Well, I got edumacated today at my attorney's office. We were talking about date of last activity. I maintain the position that "date of last activity" is irrelevent, and is a scam by the CRA to confuse consumers about the oringinal date of delinquency. He agreed. BUT, he added that the furnisher has to provide the date of last activity as required by the "METRO 2" system. AND, the "date of last activity" is SUPPOSED to be the LAST PAYMENT MADE ON THE ACCOUNT!!!! Also, he is in the midst of forming a class action suit against the CRA's for NOT LISTING THE ORIGINAL DATE OF DELINQUENCY ON CONSUMER REPORTS IN ADDITION to the "date of last activity." This is all operational theory at this point. BUT, it has HUGE ramifications as we all know the "Date of last activity" usually changes whenever you dispute something. The question it poses is "if the CRA doesnt report the date of original delinquency, DO THEY PREPARE A REPORT WITH MAXIMUM ACCURACY??
I take it that CRA HAS the original date of delinquency in their records -- does that sound correct? Otherwise, how could they schedule it for deletion on the correct date. So if they have the date, why is this date hidden on the CR? Alternatively, do we believe that CRA doesn't actually have the date of delinquency in their records?
good question and the answer is ? did you attorney answer it ? are you going to share im in suspense now gee thx j/k lol i would gather by this statement that a consumer as butch says it it reasonable to think that this is proper, I would say no they do not maintain accuracy then in this instance. or am i wrong?
You can also sue the collectors on these grounds. Ask NCO. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040416/cgf034_1.html Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant NCO Financial Systems, Inc. alleging that NCO violated the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by using false, deceptive and misleading information by changing the actual charge-off date or date of last activity to a later date, or simply failing to report any date of last activity when reporting information to credit bureaus for purposes of collecting debts. Plaintiff also alleged that NCO reported the debt in its own name, or in one or more fictitious names, and did not report the name of the original creditor, which caused confusion or misunderstanding as to the source of the debt and the connection or association of the debt with NCO. By proceeding in this manner, Plaintiff alleged that NCO ensured that the debt would continue to appear on her credit report, and the credit reports of Class Members, beyond the seven year period permitted by law.
Does that mean that if it says charged off, but they are still reporting every month, they are in violation? Wouldnt that be messing with the DOLA?
This is EXACTLY what the DOLA is supposed to mean. It is the low life CA's and CRA that have corrupted it on everyone's CR's!!!
http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9639 Another employee (not on videotape) testified that she always noted the closed date on the universal data form as 7 years after the date a debt was paid off.
I think any judge or jury would say NO. FCRA Section 609(a): That means ALL information. This couldn't be more clear, in my opinion.
I see there is need for this "study" LOL Anyway, here is the problem with the furhisher. By law, they are required to report the "date of first delinquency" TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. This is from the collection software manual: "FCRA Compliance/Date of First Delinquency (Field 25) PURPOSE: This date will be used by the consumer reporting agencies to determine when delinquent data is to be deleted, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)."-CREDIT REPORTING RESOURCE GUIDE | 5-18 Copyright 2003 © Consumer Data Industry Association -So we can use this againt the FURNISHER if they fail to REPORT THE CORRECT DATE TO the reporting agency. But I would guess that most furnishers actually report this correctly. -COLLECTION agencies often DO NOT. The cited NCO case is an example. -BUT HERE IS THE PROBLEM. The law does not "require" the REPORTING AGENCY to report the "date of first delinquency" ON the credit report. They are only required to "know" the date in order to use it to determine the "7 year reporting period" -Our arguement is that "knowing" and not reporting, are they "following reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy" of a consumer report they prepare? "FCRA 607-(b) Accuracy of report. Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates." -There are soo many arguements to support this my head hurts LOL -I can think of a few DEFENSES used BY reporting agencies. Forget what case it was, but the CRA said "parroting" the info supplied by the furnisher was all the reporting agency had to do. -OK...wouldnt reporting the first date of delinquency, as supplied by the furnisher, be "parroting" ? LOL
LOL Didnt mean to ignore ya.... "§ 609. Disclosures to consumers [15 U.S.C. § 1681g] (a) Information on file; sources; report recipients. Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, and subject to 610(a)(1) [§ 1681h], clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer:" (1) All information in the consumer's file at the time of the request, except that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to disclose to a consumer any information concerning credit scores or any other risk scores or predictors relating to the consumer. - I certainly cant argue that ALL INFORMATION includes "first date of delinquency". -But MY OPINION dont mean anything (and im sure LK will agree LOL ) when it comes to law. UNTIL some case law is DECIDED and APPEALED and AFFIRMED DIRECTLY relating to "all information", in which "ALL INFORMATION" includes the definition of "first date of delinquency" AND "date of last acticity" we are kinda left with just that, OPINION If you can recall, they used to actually have a "column" on the reports FOR "first date of delinquency" In fact, this was the basis of several of my suits in 2001. I used OLD reports to establish this.
-I can think of a few DEFENSES used BY reporting agencies. Forget what case it was, but the CRA said "parroting" the info supplied by the furnisher was all the reporting agency had to do. Cushman vs TU http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1610p.txt The "grave responsibilit[y]" imposed by § 1681i(a) must consist of something more than merely parroting information received from other sources. Therefore, a "reinvestigation" that merely shifts the burden back to the consumer and the credit grantor cannot fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.
Who made credit so important! TrynToFxIt =========================== ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> A better question: Who screwed the so called system up by turning it into a racket? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
newbie here. This lawsuit is the exact scenario which has brought me to creditnet and the reason for my recent posts. The cr info reported by NCO had me completely confused...I even thought it was identity theft at first. Seemed like there had to be something illegal about it, the way they posted... really looks as if it's a completely different, new delinquent account from the OC. Is signing up for the class action suit a good idea? Wonder if that means they will automatically remove the listing in addition to any monetary compensation they will be paying. I know they listed this info on my Trans Union report, but is there anyway to see if they listed it on the others without having to buy reports? I suppose I should still send request for VAL to NCO. This site is like a treasure hunt, each new days search turns up more info.
I had been suspecting that OCs were messing with my Date of Last Activity, thus lowering my FICOs. And why?? Because I disputed with the CRA. RNB-Mervyn's decided to retaliate and list JUNE, 2004 as my Date of Charge Off, even though my report is filled with dates showing the BK7 filed March, 2002. When did they add this info? In July 2004. FICO took a dive. I called Ex today to get a list of my DOLA and rep refused. Said she'd mail me a report -- HELLO the dates aren't LISTED. Called back and got a friendly rep who gave me 5 dates (not all). Question: Is this true? Are others really seeing this type of retaliation with changing dates?
