I have posted on a couple of other boards about the below TL on my DH's cr. I am just posting here to get as many opinions as I can. Any help is appreciated. Everything was written by me. ********************************* Experian Status: Account charged off. $xxxx written off. $xxxx past due as of 11-1998 Date opened: 01/99 Reported Since: 11/98 Date of Status: 11/98 Last Reported: 11/98 Charge off as of: 11/98 Recent Balance: $xxxx as of 11/98 Recent Payment: $0 It says $xxx past due as of 11-1998. The 7 years began 180 days before 11-98, correct? jlynn stated that "assuming the OP went delinq. 6 months before the charge off then 05/05 would be the correct month." My problem: I have no idea when this account was first delinq. so how can I tell when the 7 years begins and ends? This one is the only one that I can tell is fairly close to being accurate even though the Date opened was in 99 but they have been reporting it since 98. TransUnion Updated: 01/04 Opened: 01/99 Closed: 01/00 Status as of 01/04: Charged off as bad debt This one is different than EX. Closed as of 01/00 but not charged off until 01/04. Why is there such a difference in dates between the two?This one seems to be reaged. I can't help but think that they think they are getting away with something. Equifax Items as of Date Reported:01/2004 Balance Amount: $xxxx Amount Past Due: $xxxx Date of Last Payment: 06/2002 DOLA: 11/1998 This one really confuses me in that it has a last payment of 06/2002. I can assure you there were no payments made in 2002 on this account (this statement not to be construed as an admission of liability for said account in question ). So if I understand this right, they put the Date of last payment on here to extend the SOL even though there was not a payment made. Doesn't the DOLA and Date of Last Payment contradict each other? Please correct me if I am wrong on anything. Thanks, Teresa
Hey there.. I am not sure what you are asking? 1. Is this all for the same account? 2. If you look at the Equifax report, they have a "system" in the extended TL that shows when payments were late. 3. The 7 year clock starts ticking 180 days after delinquency. 4. The SOL is a separate issue. THis starts ticking upon delinquency status/date of last acitivy (which usually is a payment). Check the SOL for your state. All the SOL protects you from is to hamper the CA's ability to SUE you legally in court. Does this help at all?
Interesting update: On 4/8/04 I received my DH's cr in the mail. On it there are 16 derogs, one of them the Amex listed above. After sending a dispute in for 2 old addresses and 2 old employers I have received the results in the mail today with the new updated cr. Now the addresses and employers have been deleted. ( Small victory) But along with those the Amex CO and a Providian CO have vanished. Leaving 14 derogs. Am I seeing things? Can this really happen? Thanks, Teresa
All the SOL protects you from is to hamper the CA's ability to SUE you legally in court. RobynRocks ================== Sol does not prevent them from suing. Sol prevents them from collecting in court. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Is this a CA or an OC? If an OC, I would stick to disputing, but make the dispute complex enough to have them scratching their heads. First, I would send a dispute under the FCRA to the OC, outlining great discrepancies in their credit bureau reporting for this alleged account, including reporting incorrect dates, and illegally re-aging the account in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This puts them on notice of the error. But I wouldn't actually tell them the discrepancies, you want to create the (b) violations, or get them to let them fall off. If they update, chances are they will NOT SYNC up all three reports with 100% accuracy, creating (b) violations, especially after they were notified in writing about the date discrepancies. Then I would dispute with all of the CRA's the dates, if you want to make sure there's no admission that the account is valid at all, you can include a quick 'i have no knowledge of this account', however something does not jive with the dates they're reporting as acurate, and you want them to verify the dates based on the original account documentation, and not from their computer records. You'll see why if you read up on Johnson v. MBNA. Experian I would create a Johnson v. MBNA case here. "I am disputing the impossibility that this account could have been opened on a date *AFTER* the data furnisher is claiming that said account was allegedly charged off. I have no knowledge of this account, but the information which is being reported makes no sense. I am demanding that the data furnisher conclusively verifies the true opening and charge off dates from the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION, and not from a cursorary review of their computer files." TU The date of status, does not neccessarily mean that that is the first date of that status, it just means that that was the most recent time that they updated the date of status.
grrr, i hate the 15 minute time limit. I was trying to add and update this block in the post, and missed the window by a few minutes while I was typing.
Thank you very much for replying. As I stated above this has already fallen off of DH's TU cr, so one down. I will do what is suggested and let you know what happens. Thanks, Teresa Edited to add: This is still with the orginal OC, Amex.
