SOL & DOLA

[grantjeffries]

How is the Date Of Last Activity determined?

The following is an excerpt of a letter i sent to Experian regarding the Statue Of Limitations:

Beginning November 1993 I was unable to make minimum payments on the above listed credit cards from Chase and MBNA (that is the approximate time period that my payments became delinquent). Though I continued to make small payments on the account that were less that the minimum required, Section 623(s)(5), of the FCRA requires a creditor that reports a chargeoff to a CRA to notify the agency of "the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded" the chargeoff. Section 605©(1) provides that the seven year period begins 180 days from that date. Both the Chase and MBNA account charged off in early 2000 and since the delinquency began in 1993, these accounts should not be listed.

[sisflomi]

You should have just said "not mine"

There is something about accounts being charged off before 1997 that don't have to use the 180 day rule. I am not sure where it is, but will try and find it.

[grantjeffries]

This was the status prior to the dispute letter:

Status: account charged off/past due 150 days. $XXXX written off in 5-2000. $XXXX past due as of 5-2000.

Account History:

Charge Off as of 5-2000, 4-2000

150 days as of 3-2000

120 days as of 2-2000, 1-2000, 2-1999 to 7-1999, 3-1998 to 8-1998, 5-1996 to 8-1996, 12-1994 to 2-1995

90 days as of 12-1999, 1-1999, 2-1998, 1-1998, 1-1997, 4-1996

60 days as of 11-1999, 12-1998, 12-1997, 12-1996, 3-1996, 2-1996, 11-1994

30 days as of 10-1999, 11-1998, 11-1997, 8-1997, 3-1997 to 5-1997, 11-1996, 10-1995 to 1-1996, 10-1994, 8-1994

This account is scheduled to continue on record until 10-2006.

Creditor's statement "Purchases by another lender."

[grantjeffries]

yes but the account did not technically charge off until after 1997. The account charged off in 2000. Does it matter?

[grantjeffries]

The outcome of the inquiry came back "Updated" with the following results:

Status: Closed/Account charged off. $XXXX written off. $0 past due as of 4-2002.

Account History:

Charge Off as of 5-2000, 4-2000

150 days as of 3-2000

120 days as of 2-2000, 1-2000, 2-1999 to 7-1999, 3-1998 to 8-1998, 5-1996 to 8-1996

90 days as of 12-1999, 1-1999, 2-1998, 1-1998, 1-1997, 4-1996

60 days as of 11-1999, 12-1998, 12-1997, 12-1996, 3-1996, 2-1996

30 days as of 10-1999, 11-1998, 11-1997, 8-1997, 3-1997 to 5-1997, 11-1996, 10-1995 to 1-1996

This account is scheduled to continue on record until 10-2006.

Creditor's statement "Purchases by another lender."

This item was verified and updated on 4-2002.

[sisflomi]

I am not sure on how that law really works. I can't recall where I have seen it.

[grantjeffries]

So in essence what they did was remove the earlier dates showing i was late in 1994 from the account. Is this proper? How does this affect the Statute Of Limitations? Where can i find information about making partial payments extending the DOLA? Thanks for helping with this daunting task. It is appreciated!

Sincerely,

Grant

[sisflomi]

Well, if you had lates in 1994, they would have come off in 7 years. Can you say for sure when was the last time you paid this without any late fees or over the limit fees? Is this still with the original creditor? What state are you in?

[grantjeffries]

It started in late 1993/early 1994. I am sure i have the records stored somewhere if it comes to that (so I am a packrat ) but I was being constantly hounded via phone during that time frame and making $50 payments so they were re-aging my account along the way.

Creditor's statement says "Purchased by another lender." so it is out there in a CA hands but I only get an occassional letter (no phone calls anymore).

The state is IL.

[sisflomi]

If an account was charged off by the OC after Dec. 1997 they are required by the FCRA to report the first date of deliquency that led to that chargeoff.

If it was charged off prior to Dec. 1997, then the 7 year reporting SOL starts at that chargeoff date.

So, do you have anything at all showing that it was charged off before the time frame that your current reports show?

[sisflomi]

when did you send this letter to the cra's?

[sisflomi]

Take a look at this sol letter and the letter toward the bottom for the cra. It might just work for you. But first, when did you send them the letter?

co/whychat

http://community-2.webtv.net/YCHANGE/STORAGE/page13.html

[Edit by sisflomi on Thursday, May 29, 2003 @ 10:19 PM]

[grantjeffries]

The letter was sent April 2002.

[grantjeffries]

The only thing that makes sense to me is that they used this date as the commencement of the delinquency: 30 days as of 10-1999 since the account is scheduled to continue on record until 10-2006 but the original delinquency actually began much earlier in 1994.

[sisflomi]

It looks as if you never got to the charge off period until 2000. What I would do, and its just my opinion, could work or could not work. I would dispute it now as Not mine and see what happens. Worst they can do is say its yours or say your frivilous. There are ways around either one of them. It is hard to say just when the card went bad. Did you ever catch it up and not have to pay late fees or over the limit fees?

[grantjeffries]

No, not that I recall. I was really strapped for cash in the first place or I would have paid the entire amount. I would get phone calls and then like a dummy send in a $50 (or maybe even $25 payment as a gesture of goodwill). I do recall being told my account would be "re-aged" and kept from charging off (which I THOUGHT was a good thing at the time)...

[Edit by grantjeffries on Thursday, May 29, 2003 @ 11:25 PM]

[sisflomi]

Do you have a recent copy of your credit report from each one that has this listed? You might still legally be in sol for this, so it might be best to get current copies and just dispute with each cra that its not your account. Is this the only bad thing reported to your crs?

[grantjeffries]

No, unfortunately I have a couple of Capital One accounts (one was a business account), two Chase accounts (and chase is RIGHT, those people have followed me EVERYWHERE! ), a collection account duplicate for one of the Chase accounts and the MBNA we were discussing. I need a solid plan of action...

[BrassFan]

<blockquote>Originally posted by grantjeffries

Charge Off as of 5-2000, 4-2000

150 days as of 3-2000

120 days as of 2-2000, 1-2000, 2-1999 to 7-1999, 3-1998 to 8-1998, 5-1996 to 8-1996

90 days as of 12-1999, 1-1999, 2-1998, 1-1998, 1-1997, 4-1996

60 days as of 11-1999, 12-1998, 12-1997, 12-1996, 3-1996, 2-1996

30 days as of 10-1999, 11-1998, 11-1997, 8-1997, 3-1997 to 5-1997, 11-1996, 10-1995 to 1-1996

[grantjeffries]

<blockquote>Originally posted by grantjeffries

This was the status prior to the dispute letter:

Status: account charged off/past due 150 days. $XXXX written off in 5-2000. $XXXX past due as of 5-2000.

Account History:

Charge Off as of 5-2000, 4-2000

150 days as of 3-2000

120 days as of 2-2000, 1-2000, 2-1999 to 7-1999, 3-1998 to 8-1998, 5-1996 to 8-1996, 12-1994 to 2-1995

90 days as of 12-1999, 1-1999, 2-1998, 1-1998, 1-1997, 4-1996

60 days as of 11-1999, 12-1998, 12-1997, 12-1996, 3-1996, 2-1996, 11-1994

30 days as of 10-1999, 11-1998, 11-1997, 8-1997, 3-1997 to 5-1997, 11-1996, 10-1995 to 1-1996, 10-1994, 8-1994

This account is scheduled to continue on record until 10-2006.

Creditor's statement "Purchases by another lender."

</blockquote>

Monte this was the status when I first sent in the letter. Notice the dates are showing 1994 all the way up to 120 days.

[BrassFan]

<blockquote>Originally posted by grantjeffries

Monte this was the status when I first sent in the letter. Notice the dates are showing 1994 all the way up to 120 days.

</blockquote>

But, as I look at it, I don't see a listing for 8-1999 or 9-1999. So, for whatever reason, they are listing you as late for those months. So, the reporting date would be the delinquency that led up to the account charging off. They say you were current on 8/99 and 9/99. So, the delinquency that led to the account charging off would have been 10/99. It *can* stay on your report for up to 7 years from that date. That would be the 10/06 date they are reporting.

So, based on the info that the credit report shows, the 10/06 date is correct.

There are several months that aren't showing up. By my count, assuming you didn't get caught up between 94 and when the account charged off...you would need to get them to add 11 months that aren't reported (scattered over the time period between 5/96 and when the account charged off).

It would be better to try and get it deleted somehow. Maybe you could send them documentation showing that you were never caught up between, say 1/96 and the time the account charged off. You could probably use that to get it deleted.

[grantjeffries]

Account History:

Charge Off as of 5-2000, 4-2000

150 days as of 3-2000

120 days as of 2-2000, 1-2000, 2-1999 to 7-1999, 3-1998 to 8-1998, 5-1996 to 8-1996, 12-1994 to 2-1995

90 days as of 12-1999, 1-1999, 2-1998, 1-1998, 1-1997, 4-1996

60 days as of 11-1999, 12-1998, 12-1997, 12-1996, 3-1996, 2-1996, 11-1994

30 days as of 10-1999, 11-1998, 11-1997, 8-1997, 3-1997 to 5-1997, 11-1996, 10-1995 to 1-1996, 10-1994, 8-1994

Ok Monte I figured out how to use color. Now look at 120 days 5-1996 to 8-1996. How are you reported late 120 days four months straight without moving into 150 days and 180 days where it should have charged off? Does anyone know if this prove anything? (This could have happened in 1994 as well but there isn't enough to prove it). What is the next step? Has anyone successfully challenged this?

[Edit by grantjeffries on Friday, May 30, 2003 @ 07:34 PM]

[BrassFan]

Well...There are folks here who are much better at interpreting the FCRA. But, the only reference to the 180 day charge off period that I see is for accounts that are *after* the FCRA was updated. That would be 455 days after Dec 1996.

I don't know if anything out there required a chargeoff after 180 days before that time.

[hotdami812]

read this it may help you with the FCRA pre 1997

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/kosmerl.htm

[grantjeffries]

Not to beat a dead horse but I am trying to understand this and it does get a bit confusing. It seems to me that the date of the charge off is the over-riding factor, if the chargeoff occurred on or after December 29, 1997 then the new commencement-of-the-delinquency method of calculating the obsolescence period should be used (my chargeoff shows as 2000).

Since Sections 623(a)(5) and 605©(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©(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©(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)

If this is the case my concern is that the account could not possibly be in the 120 days late status four months straight unless it moved into the 150 day and 180 day category. Does that make sense? Thanks for your assistance. It is appreciated!

Sincerely,

Grant