Jump to content

OC lists old debt and so does JDB for 7 yrs


RSB
 Share

Recommended Posts

I read on another debt board that the OC must not list an old debt on your CR if the debt was sold to a CA, or JDB.

I also read that after the SOL ends, the debt must be removed from the CR. (I don't think that is true.)

Then..I read that the debt can be listed for seven years from the date of last activity, but by only one company.

Please tell me what is the correct information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read on another debt board that the OC must not list an old debt on your CR if the debt was sold to a CA, or JDB.

They can't list it as if it's open with both of them. An OC can list it as "transferred" or "charged off", with a 0 balance. But 2 CA's can't list the same account simultaneously (I think I have that correct). I think a CA CAN still list it as "transferred" with a 0 balance, if they sell it to another CA. Wow, 2 weeks and I start forgetting things. Someone please set me straight if I'm not already.

I also read that after the SOL ends, the debt must be removed from the CR. (I don't think that is true.)

You're right, that's not true. Many people confuse the reporting period with the SOL.

Then..I read that the debt can be listed for seven years from the date of last activity, but by only one company.

Not true either, as long as they're following the above rules.

Please tell me what is the correct information.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how many idiots are listing a TL on the debt, it is 7 yrs from the 30 day late event of the OC... the DOFD, Date of First Default. Regardless of what other negatives get heaped on over the years. And ALL the reporting must stop on the same date, OC, CA1, CA2, JDB, CA3, CA4, etc. Anyone remaining after the 7yr point of the OC report is violating the FCRA and represents FreeMoney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how many idiots are listing a TL on the debt, it is 7 yrs from the 30 day late event of the OC... the DOFD, Date of First Default. Regardless of what other negatives get heaped on over the years. And ALL the reporting must stop on the same date, OC, CA1, CA2, JDB, CA3, CA4, etc. Anyone remaining after the 7yr point of the OC report is violating the FCRA and represents FreeMoney.

Actually, it is 7 years from charge-off -- which is 99% of the time 7 1/2 years after DOFD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trustme, alot of people, including furnishers "think" it is 7.5, but our old friend BUTCH did a fantastic analysis on Creditnet thoroughly dissecting the statute and showing how it is 7yr from the date of first default.

Someone should grab a copy and reprint it here, it is an amazing example of statutory interpretation and includes all the caselaw, etc. Teaches you how to understand in LAW and STATUTE what words mean, not what the casual conversion meaning of words are. It is "It's 7 yrs not 7.5 yrs" as the topic heading I think.

And example is how COngress alterted its rules to BAN the use of the word "SHALL" from legislation, as any two lawyers could never agree what it MEANT in context in a give statute. So to avoid future confusion, they simply banned its use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there is no substitute for reading the real thing:

15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.

© Running of Reporting Period

(1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)

3 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.

I don't know how to bold on this page -- but look at the last clause -- it says the 7 year period beings upon expiration of the 180 day period beginning on the date of commencement of the delinquency ....

To me that is 7 1/2 years from DOFD.

This is a common misunderstanding. It is easy to look the first line where it says 7 years and then stop reading.

In practice, the CRAs, once upon a time, programmed their computers to drop items when they reached 7 years or shortly thereafter. My EFX rep explained to me they did this to stop the nuisance lawsuits that resulted when they inadvertently failed to delete a tradeline at 7 1/2 years and 1 second. She said it was common to only run the computerized tradeline delete program once or twice a month and consequently they were getting static when a tradeline expired in the middle of a run cycle. She said this was their way of making sure they never screwed up. I don't know this from personal knowledge, but the EFX rep said that XPN and TU operated pretty much the same way although not identically.

I've been away from this for a couple of years so I don't know what the current practice and thinking is at the CRAs. My guess is that they have better programming than they did 5 years ago. I think there has also been a shift in attitude.

The last time I spoke with the EFX rep she said that their big internal challenge was to deal with all the "frivilous consumer disputes" from people trying to "clean" their credit by disputing accurate items. She seemed offended and my guess is that she was reflecting the attitudes of the management at EFX. I know that all the CRAs were working on improving their internal procedures to ensure faster responses from the data furnishers. For example, e-Oscar is the new communications and reporting system where disputes are sent to and received from the data furnishers electronically -- no more papers flying around like crazy. Personally, I think that e-Oscar has made it easier for the CRAs but has actually made accuracy in reporting more problematic since garbage at the data furnisher is still garbage albeit reported faster than ever.

I am sure this is an unpopular opinion on this website -- I actually feel sorry for the CRAs. They are caught in the middle between hordes of rabid and fanatic credit repair terrorists ;-) and stodgy and inept data furnishers. The CRAs are not CSI and have absolutely no way to know if a tradeline is accurate or not -- they only report what they are given. Since the data furnishers pay the bills, you can guess who they are trying to keep happy. The real problem in accurate reporting is not the CRA -- it is the data furnishers.

I now step down from my soapbox and surrender the floor to someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest E. Normis Debtor

I agree with everyone.

The 7 years begins with the DOFD.

However, when congress ammended the FCRA in 1997 they used wording that effectively allows the tradeline to be listed for 7.5 years.

Yes, I've read Butch's epistole on the matter, however I disagree with it and lean towards the FTC's understanding which is the reporting period was extended by 180 days.

From JOHNSON

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)

2. The additional 180 day period accords a measure of flexibility to credit bureaus whose furnishers may provide them with the wrong date. However, the expansion of the time period that Section 605 allows chargeoffs and similar actions to be reported accents the desirability of treating the "commencement" of the delinquency as the first missed payment -- not some later date that would further extend the period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree that the CRA's are given a "slop" factor of 180 days so that THEY, the CRA can't really be PUNISHED for an "over 7 yr" reporting until it reaches 7.5 yrs. But the FURNISHERS obligation is date certain + 7 yrs, period. That was the real point of Butch's treastice on the subject.

2. The additional 180 day period accords a measure of flexibility to credit bureaus whose furnishers may provide them with the wrong date. However, the expansion of the time period that Section 605 allows chargeoffs and similar actions to be reported accents the desirability of treating the "commencement" of the delinquency as the first missed payment -- not some later date that would further extend the period.

Note it is designed to cover the CRA from being punished for the lax, sloppy actions of the furnishers, who are actually responsible for making sure THIER reporting meets the requirements of the law.... in accuracy, completeness, and DURATION.

So make no bones, the REPORTING period IS 7 years from date certain, that date being DOFD. At 7 yrs + 1 day, you ask politely that the furnisher delete the tradeline. If they refuse, SUE. You also dispute the TL with the CRA, and ask the CRA to comply independently, this engages your private right of action. As for the CRA, if the furnisher ceases to exist or refuses to comply long after thier timelimit is up, and the 7yr + 181 day point is hit and the CRA still hasn't deleted the TL... SUE the CRA too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the OC change the charge off date, reported since date and date of status each month? The only date that does not change is date account opened-1999. There is nothing to reflect when the account went delinquent which was actually in 2001. This is CAP ONE who charged excessive fees (late fee when it was not late and then they put it over the limit adding the late fee and wanted me to pay the fees). A 300 card limit they now claim is 700 charged off and 1300 past due. Any recourse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CapitalOne is notorious for abusive and questionable tactics. They have onerous fee's and you need to check your state laws, as some states LIMIT the maximum that can be charged per month in FEE's.

In MA for example, the maximum is $10, yet CO regularly charges $25 late and $25 overlimit. The National Bank Act and the Marquette decision say state USURY laws on INTEREST do not apply to National Banks, however, that does NOT extend to the FEE's the ccard companies are charging. So if your state has limits, and they are exceeding them, it is a FCBA violation.

Further, COne illegally adds the FEE's as a "purchase" to your account balance, so the FEE's are included in the balance for INTEREST calculation purposes. This appears to be a violation of the FCBA as well, if not outright fraud.

Guess what, doing this effectively raises the APR to above that allowed by.... VIRGINIA... the state they are using as cover for thier 29.9.% interest. So even with the NBAct and Marquette cover, they are violating the usury limit of thier HOST state.

In my case, on the alleged account (ID theft victim), in a one year period of the account, there were $1,000 in purchases, $580 in payments, $550 in FEE's (late+overlimit in violation of MA law) and $380 in interest.

That is an 80% APR on the $1,00 limit card.

Further, COne is notorious for reporting "chargeoff" in a manner to make it APPEAR that it occured THIS MONTH, and they do this each and every month. It is a deliberate act of POISONING your credit report and lowering your FICO score to keep you in sub-prime lending land, and therefore a perpetual customer of COne. The additionally do not report your credit limit, further poisoning the tradeline on your credit report, by making EVERYONE look like they have 100% utilization on htier acct.

Unfortunately its a complex job to fight against thier methods. They have very smart lawyers inventing these techniques for them, and it takes some ingenuity to nail them with thier own methods. Start by obtaining the WRITTEN mailed to you hardcopy of your credit reports. Analyze the COne tradeline for mistakes, dispute the SPECIFIC items on the TL with the CRA, await COne "verifying" the mistakes, then dispute again, and request a "proceedures" report on how they obtaining verification.

Once you have them on a couple FCRA violations, thier FCRA liability exceeds the alleged balance on the account, format a Federal Civil Complaint and attach it unfiled with an ITS letter to COne's General Counsels Office.

That is about the only methodology that exists to get COne off your back. Ultimately they WILL sue you over even that small a balance.... just before SOL. So you might as well be pre-emptive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else to know about the reporting period that is not written in any law. On occasion, a CRA will delete a negative TL at the 6 year 9 month period. Don't ask me how they think, but, this happened to me at both TU by mail, and EQ by phone, with disputes. The rep on the phone told me they just go ahead and delete as it will fall off shortly anyway. Sometimes they just automatically, by their own system, allow these same items to delete at this time. No further explanation was given to me.

As to who can report what, it appears to have been resolved properly. The easiest way to remember is the OC, CA, or JDB, who has actual possession of account for action is the only one who can report a balance due. All others must show a zero balance and the notation of sold, transferred, or reassigned.

Just read the post about Crap1. I say thank you for the head's up. We're getting ready to close and say goodby to this ADUB of a company after 6+ years. Our problem is you can't get the same answer twice to the same question, and this includes supervisors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.