Re: Correct me if I'm wrong I'm still confused though b/c if you became delinquent prior to the DOLA how do you as a consumer know the date of delinquency?
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong No ..actually John your example is wrong b/c delinquency assumes you don't pay at all. That is what the opinion letter is saying. In other words, if you miss a payment on March 1999 and never pay again after that but the DOLA is May 1999 (if the creditor waited 90 days to report the chargeoff) then the 7 year clock starts on March 1999 (plus 180 days)
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong Vanili, Delinquency does NOT mean that you don't pay at all. Read another FTC staff opinion letter on this: "Continuously Delinquent" means that the account was never brought current. Look in the example the FTC used : 8/91 60+ days late 9/91 60+ days late 10/91 30+ days late The only way that happens is by continued late payments. Payments were made in 8/91, 9/91, and 10/91. How else did they go from 60+ in 9/91 to 30+ in 10/91? If no payments were made it would read: 8/91 60+ 9/91 90+ 10/91 120+ This is the typical pattern and that was the reason that I first thought Love was wrong in stating the DOLA and 7-year periods are not connected. The scenario of â??continuous delinquencyâ? with late payments being made is exactly what this staff letter and the 1996 amendments to the FCRA addressed. I stand by my original post. JohnM
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong In the FTC example it states and assumes that the first payment missed was July 1991. From July to September is only 2 months not 3 months. Creditors generally close an account when it is over 90 days past due. I stand by my analysis
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong How did they, in the FTC example, go from being 60 days behind one month to only being 30 days behind the next month? By not paying at all? JohnM
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong It is YOUR responsibility to keep accurate records. You are supposed to know when you went delinquent. Since most people don't it should be part of your validation process. Short of that you must go by the DLA on your CR. Short of that, as with TU, you have to call and ask. It has never been a secret that one should keep accurate records of their business affairs. And if NOBODY seems to know then re-age the account yourself. Tell them it's from 1776 and should be removed. During an investigation you'll either get it removed or you'll find out what the DLA is.
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong No Butch, I told you before, the original debt was from 1492. It was re-aged in 1776, when the English CA purchased from the OC. Keep up... lol
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong OK this is what I meant... I guess I was gettin SOL confused with reporting clock. In my original post I wanted to know if the CA can report the debt 7 years from the time the CA purchased it. Can the CA sell it to another CA and they can report it starting the 7 year madness on my CRA again? The OC is not reporting it on my CRA.
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong No. It can be reported for 7 years. Period. No matter how many times it is sold, still 7 years.
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong Correct but after the first ca fails to validate it is a bogus debt being reported.
