DOLA vesus Date of 1st Delinquencey

Number one is correct with the exception that it is 7 years plus 180 days.

 

.

 

Great question Kemcos.

#1 is literally correct. But you're also right in that it can be misleading and inaccurate.


To categorically insist that the obsolescence period is ALWAYS 7 years plus 180 days simply is not correct.


Otherwise your "new" reporting period would be 7.5 years.

Congress did not intend to extend the obsolescence period but rather to make it FIXED and place the control of it into the hands of whom it belongs, the debtor.

To put this complex issue as simply as I can the distinction is this: No matter when "the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the chargeoff" is stated by the DF to have begun, the 7 year obsolescence period may begin no more than 180 days after the date it actually is.


It does NOT have to begin right AT 180 days from that date in all instances, as those who state that the obsolescence period is 7 years PLUS 180 days insist.


But because of the unfortunate language used by the FTC in explaining the matter, it's an easy mistake to make.

Here's the 8/98 Staff Opinion Letter to Johnson. This staff opinion is "repugnant to itself". Meaning it says one thing in one place and then contradicts itself in another place.

When confusion occurs we turn to Congressional Testimony. It's Congresses Intent we need to examine when we look at this one. All of that which is in blue below was taken from the Congressional Record.

Let's dig in.



August 31, 1998

Mr. Clifford A. Johnson
1917 Surrey Trail
Bellbrook, Ohio 45305

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.


Unfortunately this unclear statement does say that the reporting period begins 7 years PLUS 180 days from blah, blah. So I hear a lot of us talking about the "7.5" year reporting period. We were wrong!


In the scenario you 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.


The FCRA: § 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681c]

"(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years."(1)


NOT 7 YEARS PLUS 180 DAYS !!!!!!!!!!


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:


"... the date that started the seven-year period was uncertain or under the control of the creditor. ..." That's exactly right. The data furnisher had total control as to when the clock began. The new revision brought that control away from the data furnisher and placed it squarely into the hands of whom it belongs, the debtor. He controls it now by virtue of when he makes his last payment on a defaulted account.

The problem arose when a creditor would "sit" on an account for whatever length of time they wanted to BEFORE finally Charging Off or Placing for Collection. What if a creditor decided NOT to chargeoff or place for collection for 5 years after your delinquency, and then did so. The reporting period would then be 7 years plus 5 years, 12 years? I think not. This is what was meant by the expression "delayed creditor action".


Congressional Testimony: "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)."


Obviously it's not necessarily 7.5 years but can be NO MORE than 7.5 years, an important distinction.


Thus, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- the start of the delinquency -- to begin the obsolescence period (not seven years, plus 180 days in ALL cases).


I think this is a very poorly worded Staff Opinion. It insists, at first, that the RP is 7.5 years, but then goes on to indicate otherwise. They could have been much clearer.


(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.


In other words, don't blame us if some of our language is not clear. LOL


Sincerely yours,

Clarke W. Brinckerhoff



And finally; to further bolster my point Staff added this foot note on the Johnson opinion to help clear the confusion. For some reason it's always left out of our discussions.

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.



I highly recommend a study of this most enlightening thread.


http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...hreadid=35447&highlight=congresses+AND+intent

 

Good show Butch.
Still doesn't change much of anything for those such as myself who claim that the clock starts on the day of delinquency and extends for 7 years plus 180 days. The reason that claim is valid is that although it is of great importance to know what is actually right and what is actually wrong what it really boils down to is not which of us is either right or wrong but whether or not that bill collector has committed a grevious error.

In most cases in which that becomes an issue (rather rare actually) there can be little doubt about the matter as the reaging is so obvious that the perp has no defense against the charge.
To make the issue even more untenable for him, his letters usually indicate clearly enough that it was his deliberate intent to reage the debt thusly imposing a greater period of suffering upon the debtor than was intended by law.

Another very important point I would like to bring out that is obviously far too often lost in these discussions is that it is not relevant who puts out the best arguments against the other fellow's posts that is of importance but rather the development of newer and better strategies regardless of who comes up with them. Mind you, not just newer strategies but also better, in otherwords based on a reasonably correct reading and understanding of the law, rule or regulation upon which that new strategy is based.

Endless arguments, discussions and/or verbal fisticuffs, although interesting and enlightening and at times even entertaining do absolutely nothing to further the interests of anyone except those against whom we must do battle in order to improve our lot in life. There is also another point along those same lines that I would like to bring but since I can't immediately figure out how to word it I won't bring it.

So far, I have yet to see anything more advanced than validate then estoppel and then maybe file complaints about unlicensed collectors on this or any other board and since a debtor has no standing to file suit against a collector for non compliance with state law and state agencies usually provide little or no immediate relief, filing complaints on that issue is about as effective as pounding sand and informing the collector of his errors is a sure way to shoot one's self in the foot.

Oh yes, I almost forgot to give credit to the concept of fixing one's problems by sending wave after wave of disputes to the credit bureaus trying to make them believe that a lie is the truth and the truth is a lie. While all of the above strategies do work to some limited degree, they hardly constitute weapons of mass destruction by any stretch of the imagination.

So if one fixes the date upon which he failed to make his last payment as firmly as possible in mind and projects that date 7 years into the future he will know what date that abominable derogatory remark must be removed and be close enough for government work. It is a practical date to use and to the best of my knowledge every time the point is hoisted before the credit bureaus they will hasten to comply if indeed they may be in error and I have yet to see the (perp)etrator who cared to argue the point before a judge and jury.

As our glorious???? leader is currently trying to point out, It is not arguments and discussions without end that gets the job done but rather a massing of the forces in a joint effort to depose the camels from their thrones and put an end to their reign of terror that gets the job done. So far, he apparently isn't having any more success than we here at home are having in subdueing those who terrorize us both in and out of court.

As it currently is on the world front, none of us wish to unleash the dogs of war however there are those times when it is a necessity and if we wish to win then we had best be better trained and better equipped than those we wish to depose or we will ourselves end up being deposed. Sadly enough that is what usually happens. We get shot down no matter what we do and the simple reason is that we almost always look for simplistic answers to complex problems and when a workable solution is proposed our eyeballs glaze over and we ignore the problem until it is far too late.

The final answer lies in the courtroom no matter how much we abhor the thought. The only way to win is to know and understand the law and how the court system works not endless discussions over the same old porridge.

 

There are a few things you may want to take into consideration before burning rubber to get to the court house.

I say that if it works do it.

I think you are bringing two completely different sets of laws into play here. One falls under banking regulations if they are a banking entity and the other under FCRA reporting regs. My thinking is that Amex would fall under both.

A violation it may be, but as most judges say, if it don't change the outcome of the case get it out of here. My point being that how would the change you suggest or believe violates the law affect the impact of the listing? If it would not get rid of it or turn it to a positive tradeline then why bring the charge?

So you maintain that it was not your debt and you were never responsible for it under any conditions nor under any signed agreements? If so then that is at least one valid pont to bring.

That is two separate charges you might bring

Prove that and you prove you are responsible for the debt thereby neatly kicking the bucket out from under your feet..

So?

Rotsa Ruck.

 

Re: Re: DOLA vesus Date of 1st Delinquencey

BTW - #2 isn't right only because of a silly termonology misshap. It's the DOLD (date of last delinquency), ya know, the one that immediately precedes the charge off, not the DOFD, unless you're counting backwards of course.

 

Re: Re: DOLA vesus Date of 1st Delinquencey

If , as part of your lawsuit, you are claiming this was a business credit card, you might consider that business credit is NOT covered under the FDCPA or FCRA.

 

Re: Re: DOLA vesus Date of 1st Delinquencey

You didn't read or understand what I said. What I said had absolutely nothing to do with "if it was secured by deposit."

Please reread and I think you will see that.

 

Re: Re: Re: DOLA vesus Date of 1st Delinquencey

 

Re: Re: Re: DOLA vesus Date of 1st Delinquencey

Hehehe,

Don't beat around the bush Kemcos, just come right on out with it.

 

Re: Re: Re: DOLA vesus Date of 1st Delinquencey

Your post is most revealing indeed. It shows that you have not the foggiest idea of how the system works. Until you learn how the system works you will be forever doomed to doing nothing more than running around spouting off vulgarities so the public can really understand your level of intelligence.

The simple fact of the matter is that our courts cannot make new laws. They are forbidden to do so by our constitution. That keeps silly people from doing dumb things that would totally wreck our nation and our lives or at least it keeps them in check for the most part.

Your words also illustrate the fact that you do not understand that he who refuses to learn history is forever doomed to making the same mistakes forever thusly running around in circles never getting anywhere.

If man will not learn from the mistakes of others he will make the same mistakes they did.
So that is why all those libraries are filled with all those musty old books filled with pages upon pages of history known as case cites. By learning them and using them constantly we hope to steer the courts the way we think they should go in making their decisions. We tell us how other courts have ruled and that we believe they should rule the same way the previous court did. Or we explain why we believe that reliance upon that old case the other side is trying to spoon feed the court is not applicable to the current situation. That is the way it is done and it is the way it has been done since the time man became educated enough to paint symbols on cave walls and understand what they meant.

New law is made by those who have the influence or the money with which to buy the influence of those who have the power to make new laws which the courts of inferior jurisdiction must then obey.

New law is not made in the court room and if a lower court attempts to do that it is soon struck down in most cases.

You cannot make the system do your bidding unless you understand how it works and why it works the way it does. If you attempt to do what you think you can do you will have some mighty hard lessons to learn.

When in Rome you must do what the Romans do or they will squash you like a bug.

So wake up and smell the coffee and understand that you cannot simply change the entire course of human history by ignoring it and wishing it would just get out of your way and leave you to your own devices no matter how destructive they may be.

You ain't Gallelio and you ain't Plato nor are you even Geedubya. So get down off your hobbyhorse cuz he ain't going nowhere.

 

Re: Re: Re: DOLA vesus Date of 1st Delinquencey

The date of first delinquency would be correct IF the account was never brought current.

Example:
If you have an account with several 30 day lates (or whatever) and the dates were reported in 2/95, 4/96, 6/96, 10/97. The dates of delinquency are followed by payments on the account and the account was brought current. In 2/02 the first 30 day late would drop off. In 4/03 the second would drop off etc.

If another payment had not been made on the account which led to the charge off or collection then the drop off date for the whole tradeline would be 2/02...7 years from the date of the first delinquency that led to the charge off.

 

Re: Re: Re: DOLA vesus Date of 1st Delinquencey

Do you have a specific problem that you caould share more of the details for in regards to your question?

Both dates are used to figure the drop off date. Equifax uses the DOLA and you have to watch them cause they like to put the date of your payment there if it was charged off and paid later in settlement. This reages the account.