for the past year, I never ever seen anyone report about my charge-off from this old cc, nor received any any c.letter.. yet today, 2 month b4 the 7 year expires. Midland decide to report it.... what r they thinking?>......
It may not be a joke at all but there is the very real possibility that you could end up laughing all the way to the bank with a hefty chunk of their money in your pocket. Here is the trick. It is illegal to reage the debt so that it stays on for more than the allowable 7 years plus 180 days from the date of first delinquency of the debt. Some settlements resulting from that kind of infraction have been as high as $2.2 million. Maybe you ought to study that situation real carefully
Bill, ya serious????!! I didnt know about the 7 year exp date, they "reported" that will be off on 04-2003, not to mention they first report the TL this 02-2003...uh...what kinda game are they playing ??...
If it is to be reported until 4/2003, then it sounds like they did not reage it. But reporting it for 2 month?
Well, sounds to me like they probably tried to reage it and the credit bureaus caught it and put the proper lid on it. Finding a true case of reaging is getting pretty hard to do now since the FTC came down on that one CA in Calif. for doing it. That was the $2.2 million one. That's a pretty hard warning not to play such games even if FTC did let them off the hook because it would have broken them and put them out of business. Notice that FTC picked on the little guy again. They didn't want the money, they wanted a fairly wide spread practice stopped once and for all. If they had wanted the money they would have went after NCO, Gulf States or somebody that had the money and who were big enough to absorb the hit with little or no problem. Most of the time when the government wants to make an example out of somebody they pick on some little guy and lay a heavy hand on him that will more than put him out of business but never pick on the big guy. If they want the guy put out of business or nearly so they will pick on a Microsoft and fight to the death and then sometimes they win and sometimes they don't.
The re-aging is only effective AFTER the 7 year+180 days expires? However what if the date is incorrect but the acct is not to drop off for a year or 2? That is "reporting incorrect info" then also misrepresenting the character of the debt? thanks in advance pk
I think one answer for both of the 1st two questions will suffice unless I misunderstand here. The act of reaging the debt is illegal regardless of when it occurs. Actual elapse of the SOL for reporting probably would not be meaningful as I see it. Please explain what your intrepretation of "misrepresenting the character of the debt" is. In otherwords, do you have a specific instance in mind?
Yes for example my wife has an account from a job placement agency on her reprot from 8/96 but is showing a balance date of 8/00..the acct is 6 1/2 years old but on the report the possible credit grantors see this as a fairly recent debt.. I was thinking that was misrepresenting the "character" of the debt.
I think not. (Yeah, I know! (LOL)) Be that as it may, what that seems to say in my mind is that the debt started back prior to 8/00 and continues unpaid until 8/00, some 4 years later. If there is character misrepresentation I am obviously too dense to see it.
The problem isn't so much with the misrepresentation of the debts character, its how it is scored by FICO. As everyone knows, things age under FICO scoring system and the older they become the less they detract from your score. I been trying to figure out that if by continuing to report a charge off everymonth or whatever your scores stay in the tank because FICO looks at them as if they just happened.
Those are 2 valid points on one hand it may still be a collection account hence the "character" is not an issue. On the other hand the collection is being reported as recent as opposed to 6 years old so one might argue that the "character" has been misrepresented. I guess this is one a judge would have to decide. But the threat of a judge deciding it is all I am really looking for as leverage against the CA. I am not sure they would want to risk going to court to prove they havent misrepresented the "character" of the debt on a 6 year old account thats past SOL and About $1000.
good point Bill. I am assuming they wouldnt want to waste time meeting in court to prove they didnt violate any laws on a debt they cannot use legal action to collect. pretty much they have to use pretty please will you pay from here on out. Also they arent licensed or bonded in TN ...Ofcourse I wouldnt bring that up until court!
