As some of you know, I have been dealing with a re-age issue with one of my old accounts that recently appeared on Equifax. The account in question charged off in 1996, and I have records to prove that. I settled the account in August of this year. At the time of settlement, the account did not appear on any of my credit reports. Last week, the account suddenly appeared as a paid charge off with a date of last activity of 8/2002, when I made payment on the account. Here is the kicker. Nowhere on Equifax's listings do they have a notation for date of status or even a note saying when the account is due to age off the report. I called them today, and the only thing they told me was that they go off of the Date of Last Activity for the seven year period. HUH? Just because a payment is made on an account does not make the derog last another seven years. This is a bug in their reporting software or something. I told the lady at Equifax that the DOLA had nothing to do with the seven year clock according to the FCRA. The FCRA states that an account is reported from the commencement of delinquency date regardless of what happens later with the account. This sounded like news to her! She told me "well, then you will have to speak to someone in legal, do you have a number where they can call you back?" Equifax can be a real piece of work. It is plain as day that the creditor and the credit bureau allowed this account to be reaged simply because a payment was made on the account. Do they think I am just going to say "oh well" and walk away with another seven years of bad credit? They had better change this or heads are going to roll. I have disputed the listing and I left a number for someone in "legal" to call me back. Does anyone know of some good contacts at CSC credit services? They handle my file for Equifax.
Ahhhh.... this old subject. The source of a lot of confusion. I'd hate to tell you. She might be right! The rules about when the 7 year reporting clock where changed in 1997. The new rules in the new FCRA were tightened up to prevent people from being punished for making payments on old debts. The new rules are like you said, 180 days from when the original delinquency occured. However, the new laws allowed old debts to continue to be reported under the old rules. Now this is where it gets interesting. I am not a lawyer. But I've never seen anything where the CRA's are required to follow the new rules for old debts. However, rumor has it that the CRA's are applying the new rules to all debts. Perhaps it just makes it easier for them. I doubt they are doing this to be nice. Another point of confusion is the DOLA. To me, it has always meant just that, the date of last activity. It is not the "Date When First Delinquent". So the DOLA for that account is correct. What is incorrect, at least for new debts since 1997, is that connection between the DOLA and start of the reporting clock, has been severed. Has it been 7.5 years since you first went delinquent on this account? If so, then start with a dispute on the item with the CRA to have it removed.
I understand the distinction between the new and old FCRA, but there is also a FTC staff letter that states the FTC views the commencement of delinquency date on accounts that charged off prior to 1997 to be the "charge off date". So this means that instead of being reported from 180 days after initial delinquency, it would be reported from whatever date the account was charged off. So it seems to me that the FTC still views a limit on reporting period even if it is being reported under the "old" rules. I just did a general dispute on the tradeline a couple of days ago, and I will see what happens with it. If it comes back verified, then I will send a bunch of documentation to CSC and demand that they remove the account or at least update. Just to be clear, because a lot of people have been telling me the DOLA is reporting correctly: I know it is reporting correctly. I made a payment in August, so the DOLA is 8/2002. I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is that Equifax is viewing the DOLA as the date they run the seven year clock from. That is not correct and they are going to change it. Since there is no other means of reporting the delinquency date on an Equifax report, that is the date in question in this case. Besides, I have another chargeoff that I was making payments on recently, and the creditor is updating the balance each month, WITHOUT updating the DOLA on the account. It remains 2/96. So something has to give here in the way Equifax is reporting these things. Any gurus out there have an opinion one way or another on this one??
Making a payment after being charged off, will change the dola for purposes of collection or lawsuit. Making a payment after chargeoff does NOT change the dola for reporting purposes. Here is the FTC letter on that subject. Read #2. February 15, 2000 Ms. Alaina K. Amason 14155 Shire Oak San Antonio, TX 78247 Dear Ms. Amason: This responds to your letter concerning the time limitations imposed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") on the reporting of chargeoff accounts by a consumer reporting agency ("CRA," usually a credit bureau). We list your inquiries on this topic below in italics, with our replies immediately following each item. 1. What reporting limits does the FCRA provide with respect to chargeoffs, and how long have they been in effect? Section 605(a)(4), which has been in effect since the FCRA became effective in April 1971, has always prohibited CRAs from reporting chargeoffs that are more than seven years old.(1) Section 623(a)(5), which became law in September 1997, 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. Section 605(c)(1) provides that the seven year period begins 180 days from that date. Both provisions were part of the major revision to the FCRA that were enacted in 1996.(2) 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. 3. Since Sections 623(a)(5) and 605(c)(1) provide new rules for calculating the 7-year period that became effective in 1997, do chargeoff accounts now have different obsolescence periods depending on when the chargeoff occurred? Yes. Section 605(c)(2) states that the section "shall apply only to items of information added to the (CRA) file of a consumer on or after" 455 days after enactment, or December 29, 1997. Therefore, a chargeoff reported to a CRA on or after that date is subject to the new commencement-of-the-delinquency method of calculating the obsolescence period set forth in Sections 623(a)(5) and 605(c)(1). On the other hand, a chargeoff reported to a CRA before December 29, 1997, is not covered by the new provisions, as discussed in one of the enclosed letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99). If a credit account was reported as a chargeoff before that date, the Commission's view has been that it can be reported for seven years from the date the creditor actually charged it off.(3) The opinions set forth in this informal staff letter are not binding on the Commission. Sincerely yours, Clarke W. Brinckerhoff
I'm not a guru, but from my logical standpoint I would have to say that yeah, the debt is pre-1997, but the transaction-making a payment-is not. So any activity on this account should be treated under the new laws. just my .02 cents
I'm still flying with ya, jdog, If equifax told you they go by the date of last activity for the 7 year reporting period, as I relayed in your other thread, I'd keep on pushing that issue. DOLA is not the commencement of delinquency. The way equifax is set up, on our copies of the reports at least, if they use the DOLA for the 7-year reporting period, for accuracy and completeness in your case, the DOLA shouldn't be changed, it was 8 1996 if I'm remembering correctly and they would or should, update the "items as of the date reported" and the "date reported" to reflect a zero balance as of 2002. They should change the status too. It's not our problem that their system doesn't reflect the requirements (none of them do). However, if the rep told you the DOLA is what is being used for the reporting period (I hope you took good notes, name - date - time etc.) that is pivitol. The DOLA then is a misnomer in their reports -- you're the perfect example. They don't get to report it for another 7 years, that flies in the face of the FCRA amendments and wasn't what the exception was about. The letter that LKH posted, you've obviously read it the same as we do, is clear on that. Sassy
I know "7 years from DOLA" is what the CSR told you on the phone. But how do you know he/she is right? How do you know that they were not misinformed? I think you might have to wait until the 7 years is up and see if the CRA drops the item automatically. If they don't, then you have a case. I think you are just the victim of a pooly trained CSR spouting off about things they don't understand.
I hope you were kidding about that statement. If there is anyone stupid enough to wait seven years for a mistake like this to clear itself (roll over and play dead) they are a complete and total idiot. I contacted CSC Credit Service's legal department and faxed them copies of my documentation showing the delinquency date as 2/96. They told me that once they look them over, and it appears I am correct, they will change the listing. If they don't, then they are going to have a FCRA suit on their hands for allowing an account to be re-aged on their credit report, inspite of supporting documentation showing how old the account really is.
No I was not kidding. I still don't understand what you are trying to do. I re-read the post. Do you want them to delete the TL? I see two issues that you have. (a) The CSR at the CRA was an idiot and claimed over the phone that the 7 year clock is based on the DOLA. (b) The TL has no other dates other than DOLA. According to you, the charge off was Feb 1996. Based on the rules discussed on the thread, that means the 7 year clock starts on that month. Therefore, this TL can not be reported after Feb 2003. That means it can be on your report for a little over 4 more months. I already discussed the first issue. My gut tells me that the CSR was just being stupid. Regarding the second issue. Are you demanding that the CRA add information to the TL about when the account was opened and when it was charged off? If you give the CRA proof that the charge off occurred in Feb 1996, then they have all the proof they need to keep the TL there for a while longer. I will concede that you have a case of the CRA continues to report the TL after Feb 2003. But what do you have, other than the verbal statement of the CSR, that the CRA intends to keep this item beyond Feb 2003? As of today, there is nothing inaccurate about the TL. It is legally within the time frame. Yes, it could have some more information to augment what is there. I understand the strategy is disputing items with the goal of removal because the 'facts' can not be verified. But in this case, everything can be verified. Please explain to me what I am missing here. I'm usually a pretty smart guy, but I can miss things too (just ask my ex-wife). Thanks!
One other thing. Where do you get the re-age? Updating the DOLA to reflect your payment didn't re-age the TL. Updating the Charge-off date would, but you said there is no charge-off date.
I see what you were saying now. Wait until February of next year and see if it falls off or not. I misunderstood and thought you meant for me to wait for seven MORE years to see what happens. Sorry! I actually don't care if the account stays on the report for four more months. What bothers me is that the DOLA is the only thing that Equifax is basing the seven year clock on. And since my score dropped 100 points when this tradeline was added, it is obvious to me that the FICO is based on a chargeoff that it is calulating as only two months old. I'm not going to let that stand. At this point, I'm not asking for deletion of the tradeline. I will continue to try to get it deleted after I am assured by Equifax that this account drops off next year and not in 2009 like they are half heartedly telling me it is. I agree that the CSR probably didn't know what she was talking about, but the possibility that this is what their system is telling them is scaring me enough that I am making them address it now and get it fixed if that is the case. I want it reported correctly, and then I will dispute it from there. I will know in a couple of days whether they decided to change it or not based on the information I gave them.
I should have been clearer. Yes, I meant check after Feb 2003. My mistake. I apologize. You are assuming that the FICO score is based on the DOLA. Do you know that if a charge off date were added to the TL, that the FICO computation would change? You had also mentioned that the tradeline was not even there until recently. Perhaps just having a negative TL, no matter how old, was the cause? I mention this because I am loath to give a CRA or a CA any information from my hands, unless it is information that I am certain will benefit me and can not be used to confirm facts that I may want to later dispute.
August 31, 1998 Mr. Clifford A. Johnson 1917 Surrey Trail Bellbrook, Ohio 45305 Re: FCRA §§ 605(c) and 623(a)(5) - "Commencement of the delinquency" Dear Mr. Johnson: This responds to your request for our views concerning the calculation of the period for which a consumer reporting agency ("CRA") is permitted to report accounts that have been charged off, placed for collection, or subject to similar action, under the amended Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). You report that the following series of events occurred with respect to one of your credit accounts: "My last payment was received by the creditor 12/96. My payments were due monthly and I missed the 1/97 payment and all subsequent payments culminating in a charge off. This creditor does not report to the credit bureau until the account is 90 days delinquent. . . . The creditor contends that the delinquency did not occur until 3/97 because that is when they first reported it." 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. Section 605(a)(4) provides that the credit bureau may report the chargeoff for seven years. Section 605(c)(1) provides that seven year period begins 180 days from that date. This unclear statement says that the reporting period begins 7 years PLUS 180 days from blah, blah. So I hear a lot of us talking about the "7.5" year reporting period. We were wrong! 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. We are not in accord with the contention that the date "when (the creditor) first reported" the chargeoff to the CRA constituted the start of the delinquency. Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) were recently added to the FCRA to correct the ineffectiveness of the previous FCRA, under which the date that started the seven-year period was uncertain or under the control of the creditor.(1) The legislative history of these provisions makes it clear that they were designed to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from delayed creditor action: Congressional Tesimony (in blue): Current law generally prohibits consumer reporting agencies from including in a consumer report accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years. The problem arose when a creditor would "sit" on an account for whatever length of time they wanted to BEFORE finally Charging Off or Placing for Collection. What if a creditor decided NOT to chargeoff or place for collection for 5 years after your delinquency, and then did so. The reporting period could have been 7 years plus 5 years, 12 years. The Committee is concerned that this seven year limitation is ineffective. In some cases, the ... action occurs months or even years after the commencement of the preceding delinquency. ... Consequently, the consumer report may contain such information even if the delinquency commences more than seven years before the date on which the report is provided to a user. Congresses Intent is what we need to examine when we look at this stuff. The Committee bill specifies that the seven-year period with respect to information concerning a delinquent account charged to profit and loss . . . may begin no more than 180 days after the commencement of the delinquency immediately preceding the ... action. S. Rept. 104-185, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 39-40 (emphasis added). Obviously it's not necessarily 7.5 years but can be NO MORE than 7.5 years, an important distinction. Thus, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- the start of the delinquency -- to begin the obsolescence period (now seven years, plus 180 days). I think this is very poorly stated by the FTC. It insists that the RP is 7.5 years, but it does not HAVE to be the full 7.5 years, as per Congresses Testimony. They could have been much clearer. (2) The alternate view stated to you (that the date of reporting controls) is at variance with both the plain language of these amendments, and the intent of Congress in enacting them. In sum, we believe that the phrase "commencement of the delinquency that led to the action" in Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) of the FCRA should be construed according to its normal meaning. If a consumer falls behind on an account and never catches up, the delinquency has its "commencement" when the first payment is missed. From that point on, the account is past due and thus delinquent. So I'm thinking JDog is onto something. The CRA's use the DLA as the date to start the RP. I now think a good case could be made that this is not appropriate. It seems to me that regardless of when or if a payment is made on an account, post OR pre CCRR revisions it still does not change the reporting period, even though admittedly there are 2 different calculation methods. Here I thought they used the DLA as the reporting date, which of course they do, albeit illegitimately. Since the DLA always would PRECEDE a chargeoff or placement for collection the start of the reporting period would then be made SHORTER than the actual adverse action. using the DLA would ALWAYS be a good thing. AND THIS EXPLAINS, AT LEAST TO ME, WHY THE cra'S USE IT. IT GIVES THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE DEBTOR WITHOUT THEM GOING THROUGH ALL THE EXPENSE OF UPDATING THEIR ENTIRE SYSTEM. But here's where my problem comes in; if you make a pmt. on an OLD account it would change the DLA, which IS true. But the CRA using the DLA from which to calculate the start of the obsolescence period is not correct. They should be using the commencement of the delinquency. Sassy I wish you would have told me all this. LOL The opinions set forth in this informal staff letter are not binding on the Commission. Sincerely yours, Clarke W. Brinckerhoff
This is what I mean. They ARE calculating from the DLA. The CRA's CSR was right. JDog, on Exp it says that this item is scheduled to remain until blah blah. What does that say? Or is this one on Exp?
Butch, I'm confused. You state that the CRA is using the DOLA to start the reporting period, which we all agree is wrong. What are you baseing that statement on? The only evidence we have of them doing this is a verbal statement by a CSR at the CRA. The trade line has not aged enough to test the CRA on their policies. Until the CRA actually commits the violation by leaving the item on the file longer than legally allowed, no law has been broken. You state that making a payment on a debt will reset the DOLA, which will extend the life of the tradeline. This statement is based on the assumption that the CRA is using the DOLA as the start date. Again, we have no evidence of this, yet. Yes you are correct that IF this is true, then paying an old debt will punish you by extending the life of the tradeline. That is why the FCRA was revised in 1997. This is no longer true. The only issue, or grey area, is what rules will dictate the life of the old tradelines (pre 1997). The concensus seems to be that is the date of the charge off.
Section 623(a)(5) of the FCRA states... ------------------------------------------------------------ (623) Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies. (a)Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. (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." --------------------------------------------------------- Now this is veeeeeeery interesting! If this creditor is reporting a charged off tradeline to the CRA, then they must also report when the account first went deliquent. The chargeoff was Feb 1996. That means under normal circumstances, the account went delinquent late 1995, usually 90 days before charge off. So the questions are: (a) Is the creditor reporting this late 1995 date to the CRA along with the tradeline as required by Sect. 623(a)(5) of the FCRA? (b) And if they do, does the CRA put this date on the viewable fields of the CRA? It could be that the CRA has this date. But if you can't see it, then how can you dispute it? And based on the FTC Staff Opinion mentioned above regarding the charge off date to use. The CRA is to use the date of the charge off, or 180 days from when it went delinquent, whichever is less, as the start of the reporting period. The CRA can not determine if the charge off date is greater than 180 days from delinquency date if the creditor does not provide the CRA with both dates! The CRA might "trust" the creditor to report a charge off date that is not greater than 180 days from the delinquency that lead to the charge off. But as the FTC opinion states, some creditors wait years before charging off the account. History has shown that the creditors can not be trusted. Because of this requirement, and the abuse of the charge off date in the past, the FCRA requires the creditor to report these dates. If the CRA gets a delinquency date, and no charge off date, then the CRA might assume a default of 180 days, the worse case senario. It that is true, and a debtor can prove that the creditor charged off an account before 180 days (perhaps 90 days), but then fails to report to a CRA the actual charge off date, then there is a violation of the FCRA. The tradeline is not correct and the CRA is forced to use the wrong date. On the other hand, if the CRA uses the delinquency date when no charge off date is given, then that benefits the debtor. Getting back to the point. I think that you might have something there... (a) If the CRA refuses to allow the consumer to review and dispute the delinquency date, then the date can not be used. (b) If the creditor does not give the CRA the delinquency date, then the CRA can not properly compute the life of the tradeline. In fact, the creditor is in violation of the FCRA for failing to provide this date. (c) If the CRA does not have a delinqency date, or has a date that the consumer disputed, then the CRA can not properly determine the start date for the trade line's life. (d) If the CRA can not determine a start date, then they can not compute a life span for a tradeline. (e) If a CRA can not compute a lifespan, then they can not report the tradeline. (f) Also, the provision requires that the creditor provide the delinquency date within 90 days of reporting the tradeline. If they provide a date (even a correct date) after 90 days, then the CRA can not accept it. Is my reasoning sound? So how would one get to know when the creditor first reported the charge off, when and if they provided the delinquency date, and what delinquency date did they provide? With these facts, one might be able to force the CRA to drop the tradeline. Hmmmm. I think I'll get some sleep and re-read this tomorrow. I must be missing something. Cheers
Butch, This only appears on Equifax and there is no listing for when it drops off on an Equifax report. There is also no place to report the commencement of delinquency date or charge off date on an Equifax report. Therefore, the only thing they go off of is the DOLA which is 8/02. But that doesn't mean they have the right to let it sit on the report for seven years from this date. They must not have the delinquency date from the creditor. I know the DOLA is correct, I am not disputing that. What I told Equifax, is that I know (and have proof from the creditor) that this account charged off in 96. Therefore, it doesn't matter what Equifax does, they can't report this any longer than seven years from that date, or date of delinquency, or whatever. As far as sending information to the CRA, I agree that this is not a practice that I normally would do for the reasons that were put forth. However, this is a case where it does benefit me. I have the proof required to ensure this tradeline only stays on for four or five more months vs. seven years if I don't correct the problem. That is something I have to do. Once it gets corrected, then I will just dispute through the standard channels to see if I can get it to come off altogether. I don't need credit until next Summer anyway, so I am not that concerned with it. As far as the FICO score, it is calculated by taking the severity of a derog, AND HOW RECENT THE DEROG OCCURRED. There is no way that a six, almost seven year old paid chargeoff would suddenly drop my score 100 points. The addition of the chargeoff may have hit it for 30 points or so, but not 100. The reason it was so bad, is because it looks like a two month old chargeoff, which would be very recent, and very derogatory. This will hopefully be a mute point tomorrow, when I call CSC back and see what they did about the tradeline. I am almost certain they are going to either change the listing, delete it, or at least assure me that it comes off next year. I don't see how they can't with the proof I provided to them. By the way, the documentation I have from the creditor is the documentation they provided me when they sued me back in April, so it is coming right from the horses mouth! No ifs, ands or butts on this one people.
Oh, and I shouldn't have to wait until next year to see if this falls off before taking action against the CRA for incorrect record keeping on this tradeline. I should be able to call up Equifax and they should be able to tell me what date they show the account will fall off the report. That is required by the FCRA. This should be no secret and they are obligated to disclose this to me if I ask. Otherwise, how would I verify the information that appears on my own report?? Hell, Experian puts this information right on the report, so it is easy to dispute if need be. Experian also makes a determination between DOLA and "date of status". The "date of status" is the date the seven year clock goes from. Now why is this so hard to comprehend?
This post is really intresting to me as well because I think I was given the wrong info based on what you all have been posting. I was told this morning that an old tradeline had reaged itself when I paid it off in 2001. It was a collection/chargeoff with the open date listed as 07/1993. I had to pay it to be able to return to school with no outstanding balances on my account. So from your postings, I gather that this info isn't correct? Even if the debt was pre 1997 it should have only had a life of 7 years and come off in 2000...so I was penalized and it was added back to my report as a new TL that won't expired until 2008? The more I think about it, I think was screwed for having to pay this thing..... Amzgrc
