Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! Once again, where in 605 does it say "only if the DF fails to follow the requirement"? I didn't see that there.
Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! I don't think the word "shall" means "may" in this context. If so, then an entity can optionally choose to begin the reporting period on the exact date specified, but if they choose otherwise, what do they do? There's no alternative. The word "upon" does not mean "on or before", it means "at the instant of this occurrence". This statute means just what it says. All negatives must fall off 7 years after they "occur". A negative such as "included in BK" can be clearly dated, so it comes off seven years after the date of filing. A chargeoff or writeoff actually occurs optionally at the discretion of the creditor, but for purposes of this law, Congress defined the "occurrence" of such an event as 180 days after the date of final delinquency. Presumably, the 180 days is, in Congress' opinion, the amount of time that a "reasonable" creditor would take to decide to chargeoff. So, as written, the law says: I file BK on 1/1/2001, it comes off 1/1/2008. I miss a payment on 1/1/2001 and never catch up, they charge off on 4/1/2001, it comes off 7/1/2008, 7 years plus 180 days after delinquency. Chargeoff date doesn't matter. It doesn't come off early just because they were fast on the trigger. I miss a payment on 1/1/2001 and never catch up, they charge off on 4/1/2008, it comes off 3 months later: 7/1/2008, 7 years plus 180 days after delinquency. The law says nothing about when they must charge off by, just how long it can be reported. I miss a payment on 1/1/2001 and never catch up, they charge off on 4/1/2009, it should never go on the CR. The 90 days is dated from the date on which they inform the CRA that they charged off, it has nothing to do with anything else. They can charge off, write off, or place in collections at any time, and can record it as such. Note that everywhere that is referenced where the FTC says that this date of final delinquency is the date that must be reported to the CRAs for calculation purposes, it does NOT say that this is the date from which 7 years is measured. The FTC doesn't mention time at all. The reporting period ends 7 years plus 180 days following that reported date. This doesn't mean that we can't nutcase otherwise, but I wouldn't go to court arguing the "less than 7.5 years" side.
Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! Butch, Butch, Butch, You're hearing the heavy sigh, I hope! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! RedDevil, then please explain this, and this DOES in fact come from the FTC: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/infopro.htm Here, they give very similar examples as what you give, but per the FTC, if the last payment I make is 01/01/2001, then the item drops off the report on 01/01/2008 and NOT 07/01/2008 .... here the FTC cleary gives 3 examples that shows the period is EXACTLY 7 years from the commencement of the date of delinquency - or in laymen's terms, 7 years beyond the date of your last on-time payment. I know what the language in the FCRA says and it seems to be saying that it's upon the "expiration" of 180 after the date of delinquency, but I get the sense that they meant this to mean something else, like if no other viable date is available or something, or that it means a chargeoff begin after 180 days after the date of last payment. The FCRA seems to have one thing, but then there is this follow-up Opinion Letter from the FTC that seems to "clear up" the confusion. FedUp2003.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! The amendment and date certain, COMMENCEMENT of the delinquency, was meant to stop the practice of just what reddevil has typed, fedup. That's the problem they were addressing, creditors thinking they could charge-off an account whenever they wanted. The charge-off period is mandated by the FDIC: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/5000-1000.html Say you had a sears account that you'd paid on for 7 years and then stopped paying. Sears attempted to collect for another 7 years and then decided they weren't getting anywhere so they'd charge-off the balance and report it, with the reporting period now being triggered by that charge-off date which should have been 7 years ago. Bogus that is and was and is just what the amendment prevents, as intended. That was the practice before the amendment. The 180 day period is fixed clearly but what it's dependant on is the commencement of delinquency date being provided as required. Prior to the amendments that date wasn't required to be reported because it wasn't established as a date certain. All it does and the 180 days that Butch refers to as "flexibility" (cough cough) is for something that was reported PRIOR to the amendments and never updated or disputed, just hanging out on a report. The deal was, the whining furnishers of information didn't want to pro-actively update existing TL's that were being reported. You'll notice, by design too, no one has to do or be responsible for a darn thing until and unless a consumer initiates a dispute. It was deemed to be too big a burden for the whiners to fix what was already in the system so it gets to ride or can ride unless the consumer initiates a dispute. That's what fave Butch growling dude keeps missing. Consumers are charged with policing their reports for accuracy and completeness -- if there's no policing by the consumer via the dispute mechanisms of the FCRA either through the CRA or the furnisher or both -- there's only reporting. It's first delinquency. I don't know what dictionary makes commencement (beginning) mean last. First isn't last and last isn't first. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! Well, Sassy, welcome back ! I've been a little involved with that vehicle purchase DW and I had planned so I've been a little out of the loop on this thread. It sucks to be in a mere "me too" position, but, FWIW, you didn't leave me much room to pipe in here. So, all I can say is, "I'm flyin' with you on this, Sassy !" ;-)
Okay Sassy, Let's see if I got this straight now. I understand about the 90 day requirement, that once a DF reports a chargeoff or Collection, within 90 days they have to provide the date of commencement of delinquency. And, according to what you say, the derog item is required to be dropped 7 years plus 180 days from that date of commencement of delinquency. Example, stop paying on 01 Jan 2001, then it doprs off on 01 July 2008, not 01 Jan 2008. But, why does that FTC opinion letter give those examples that say otherwise? It gave an example of a last payment made on 15 March 1998, that it would drop off on March of 2005. I don't understand the contradiction. Also, I thought the extra 180 days to be added on was to take affect 455 days after the Amendment was passed, not for items that were already there before the Amendment. The Amendment was passed 30 Sept 1996, so 455 days later would be 01 Jan 1998. Seems like it is saying that derogs added on 01 Jan 1998 and LATER would have this extra 180 days added to the date of commencement of delinquency. If that's all there was, I'd understand and have no confusion, but what keeps "gumming up the waterworks" is that link to the FTC letter that gives examples that clearly state a derog should drop off a CRA report EXACTLY 7 years after that date of commencement of delinquency. What about that contradiction??? FedUp2003
Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! Sorry I'm not Sassy, but she doesn't normally surface until later in the day, but I would like to participate. Which "Opinion Letter" are you referring to ? If you meant "Credit Reports: What Information Providers Need to Know" (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/infopro.htm), it doesn't give a drop off date for that example. They're only discussing how the required notification of "the commencement of delinquency date", i.e., the date the the FIRST payment was due that was missed, is derived from 623(a)(5). It doesn't discuss whether the 180 day period stipulated in 605(c)(1) is applicable. In fact, in this example, 605(c)(1) clearly does apply and the obsolescence date is September 11, 2005. Slight correction, that's 12/29/97, as confirmed by the Amason letter, see item 3): http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/amason.htm This publication (again, referring to http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/infopro.htm) does not say anything about ANY 7 years, hence there is no contradiction eminating from this document. ??? .
Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! LOL croft, Flap, Flap "me too" Nodding!!!!!!! I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone I'd rather be in a me too position and flying with, thanks! oh hey, btw, welcome back to you too, can I dump out this water bottle full of 'baccy spit yet? ;-) Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! Hey there, Fedup, Didn't quote your last post but I'm seeing what the problem is and why you are reading that as contradictory, though I'm flying and spitting with Croft, it's surely not. The furnishers of information have to provide the commencement of delinquency date within 90 days of the information being reported. They don't get to decide nor have anything to do with the CRA's mandated reporting clock. It is 2 separate responsibilities, one belonging to the furnisher and the other to the CRA's. Both accountable for their individual mandated responsibilities. The responsibilities of the CRA aren't the same as the responsibilities of the furnisher of information. It's 2 seperate things -- another perk of the amendments, before them the furnisher of the information was responsible to the CRA, most of them still believing they have no obligation to the consumer at all. The amendments and Nelson v Chase Manhattan (that's the best and most well known case, there's others) changed that. The furnishers would like us to believe still they have no responsibility for the information they furnish for reporting. Shame on them, don't buy into it. There are responsibilities and requirements for furnishing information FOR reporting (the furnisher of information = OC's, CA's, whoever is furnishing information for reporting) and there are responsibilities and requirements for THE reporting (the CRA's). Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! Well, as is often the case, my brain thought one thing and my fingers another. Sassy is half-right, the period does not start counting at "final delinquency", but it does not exactly start counting at "first late" either, which is why it's hard to put a short name to it. It starts upon the commencement of the delinquency which led to the eventual default. Example: Jan - no payment Feb - pay Jan & Feb Mar - no payment Apr - no payment May - pay 2 months Jun - no payment no payments forward Dec - chargeoff The date reported to the CRAs is Mar. Jan was the "first late", but it was corrected in Feb. Mar was arguably paid in May, but that doesn't count since the account was never brought current once it fell behind in Mar. So Mar is the commencement of the (final) delinquency on the account, and the "first late" of the delinquency that led to default. So the Dec chargeoff could stay until Sep, seven years hence (180 days + 7 years from Mar). Note this has no relationship to the actual date of chargeoff. In this case, the Mar date must be reported to the CA by the following Mar, since the creditor has only 90 days from the Dec chargeoff to report that date. --------------------- As for the BK notation, I should have said: I file BK on 1/2001, THE IIB NOTATIONS on the individual TLs must come off on 1/2008, exactly 7 years from date of filing. There is no 180 days here, since the default date is explicit. The types of events to which the 180 day rule applies are those where the creditor cannot know whether or not a default has occurred, and has to wait awhile to decide: chargeoffs, writeoffs, etc. A BK, or a repo, or a foreclosure, all happen on specific dates, so the 7 year rule applies. ----------------- As for Fedup, the FTC page that was cited doesn't say that the TL falls off 7 years later, it says that the "March 2001" date is the date that must be reported to the CRAs. From that date, they tack on 180 days plus 7 years. Nothing that I can find in any of these links says that the TL would fall off 7 years later. If you can show me one, I'd like to see it. ------------------- BTW, I liked Butch's analysis. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say it wouldn't fly. It's just that when I put the word "may" into that sentence, it makes no sense. "May" implies an alternative, but what is it? You either start the reporting on the 180th day or you don't? That's not much of a rule. Even if the rest of the sentence can be read as "on or before", then it says that you can start the reporting clock on or before the 180th day, or not, as you see fit? I don't think it means that in this context.
Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! You guy's are missing the most important detail in your examples, the date the negative TL is first posted on your report. Using Reddevil's example above, please answer the following 3 questions. Question: [Assuming] delinquency on 1/1/2001 and never catch up, they charge off on 4/1/2001, it comes off 7/1/2008, 7 years plus 180 days after delinquency. Chargeoff date doesn't matter. Fast on the trigger: 1) The DF (data furnisher) is very fast on the trigger, charges off, reports the TL to the CRA and the CRA immediately posts the TL all on the same day, 4/1/2001. RD has fixed the drop off date at 7/1/2008. Is 7/1/2008 still the correct drop off date? [Assuming] delinquency on 1/1/2001 and never catch up, they charge off on 4/1/2001, it comes off 7/1/2008, 7 years plus 180 days after delinquency. Chargeoff date doesn't matter. 2) Not quite so fast on the trigger: The DF is not quite as fast on the trigger, charges off, reports the TL to the CRA and the CRA posts the TL on 5/1/2001. RD has fixed the drop off date at 7/1/2008. Is 7/1/2008 still the correct drop off date? [Assuming] delinquency on 1/1/2001 and never catch up, they charge off on 4/1/2001, it comes off 7/1/2008, 7 years plus 180 days after delinquency. Chargeoff date doesn't matter. 3) Sloooooooow on the trigger: The DF is slow on the trigger, charges off, reports the TL to the CRA and the CRA posts the TL on 6/1/2001. RD has fixed the drop off date at 7/1/2008. Is 7/1/2008 still the correct drop off date? LKH, Sassy, Croft??? 1) ? 2) ? 3) ? I'm not leaving you out RD. I think we already have your answer. "It doesn't come off early just because they were fast on the trigger." .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! Hehe...Actually, Sassy I was fortunate enough to get a 1st class upgrade on that flight, so I skipped the meal and had water plus that big ole chaw while I did carefully read Butch's post (about 1.5 hours !). When they told me to put the laptop away, I sauntered into the head with my hidden bottle and dumped it all down the toilet and rinsed it out. I then returned to my seat and let the flight attendant pick up the cleansed bottle. Yuuuummy ! One comment I feel brave enough to make from the notes I took on the plane: I think we should all be careful (not saying anyone in particular isn't !) with how we define "delinquency". It may be a fine distinction, but I think "delinquency" is not just an event, i.e., solely a missed payment. "Delinquency" is a certain state or status of an account, commencing the day after a payment was due and not made and continuing until the day the account is marked paid for all past due payments. So: 1) Delinquency commences the day after the due date of the first scheduled payment you don't make. 2) Delinquency continues until all scheduled payments, including the one due the day before commencement, are made. 3) Given 1) and 2), there should be no confusion about whether the "commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action" would be the first or the last missed payment ! Butch: As I'm the newbie, having the least to lose and the most to gain (?), I'll bite on this. I'm leery of your "wiles" (I mean that positively) but it wouldn't be the first time I became cannon fodder (LOL): 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes Because: In all cases, the CO event (i.e., "item of information") is added to the consumer's file AFTER 12/29/97. Therefore, 605(c)(1) applies and the 7-yr obsolescence period begins , 180 days after the "date certain" of 1/1/01, and ends 7/1/08 (more or less). An observation: In the Harvey opinion letter http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/harvey.htm, dated 12/23/97, 6 days before the expiration of the 90 day "grace" period for compliance with 623(a)(5), we find Then, in the Johnson letter http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/johnson.htm, dated 8/31/98, we find Footnote (2) says(emphasis mine): "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." Here Brinckerhoff parenthetically, but unequivocally, DEFINES the "obsolescence period" as "seven years, plus 180 days" and "explicitly implies" (how's that for an oxymoron !) that the 7 years has become 7.5 years. So, in effect, the sequencing of these letters says that, "we know Congress' intent was to specify a 7 yr reporting period but we screwed up in how we wrote FCRA, so we expanded the 7 yrs to 7.5 years to shield the CRAs from liability/uncertainty caused by DFs' chronic lack of due diligence". An aside: ---------- ALL of this is premised on the DF actually reporting the charge-off at some point (after 12/29/97) in time to trigger the 605(c)(1) stipulation of the new and improved 7.5 year obsolescence period. If the DF never reports the charge-off, i.e., forgets or doesn't care or just gets "blowed up" or abducted by aliens, the delinquency may be the only thing showing. In that case, 605(a)(5) sets the roll-off date at 7 years for "any other adverse item of information". Hehe... If I found out the DF "blowed up", though, I might dispute the item as soon as I found out about it because I reckon they wouldn't verify ! Well, I've got work tomorrow and am on the East coast, folks ! I'll check ya later !
Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! I did, fave Butch growling dude, you need them numbered or what??? well ok, I can do that, here ya go: 1. yes 2. yes 3. yes Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! your welcome Can you please update at the appropriate place as requested, fave Butch growling dude, for the Lady of the world of pending lawsuits? Sassy
