I've been reading and reading..and I"m trying to figure out how exactly it is that you know something has been reaged?
With Experian, the date that its scheduled to drop off has been pushed to a later date. With Equifax, the DOLA has been pushed to a later date. With TU, I forget.
I'm a little confused about re-aging myself. If the DOLA on a charge-off on experian has changed from what it used to be, it has been re-aged? From what I've read (here and elsewhere) if you make a payment on a chargeoff, it still can't be re-aged? (e.g., the DOLA on charge-off is 1999, you make a payment on that charge-off in 2000 and the DOLA is changed to 2000). However, making a payment on a charge-off restarts the SOL? Yes/no?
Dude, this is all sooo confusing...lol! Ok so I have this Wachovia Card that was closed in 12/94 I believe ..by me. Experian says that this account is scheduled to continue on record til 2012. What's up with that! It has been reported since 1999 and says that my credit limit/high balance was 500 b/w 10/2001 and May/2002 but I've never had that card!! It was cancelled 8 years ago by me b/c it was gotten by mistake. Then..on Experian it is also listed twice. Second listing says it will stay on my report til 2011 and last report date by Wachovia was july 2001. What the heck!!
The kicker is that sometimes they use the charge off date as DOLA, sometimes the date of last payment, etc.
What month are they scheduled to drop off? Did anything significant happen in that month but in a previous year?
I think it's July. Only connection that I can think of to July is that I asked the CRA to fix their reporting of the account b/c Wachovia had no record that I ever had an account. It was showing as an open account even though it showed as closed as of 1994 on other CRA reports. It's not a derogatory account or anything but the info is inaccurate which bugs the hell out of me and the darn account has been closed for 8 years.
Well..just checked results of my Experian online investigation submitted last week and the Wachovia accounts were deleted! This makes no sense b/c I investigated through mail 2 years ago and they kept it on. Whatever..it's gone
But, paying on a charge-off (after its been charged-off) shouldn't bump the DOLA to a current date, should it?
Question: Answer: I think if they use date of last payment, its the last payment pre-charge off. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, but as I said, I was talk *Post* charge-off. (to use an example, someone making a payment to the collection dept of a loan a year *after* it was charged-off). In *this* situation, if the DOLA on Experian then changes, you just got re-aged?
Well I didn't think deleting the Wachovia accounts would make that much of a difference but today my Experian score shows as being a 686 when it was like a 674 or 672 the other day!
My experience with Experian re-aging was when an item was verified or updated, the status date was changed to the date it was updated or verified. This resulted in a four year old foreclosure being considered to have happened in 02/2002. Fortunately for me they deleted it when I redisputed... So long as they report a date that is on or before the date of last activity they will satisfy the FTC opinions and comply with the FCRA requirements. I would say that they aren't reporting 100% accurate data unless it's the true DOLA, but FTC opinion seems to feel it's not hurting the consumer, only helping. (There are about 3 or 4 opinions on this one. It seems to have been a big accounting issue for a few companies.)
Jambe, what you're describing is what I'm talking about. It seems that Experian has verified a two-year-old charge-off of mine, and has changed the DOLA to 7/02. It then states on the report that, "this will continue on record to 7/2009". *I think* this is re-aging. And, from the FTC opinion letters I've read, they seem to think this is re-aging as well. I'm just not sure WHO re-aged it. Experian or the CA... Is my thinking flawed on this?
You thinking sounds good to me. How do you feel about it? Hard to say who is to blame, but I would redispute with that as the specific problem. Other people might have better advice though...
