Date of status - 7 year

[daktwink]

ed

[Swede]

<blockquote>Originally posted by dctrink

I am in the process of trying to repair my poor credit. Most items have been delinquent since 1996 or 1997. I have recently paid off a few items and disputed other items on my report. What I have noticed a few times, is that the creditor is now changing date of status to current date, restarting the 7 year clock. What is the proper way to handle this?

</blockquote>

No the "status date" is only the date when the creditor last updated the account so if you dispute and it's verified/updated, that date will show there. It's not the 7 year clock.

[daktwink]

Little confused, but here is an example:

Account History:

Charge Off as of 8-1998, 6-1998, 5-1998, 4-1998, 3-1998, 1-1998, 5-1997 to 12-1997

180 days as of 5-1999 to 2-2001

150 days as of 4-1997

90 days as of 2-1997

60 days as of 1-1997

30 days as of 12-1996

This account is scheduled to continue on record until 5-2010.

Now this has been delinquent since 1996, how can they do this?

I keep fighting it and the creditor states will report as sold so I disputed again about date. I have other creditors doing similar acts.... Help, I can't take these for another 7 years

[copperarab]

Ouch!!Gosh Dctrink! I am about to start my disputing and dv too..I also have 2 old accounts that will fall off in less than 8 months..I hope that they don't start my 7 year clock over!!!

HELP!! Anyone with answers????

[lisak72]

Which CRA is this and what kind of credit was this for? Also, is this the scheduled drop off date for all of the CRAs or just one?

[crofttk]

<blockquote>Originally posted by dctrink

...30 days as of 12-1996...</blockquote>

If this is date is the initial due date you missed + 1 mo. and you never brought the account back to current since then, then this account, by law, comes off of your report 5/04,i.e., 11/96 plus 180 days plus 7 years, no matter what OC or CRA says !

See section 605(subsections a & c) of the FCRA (make sure it's an up to date amendment) to see this explained.

It it stays past that, tell em delete it or you'll sue, then sue !

[Edit by crofttk on Tuesday, June 3, 2003 @ 04:59 PM]

[daktwink]

This example is from experian

Before I disputed it showed to stay on my report until 2008

I disputed because I hadn't touched a credit card nor made a payment since 96/97. This was a credit card and shows Fleet but I don't recall having Fleet so I believe it had been bought out. I am having a similar issue with Capital One as well. Both were due to comeoff either the end of this year or next year. I am so frustrated. I was also good and paid off a few bills that were from 98 - medical/utility. But these I knew were going to come off. I have been repaying student laons all year and got a car in my name. I am trying so hard and my score just gets lower. I have had some luck with deletions and score goes down. Sorry O jump topics - I caled experian and spoke to them and the rep said Fleet was coming back and verifying the info. I said but this has been delinquent since 1996. A few months ago it showed to be on my report 2008 and now 2010. Both were wrong but I never knew before. Help, please!

[Anonymous]

<blockquote>Originally posted by dctrink

Little confused, but here is an example:

Account History:

Charge Off as of 8-1998, 6-1998, 5-1998, 4-1998, 3-1998, 1-1998, 5-1997 to 12-1997

180 days as of 5-1999 to 2-2001

150 days as of 4-1997

90 days as of 2-1997

60 days as of 1-1997

30 days as of 12-1996

This account is scheduled to continue on record until 5-2010.

Now this has been delinquent since 1996, how can they do this?

I keep fighting it and the creditor states will report as sold so I disputed again about date. I have other creditors doing similar acts.... Help, I can't take these for another 7 years

</blockquote>

Did you make any payments between the 150-180 days?

if not, the actuall 7 years would be 180 days after first missed payment, however the FTC interpretation is 30 days, but go with the 180 days, so by the numbers you have, I would say your 7 years start date is 5/97, provided you didnt make any payments, if not then your fall off date will be 5/2004, in a bout a year.

those #'s you have are twisted..

if what you posted is accurate, that TL will fall off abiut this time next year..if it doesnt I'd say youd have yourself a pretty good suit going

[crofttk]

People like Swede and other senior members can advise you best on how to get this deleted in the immediate future.

In the long view though (as in 5/04), DON'T let the 2008 and 2010 in this example upset you. They are full of CRAP, whether they know it or not ! The law is on your side !

[daktwink]

I have not made any payments nor spoke to anyone stating I would pay. From 98 - 2000, I kind of disappeared. i had many medical issues and really didn't work. No one would have had a clue on how to reach me.

I know it is bad to be a dead beat but I had a bad period in life and now I amtrying to clean it up. I thought since I am on the 7 year stretch it would be a good time to clear things up. I am soon to get married and I didn't want my credit to be the ruin of my new life. As I dispute some things get deleted and other things are changed for the worse. Sorry, I am just frustrated and feel like there is nothing I can do

[daktwink]

By the way thanks to all for responding and not being harsh. I have been on one board where all people do is harp on you and put you down

[DocDon]

Welcome aboard. Swede keeps everyone in check around here....

[crofttk]

It sounds like you have your head screwed on straight and there are very few actual "deadbeats" here that I'm aware of. A lot of us have the same problems. I am dealing with BK7 we filed 1/97.

Sounds like you came from MSN Money Central, am I right ?

To avoid the "change for the worse", slow down, read, learn, ask. You'll come out of this with your rights preserved if you understand the laws and the CRAs and the creditors better.

We're all in this together.

[Anonymous]

<blockquote>Originally posted by copperarab

Ouch!!Gosh Dctrink! I am about to start my disputing and dv too..I also have 2 old accounts that will fall off in less than 8 months..I hope that they don't start my 7 year clock over!!!

HELP!! Anyone with answers????

</blockquote>

They CANNOT reage your account even you speak with them..

validate, 9 times out of 10 CA's send you some kind of BS letter, ignore it, dispute with CRA's and enclose all your correspondence with the CA, if the CRA's verify you can hammer them with with a ITS letter..

9 times out of 10 CA's dont validate, and they are suppose to validate with you, how can the CRA's verify a TL if the CA cant validate with you?

go down and file a claim.. around 25 bones.. send it to the CRA's and threaten them with a lawsuit.. it will make pee go down their leg..

those bastages vrified 7 out of 8 accounts, i sent them a ITS and 2 weeks later all were removed..

I told the CRA's i had a court date with a CA and damages were easily proven, and that when I win my case.. you will be held responsible for reporting inaccurate information, you have 15 days to remove the TL or you will have to battle a court judgement I won against the very same CA you said you verified.

YOU LOSE

CRA's dont have time to screw around with petty lawsuits, especially being a third party.. they would much rather stay out of the fight between you and the CA

[Edit by EddieTampa on Tuesday, June 3, 2003 @ 05:22 PM]

[crofttk]

Damn, Eddie, when you get mad, your spelling goes to s*** don't it ?

LOLOL

[Anonymous]

<blockquote>Originally posted by crofttk

Damn, Eddie, when you get mad, your spelling goes to s*** don't it ?

LOLOL

</blockquote>

im typing with my toes.. cut me so,e slack.. how am i suppose to type with 2 beers in both hands?

[daktwink]

I had sent 3 letters to Fleet because they would never let me speak to anyone. I finally got a vm stating that my account had been sold. I disputed again and the date was then changed to 2010. I then received a letter from fleet. They apologized but they only referenced that they will advise the CRAs that the account had been sold which I already noticed the note on experian but no change in date. Experian won't allow me to dispute this item online any longer. I am afraid of keep disputing because I think the creditor is going to keep moving date.

I can't recall the pervious message board I was on I believe it was related to legal questions or something but I decided never to go there again. I am liking this board and enjoying the excitement some get......

[onedrop]

I had the same thing happen to me w/EX on a GM acct. It wasnt mine and I had been disputing it for sometime. About a month ago the 7 yr went from 10/03 to 5/2010. I called Ex and they sd someone made a pymt on the acct bringing the 7 yr to 5/2010. So I called Gm and they sd there was no such pymt made. I called back EX and disputed. Today, I checked My Ex CR and it is gone. I hope it stays gone.

[onedrop]

I had the same thing happen to me w/EX on a GM acct. It wasnt mine and I had been disputing it for sometime. About a month ago the 7 yr went from 10/03 to 5/2010. I called Ex and they sd someone made a pymt on the acct bringing the 7 yr to 5/2010. So I called Gm and they sd there was no such pymt made. I called back EX and disputed. Today, I checked My Ex CR and it is gone. I hope it stays gone.

[daktwink]

Experian keeps stating that Fleet shows that the account has been made current. I asked Fleet to advise any recent payments and proof and account history as far as last charges and all I got in response was that my account was sold....

I contacted Fleet again and told them that I want them to correct the date but who knows what will happen.

[daktwink]

Experian keeps stating that Fleet shows that the account has been made current. I asked Fleet to advise any recent payments and proof and account history as far as last charges and all I got in response was that my account was sold....

I contacted Fleet again and told them that I want them to correct the date but who knows what will happen.

[daktwink]

Should I send another letter to this credit card company and what letter do you all recommend?

[Swede]

<blockquote>Originally posted by DocDon

Welcome aboard. Swede keeps everyone in check around here....

</blockquote>

Hehe, the whip is working out huh...

<blockquote>Originally posted by EddieTampa

if not, the actuall 7 years would be 180 days after first missed payment, however the FTC interpretation is 30 days, but go with the 180 days

</blockquote>

No, the FTC interpretation is not that 7 years are calculated after 30 days, the FTC interpretation is that the initial missed payment leading to the delinquency PLUS 180 days is the start for the 7 years.

DCTrink, read the following FTC letters for more information on this. Disputing, transferring to a CA or even making payment after chargeoff does not reset the clock.

It's apparent in all the FTC advisories as well as the FCRA but we've already gone over this. Gosh, I don't think it can get much clearer than this.........

FCRA Staff Opinion Brinckerhoff-Johnson

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©(1) provides that seven year period begins 180 days from that dateIn 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.

Thus, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- the start of the delinquency -- to begin the obsolescence period (now seven years, plus 180 days).(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.

FCRA Staff Opinion Brincherhoff-Kosmerl

Section 623(a)(5) requires a party that "furnishes information to a (CRA) regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subject to any similar action" 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 creditor's action. Section 605(a)(4) provides that the CRA may report the information for seven years, in most cases.(1) Section 605©(1) provides that the seven year period begins 180 days from the "commencement of the delinquency" date.Section 605©(2) provides that the section applies "only to items of information added to the file of a consumer on or after the date that is 455 days after the date of enactment of the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act ."

FCRA Staff Opinion Brinckerhoff-Amason

2. Is the reporting period extended if (A) the original creditor sells or transfers the account to another creditor, ( the consumer responds to post-chargeoff collection efforts by making a payment on the debt, or © 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.

And of course the statute itself....

c) Running of reporting period.

§ 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681c]

(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.

<blockquote>Originally posted by EddieTampa

validate, 9 times out of 10 CA's send you some kind of BS letter, ignore it, dispute with CRA's and enclose all your correspondence with the CA, if the CRA's verify you can hammer them with with a ITS letter..

9 times out of 10 CA's dont validate, and they are suppose to validate with you, how can the CRA's verify a TL if the CA cant validate with you?

</blockquote>

Of course that wouldn't be applicable in this case as we're talking about Fleet (and Cap 1) and the FDCPA doesn't apply to OC's.

<blockquote>Originally posted by dctrink

Should I send another letter to this credit card company and what letter do you all recommend?

</blockquote>

You need to first figure out who's reaging it. Is it the OC or the CRA, check your other reports and you'll see (you'll have to call TU) If it's the OC, I would send them one last letter stating that you're for the last time requesting supporting documentation regarding last payments on this account as they have incorrectly reaged it. Also inform them that you will be filing complaints with the BBB/FTC/AG/PFB and seeking legal advice on next steps should they not comply. Make sure you track it, and dispute again with the CRA's. They can't verify the account without a notice of your dispute and they'll most likely "forget" so you have them on another violation.

[crofttk]

<blockquote>Originally posted by Swede

...No, the FTC interpretation is not that 7 years are calculated after 30 days, the FTC interpretation is that the initial missed payment leading to the delinquency PLUS 180 days is the start for the 7 years...</blockquote>

Well, I wasn't sure what Eddie was getting at on the 30 days. However, as OP said 30 days late as of 12/96, the original delinquency (i.e., missed due) date implied is 11/96. So, the 5/04 Eddie and I posted would be the correct obsolescence date, right ?

[Edit by crofttk on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 11:37 AM]

[Swede]

<blockquote>Originally posted by crofttk

Well, I wasn't sure what Eddie was getting at on the 30 days.

</blockquote>

The same as he was getting at in another post, that the FTC considers the 7 years to start when the first missed payment is missed. That is incorrect, the FTC interprets the 7 years to start 180 days after that first missed payment. We've gone over this in prior threads.

<blockquote>Originally posted by crofttk

However, as OP said 30 days late as of 12/96, the original delinquency (i.e., missed due) date implied is 11/96. So, the 5/04 Eddie and I posted would be the correct obsolescence date, right ?

</blockquote>

Yea the 7 years in this case would be up on 5/04