Alright, so this is my first post on this board so I will explain what has happened. In 1995 I returned to college which resulted in a major financial crunch and an inability to pay my bills. In 1996 I entered credit counseling after reaching my limit on harassing collection calls. My financial counselor at CCCS was completely inept and put me on a 500 dollar a month repayment plan resulting in my not being able to afford groceries for 3 months- needless to say it was not a realistic budget. Inevitably, I dropped out of the program after several missed payments and I just stopped paying my bills altogether- I knew this would ruin my credit, but it was already ruined with so many lates. Fast forward to now... I am attempting to re-habilitate my credit. The major problem is that during CCCS 2 of my credit cards were re-aged (although the past delinquencies were not paid). Had this not happened then the first delinquency would have been October 1995 and they would be due to expire this year- as it is they are reporting dates which extend the reporting time 2 or 3 years. Has anyone successfully argued that the accounts should expire based on the earlier date since this was the true commencement of delinquency date? How else do I fight this- I need these to come off in the next year so that I can apply for a mortgage loan.
Do you have any old credit reports or other proof that shows when your last payments were? If not, you can request a copy of all your old statements from the creditor. Then you could if necessary, send copies to the cra's to fix the date of last activity. You should probably start by disputing the date of last activity with the credit bureaus now. Something like "The last activity on this account was 10/95 therefore it should fall off my report in 10/02 not 10/04. Please fix or delete." Being it is so close to the drop off date, they may just delete them now.
Yes, actually I have every billing statement on this account. The problem with the last activity date- I kept making small payments off and on both before and after CCCS (1995-1997). I never caught up on the past missed payments though so I was always at least 30 to 180 days delinquent. Does the date of last activity really matter since the charge-off occurred in 1998 (the 1996 FCRA rules apply I believe)? I was under the impression that the date of first delinquency was the major factor in determining the seven year reporting period for accounts charged-off after December 1997.
This is an FTC opinion letter re: time periods for reporting. Hopefull, it will explain it. But, I believe what it is saying is that when you fell behind, and never caught up, that is the date that should be used. If creditors are misreporting this, you may want to send them a nice, strongly worded letter demanding they amend the listing. Maybe include a copy of this letter for that little extra push. Re: FCRA §§ 605(c) and 623(a)(5) - "Commencement of the delinquency" Dear Mr. Johnson: This responds to your request for our views concerning the calculation of the period for which a consumer reporting agency ("CRA") is permitted to report accounts that have been charged off, placed for collection, or subject to similar action, under the amended Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). You report that the following series of events occurred with respect to one of your credit accounts: "My last payment was received by the creditor 12/96. My payments were due monthly and I missed the 1/97 payment and all subsequent payments culminating in a charge off. This creditor does not report to the credit bureau until the account is 90 days delinquent. . . . The creditor contends that the delinquency did not occur until 3/97 because that is when they first reported it." 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).(2) The alternate view stated to you (that the date of reporting controls) is at variance with both the plain language of these amendments, and the intent of Congress in enacting them. 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. 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. The opinions set forth in this informal staff letter are not binding on the Commission. Sincerely yours, Clarke W. Brinckerhoff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 (Title II, Subchapter D, of Public Law 104-280, signed into law on September 30, 1996), made many other changes to the FCRA. 2. The additional 180 day period accords a measure of flexibility to credit bureaus whose furnishers may provide them with the wrong date. However, the expansion of the time period that Section 605 allows chargeoffs and similar actions to be reported accents the desirability of treating the "commencement" of the delinquency as the first missed payment -- not some later date that would further extend the period.
Actually, I have sent this very letter to the credit card company along with a strong, but respectful letter requesting that they investigate the matter and respond. Their legal department wrote back saying that the appropriate date to report was the charge-off date which occurred in 1998- well, I know this is flat wrong, but they will not budge and they verified the date to the credit bureaus the first time around. So now I have to re-dispute and send another letter to the company to re-affirm that they are wrong. I guess if they do not comply I can try to sue them- I have good records. As far as the cras go I have a decision to make- when I dispute the date again do I give them the original delinquency date, 10/95, or since the account was re-aged during CCCS, do I give them the date of the first missed payment post-CCCS, 6/96. Do I have a case that the account should not have been re-aged during CCCS, so the original delinquency date should stand?
kit, I recently had a similar problem with Verizon. I had disputed a pd chgoff that they were reporting, 3 or 4 times, and it was verified each time. I sent a validation letter to them and I got a barrage of phone calls requesting a call back. I finally called back late one evening and left a message asking them to keep all correspondence in writing. I had sufficiently pissed someone off, so much so, that they re-aged the tradeline. From that point I had them. The chgoff was around 96/97 so it was questionable if the old or new FCRA code applied. I pursued it as if the old code didn't exist, the chgoff date should be 180 days from my last deliquency. I wrote them a email that specifically outlined what had happened, when it happened and how it violated the FCRA. They responded that they would fix all my credit reports to the "appropriate" date. My second email, pointed out that my first email, was for lack of better terms a pre-settlement offer. And to top it off, by changing the date to the one that they were calling the "appropriate" date, they were still wrong and violating the FCRA. I refered to my proof, although I never did send it to them. I made it clear that (in 10 days) if the tradeline wasn't deleted that I would file FTC, BBB, and Attorney General complaints. My stronger point was that I would also file suit on that date. The 9th day arrived and I had received no response, so I emailed them one last time that I would be filing suit tomorrow for the max allowed by my court. They responded about 6:00 pm that evening, while I was filling out the small claims forms. They would remove all derogatory info from my credit reports. I believe everything I sent them is posted here. My hard drive failed and I lost most of my saved emails. And like a dumba$$, I never printed them out. These are links to my emails: First and Second email Final email
Thanks for the info Pat- it will definitely help me draft this second letter. I still need some answers on how to deal with the CCCS factor- had I understood at the time that this program would result in re-aging of accounts (or rather understood what that would mean in the long run) then I would never have signed up. Does anyone know what laws govern re-aging of accounts while in the hands of the creditor and/or while in debt counseling?
I have worked For a Credit Card Company in collecting past due accounts and have had many Customers who have entered CCCS or other Companys.. Usually after the 3rd payment posts to an account it is brought up to date and current.. and it is reported to the Credit reporting agencies as such.. It is also done with Customers who are not in A CCCS , that are just past due.. An account can be brought current with 3 Consecutive payments.. You will be wasting your time with the credit Card Company..
Pat- according to my statements, the account showed a past due balance every month after June 1996- so this would mean that June was the commencement of delinquency date... with the statements I can certainly argue for this with the credit bureau, right?
The FCRA that "set" the starting date as the ORIGINAL delinquency took effect for accounts first reported after Dec.1997.If it was on your reports before that -then the starting date is your most recent chargeoff date.
That is a good readon to bk it all if you are down and out. I read a recent post by someone who was accepted into hardship programs at several CC Co's. The person completed the hardship program only to have the CC Co come back later, to go after the remaining balance, saying they never agreed not to. since the accounts were considered up to date, the person had inadvertently waived all their rights to SOL defense, unbeknownst to them. Blecccccccchhhhhhh. Bk it. Forget them.
This seems to be the most debated part of the FCRA- what rules apply to accounts that were reported or charged off before December 1997? Well, I have asked several credit bureau reps about this and their opinion is that the FCRA rules concerning the 7 year reporting cycle apply to charge-offs that occurred after December 1997 - the date when the first delinquency occurred or the date the account was first reported does not have to be after this time. So, if your account was charged off in November 1997, then the seven year clock begins on this date, but if the account is charged off in January 1998 or after, then the date of first delinquency is used. The official rule is- information providers must provide a date of first delinquency for all items reported to the CRAs after December 1997- which would include both existing and newly reported items. My account was charged-off March 1998, so the new FCRA rules should apply. If anyone has more information about this- I am glad to hear it.
Absolutely, I do not recommend CCCS to anyone. My case manager at CCCS should have never allowed me to enter the program- the budget plan was just not do-able by any stretch! And once you are in- you had better not fall out- all bets are off then.
The one I was referring to was not CCCS, it was hardship program - supposedly if you qualify for hardship, it is because of illness, death of a breadwinner,etc, and it is (was?) designed to let the person off the hook without the CC co losing entirely. But apparently they decided to renig. No other way to describe it.
Well, anyway at least this isn't a paid charge-off > so I will at least try to negotiate a delete for a settlement... then I can be free of the item and my conscience will be clean, urrrr something like that.
Kit - I would pursue it exactly that way. I would tell them your "proof" shows the first deliquency starting in 6/96 so the chargeoff date should be 9/96. You could try that route with the CRAs. But you could also go after the creditor, letting them know they are violating the FCRA and that if they don't fix it, you'll sue. I would probably do this in a progression of letters, offering them every opportunity to screw up along the way. The more ammo you have, the more of a chance to get them to fix or delete it. Or the settlement idea sounds good too.
