I called Junum tonight. I had initated my own dispute with Equifax earlier this month. You see the online dispute thing is really good. I returned my junum credit reports and attached a note on the equifax reports to NOT send out a letter to equifax because I was already disputing. I called to tonight and the rep checked it out. She came back to the phone and said that they did receive the note and did not initate another dispute with equifax. Cool! Also they sent another letter to transunion, cause transunion never sent out a response. I thought that was a great job by Junum. They did exactly as I had asked. roni
That's good news for me roni! I plan to use Junum but I was reluctant. I have a 2 year old account that is still very collectable. I don't want to wake this sleeping giant. At the same time I want Junum to get rid of my paid collections and charge-offs. This is great news! So I just need to attach a note and follow-up with a phone call. Now I have just one problem. I can't seem to get a straight answer to this question. Will paying a charge-off or collection that due to fall off in in summer of 2002 re-start the seven year clock?
Yes and No. Could they? Maybe. I cannot find evidence anywhere that accounts which charged off prior to 1997 will avoid the 7 year clock restart. The new FCRA clearly states that the new laws are only for account which defaulted since it was amended. BUT, as Kristi and many experts have stated, that the FTC interprets the revision to include the older accounts. This is also try for creditors. Do I think it will restart the clock. NO. That has not been my experience. As you know I paid some collections and got deletions. I paid one and disputed it to deletion, and they didnot restart the clock after I paid it. I dont even think the credit bureaus will let them do that, if they get wind of it. So my answer is NO. This answer is based on experience and taking the advise of the experts. But, I have not been able to find it supported by the FCRA in writing. And Yes, I feel good about junum now. But they need to get the credit scoring going. roni
Roni you are very correct! I have read FCRA over and over again and cannot find evidence anywhere that accounts which charged off prior to 1997 will avoid the 7 year clock restart! However people here including the experts like Kristi (thanks Kristi..you are worth your weight in gold) say clock will not re-start. I think I am going to take a chance and pay them. I disputed them and they came back as verified. Since they are small I want to pay them and let Junum get them removed.
Now, paying it doesnot guarantee they wont verify it after paying it. But there is a good chance. I would consider how much it the charge is ($$$) and how long before it comes off anyway. Also, if still have other charge offs it is less value to remove it. If it is your only charge off left, I would maybe give it a shot. Make sure you clean everything else before paying this. You may get stuck with 2-3 other charge offs which wont come off and this removal would mean alot less. roni
The grand total of all these accounts is about $1200.00. If I get them all removed one account will remain. But I can't touch that account because it's collectable with a huge balance. I think if I get all accounts besides this one removed, my credit union will loan me the money to settle.
The 7 year rule- Please print There are always a lot of misconceptions about debts charged off prior to 1996 and is probably one of the most common questions I get. You have to remember, the old FCRA was very ambiguous which means, even though it was not specific for saying exactly when a date commenced, it has never been legal nor acceptable to charge a debt off and then report it for another additional 7 years simply because a payment was made. What did happen however is that the creditors and CRA were doing that to some people because like many others, they really did not understand the ambiguity of the FCRA. However, as soon as a consumer brought it to their attention that they were reporting the debt past the 7-year rule, then they (Creditor or CRA) should have complied. Repaying a debt cannot restart the clock on reporting whether it was charged off prior to 1996 or after. Even the original FCRA did not allow for that. The last activity at that time, meant date charged off, last paid, or closed but did not and never has allowed a creditor to use the DOLA as a new "Commencement of Delinquency" It has happened to many people but can be argued very effectively as even pointed out by the attorney at the FTC who says "If an account was reported as a charge off before the date (1997), the Commission's view has been that it can be reported for seven years from the date the creditor actually charged it off." That is very specific and legally you can always fight this if it happens to you. One letter to a CRA or creditor with a copy of the FTC opinion and Bam! Removed. Be sure to read the very last line of this posting. It tells you exactly what the FTC believes happens to debts charged off prior to 1996. Here is the Q&A from FTC: Question: Is the reporting period extended if (A) the original creditor sells or transfers the account to another creditor, (B) the consumer responds to post-charge off collection efforts by making a payment on the debt, or (C) the consumer disputes the account with a CRA? Does it matter whether the 7-year period has expired when any of these events occurs? No! In enacting the new provisions discussed above, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- 180 days after the start of the delinquency that led to the chargeoffs -- to begin the obsolescence period. It did so to correct the often-lengthy extension of the period that resulted from later events under the original FCRA. Enclosed are two staff opinion letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99; Johnson, 08/31/98) that discuss the impact of these provisions, and the legislative history relating to their enactment, in more detail. Because the commencement of the seven year period is now described with some precision by the statute, it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you listed -- sale of the charged off account by the creditor, or a payment on or dispute about the account by the consumer -- changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a chargeoffs. Question: Since Sections 623(a)(5) and 605(c)(1) provide new rules for calculating the 7-year period that became effective in 1997, do charge off accounts now have different obsolescence periods depending on when the charge off occurred? Yes. Section 605(c)(2) states that the section "shall apply only to items of information added to the (CRA) file of a consumer on or after" 455 days after enactment, or December 29, 1997. Therefore, a charge off reported to a CRA on or after that date is subject to the new commencement-of-the-delinquency method of calculating the obsolescence period set forth in Sections 623(a)(5) and 605(c)(1). On the other hand, a charge off reported to a CRA before December 29, 1997, is not covered by the new provisions. But if a credit account was reported as a charge off before that date, the Commission's view has been that it can be reported for seven years from the date the creditor actually charged it off. So, in closing, my point is, yes it happens but is it legal? No. Can it be faught & removed if it does happen? Yes. Do creditors really go by the before & after dates anyway? NO! Most of them don't even understand it and merely follow the current revised FCRA, afterall most would have to be an attorney to even figure this crap out huh? Hope this helps! Kristi ps: I am not a lawyer & this is just my OP!
RE: The 7 year rule- Please pr Thanks a million Kristi! I am printing and saving. I will read and ask any questions. You are really worth your weight in gold!
The way that I understannd the FCRA, even the debts before cannot be restarted. I believe the only difference with the old debts is that the reporting time starts from the date of charge-off instead of the date of lack delinquency. The date of charge-off can be reset by selling the debt to another collection agency, but not by paying it. I think that is what the FCRA tries to prevent. I could be wrong on this, so don't pay anything on my advice unless it gets backed up by someone that has a little more understanding.
RE: The 7 year rule- Please pr I wish!!!! Killer wrote: ------------------------------- Thanks a million Kristi! I am printing and saving. I will read and ask any questions. You are really worth your weight in gold!
RE: The 7 year rule- Please pr I agree with the Kristi. I thought that was what I was stating. Maybe I got confused. Most creditors just go by the new cause it is just so confusing. roni
