ok heres the scanrio OC sold debt in '99 OC debt was charged off in '99 and is no longer reporting on credit report OC last date was '96 Company that bought the account said that since they bought the debt in '99 the SOL start from when they purchased it. Is this true? He asked for my last 4 of my social to verify that the account was correct and read me the social on file. He also said he would not remove it, that it was he duty to the OC not to delete it. He also didnt read me my rights[that he was trying to collect a debt] What to do?
It is illegal to reage an account if it is bought. If they did reage it debts would never disappear. He is lying and deserves a good hard beating.
so they are posting that the account is from '99 on my credit...thats a good chance i can have it deleted huh? Cause the Original account is from '96. HA i was even going to pay part of it.
#1: Don't talk to a CA on the phone #2: Send a dispute to CRA, couple of weeks later dispute with CA. #3: Start the violation spiral (you already have on violation: reaging)
If you don't have an old copy of your CR are you out of luck if the account is reaged? How else can you prove the "date of last activity"?
it is not for you to prove I wouldnt think..they'd have to prove it to you in the validation process.
One way I can prove they are reaging the account is becuase the CRA told me the Date of last activity was with the OC from '96. Wouldnt he have to prove I tried to make a payment to the CRA, if he cant prove it then its misinformation and must be removed? Whats the best way to dispute this? Not Mine? Incorrect Dates?
The SOL can be re-started if a payment was received after the charge off date by the OC. If you clearly did not make any since the original time reported then you are safe in your claim. Report it as inaccurate date entry to the the CRA. Its up to them to verify it and report back to you on their findings.
The original debt was from 1492 when I financed a sea voyage to discover a new land. I hit some financial hard times when my first ship ran aground on plymouth rock and never quite recovered. An English CA then repurchased the debt from the Spanish Gov't - the OC. They reaged the debt as of 1776 claiming I dumped several hundred crates of tea in the boston harbor...lol
That's not true. It used to be true, but the 1996 amendments to the FCRA made the following changes (among others): ------------------------------------------------- (Copy of FTC staff opinion letter dealing with this 2. Is the reporting period extended if (A) the original creditor sells or transfers the account to another creditor, (B) the consumer responds to post-chargeoff collection efforts by making a payment on the debt, or (C) the consumer disputes the account with a CRA? Does it matter whether the 7-year period has expired when any of these events occurs? No. In enacting the new provisions discussed above, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- 180 days after the start of the delinquency that led to the chargeoff -- to begin the obsolescence period. It did so to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from later events under the original FCRA. Enclosed are two staff opinion letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99; Johnson, 08/31/98) that discuss the impact of these provisions, and the legislative history relating to their enactment, in more detail. Because the commencement of the seven year period is now described with some precision by the statute, it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you listed -- sale of the charged off account by the creditor, or a payment on or dispute about the account by the consumer -- changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a chargeoff. JohnM
Thank you, I thought that was wrong. If it weren't, many of my tradelines would still be on my reports!
Thank you John for the clarification in this matter. Doing the added research did enhance the subject! Perhaps my directiveness was about the SOL, not about the CRA or OC.. Each state runs its own length of time for the SOL to be in effect and it was towards *THAT* reasoning that I made reference. Text can be so misinterpreted...
===== Did you ask him about his DUTY TO OBEY THE LAW? You could have asked him how many thousands of $s he was willing to pay you to perform his duty to the OC. **************
