Because as far as I could locate the OC was out of business, but they seem to be operating hand in hand with the CA based on the paperwork from my validation. The CA won't provide me the OCs direct contact information. Thanks jam. I'll let Santa know you have been good this year!
The experts could better answer whether or not a not mine *SHOULD* require that the entire entry is 100% verifiable & accurate, I would say that when the Data Furnisher verifies the information they should be verifying *ALL* of it...
So what would YOU do next? I am thinking sending a CRRR to the CA telling them exactly what is wrong with the appropraite legal references. And then dispute again when I recieve the green card back that the dates are incorrect. Where would I find the appropriate "law" quote on what the date open has to be? I will search for it but didn't know if someone could offer it up from their brain faster than I can read.
> FCRA: [color=0066FF]§ 605 (c)(1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)(2) 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. § 623 (a)(5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action.[/color] > FTC letters: Harvey [color=0066FF]Section 623 (a)(5) of the FCRA concerns the duty of furnishers to provide a notice of the delinquency date of accounts to consumer reporting agencies. This section provides that persons who furnish "information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall . . . notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action." The provision is clear that [/color]furnishers must provide to consumer reporting agencies the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency[color=0066FF] that immediately preceded placement for collection, charge to profit and loss, or similar action. Thus, [/color]under the plain language of the statute there is no allowance for the use of an alternate, later date; you must use the statutory date for reporting. Use of the "paid-to-date" as that term is used in your accounting system is not acceptable[color=0066FF]. The legislative history indicates that Congress included the requirement of Section 623 (a)(5) so that there would be a uniform date certain by which all consumer reporting agencies would compute the seven-year reporting period for adverse items of information. [/color]It was the intent that the seven year reporting period begin with the commencement of the delinquency rather than any other date. > FTC letters: Johnson [color=0066FF]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 "[/color]the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded[color=0066FF]" 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 [/color]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[color=0066FF]. In sum, we believe that the phrase "commencement of the delinquency that led to the action" in Sections 605(c)(1) and 623 (a)(5) of the FCRA should be construed according to its normal meaning. [/color]If a consumer falls behind on an account and never catches up, the delinquency has its "commencement" when the first payment is missed. From that point on, the account is past due and thus delinquent. Note: § 623 (d) sets limitations on enforcement regarding violations under § 623 (a).
