OKay, this is kind of a stoney post, but as a business person it makes total sense on why a certain cc company is doing this. A certain CC company I will call CCX has a habit of reaging accounts to change the date of last activity when ther actually IS no activity. This company also charges off debts, but instead of reflecting the charge off balance as zero or amount owed as zero (as other cc comapnies do) they continue to report the amount that was charged off and a higher balance that includes interest accruals every month. When cc companies contniue to charge interest, they must continue to send statements to the consumer showing the additional charges that are being added every month. This company does not. The only time you know there are additions to the debt or changes in date of last activity is when you pull your CR. The proof I have of them doing htis is that I have 3 different CR's that show 5 differnt dates of last activity. 3 of the CR's are from the same month. There has been no contact with this company whatsoever. One of the CR's shows DOLA as 11/98. The others (dated 12/02) show DOLA as 3/99. One shows DOLA (dated 01/03) as 11/99. It is odd because the report that shows DOLA as 3/99 also includes the "status history". It states debt was first late in 3/99, 60 day late 4/99, etc., all the way through 12/02. Anyhow, if there actually was any activty or payments made to change the DOLA, it would show here...hence you can't continuously show up 120 days late repeatedly if you make a payment at all. SOL in our state is 3 years. According to 1 report, SOL is expired. According to another, it expires in March 03. Yet, another states it is 11/03. They keep changing DOLA to affect SOL. My concern is that the only proof I have that there was no activity is the hisotry I just described. I have not contacted them in over 3 years and am concerned that they will sue at the last minute, or wrongfully sue after actuall SOL has expired (which according to 1 report, it already has). The part that is fishy is this...A debt must be charged off after 180 days delinquency (cc cards) and written off on the company's profit & loss statement and deducted from their accounts receivable (according to OCC). Well, by NOT doing this, the company is falsely reporting revenue and receivables. In the banking world, these receivables are used to reflect the assets of the company. By re-aging accounts, it allows the receivable balance to remain higher than it actually is, thereby overstating revenues, etc. By continuing to add fees to "bad debts" that are not truly charged off, the revenue continues to build, as well as the receivables. Many companies use their receivable balances to aquire assets and loans, etc. and to boost company stock and status in the market. Enron and MCI are 2 good examples of how falsely reporting company assets can affect a company. It is illegal according to many federal entities to do this, since many of the paid-by-the -hour folks are the ones affected. I recently read that this company is under investigation for having too much revenue classified as "late fees and other fees" the federal egulators beleive that this may be a cc company's way of either deliberately recording fees that are not recoverable as income or recording fees that are accrued in the manner I described above. It will be interesting to find out if anything becomes of the investigation. Anyhow, I am asking for input on how to prove the SOL issue, since they keep changing the DOLA. I really want to contact them and ask "WTF", but at the same time, I don;t want to poke a stick at the sleeping dog. I want to be sure of the DOLA before doing anything. Really, I am not paranoid, lol. I work in the accounting industry and see this happen all the time. I told you it was a little on the stoney side, but all in all, it makes total sense. I', sure most of you know who I'm talking about. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks in advance. Nikki EQ 653 12/02 TU 550 01/03 FACO TU 605 01/03 FICO EX 633 01/03
Sorry for all the typos...I'm really not an idiot, lol. My boss was coming and I didn't have time to proofread! Sorry! Nikki
Unfortunately, hubby didn't keep ANY statments (before my time, lol). All the info I have on the credit reports states the balance "charged off" was $561. BUUT there is also an amount due of almost $1000 that shows up on his cr as well. Every time he pulls his report, it changes. They don't send any statements to show fees being added...they just continue to add to the balance due every month, even though it says charged off account and that amount (561) stays the same. Nikki
First things first, "DOLA" has little to do with SOL, it rarely reflects the first date of delinquency, usually it just shows when someone sent a letter, or updated the account information. Many of these reporing systems are in a computer program that will automatically "update" the DOLA and add a pre-set increase to the balance due. Generally speaking, your Experian report which shows the "come off" date will be fairly relable for figuring SOL, since they use the mandated first date of delinquency report from the OC. As to the "conspiracy theory"-- you may be correct, however, there are enough just plain dumb mistakes and built-in errors and flagrent disregard of the FDCPA & FCRA for anyone to deal with, without getting into speculation about the high-rollers' methods of financing their campaign contributions.
WHyChat, Thanks for the info. I agree with the conspiracy theory part...enough b.s and disregard. Love your website, great info. Thank you O' Honorable WhyChat NIkki
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Are they allowed to charge interest and fees on charged off/closed accounts? Tuit
That's what I've been trying to find out...to NO avail! I have read that they have to send a statement when you show a balance as well as when they are adding interest. Anything past 180 days late must be determined unrecoverable and written off. This, of course, doesn't release the consumer from liability until SOL runs out, but just accounts for their financial loss. It in essence reduces their income for the fiscal period, and reduces the amount they are anticipating as receiving. BUT, by messing with the DOLA's on their "receivables", they can extend the time the money can be reflected on the books as well as any state SOL's for collecting with further action. If this 180 day thing didn't happen, companies could reflect billions of dollars in assets, borrow against them and, when they are finally broke, inform their employees, shareholders and seek bankruptcy protection. This may not interest many, but as an accountant, well, need I say more. Anyhow, still trying to find out if they can continue to accrue fees. Charge-off amounts usually don't change from DOLA to drop-off from report. Charge off technically means write off. To write something off, you zero it out. If you zero it out and multiply zero by an interest rate...YOU STILL GET ZERO!! Like I said, the consumer liability is still there, but the added interest is definatley a question for which I am seeking more info! I know that the cc company is a bank, but once a debt is charged off and they attempt to collect it, they become liable under the FDCPA and other laws that apply to debt collectors instead of just banks. Any more info on this subject is welcomed too. Thanks for listening to a vent! Hopefully someone will be able to help me with this answer. Nikki
Let me re-explain something... "BUT, by messing with the DOLA's on their "receivables", they can extend the time the money can be reflected on the books as well as any state SOL's for collecting with further action." With this part, I was referring to changing and affecting DOLA's and SOL's for intercompany auditing purposes, not purposes of collecting the actual debt. I realize DOLA's and SOL'a are 2 different things. By reflecting the DOLA in THEIR records, which unfirtunately transmit to our records, auditors assume the debt is not as aged as it actually is. By seeing this adjusted DOLA, one can assume from this the SOL's will run out later than they actually do. Still, the bottom line asset numbers are inflated by doing this. It's like looking at an aging table for accounts receivable. Anyhow, I know in "the real world" it doesn't matter. Still would love to find out whether they can continue to charge interest. Guess I'm feebly looking for a violation. Nikki
__________________________________________________ Well Nikki, your not alone would like to know about this too! We can't be the only two that have this problem, must be happening to others. Hopefully someone will come alone shortly with an answer. Tuit
