Same Debt Reported to a Different Agency After 7 Years

[hlhneast]

After exhausting attempts in 2000 to settle a disputed debt with a mini storage, they turned my debt over to a collections agency. The debt was then reported to TransUnion also in 2000. After checking my credit report recently, I discovered that the same debt collection service has now, in 2007, listed the same debt with Equifax. Can the collection agency continue to keep reporting this to other agencies to keep my credit screwed up? If either had offered a fair solution to the debt, I would have settled it long ago. This is the only bad mark on any of my reports. Where would I find information that would help? Thanks in advance

[SecretAgentWoman]

Did you see it on the full Equifax credit report? If so, it should have listed a date scheduled for it to be removed. You are at or near the 7 year cut off for reporting, so it may be a moot issue for you in the next few months.

[elyse449]

I agree w/ secretagent.

Elyse

[hlhneast]

I am still a little confused. The credit report doesnt say any where about a removal date. What it does say is Date Reported-01/2007, Date Assigned-01/2001, Date of 1st Delinquincy-12/2000, Balance Date-01/2007 and Status Date-01/2007. I dont know if any of this would help decipher when this will go away. I do know it looks like they didnt report this delinquency from 12/2000 until 1/2007 which may be true with Experian but not with another reporting agency on which the debt was about to go away. Does any of this make sense?

[dpgirl]

The best I can decipher is that it should fall off seven years from the date of first delinquency which you have listed as 12-2000. So that would mean it should be gone December of this year.

If as you say you exhausted efforts in 2000 to resolve this and it was turned over to the collection agency in 1-2001, then the true date of first delinquency may be sometime sooner than 12-2000 therefore maybe this listing should fall off sooner than December. You would have to do some research to find out, it may or may not be worth it as it should be gone by the end of this year.

I think it's Trans Union that shows the date that an account is set to be removed. The CA can report this to all three or two or just one CRA, but the information has to be identical on each one.

[kevin3344]

Here is some information on the 7 year reporting period:

http://www.carreonandassociates.com/articles/reportingtime.htm

I never understood the CRAs use of 'Balance Date', 'Status Date', etc. (aren't these usually the same anyway?). They are not used in calculating the reporting period and serve no purpose other than to confuse the consumer.

The thing is, the CA is required to report the DOFD, so we know the CRAs have it. That's how the 7 yr. reporting period is calculated. But only EQ shows it clearly and distintly. Why the other CRAs don't is anyone's guess.

________

Glass pipe

Edited September 9, 2011 by kevin3344

[June]

Yes, they are usually the same. FICO looks at the most recent dates?

I believe that they might be used in calculating FICO Scores. I notice that they ("Collection Reported Date" the "Balance as of Date" and the "Status as of Date") are always reported as a Recent Date (month and year). No matter how old the collection account or when it is assigned.

The CAs frequently Update these Dates (or fields) without reporting any new information to make any Collection Account appear as "fresh" and brand new every time they report.

Potential creditors or lenders are known to deny credit, where collection account(s) are less than 6 months old. With this type of reporting, our credit scores are guaranteed to remain suppressed forever (or until the TL fall off). IMO.

[hlhneast]

One of the big problems with this reporting to two different agencies is that now I have 2 derogatory items showing even tho its the same one. Is this the way it works? Can the same item be 2 strikes against me? That is what started my investigation, the fact that I have 2 derogatory items on my credit reports. There are no other listings, just this same one with two agencies.

[SecretAgentWoman]

The original creditor can have one listing, and the collection agency can have one listing. That's 2.

If you see more than one CA for the same account, you'll have to dispute both to see which one falls off.

[hlhneast]

So June, are you saying this is the final insult from the CA? The last dying gasp before the item rolls off? I am just worried that this item will continue for another 7 years. Since it looks like 1/2001 is the initial listing date, does that mean that 1/2008 will be the last month it will stay on any CRA?

[hlhneast]

I think there is a possible error with this listing now that I have read the link that Kevin provided. It may only be a month or two different. It has to do with the actual delinquency date. The actual first date of delinquency should be closer to 9/2007. That would represent the date of my first protests with this storage company and the date that I started refusing to pay for the debt that I was not incurring. I vacated the unit in 8/2000 and I was charged for Sept. I again informed the Company I had vacated and they insisted I owed them for Sept, which started the whole deal. I refused to pay and this incurred late fees and 2 more months rent before they actually started the collection process which produces the 12/2000 date. Is the 12/2000 date correct as I actually became delinquent in 9/2000? I guess it is moot as I have waited for 7 years anyway, what's a couple more months? Thanks for all the great responses! Y'all have been a great help easing my mind.

[June]

So June, are you saying this is the final insult from the CA? The last dying gasp before the item rolls off? I am just worried that this item will continue for another 7 years. Since it looks like 1/2001 is the initial listing date, does that mean that 1/2008 will be the last month it will stay on any CRA?

Sorry I am late.

Yup, the "final insult." Each time you Dispute, the CA will most likely UPDATE with the current month and year in this final hour. Don't worry. Just ride it out until the 4th of July and celebrate !!!

This is an illegal debt for a storage unit, not a cc debt? From what you say the date of your last payment was on or about 7/2000. Because on 8/2000 you had vacated the unit. The listing should roll off 7/2007. Not sure if the CRAs do roll offs the 1st day of the month or the last.

Reporting begins 7 years from the date of your last payment, NOT when the OC or CA decides to report or send it to collections. If that was the case, can you imagine many OCs, CAs, JDBS and Debt Repurchasers sitting on 20-year old invalidated debts and starting and stopping the 7 or 7 1/2 year reporting period whenever?

[LadynRed]

Date of 1st Delinquincy-12/2000,

Hang on there. By that date, the debt will not be scheduled to drop off your reports until June of 2008 - 7 years PLUS 180 days beginning on that first delinquency date.

Reporting begins 7 years from the date of your last payment,

No, it does not. Reporting period begins with the first delinquency that immediately precedes placement for collection (internal or external) and/or charge-off. In essence, the reporting period starts with the bill first went 30 days late (NOT the last payment) and you never again brought the account current. The DOFD is shown as 12/2000 per the OP.

That DOFD can NEVER be changed, - not legally anyway, and it is the one date that creditors MUST REPORT. If a CA reports a different date, THAT is illegal re-aging and you can sue them for it - and dispute the tradeline as illegally re-aged. The rest, date of status, last reporting date, etc. are meaningless as far as the reporting period is concerned.

[June]

Hang on there. By that date, the debt will not be scheduled to drop off your reports until June of 2008 - 7 years PLUS 180 days beginning on that first delinquency date.

I am no expert and I don't intend to argue. But it really depends on the CRA. The CRAs follow their own (in-house) procedures. Most recently, and to my surprise, I had a listing drop off exactly 7 + 1 month from the "Date of my Last Payment" which had been correctly reported by the OC (no CA account), in this case. Others are scheduled to drop off exactly 7 years from DOFD. Their method for Reporting or removal is saving me 6 whole months.

The rest, date of status, last reporting date, etc. are meaningless as far as the reporting period is concerned.

That is true for the reporting period. But the "rest" unlawfully suppresses credit scores because they are ALWAYS illegally "UPDATING" (without adding any NEW information) except 3 fields for a "recent date." Which kills credit scores forever.

[Ahntara]

FCRA Title 15 USC 1681c, Section 605(a) "Information excluded from consumer reports..." (4) "Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years".

The 'formula' so often quoted as Reporting Time Period {©(1)} is really just that, a formula for setting the absolute starting date - DOFD. It does not extend RTP by 6 mos. The CRA's own literature claims 7 years, not 7.5.

"...The rest, date of status, last reporting date, etc., are meaningless as far as the reporting period is concerned..."

This is true.

It's also true that while RTP isn't affected by these dates, scores might be.

"...Reporting period begins with the first delinquency..."

FCRA 1681c, Section 605©(1) "Running of Reporting Period...7-year period...beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity..."

This date cannot LEGALLY be changed to extend RTP. It is NOT the same as updating the 'Status' & 'Last Date Reported', which is standard operating procedure and accurate. Those two fields do have an impact on scores.

[June]

Ahntara, thank you for all the legal information. It saved me a whole lot of time.

With all due respect; What is the definition of UPDATE or UPDATING?

I did not know so I asked a paralegal friend. She said:

"The term "update" or "updating" refers to the action of a furnisher of information in modifying or otherwise altering an existing account trade line to reflect an alleged accurate status."

In my book, a CA never furnishes accurate information and never validates an account (not for me anyway). Therefore, the CA is not furnishing "information" to reflect an accurate status.

Depending upon the CRA, the three fields for the CAs Updates are: "Collection Reported Date", "Status Date" and "Balance as of Date." These 3 Dates or fields are frequently "updated" without modification of any information in their trade line, except for the 3 (FICO 'Crush') Dates. I believe once the CA is challenged in court, they would most likely lose.

It may be their industrywide SOP to frequently "Update" a trade line to change the 3 Dates only, but that does not make it "legal." This illegal practice serves only to make accounts appear as "new" every month, and suppresses consumers credit scores.

They all use this SOP, just as we regularly use our legal Standard Validation Procedure (SVP). And outside of court, there is nothing we can do about it.

[CreditLawGuru]

FCRA 1681c, Section 605©(1) "Running of Reporting Period...7-year period...beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity..."

actually this pararaph includes the extra 6 months if you would only quote the whole thing

605© 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.

[Ahntara]

Yes, am aware of that. I excluded it so as not to add to the already growing confusion. Notice the section even begins with "...7 year reporting period..." not 7.5. 180-days is (financial) industry-standard time period for charge offs. It still doesn't extend reporting period. Or, better yet, I should say that it doesn't extend RTP except in the minds of consumers, who seem to be the only ones wanting derog data to show past 7 years. The CRA's, the FTC and all legal experts agree that RTP is 7 years, not 7 + MORE.

Updating is indeed the practice of providing the same or new TL information. It does impact credit scores, by making a TL appear to be recent to the scoring software.

Re-aging is the practice of illegally changing data (used to be lots of different data, but, most notably, the Date of First Delinquency or using the Date of Last Payment as the beginning) in order to extend RTP. This used to be standard practice and is one of the primary reasons behind the last amendment to the FCRA (FACTA of 2003). It's also the reason behind the precise 'formula' I quoted in 1681c, 605©(1). That formula still doesn't change RTP to anything other than 7 years, as evidenced by the reference of that specific amount of time in the rest of the FCRA.

[June]

actually this pararaph includes the extra 6 months if you would only quote the whole thing

I'll say, the paragraph actually excludes the "extra 6 months," where the OC reports the delinquency before the expiration of the 180-day period.

605© 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.

With all due respect. I agree with Ahntara, it's 7 years, not 7.5.

I think we can all agree that the OCs are not required to report anything.

The OCs (banks and CC companies) NEVER wait until the expiration of the 180-day period to begin reporting delinquency. Their routine practice is to report all delinquencies immediately (monthly). The FCRA provides for a 180-day "grace period" if you will. Perhaps during that 180-day period, a troubled debtor may be able to work out a new payment plan, obtain a loan or otherwise refinance their debt.

Where the OCs' report delinquency immediately and during the entire 180-day period, it's 7 years, not 7.5 years. The CAs, JDBs and Debt Repurchasers, report delinquency for the first time, such as cable, medical, phone, utilities, etc., well after the expiration of the 180 day period, allowed to report for 7 years as well.

For example: A Cable account never reported to the CRAs and becomes delinquent on 04/2000. The CA is assigned the debt 11/2003. The CA may report the delinquent account until 10/2007. If the delinquency had been reported immediately 04/2000, the CA may report only until 04/2007. It's still 7 years. EQUIFAX has a field for: the "Date the 1st Major Delinquency was Reported," which is never used.

*ANY CORRECTIONS GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU.

[divemedic]

The point here is that while the CRA's and other entities frequently delete at 7 years, you do not have a cause of action before 7 years plus 180 days. If you file a lawsuit before that period, the Defendant would have a defense.

[Ahntara]

Ordinarily, I'm right in line with divemedic. But on this one, I disagree.

[June]

The point here is that while the CRA's and other entities frequently delete at 7 years, you do not have a cause of action before 7 years plus 180 days. If you file a lawsuit before that period, the Defendant would have a defense.

WOW! That was my next Question. I must start a New Thread.

DIVEMEDIC, since you mentioned it here...

Respectfully, I disagree.

Our indisputable evidence (credit reports) clearly show the creditor reported the delinquency of the account 180 days prior to the expiration of the 180-day period. With frequent (and current) monthly UPDATES for 84 months, the Defendant restarts the SOL with each "Update."

I find that Defendant is so outta gas here. We may lose on some technicality without a lawyer. But it is a winable case with a competent attorney.

The law clearly states: The 7-year period... shall begin... upon the expiration of the 180-day period....

In law, I love the word "shall." The term "shall" is a word that the courts generally construe as mandatory rather than directory. Ordinarily it is the equivalent of "must." (Ballentine's Law Dictionary)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"605© 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."

[divemedic]

Don't take my word for it, read what the FTC has to say:

"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©(1) provides that seven year period begins 180 days from that date. 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©(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:

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 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.

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).

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.

In sum, we believe that the phrase "commencement of the delinquency that led to the action" in Sections 605©(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.

The link:

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

[Ahntara]

Where is Butch when I need him?

Excellent quote from Johnson. But other FTC Opinion Letters provide more detail.

From Kosmerl, we get the reason behind the amendment (FACTA). It was for clarification on the START of Reporting Period, not to add an extention to the already established time. If Congress intended to change RTP, then why not clarify all of the statute. They didn't. They added a formula to provide an absolute start to RTP but left other references to 7 years alone.

"...it was Congress' intent...to establish a single date...to begin the obsolesence period.

Amason also addresses their intention and whether or not the new amendment EXTENDED the RTP:

"...No...Congress intended to establish a date certain...to begin the obsolesence period...to correct the often lengthly extention of that period...Because the commencement of the SEVEN YEAR PERIOD is now described with some precision...it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you described...changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a charge off..."

Here is the footnoted reference (at the 180 days notation divemedic quoted) from the bottom of Johnson:

"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...accents the desirablility of treating the "commencement" of the delinquency as the first missed payment -- not some later date THAT WOULD FURTHER EXTEND THE PERIOD."

This has dragged on already and I have no desire to extend THIS. lol I also no longer have access to AOC and others who corrected MY thinking on this issue. So, I'll leave the last word to dive...

[divemedic]

From Kosmerl, we get the reason behind the amendment (FACTA). It was for clarification on the START of Reporting Period, not to add an extention to the already established time. If Congress intended to change RTP, then why not clarify all of the statute. They didn't. They added a formula to provide an absolute start to RTP but left other references to 7 years alone.

"...it was Congress' intent...to establish a single date...to begin the obsolesence period."

If you are going to quote, don't use ellipses to cut out the parts that disprove your theory. Kosmerl actually says:

it was Congress' intent in enacting Sections 605©(1) and 623(a)(5) to establish a single date -- the start of the delinquency -- to begin the obsolescence period on these accounts. This avoids the "multiple date" problem that arguably existed prior to the 1996 amendments. In the case you described, the date of the "commencement of the delinquency" that led to the creditor's chargeoff or collection action would be July 1991 or earlier (depending on how long the account was continuously delinquent before that). The seven year period would start no later than January 1992 (180 days later), with the result that the chargeoff or collection could no longer be reported in most cases beyond January 1999."

Now, it appears to me that an account that went delinquent in July of 1991, and could remain on your report until January 1999 is 7 years plus 180 days, isn't it?

Amason also addresses their intention and whether or not the new amendment EXTENDED the RTP:

"...No...Congress intended to establish a date certain...to begin the obsolesence period...to correct the often lengthly extention of that period...Because the commencement of the SEVEN YEAR PERIOD is now described with some precision...it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you described...changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a charge off..."

Again, you cut out key parts of the paragraph (parts you cut out in bold):

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.

I don't understand why so many people have sucha problem with this concept. Yes, they have a 7 year reporting period. However, that 7 year period begins 180 days from the first time the account went delinquent and stayed that way. That effectively means that the account stays for 7 years plus 180 days from the start of that delinquency. I don't see how this can be read any other way.