I have been reading about time-barred debts here. I am still a little confused and request assistance to a few specific examples. I live in TX and SOL is 4 years for just about everything (credit related). Note: all reports (EXP, EQ, and TU) were from myFICO. EXAMPLE 1: My reports shows a CA collecting for OC in the "collections" section of the report. from EXP report: CA entry: Date assigned: 1/03 Balance date: 9/04 Status Date: 2/03 Amount: $207 Balance: $207 OC entry: Date of status: 1/03 Last Payment Date: Not on record credit limit: $309 It also reports "Transferred to/purchased by another lender" from TU report: CA entry: Date assigned: 1/03 Date reported: 8/04 Date paid out: not on record date closed: not on record Amount: $208 Balance: $208 OC entry: Date of last activity: 2/01 date paid out: not on record date closed: 2/01 description: purchased by another lender from EQ report: There is no entry for the CA OC entry: Date of last activity: 3/01 My last payment to OC was made in 3/00. I paid 2 payments to a different CA (prior to CA above) on 1/01 and 2/01. The checks were made out to OC though (that CA was just working for OC). As I understand it, the SOL time would have started when the account went past due to the OC, so any payments to a CA should not reage account, correct? EXAMPLE 2: I had an account with Sears (OC, obviously). Last payment made on 10/99. EXP shows last payment date as 10/99 EQ shows date of last activity as 4/98 TU shows date of last activity as 10/99 So, the reports appear to correct with the exception of EQ, it is in my favor though. The problem is that Sears religously updates the CRA's every month. The EXP report shows (4) 30 days late, (2) 60 days late, and (26) 90+ days late. All 26 are after date of last activity. Wouldn't this hurt my FICO score, or at least look worse than it should? Is this some other type of FDCPA violation? The EQ report shows (1) 30 days late, (0) days late, and (1) 90+ days late. The TU report shows zero for all three categories. Is there any approach I can take w/ Sears to removed from reports since it is past SOL? Sorry post is so long, but I have other SOL accounts similar to above I would like to work on. Based on what I have read here, I should send the CA (Example 1) a cease and desist and after receiving green card, send CRA's their letter (as found on WhyChat web site). Is this correct? Are there other examples for a SOL letter or is the whychat letter the best or just a simple complete cease and desist? Any advice on the Sears account? I don't think I can use the whychat SOL letter since I don't think it applies to OC.
You want to check that your state isn't one of the states that resets the SOL when you make any payment on the account. But even if that is the case, from what you said, SOL is only a few months away on that account. Sears (unless you live in a state which says otherwise), since it is an OC doesn't fall under the FDCPA. (I think you may have used the wrong anacronym, accidentially.) What you are thinking about is the FCRA. Reporting any information contradictory to the information that they are providing wih another CRA is proof that they are providing unreliable data, the FCRA prohibits transferring any data which is false. The problem is, that 623(a) violations, don't have a cause of action FOR THE CONSUMER, only the government can bring an action to enforce under 623(a). Now, if you dispute the inaccuracies on the credit report with the credit reporting agencies, and they incorrectly verify the incorrect information, then that is a violation of 623(b). What I typically do (and especially after Johnson v. MBNA) is send a letter telling the OC that there are inaccuracies, and that I am requesting that they conclusively verify all of the information that they are reporting to the CRAs, not from their computer, but from the original paper records (and provide the quotes of Johnson v. MBNA which shows if they verify the inaccurate information without conclusively verifying the information, they are violating the law, and MBNA got hit for $90,300.00 when they violated the law). I then follow this with the specific dispute of the incorrect information with the CRAs. In this case, I would dispute the DLA with all three agencies. Remember though, DLA is not the same as the commencement of the delinquency, only EQ reports that detail as that detail. EX you may be able to deduce it from the account history information, look for the 30 days prior to the charge off or collections.
A more specific question is: once an account is charged off, can OC continue to increase the number of 90+ days late payments (as shown on EXP report)? I didn't have 26 90+ day late pays before the charge off. Does the number of 90+ day late pays affect your score?
I have been looking at the Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner's website today and haven't been able to find anything yet. Anyone know the answer to Jam's question for Texas?
