...that past errors can't haunt you forever. Late payments, accounts that have been turned over to a collection agency, judgments filed against you in court, and most other blemishes are removed in seven years. The seven years is calculated from either the date of the original delinquency or by the date of filing (if it's a matter of public record). And this: Seven-year Reporting Period With regard to any delinquent account placed for collection-internally or by referral to a third-party debt collector, whichever is earlier-charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, the seven-year period is calculated from the date of the delinquency that occurred immediately before the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action. For example, assume that your payments on a loan were late in January, but that you caught up in February. You were late again in May, but caught up in July. You were again late in September, but did not catch up before the account was turned over to a collection agency in December. You made no more payments on the account, and it is charged to profit and loss in July of the following year. Under the FCRA, the January and May late payments each can be reported for seven years. The collection activity and the charge to profit and loss can be reported for seven years from the date of the September payment, which was the delinquency that occurred immediately before those activities. And then there's this: No one can legally remove accurate information from a credit report. When negative information in your report is accurate, only the passage of time can assure its removal. Accurate negative information generally can stay on your report for seven years. For more info click the links: http://www.credit-score-credit-score.com/credit_scoring/ur_legal_rights.html http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/bbcr.htm
SoParkDiva, Maybe if you send CCN Steve some *smooches* he will give you and any like your own forum called, "The Waiting Room". :-D Lucky is he who can afford to wait. Or, is that foolish? It really depends on each individual's situation. You must agree on that, right? I, on the otherhand am well and able now AND MUST have my CR cleaned up by May 2004. I need to move into a nice apartment with good schools in the area by that time. I wont be able to with the derogs sitting on my report with no good credit lines because the CAs are frequently pulling my CR. I also just lost hundreds due to needing car insurance to get this old car down to a mechanic so they can make it run. The insurance company pulled my CR and raised their initial quote! Time is money!!!
I think SoParkDiva must work for a CA or CRA. Here's the deal, most people on this forum have been screwed by the system, usually by some minor technicality or by deceitful practices and/or misleading statements made by creditors. Businesses much too often weild the power of "reporting someone to an CA or to a CRA" much too carelessly. A simple mistake of a few days, a misunderstanding or not fully knowing the law or implications of something, or being totally naive about a situation when one is young or in-experienced, and it can cost them for 7 LONG, HARD years ... ... many times which is way to harsh and cruel a punishment for the crime. So yeah, Fed law states 7 years and can't remove accurate neg info legally, etc ... but as we all know, laws are guidelines, and they all can be bent a little, and MOST importantly, most issues that people have, a 7 year SENTENCE is most often not congruent with the crime. THIS is why so many people look for ways to "clean" or "repair" their credit. Just like me, a Creditor PROMISED me to call off a CA, and would accept payments from me - and actually did accept payments, BUT... ... the lied and never upheld their end of the bargain, they let the CA report me anyhow. And even by the CA own words, "well, you missed the 40 day time limit to pay this off by 2 days, so hmmpph... we don't care, we are still reporting you . mmmHwahahahah .... you are SCREWED for 7 years ..... hahahah..... cause you believed in someones promise and even though you paid the full amount, since we found out about it, we are reporting you ...hahahaha.... pay those higher finance rates, wait a few extra years before you can qualify for a mortgage ... hahahah,,, we don't care, we have all the power and can use any discretion we won't, if we want to report something, no matter the circumstances, if we technically can, we will. Well, this all just SUCKS! People have the right to try and correct these injustices. Just because Slavery was legal back in the 1800's, did that mean it was right? Just because women could not vote back in early America, did that mean it was right? Federal law said it was right, but was it REALLY right? 'Nuff Said
§ 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681c] (a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information: (1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by more than 10 years. (2) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period. (3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven years. (4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years.(1) (5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.1 (b) Exempted cases. The provisions of subsection (a) of this section are not applicable in the case of any consumer credit report to be used in connection with (1) a credit transaction involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a principal amount of $150,000 or more; (2) the underwriting of life insurance involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a face amount of $150,000 or more; or (3) the employment of any individual at an annual salary which equals, or which may reasonably be expected to equal $75,000, or more. I have yet to hear of this happening to anyone (at least on this board), but IMHO, I would rather have something deleted early, then to let it die of old age only to reappear at a very inopportune time. $150K for a house, or $75K for employment is not too far out of the realm of possibility for many people these days...
You see, therein lies the problem with most of us women: Immediate gratification is our priority! we must have it now and no, we can't wait! Is this what got us in trouble to begin with? What is the big hurry? Do you think that "nice apartment" won't be there in a few years? Isn't it better to have a little patience now than a big headache later on?
*sigh* :/ This isn't even worthy of a response. And I wasn't? Wasn't I a victim of the same system that gives credit cards to college students and encourages us to spend!, spend! but neglects to tell us that the interest rate will ensure that we can't pay, pay? Didn't I have my car repoed and my student loans go into default because the same system that teaches us home ec & driver's ed doesn't teach us to manage credit? Enough! You're just another bandwagon rider. Your're not even worthy of a smooch :/
SoParkDiva, Oh please,,, I have been head of household from the beginning of time without ever getting a dime of help from the government or help from the father of my child. I have lived in the same ONE bedroom apartment for 7 years. It is fairly safe neighborhood with a park behind us BUT too close to the strip for good schools. My daughters growth, happiness, future and education is what is at stake here because of the mistakes the doctors, policemen made at the hospital which also are screwing her life as well by putting their BS on my CR! This is not about me its about my child's life. CNers have woken me up with a chance to educate myself about how this world works and I am loving it! The education alone is going to set me ahead. I can also afford to pay for deletions. Or pay if a CA wakes up and threatens to sue me. Just not all the CAs at once!
Re: Re: Federal 7-Year Law Specifies... Well if nothing else, that's progress! First I go from having NO experience & don't know what I'm talking about & should not be giving advice to now being a CA or CRA shark! U guys are reaching. Hahaha! Give me a break! If I worked in that industry my credit would not have been as bad as it was. And it certainly wouldn't be as good as it is now. Obviously if my new credit is only 2 years old, I couldn't have worked in that industry because don't u have to have good credit? *smooches*
Any information reported can be deleted if it's not verifiable -- no matter the timeframes. Accurate and complete; updated and verifiable -- and even if all those, not misleading. *smoochies* Sassy
You forgot to include the part where any info that is reported can be questioned, and if they can't prove it, it must be deleted. Your posts about waiting the 7 years are becoming increasingly nauseating and sickening. Sorry, but you are fighting a losing battle here with this nonsense and no one will heed your, and I hesitate to use the word "advice". blech. []
Re: Re: Federal 7-Year Law Specifies... I am not advising anyone to wait 7 years, dear. By the time they have fought with the CA's and creditors to pay back these debts - at least 3 years have already gone by. It would be silly of me to tell anyone to sit and wait 7 whole years for anything. And remember I didn't make this 7 year thing up. This is the law. All I'm saying is if you have exhausted every other avenue - allow the law to work for you. *smooches*
SoParkDive, LOL, not shark. I said, "..fired." People normally get fired when they are not good at their jobs. You are different that is for certain. Anyway, I hope your intentions are good for others, as for I, I think it would be easiest and safest if I just exercise my right to use the Ignore switch so as not let you lead me astray. Nothing personal. Good luck with your goals,
Re: Re: Re: Federal 7-Year Law Specifies... How do you figure at least 3 years will have gone by if someone fights debts? There are so many people here that refute that comment by their own results. We do allow the law to work for us. We use the FCRA and FDCPA to rid reports of the trash creditors and ca's spill on them.
Re: Re: Federal 7-Year Law Specifies... I wouldn't contradict the federal government You really should read this: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (5) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information. (A) In general. If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation. Had you not been hiding for 7 years, you would know that the federal government requires the CRA's to provide you with notice that says, negative accurate information can be deleted if not verifiable. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/2summary.htm Inaccurate information must be corrected or deleted. A CRA must remove or correct inaccurate or unverified information from its files, usually within 30 days after you dispute it. However, the CRA is not required to remove accurate data from your file unless it is outdated (as described below) or cannot be verified. If your dispute results in any change to your report, the CRA cannot reinsert into your file a disputed item unless the information source verifies its accuracy and completeness. In addition, the CRA must give you a written notice telling you it has reinserted the item. The notice must include the name, address and phone number of the information source. Sassy
Re: Re: Federal 7-Year Law Specifies... I just quoted the law for you, Diva, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT 7 YEARS!!!!!!!! I know you didn't have time to read it yet, but I fetched you links and all. oh wow, 3 years, where did I just read that??!!!!!! Sassy
Re: Re: Federal 7-Year Law Specifies... By the way, SoParkDiva, I notice you are in Atlanta. You wouldn't happen to work for Equifax would you?
Re: Re: Re: Federal 7-Year Law Specifies... That law applies to CRA's , not the consumer. It was written to force the CRA's to eventually delete negative information, else it would stay forever! Negative info = profits. CRA's are not an arm of the fed. govt, nor are they part of the fed. reserve, or any OC. They have no legal or other authority or obligation to report what they cannot prove, legitimate or not. They are privately run businesses who profit from selling data. Period. If they cannot completely verify the information that they are selling, they MUST delete it. This has no relation to whether or not the debt is owed, or whether the consumer intends to ever pay it back. That is an entirely separate issue. The CRA's would love us to believe that the 7-year reporting period was intended to force the consumer to accept what is reported for 7 years. It does not. It bars the CRA's from reporting past that date. The FCRA was intended to keep the CRA's and furnishers in line, not to shackle the consumer. -Radi8
Re: Re: Re: Federal 7-Year Law Specifies... No she's not Diva. Arguing with Sassy is futile. You will be assimilated. ~ Anyway, Diva has been around a little while now. We should be careful about jumping to "Troll" conclusions. I think she's ok. Just has some stuff to learn, but who doesn't? .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal 7-Year Law Specifies... Sorry, I disagree. I think this is being done to purposefully aggravate people. If you go back and read some of her posts, there is some of the worst advice ever given by her. But if you think that's ok. Fine. I forgot this was "your" board. Didn't mean to offend you. I should have stayed far away from here. It will never be the same.
