Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA LKH, When I count backwards 7 years it takes me to my exact DOLA. It is accurate on every one of my accounts. So it is that not proof that from DOLA ---> seven years ---> off report. What is this 180 days that you guys are talking about? And how do you see that it effects when my 7 year SOL in when it begins, ends, runs? Because apparently Experian is talking them off exactly 7 years after DOLA. And does not seem to be factoring in 180 days anywhere. Thanks,
Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA Gretchen, The extra 180 days is merely to provide a measure of "flexibilty" for the CRA's if they get the wrong info. from the DF. Also it only applies to TL's originally listed after Dec. 29, 1997. Don't worry about it because it doesn't affect you. .
Butch, LKH?????????? Geez, thought I had a grip on it, then read your debate. I reposted the part since I am a visual person. (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 I'm reading it can be reported 7 + 180 7 year period shall begin... upon the expiration of the 180 day period... The Johnson opinion letter seems to confirm this: Section 623(a)(5) requires a creditor that reports a chargeoff to a CRA to notify the agency (within 90 days of reporting the account) of "the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded" the chargeoff. Section 605(a)(4) provides that the credit bureau may report the chargeoff for seven years. Section 605(c)(1) provides that seven year period begins 180 days from that date. In the scenario your reported, it is our view that the delinquency that led to the charge-off "commenced" in January 1997, the month the first payment was missed. Thus, that is the month and year that the creditor must report to the CRA, and that the CRA must use to calculate the time period dictated by Section 605. snip... Thus, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- the start of the delinquency -- to begin the obsolescence period (now seven years, plus 180 days).(2) The alternate view stated to you (that the date of reporting controls) is at variance with both the plain language of these amendments, and the intent of Congress in enacting them. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/johnson.htm
Butch, LKH?????????? Really should have posted the footnote from the letter: 2. The additional 180 day period accords a measure of flexibility to credit bureaus whose furnishers may provide them with the wrong date. However, the expansion of the time period that Section 605 allows chargeoffs and similar actions to be reported accents the desirability of treating the "commencement" of the delinquency as the first missed payment -- not some later date that would further extend the period. I'm reading all this and interpreting that the 7 years is from the DOLA, but, the CRAs are given a window of up to 180 days for errors, so some litigious nutcase doesn't sue them for a one month error . Reading between the lines, it would protect the CRA's if they do not delete on the exact DOLA being reported.
Re: Re: Butch, LKH?????????? That's right. There isn't a debate. The 7 years starts at the end of the 180 days.
Re: Re: Re: Butch, LKH?????????? Reading on what Butch? I hope you're not saying that those ftc letters and the FCRA don't mean what they say. And if you are trying to say I'm wrong on this, then I could post the complete thread from CB where we had the debate and you did finally agree.
Re: Re: Re: Butch, LKH?????????? Butch, it's 180 plus 7 years. Diagram the sentence if you have to. (like back in 7th grade english) take out all the subsentences and fragments. The 7 years begins after 180 days. . . .
Re: Re: Re: Butch, LKH?????????? 1) The CB thread of which you speak delt with the old calculation method versus the new one, where the 180 days is applicable. That which was posted before Dec 29, 1997 and that which was posted after. 2) Please do not waste this boards resources. We are now talking about something entirely different. 3) The FTC's opinions and statutes DO NOT say what YOU apperently "think" they say. You are misunderstanding some legal definitions! 4) TO ALWAYS ADD 180 DAYS TO THE 7 YEARS IS SIMPLY NOT CORRECT!!! 5) ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS READ THE DAMN FOOTNOTE IN THE JOHNSON OPINION POSTED BY JLYNN - What the hell do you think opinion footnotes are for, entertainment? GEEEZ. 6) I HAVE NO INTENTION OF ARGUING WITH EITHER OF YOU FURTHER. lol
Re: Re: Re: Butch, LKH?????????? Be careful of your condescension to me Marc, you could just be mistaken.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Butch, LKH?????????? that condescension was on purpose. see your post to LKH above. . . . . . . what it says and how it's interpreted may be different but HOW IT READS is obvious. And FTC letters are just that, opinions. Please also note the word "desirability" in the opinion footnote. Not "requirement". . . when dealing with legalese and courts, it is utterly important to differentiate between what is written and what is interpreted and even still what a judge or opposing attorney may claim is the interpretation. . . .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Butch, LKH?????????? I blew my puter up last Friday night. (May have lost 10 gigs of research). Right now I'm on someone elses computer. I just don't have the time to argue Marc. Be a little patient, and we can fight in about a week. In the meantime, do your homework, you're gonna need it. .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Butch, LKH?????????? As usual Butch, your pompousness gets in the way.. You just cannot admit when you are wrong. You never have been able to. You are flat out wrong. PERIOD. You are the one who needs to read up. You wouldn't be getting so upset if you were correct. You don't own this board. If CCN Steve wants to tell me not to waste resources, fine. But you have no say in the matter. Again, your holier than thou attitude is showing. Yes, we could be wrong, but we're not. Why is it that you are the only one who thinks you are right? EGO. From day one, you could never admit if you were wrong. And after your condescending post to me, I won't debate it with you any longer either.
Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA ????? What's a DF. This thread really applies to me, I have a stubborn CA that is reaging my account. Seems this might be one of the few things I can get them on. Want to take them to court on it, since they are not willing to negotiate!!!! I might use the fact that I can't get credit because of the reaging.
Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA QUESTION??? If you have a copy of your CR with the DOLA erroniously documented is that enough to sue and win or do you have to give the CA a chance to fix it. And if you do have to give them a chance to fix it, I'm sure that disputing with the CRA is enough inforamation/proof that you gave them notice. If they CA/DF change it within the 30 day period can you still sue? Can you sue for negligence!!!! How about defamation of character!!!!
