The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period!

Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period!

I agree, it doesn't say in 623(a)(5) what should happen if the DF doesn't meet it's obligation. But, the statute is clear in saying that the 7 yr. period starts 180 days after the C.O.D. date for any delinquent account subjected to the actions named in 605(c)(1), WITHOUT REFERENCE TO when or even whether DF reports the item itself OR the C.O.D. date itself. If a delinquent account is NOT subjected to one of those actions named in 605(c)(1) and, further, DOESN'T belong to one of the classes named in 605(a)(1 through 3), then it has a roll-off date of 7 years from the C.O.D. date per 605(a)(5). There is no ambiguity as to the proper roll-off date despite what the DF may or may not REPORT.

It's a violation, period, with remedies outlined elsewhere in FCRA. I see nowhere FCRA disallows anything being listed due to failure to comply with 623(a)(5).

If one doesn't want to be dependent on DFs reporting appropriately or keeping records that they'll share willingly with you so that you can sue them, then I would suggest keeping your own records as a good safeguard. At worst, then, you can show evidence in court establishing the C.O.D. date and argue a roll-off date of 7 or 7.5 years, depending on what action the DF evidences that the account was subject to.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period!

You're right, of course. There's nothing that says "this has to be removed". I'm kind of developing this part of my thoughts on the fly. I think my idea is something along the lines of: failure to provide the commencement date of the delinquency causes the tradeline to be incomplete, and hence it cannot be kept on the CR because it is not complete and correct. This requirement is so clear that, if I were the CRAs, I'd remove any TL that didn't provide a date within 90 days just to avoid problems. Maybe the CRAs we've got are smart enough? hehe

Um, editing here to point out that the commencement date is only required for those exception TLs in 605(c), not for all TLs.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period!

Hey guys, this is great ! I was a little nervous that Butch would just tear my ass up ! LOL ! Just kidding, Butch. Thank you for your encouraging comments.

Looking forward to continuing. I will be out of pocket a large part of Saturday and then have to fly to Texas again Sunday. So, at the very least, I will PDF an up-to-date version of this thread to the laptop late Sun. AM to review on the plane. I might be able to check in late Sunday night (can't ever sleep after flying !).

RD:
Yes, from a PRACTICAL standpoint I know what you're saying and would take a similar approach myself. Sorry if I came off a little terse, I was in a nit-picky mindset it was hard to break out of.

I certainly feel that knowing and interpreting the FCRA in a way that you can do what you need in court is a thing that can be quite different from knowing how each of the individual CRAs behave and will react to leverage you impose on their fumbling around.

IMO, it's not strictly a legal game but also a battle of nerve and wits, i.e., a "mind" game. (Right, Doc ?)
.
Weeeellllll, Mrs. Crofttk beckons because we have a little roadtrip to make tomorrow and I can't indulge my sleep deficit makeup habit tomorrow AM (grumble, moan...). Have a good night owl session folks !

 

Okay,

I think the last 2 or 3 posts from Red Devil has to be the best, most clear, and probably the closest to the truth that I've seen on this subject.

I myself have been switching from side to side on this debate, and was sure that it was 7 years only, no ifs, ands, or buts.

I see now about that FTC opinion letter, I have no idea why I thought those 3 examples said something about the items dropping off after 7 years, (guess I was thinking about it sooo hard that I just super-imposed those words into that letter.)

I see now that all those examples did was specify what the actual C.O.D. was.

To summarize what RD wrote, items such as collections, chargeoffs, and similar actions, once reported by a DF, must have the correct C.O.D. date reported to the CRA's withing 90 days, and that the info must fall off after 180 days after the C.O.D. date plus the 7 years.

Initially when written, collections, chargeoffs, crimes, etc... was all lumped together and said could not be antedated by 7 years on the report ...

Then the amendment came along, and clarified about the collections, chargeoffs, and similar actions and said that the C.O.D. must be determined and reported withing 90 days, and that the 7 years begins AFTER the 180 days has elapsed from the C.O.D. date.

Bravo!

RD stated that if the DF never provides this C.O.D. date, then TL must be deleted and someone else said no way.

But, I believe it MUST be deleted, but only if a consumer disputes it. How can a DF or a CRA know when the 180 days plus 7 years is up, or should be up, of the original C.O.D. date is not provided.

Like in the example, last payment is 01/01/2001, but the DF doesn't report it till 7/01/2003 - Does that mean this is to stay on the report till 01/01/2011!!?? That would be 180 days plus 7 years.

Of course not, 180 days plus 7 years from 01/01/2001 would be 07/01/2008.

So, if DF placed this on a CR on 07/01/2003 but never provided the C.O.D. date, then a consumer can dispute this and say this is imcomplete and inaccurate information, either validate a correct C.O.D. date, or delete this TradeLine!



FedUp2003

 

FedUp,

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However don't miss one small thing that is really huge.

The COD (Commencement of Delinquency) I kept shaking my head at you reading that as charge-off date, so wanting to clarify -- is NOT reported on any reports from any of the CRA's.

It is required, that is the sure thing, however, NONE of them report it on our reports.

Sassy

 

Very well, Butch. I find this quite an interesting letter in more way than one. Before addressing your request for opinions, I wanted to make some observations on this letter:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. The letter, from Brinckerhoff to Johnson, is dated 8/31/98.
   
2. "... I missed the 1/97 payment and all subsequent payments culminating in a charge off..." Note that the C.O.D. date is therefore 1/97.
   
3. "... The creditor does not report to the credit bureau until the account is 90 days delinquent..." Note that this implies "creditor did not report" until 4/97. Also note that this fragment from Johnson doesn't make it clear if this was the first time creditor reported to the CRA AT ALL or whether Johnson means creditor didn't report the charge-off until then.
   
4. "...The creditor contends that the delinquency did not occur until 3/97 because that is when they first reported it." From this I take it that 3/97 that 3/97 was when the creditor first reported either the TL and/or it's delinquency. Also, this conflicts with 3), possibly resolved by assuming Johnson mistook 60 days delinquent for 90 days delinquent.
   
5. The creditor most likely "furnished the information", i.e., reported the charge-off in 4/97. IRONICALLY, with respect to 605(c)(1) and Brinckerhoff's tone in this letter, this "item of information" was added to the file of the consumer at least 8 months PRIOR to 12/29/97, the date 605(c)(1) became applicable ! IMO, then, in the specific case of Johnson's TL, the charge-off could be reported through 4/97 + 7 years, until 4/2004, per 605(a)(4).
   
6. After quoting Johnson, Brinckerhoff goes on to say:

• "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..."(emphasis mine)
  Here, I'm disappointed that Brinckerhoff sloppily says "within 90 days of reporting the account", injecting some ambiguity, whereas 623(a)(5) says, "... not later than 90 days after furnishing the information", "the information" more clearly alluding to the charge-off (in Johnson's case). Note that 623(a)(5) did go immediately into effect upon enactment of Public Law 204-108, on 9/30/96, and , hence, is applicable to Johnson's specific TL.
• "Section 605(a)(4) provides that the credit bureau may report the chargeoff for seven years."
  Hehe... Indeed it does, especially since 605(c)(1) does not apply in the case of Johnson's TL. When B. says "the charge-off", does he mean Johnson's or the general case ? Who knows but I guess I don't care.
• "Section 605(c)(1) provides that seven year period begins 180 days from that date."
  See ? B. does a subtle dance here ! I interpret "provides" here, since 605(c)(1) says "SHALL begin", to mean REQUIRES IF APPLICABLE.
• and, finally, B. then answers the question: "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." (emphasis mine)
  Crafty Mr. B. says the time period is dictated by Section 605, NOT 605(c)(1) !

The remainder of this letter, IMO, has it's thrust directed at interpreting the meaning of "commencement of the delinquency that led to the action". FWIW, I believe we're all agreed on the meaning of that phrase. (Butch, in particular, assented to my re-phrasing, which was based on a review of this letter).

My point in this sidebar is to point out that B. seems to be making hay on 605(c)(1) at the expense of possibly confusing Johnson. Is he doing this to extend the lifetime of usefulness of this letter to actions reported post-12/29/97 ?

Or, reading my points above, am I the one that's confused ???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, thank you for your patience (or did you actually just skip down to here ?? LOL !).

Regarding the issue that you asked for opinions on, Butch:

I DEFINITELY see the disconnect here between "...may begin no more than 180 days after the commencement of the delinquency..." (B. quoting Congress) and "shall begin...upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency".

Here's what I did Butch. I did some rootin' around in the Library of Congress (LOC) tracking the evolution of this "Consumer Reporting Reform Act of 1996" (CRRA). Specifically I was looking for any specific "pivot point" in the evolution of Congress' intent regarding 605(c)(1).

I did find out some interesting information. I didn't find a "SMOKING gun", but I did find some "powder burns" and think that Mssr. Brinckerhoff maybe ought to have a paraffins test.

My apologies for not providing links direct other than to a "close" linkas the searches expire and I'm not enough of a bitnerd to give you permanent exact links: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

I could only get back to 1991 online in the LOC. I MAY have reached the beginning if CRRA but can't be 100% certain. Here are some excerpts to show what I think may be the infancy of CRRA.

BEFORE:
----------
As far back as online LOC takes me, CRRA was first introduced by Rep. Estaban Torres to the House on 10/22/91. Here is an excerpt of the 605(c)(1) relevant text:

NOTE that at this point we have SHALL (not MAY) commence NO LATER THAN. SO, here it does indeed sound like a limited option, i.e., a VARIABLE 180 day period.

AFTER:
--------
HOWEVER, after HR 3596 gets worked over by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Coinage), they report out in Senate Report 102-692, on 7/22/92 with the following:

So there's what I assume is a deliberate and conscious change in the text of what becomes 605(c)(1) between it's introduction and the oldest committe workover I was able to find online.

There are many versions of the text of CRRA as it is passed from Sesssion to Session of Congress and from Committee to Committee before it becomes enacted on 9/30/96. IN NOT ONE OF THOSE SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS does the text of 605(c)(1) change a jot or tittle except for the insertion somewhere along the line of the initial "sentence": "In general." !

Admittedly, we have conflicts between: 1) some of the Summaries' wording and the wording excerpted by Brinckerhoff from Senate Report 104-185 and 2) the apparently immutable text of 605(c)(1) since Senate Report 102-692 on 7/22/92.

Is Congress incorrect ? Do they lack an eye for detail in drafting their legislation ? If you think not (as I do not), then why didn't they tweak the text through the years until it read "may" and "no later than" to make plain what their intent was ?

I understand that Brinckerhoff's job here was to interpret Congress' original intent in a Staff Opinion Letter. I know the man's human, however. I spoke to him on the phone when FTC announced they were going to submit a revised FCRA commentary for public review this year.
(Continued)
.

 

(Continued)

No offense to him, but he didn't strike me as omnipotent. Yes, I'm being hyperbolic, but there MUST be some good reason the text of 605(c)(1) didn't change in the relevant wording for 4 years !

Here is a more complete excerpt from Senate Report 104-185, which B. fragmentarily quoted in the Johnson Letter :

Hmmm...funny that B. "fragmented out" that, if the collection or similar action is reported the 7 yr. period WILL commence not later.....

I guess one could read read "may begin no more than" and "will commence not later" the same way (other than the "units" conflict you pointed out early on, Butch).

In summary, there seems to be consistently inconsistent wording of Congressional intent in regards to 605(c)(1), based on the limited resources I have available. BUT, the 605(c)(1) wording was stable for four years. That fact MUST be good for something !

So, my vote is still that shall means will and the 7 years "shall begin...upon" the expiration of the 180 day period. I can't find anything that tells me consistently (and against how the text was changed early on !) that Congress intended otherwise.

Of course, if a DF wants to interpret the 605(c)(1) text as "may begin no more than", I reckon that's no skin off my nose. I wouldn't mind it coming off a little earlier. I won't hold my breath waiting on them to opt to do so, however, and doubt that I could convince them to opt that way (Actually, I'd probably give TU a shot, duuuuh... LOL !).

Whatchya think ?

 

Is the commencement of delinquency date a date specific? YES -- check

Is the commencement of delinquency date required to be furnished? YES -- check

Is the commencement of delinquency date required to be furnished within a certain specified amount of time? YES -- check

Is the commencement of delinquency date SO important that it is in fact the ONLY piece of information about a TL that is specifically required to be furnished? YES -- check

Are consumers entitled to ALL information in their files regardless of how it is stored? YES -- check

Based on the above FACTS, can a qualifying TL be complete and accurate without it? NO -- check

No nice thinking or fluff, wildly stretched interpretation at all, needed or required.

It IS a plain language statute.

FedUp, there's a letter at the end of this thread that addresses just this situation:

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6086&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Sassy

 

Croft,

You aren't confused!!!!!!!!!!!

Sassy

 

Nope. Croft, I don't think you're confused at all. If you were confused, what you just posted wouldn't have appeared as it did. Great job.

 

Not really. The delinquency date is only required for some TLs, not all TLs. Specifically, 623(5) sets the 90 day requirement for (and only for):

"... delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action ..."

E.g., that same subset that we've been talking about. They even use identical words here to the words they used in 605(c)(1). So it only applies to the set of accounts covered by 605(C)(1).

I'm not contending here that the information needs to be printed on our reports (although 609(a)(1) seems pretty darn clear to ME), but we should be able to ask if it's there, and if not, that the TL be removed.

See:

"623(5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action."

Also, I do want to reiterate that Sassy is correct. The date that they must report is the commencement of the delinquency that led to the chargeoff or other action. This date is not on the report and can't be inferred from any other date on the report. There's no way to figure how how long the TL can stay on if that date isn't provided. It must be provided.

 

Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period!

Thanks, Butch, Sassy, and LKH for your kind acknowledgments !

I'm not sure where we go from here (unless Butch has another shoe yet to drop, LOL !).

However, I just wanted to say, regardless of how anybody's mindset is affected by this thread or where the thread goes from here, that this thread offers a rich resource of several things that EVERYONE said (ostensibly right or wrong, either one) that one could use at the right time and with the right CRA or DF to either whip or dupe them into submission and jump them through hoops. Of course, you could end up in court, but you're better armed by having hiked around and seen all sides of the mountain, right ?

If you buy what I just said, then does not the real value of our discussions here and elsewhere lie in making each other develop our litiginal muscles, as Doc recommends ?

Good stuff.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RD:

I wish I didn't see a hedge, myself, in here:

Now why the HECK did they have to go and put that "upon request" in there ??? Why not say "in any disclosure of consumer's own credit file information to the consumer", and really give it some punch ? Probably because members of congress / committee members / subcommittee members "confer" (yeah, uh-huh....) with both consumers/constituents AND industry representatives while drafting legislation ?

It wouldn't surprise me if CRAs took the position that "upon request" could be construed to mean that, unless you EXPLICITLY requested ALL information, they can just dump out whatever part they choose to when Joe Consumer buys a credit report. Thus, the advisability of making a demand pursuant to 609 as we see in several "dispute to CRA" example letters out there.

This stimulates me to think about a dispute procedure pitting CRA against DF on an IIB TL I have where the BK7 filing was 1/97 but the DLA reads as 5/97. I wonder if the DF actually complied at all with 623(a)(5) on this TL so soon after 9/30/96 ? This TL used to be reported as late, late, late and CO before I (so naively and ignorantly) disputed it to "Included in Bankruptcy/Never Late". I have the old reports showing its reporting pre-dispute. I believe CO was 5/97.

Perhaps I should write the CRA and demand disclosure of the C.O.D. date that DF was required to furnish to them by 8/97. I wonder where that would lead me.
;-)


BTW:

Which would, "in general", be easier to do if CRA didn't have the option to modify instead: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#611, see 611(a)(5)(A), "...or modify that item of information, as appropriate...".

Hell, it could work, especially if said CRA were so INEPT as to not be able to get "dat dang 'puter" to do what they want ! LOLOLOL !

 

Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period!

Nodding RedDevil

I said qualifying TL's; that's certainly NOT all derogs.

I'm flying with ya!!!!!!!!

Sassy

 

Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period!

bump for all to read

 

Butch,

You forgot to highlight this part:

According to the FTCâ??s complaint, defendants NCO Group, Inc.; NCO Financial Systems, Inc.; and NCO Portfolio Management, Inc. violated Section 623(a)(5) of the FCRA, which specifies that any entity that reports information to credit bureaus about a delinquent consumer account that has been placed for collection or written off must report the actual month and year the account first became delinquent. In turn, this date is used by the credit bureaus to measure the maximum seven-year reporting period the FCRA mandates. The provision helps ensure that outdated debts â?? debts that are beyond this seven-year reporting period â?? do not appear on a consumerâ??s credit report. Violations of this provision of the FCRA are subject to civil penalties of $2,500 per violation.

It is upon the expiration of that period (the 180 days) that the 7 year clock begins.

From the FCRA, previously quoted:

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.

Sassy

 

Bam!