Here's the story: I had an account with a college bookstore in 1991. I dropped out of college (I know...) anyway, I still owed the bookstore $124. Fast-forward to 2004. I receive a letter from the Attny Gen. of Ohio saying that if I don't pay it they will sue...blah...blah... This had been off my credit report for years but I thought why not, and paid it. I bought a house in the meantime (thanks by the way for all the good advice here), and just today check all of my reports and on my Transunion it has re-appeared as "Paid Charge-off". Now scheduled to be removed in 2011! Only 20 years after I defaulted..... What had happened is that they are now listing the account as: Opened: 6/1994 (obviously the date of charge-off) Closed: 8/2004 (2 months after I paid in full) I have old reports that show the real dates both before it was removed and after (and now that it's back again). I have disputed this as being past the time allowed for reporting. I know that this is totally on TransUnion as well. What should I do from here?
paying it off redates it the pay date usually considered date of last acitivity which would also be the date of last deliquency.... check the FCRA though. I would dispute dispute dispute. and never pay anything over the statute of limitations to sue usually around 4 years in most states.. kev
This is obviously a violation of the FCRA and an obvious sign of how poor Transunion's 'Quality Control' is or else it's a blatant attack on my credit. You can't look at a charge-off entry that was originally posted in 1994 and not realize that it is well past the legal reporting date. These people take more care in checking the dates on a gallon of milk in the fridge.... You would think that they would learn. I just hate the thought of having to sue them just to get them to follow the rules. It was bad enough when I was trying to get them to take stuff off early, now I gotta fight to get stuff that's 4 years past the reporting period removed.
they have thousands of disputes to deal with every day. dispute it as obsolete. the DOLA NEVER CHANGES even if you pay it off, therefore the fall off date shouldn't change.
Thanks. It's been a while since I lurked here but I didn't think that the rules had changed THAT much. It really is frustrating though. If there was any type of quality control there this would never have happened. Unless it's intentional.....
You disputed the TR as "Obsolete"? Normally, this would get you a "Good for you!"--BUT NOT THIS TIME!! By paying the "dead" account, you managed to get yourself in deep doo-doo. YOU RE-AGED the stupid thing by paying it to, no doubt, a JDB who, because of the age of the account, could NOT have sued you! (Or, if they tried, would have not succeeded if you raised the SOL (Statute of Limitations) defense.) PERIOD! All you managed to do--your "reward" for doing the "right thing"--is a "Baddie" that will stick like glue to your report for the duration unless you can find some other reason to call for its removal! The best thing I can suggest is to do just that...see if you can find another item/items to dispute on your CR, and see what happens. As it is said: "No good deed goes unpunished."
TransUnion? Quality control? HAAAAAAA!!! I'd say that it was intentional...by the JDB you paid!! You see, as I and others have said, by paying the "debt", you dug your own hole! The payment "revived" the account and gave the "people" (and I use that term under advisement) the right to report the account as a "NEW" account for reporting purposes . HOW? When you paid the "debt", you MAY have, in effect, formed a new contract with the current owners of the account, which are probably NOT the OP but a JDB. JDB's do not have the right to change the DOLA, it's true,(they usually try, however: Asset and Sherman are two who are well-known for doing this)-- but, if your state allows the simple act of payment to legally form a new contract, you are stuck. Check your state's law to see whether payment does re-set the "clock"; if not, you may have a way to deal with this. You may have to sue to get "relief", however...be prepared!
the reporting SOL will never change regardless of if/when you pay it. this is a CRA thing, not so much a state thing. i highly doubt TU will look into a state law before changing a report. i give the OP kudos for paying despite it being out of the suing SOL. i would do the ol' "1-2 punch" as it is commonly known. even though you paid it they would still have to prove the debt. start racking up violations and then send an ITS demanding removal.
Thanks everyone for the advice. Couple of things: It was from the A.G. of Ohio because I went to their web-site to pay the debt. I didn't use the link that they sent me in the letter, I went through all the offical Ohio.gov links to get there and they do have a debt collection department for government agencies. The account number is the same as it was before it dropped off the first time and the creditor is the same listed as before which is the university. So this is not a new account or a new collector. I'm waiting on the "investigation", and depending on what happens with that (I'm not expecting much) I'll start over with validation as Jenz123 has suggested. I know that I'm right as is stated in the 'Amason' opinion letter from the FTC: "2. Is the reporting period extended if (A) the original creditor sells or transfers the account to another creditor, (B) the consumer responds to post-chargeoff 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 chargeoff -- 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 chargeoff. " As far as differences in Ohio law, since this effects me nationwide (i.e. creditors in different states) Federal law would be applied. Besides, TU is in PA. It's just getting them to follow the rules that's the hard part.
Well, no surprise (other than the fact that they didn't use all of the time allowed them) it came back as verified. Verified that an 11-year old charge-off is somehow being reported on my CR. Sounds normal huh? Monday I will call TU and ask them for the Date of Delinquency and see if: 1) They actually have it. 2) They have the correct date. 3) It starts to sink in that they are way out of their time limit to report it. I'll try to get them to send it to me in writing. After that, I'll phone my lawyer and get the ball rolling on a lawsuit. There is no defense for them. Unless I'm missing something? Anyone?
Re: Re: Re-aged Chargeoff! I went through my old CR's and actually don't have one that goes back that far. However, the account by itself is listed as as opened in 1994. I actually 'bought' the books in 1991. For the payment, I do have proof of when it was paid which was last year. My CR lists it now as this: Balance: $0 Date Updated: 08/2004 High Balance: $143 Past Due: $0 Terms: $0 for 3 months Pay Status: >Payment After ChargeOff/Collection< Account Type: Installment Account Responsibility: Individual Account Date Opened: 06/1994 Date Closed: 08/2004 Remarks: >Paid profit and loss< Estimated date that this item will be removed: 07/2011 This is why I have to actually get them to (TU) give me the 'Date of Delinquency'. As for the DOLA...there wasn't one. I got the books and quit before paying for them. I tried to return them but they were considered used even though I had them less than a week.
Re: Re: Re-aged Chargeoff! Well, I called TU today to find the "DOD". They told me that it was......surprise, surprise.......the date of last activity. Which would be the pay-off date. I then asked what the date opened meant. He said it was the date the "charge-off account was opened". I said well since the charge-off was after the date of delinquency how could the date of last activity (which was 10 years later) be the "DOD"? I had already lost him by that point. His bottom line was that the OC reported to them that the "DOD" was 8-2004 which was the pay-off date. I then called the OC. They told me the "DOD" was 9-1991 and they charged-off 6-1994. They also told me that they reported those dates to TU when they updated the account as paid. Supposedly they are sending me a letter on "official" letterhead with the dates in question listed and their meaning. Should I send copies of it to TU along with another dispute maybe worded differently? Or should I just use it to sue TU into submission?
Re: Re: Re-aged Chargeoff! Even before you get the letter, I would file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, and any state /local consumer agencies. The date of "charge-off" by definition can't possibly be the date of original deliquency. When you get the letter from the OC, send a COPY to TU along with a letter that you dispute their entry
Re: Re: Re-aged Chargeoff! Thanks. Will do. I do realize that the "DOD" is earlier than 1994 however I was under the impression that since it was earlier than 1996 when the new rules came into effect that they could report it from the date of charge-off. STILL....that only gave them until 2001. Now they want to tell me that the "DOD" is 2004 which means that it was charged-off 10 years before it went delinquent. Does anyone know if TU has farmed out their "customer service" to India? The reason that I ask was because the guy who answered the phone was definitely Indian. If so, it's no wonder that he had no idea why the "DOD" was important. I wouldn't know their laws either.
Re: Re: Re-aged Chargeoff! Put pressure on both. Follow up your communication with the OC with a letter memorializing their claim that they are reporting charge off date as 1991, and that you are requesting, and they agreed, to send you a letter stating that. Follow up until you get that letter, with AG complaint if they fail to follow thru. Start creating your paper trail. When you get that letter, send your dispute with TU thru FTC, including including a copy of that letter. Memorialize in your complaint their claim for the erroneous delinquency date, and the OC's claim that they are reporting 1991. If TU comes back "verified" or any other BS, and refuses to remove, send a dispute to the OC, with your redacted credit report showing what TU is saying the OC is reporting, and demand that the OC remove. Then send a complaint against both to your state AG. Each party's "error" has been confirmed by the other. You are now in a position to sue both, if that is what it takes, and let them point fingers at each other, while your state AG is sending them inquiries. That should get the right party's attention.
Re: Re: Re-aged Chargeoff! Great. I appreciate everyone's advice. Thankfully I'm in a position where I don't need to apply for any credit and am not under pressure to get it done quickly. I will take slow, sure steps and get the job done right. Hopefully my experience will be of help to others considering "doing the right thing". I hate to say it, but I really have yet to find a situation where "doing the right thing" has done anything other than cause me grief.
Re: Re: Re-aged Chargeoff! The SOL for legal action to collect a debt, and the 7 year limit for reporting negative information on a credit report, are two different things. If you paid the debt off, the SOL, and whether it is reset, is irrelevant since there is no longer a legal debt to collect. The 7 year reporting limit starts when the account first went delinquent. It apparently expired long ago. Paying off the debt to the JDB does not reset this. The CA or JDB was required to report this original delinquency date to the CRA within 90 days of posting their tradeline to your report. Since the CRA shows an erroneous date, due to fall off years in the future, dispute with the CRA as obsolete, indicating what date was reported by the OC, and go after the JDB if they verify. Since you paid it off, what can they do but settle by removing.
Re: Re: Re-aged Chargeoff! Thanks! Got the letter from the OC today basically telling me what I know, which is that: "....On 5-7-92 a tape was produced to alert the credit bureaus of this past due amount. We currently send tapes to TU and Equifax. On 6-27-94 the University performed an internal function of 'writing off' the account." Obviously someone is paying just a little more attention over at Equifax. I'll be disputing (again) this time including a copy of the letter and go from there. Thanks everyone!
