Ok, I have been working on my reports for some time now. I have had many successes and for the most part the CRAs and the creditors have been "playing by the rules". So today I receive my TU report, 2 items deleted. Nice. I notice a tradeline that was suppose to drop off this month. It was for a charge off of around $200 in 97 is now showing closed as of 1/2004. 7 more years. This is plain rediculous and I am so mad I do not know where to start. I have old reports of TU showing the correct info, obviously I can take action to get this deleted, but what other recourse do I have? This is blatant abuse. Please help with advice. Thanks.
i dont really have any advice, but i just want you to know i agree that this is utter bullcrap. its like they get to screw up, but as long as they fix it, its ok. well i say screw that. they shouldn't be able to mess up in the first place. there should be a zero tolerance policy. i mean, what if you were in the process of getting a mortgage? in your letter to them regarding this TL, tell the CRAs that you are finished doing their jobs for them. let them know that you now have a zero tolerance policy, and if they screw anything up again, that you will sue. and then follow through. (that's what i'd do anyway, lol.) it is infuriating, isnt it.
i dont really have any advice, but i just want you to know i agree that this is utter bullcrap. its like they get to screw up, but as long as they fix it, its ok. well i say screw that. they shouldn't be able to mess up in the first place. there should be a zero tolerance policy. i mean, what if you were in the process of getting a mortgage? in your letter to them regarding this TL, tell the CRAs that you are finished doing their jobs for them. let them know that you now have a zero tolerance policy, and if they screw anything up again, that you will sue. and then follow through. (that's what i'd do anyway, lol.) it is infuriating, isnt it.
Think of how many people this "reaging" bullshit is happening to. Not everyone checks their reports regularly like you folks and they probably think this baloney is falling off when it's not. This practice is rampant and those that don't know they have legal recourse are screwed on their reports.
Is the "date of last activity" listed as 04? The credit reporting agencies recently changed the way they had been reporting accounts. IF the date of last activity is 2004, its no big deal. THIS IS NOT THE date by which the 7 year clock is started/ended. Check the report and see what the "date of original delinquency" is (ie the charge off or closed date). THIS is the date which is relevent. AND remember, its 7 years AND a few months
My TU reports do not use the verbage "DOLA", it did state...closed 3/97 charged off as bad debt 3/97. Now it reads closed 1/2004, 1/2004 charged off as bad debt. This appears to be reaging to me. I ave a letter I am sending off to TU, not sure what other action I can take against them at this poin unless they refuse to delete.
"charged off as bad debt 3/97" this is the relevent date YES, it is CLOSE to being obsolete. You have another few days, 180 or so, untill it would legally have to come off, and is usually done automatically. BUT, as you have noticed, SOMEONE changed this. MAKE sure you send a copy of any "evidence" of the accurate "date of original delinquency" with the dispute letter. "demanding" deletion of an account which is not obsolete (even if its by a few days) will probably get you nowhere. IF you have the time and patients, WAIT untill the obsolete date has passed, THEN send a dispute letter specifically outlining the correct obsolete date (which will have been passed), and request the entry be deleted BASED ON IT BEING OBSOLETE. This way the reporting agency AND the collection agency have to conduct an investigation. Depending on how each responds, they are both liable for the error FCRA 623 (b)
and just think of all the artificially high interest rates they're paying. the creditors love it. and the CRAs want to keep their money makers--the creditors--happy. and the CRAs' other money makers-- consumers... well, the only reason they make any money off us is because we have to pay to monitor our reports. conspiracy anyone?
Hiding 90, you say: "IF the date of last activity is 2004, its no big deal. THIS IS NOT THE date by which the 7 year clock is started/ended." I'm not disputing you, but sometimes it can be a big deal. I have an old charge-off on my account from 08/98 on TU, but it says date of last activity, 02/04. Just tried to get overdraft on my checking account and was denied automatically by the bank's 'system' because of a "recent" charge-off. A charge-off from 1998 is obviously not recent. Took my credit report into the bank and the representative was like, 'oh, this isn't recent.' But she couldn't help me or reverse the decision. I wonder if yes, maybe this DOLA does in fact matter very much. Any thoughts?
hiding, If it CO'd in 3/97, the delinquency started before that, not after. It's obsolete in about a week.
its like they get to screw up, but as long as they fix it, its ok crowmom ==================== No it's not ok! That's why I say >----->They never take it off the report when we make it right so why should we take it off the docket when they do? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
enough I wonder if yes, maybe this DOLA does in fact matter very much. Any thoughts? fingrrrl ================== Any falsification of a report affects scores therefore it matters greatly. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
