OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA

In a word: YES!


This is a good case in that you have a great chance of just gettin rid of it.


Technically called "Re-Aging".

Definition:

"Changing the default date used to compute the seven year period a bad debt can remain on your credit report. A collection agency or bad debt buyer is required to use the same date as the original creditor. Often, they use a newer date, which allows the entry to remain on your credit report longer, and is designed to punish the debtor and extort collection".


Citation:

§ 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:

(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years.

Many believe that in all cases the time begins 7 years PLUS 180 days. A common misconception on a very complex issue. Actually the 7 years is fixed, but the 180 days is not. Otherwise we'd all be talking about a 7.5 year obsolescence period. The 7 year reporting MUST begin sometime WITHIN the 180 days. Big, BIG difference.


All that said:

Here's what I'd do:

Dispute the the debt through the CRA's as a 6/95 DLA. Here's why; If the CA can give an inaccurate DLA why can't YOU? By proclaiming the DLA is MORE than 7 years ago the DF will be in the unfortunate position of proving otherwise. When they do that they will also be proving they did re age the account because the TRUE DLA will emerge. Since they are not quite that stupid they should acquiesce and the account deleted.

If they don't you may have a nice law suit, guilty by their own admission.



Formula on a re-age; Whenever your adversary re-ages [re-dates] your account, calculate when the 7 years is supposed to expire according to the incorrect date they've already supplied, count backwards 7 years plus 1 month and dispute THAT as the true DLA.

One of 2 things must happen, (at least in theory) either your adversary corrects the date or confirms the incorrect date, thereby admitting, in BOTH/EITHER instance(s), they violated. OR, they will ignore the dispute, not respond and it'll get deleted both for non response AND as obsolete, a double whammy.


In other words, your adversary is placed in an unfortunate catch 22. Either they admit they violated OR they let it drop.


YOU PUT YOUR ADVERSARY IN A CATCH 22 FOR WHICH THERE IS NO ESCAPE!


Good luck. Let us know what happens.






See?

 

OH - Welcome aboard.

 

Bump for Brillancy!!!

Thank you! Butch. Best post I have read on re-aged accounts yet!

 

Butch or Anyone Else,

Here's a little twist:

This same Paid Collection from back in Feb 98 with Sylvan that I've been Bitc@#!ing about ...

The CA is reporting DOLA as 12/97, which is the month that Sylvan claims I owed tuition and I disputed that I did not...

Ca claims they were assigned the account on 2/98,
which is true...

But ... they are reporting something called "Collection Reported 10/98.

Now, I have a statement from Sylvan that actually shows they were Paid in Full as of 25 March 98, or 3/98.

So, can I get the CA for falsely reporting 10/98 as date of "Collection Reported" or does it only apply too the Tradeline notation of DOLA, which would be a correct date for Sylvan, but not for CA.

BTW, this is a Paid Collection, and I'm just know wising up.

Also, can Validation work in this case? Do I dispute with CA and tell them they are reporting in-accuracies, and hope they pull my CR to see what it mght be and get them for pulling report when they have no right to?

And/or try to get them not placing the "Dispute" entry in the Tradeline, then sue them for that as well?

I'm starting to get an idea of how to settle this and get them on some violations as well.

If my hope is correct, I should be able to get them for incorrectly reporting when last payment was actually made, and if I can get them to pull my report, get them for a 2nd violation.

Thirdly, if I can get a Court to reasonably expect that my dispute period begins on the day I received their Dunning Notice and not the date they sent it, I fall within the CA's self-imposed 40 day Grace Period to have paid this in full, meaning .... that I should also be able to get them for even reporting this at all!

What to ya think?

- CA mails/dates their Dunning Notice 12 Feb 98, postmark on envelope is 13 Feb 98, I receive it on 14 Feb 98.

- The Dunning Notice from Interstate Credit Bureau Collections (More about this name later) states that I have 40 days from the date of the notice to pay in full before they report to the CRA.

- I Paid in Full by 24 March 98, Sylvan took the payments, the CA never collected on any of it. 14 Feb 98 to 25 March 98 is exactly 40 days.

- So I should be able to get them for even reporting this.

- Get them for incorrect Paid in Full Date.

- Maybe get them if they pull my report after I send them a "dispute and reporting inaccurate information" letter.

Should I go ahead and sue, at least for the first 2 violations? Do I have a good strategy, leg to stand on?

FedUp2003

P.S.

read in one of the threads, I think Butch's about Validation, that a CA can not use the words "Credit Cureau" in their name, as it's misleading and deceiving and maybe I can get them for that violation as well.

Also, maybe to help answer if Validation can be done after 30 days. When I found out in 10/98 that this CA reported me back on 2/98, I called and sent them a letter disputing/arguing the fact I paid already to the OC.

In their reply letter, they said:

"You recently contacted our office and disputed the validity of the above-referenced account(s)."

... so appears they are admitting that Disputes and Validation can take place well after the initial 30 days.

P.S.S.

The tax thing is a separate issue BTW... got to work on that one too.

 

Butch, I have to take issue with the comment

"Many believe that in all cases the time begins 7 years PLUS 180 days. A common misconception on a very complex issue. Actually the 7 years is fixed, but the 180 days is not. Otherwise we'd all be talking about a 7.5 year obsolescence period. The 7 year reporting MUST begin sometime WITHIN the 180 days. Big, BIG difference. "

That isn't what the FCRA says:

c) Running of reporting period.

(1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)(2) of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.

(2) Effective date. Paragraph (1) shall apply only to items of information added to the file of a consumer on or after the date that is 455 days after the date of enactment of the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996.

The above section says the 180 days IS FIXED.

 

Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA

Sure it matters. You can't have a date of last activity prior to the acct being open.

The oc and ca are 2 separate listings and you'll need to get both to remove it. Getting the oc or ca to remove their listing won't cause the other to remove theirs.

 

Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA

fave Butch growling dude,

I'm flying with LKH on this one, fixed it is and clearly!!!!!!!!

You just participated in this discussion last week and I thought were on the same page, you're using the wrong date for counting (yeah yeah, the edited 5 times thread):

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5390&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

3p my time, I'm hanging out my "gone camping" sign.

Please review this again, it's too important of a date to state something as factual when it clearly isn't!!!!!!!

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA

It's better to ask and be sure, than to not ask and be sorry.

Butch, I hope you will respond to this thread as I think this is something that is very important and people need to know which answer is correct. And, as Sassy said, we did have this discussion just a few days ago. I thought also we had it all figured out.

 

Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA

Before we even get into this, I do want to make sure we're talking about the EXACT same thing.

So I'm going to "rephrase" what I posted above, while maintaining the integrity of what I said in the first place.


The 7 years PLUS 180 days is a period of time WITHIN WHICH the reporting period must begin. Let's call it a 7.5 year window, within which the reporting period MUST begin.


Correct? If yes, then we do agree and you apparently need to more carefully read what I post before disagreeing because that's precisely what I said.

I said the 7 years is fixed, but the 180 days is not.

Perhaps merely a disagreement in verbal gymnastics. The 180 days is fixed in so far as it's length is concerned. Perhaps that's what you mean. It's length of 180 does not mean 181+.


Gosh uh, I think we can agree on that without all the typing.

We all already know that so to insist that it's fixed because 180 does not mean 181+ is as redundant as arguing that a week is a fixed 7 days long.


I'm just makin sure I understand exactly what YOU mean when YOU say "fixed".

But I'll tell ya what, if I am wrong you don't need to tell me, I'll be the first to admit it. BUT YOU DO NEED TO SHOW ME.


[Edited 36 times]

 

Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA

You're mincing words Butch. We've been through time after time. The 180 days is NOT a period within which the reporting period must begin. If that was the case, it could be years plus 100 days or 7 years plus 50 days. That isn't the case.

The 7 years starts at the END of the 180 day period, The 180 day period begins from the day of last activity.

And, I did show you. I posted the rule right from the FCRA.

As mcuh as rehashed this, it is apparent that you can't admit when you're wrong. You'd rather mince words to make it appear as if you are correct and I am wrong, and tell me I'd better read more carefully, than to have your ego bruised and admit you are wrong.

A week ago you finally agreed we were correct. Now you post it wrong again, and tell me I need to prove it to you? We already did, and you agreed.

 

Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA

Butch and LKH,

So what you are discussing is when the 7 years end?

You both agree that it is from DOLA to 180 -> then the 7 years begins -> 7 years later ends?

And you have debated before whether the 180 can start sooner? Thereby the 7 year span could have been shorter in some cases?

And in this thread LKH is objecting to Butches use of the word "within"?

*whew*

I think I got it. If I didn't, I guess I'll get it the next time round. You guys are seriously da best!

Newbie holding on by only a thread, :-D

 

Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA

Gretchen, I don't believe that Butch and I are agreeing that it is 7 years from the end of the 180 day period.

This is the what Butch said that I disagree with:

Many believe that in all cases the time begins 7 years PLUS 180 days. A common misconception on a very complex issue. Actually the 7 years is fixed, but the 180 days is not. Otherwise we'd all be talking about a 7.5 year obsolescence period. The 7 year reporting MUST begin sometime WITHIN the 180 days. Big, BIG difference.

The problem with that comment is that the 180 days is fixed.

 

Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA

LKH,

Oh, I see... I have hardly read much on the subject you know but LOL if I were king,

I think the whole shabang would make logical sense if CAs had exactly 180 days to report to the CRA after DOLA.

If they did not report by the 180 then they could not period.

If and when the CA did get in and reported within the 180 days then the seven years SOL begins from the date they reported.

The exception would be Open accounts or any account that is reporting directly to the CRA regulary each month, those accounts would begin 180 days from DOLA No ifs ands or buts.

I am not too concerned since supposedly we can start asking them to be deleted 6, or perhaps 3-4 months prior to the end of our SOL sentence. But I will be a few years from now.

Hey,,,speaking of DOLAS....

My NV SOL DOLA for an Open account is 12/1999 and is out of SOL this year. Not the 7 year kind.

Given that these facts are true, will the account be out of SOL as of 12/2003 OR 1/2004?

Doing my best not to get sued here,
Thanks,

 

Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA

"those accounts would begin 180 days from DOLA No ifs ands or buts."
Whoops, I meant to say, "those accounts 7 year SOLs would start from DOLA No ifs ands or buts."

 

Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA

The SOL would run on 12/2003.

 

Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA

LKH,

I liked your wording "run on" much better then "out".
Cool, so I am safe to pull their chain come 12/1/2003.

Thank you,