No such thing as re-aging?

[WhatNext]

A post over at http://www.consumerist.com claims that there's no such thing as re-aging a debt.

See here: http://consumerist.com/consumer/reaging/correction-negative-items-are-supposed-to-fall-off-credit-reports-after-7-years-no-matter-what-252167.php

They have a quote from a spokesperson at TransUnion who says:

"Paying the account after a delinquency has been reported by a credit grantor will not have the impact of 'resetting' the item."

This goes against everything I've read here and elsewhere. So, am I missing something?

[willingtocope]

I think you might have tripped over a triple negative there. The way I read TU's quote is....even if you pay the creditor, it doesn't reset the 7 year clock. (Not quite true...the FCRA says date of first delinquency is the date on which the account went delinquent and WAS NEVER BROUGHT CURRENT. So, technically if you repay the account in full, it does reset the clock.)

[gypsie]

The payment re-setting the clock issue- Are you confusing it with resetting the clock for collecting? :

Making promise to pay and/or making a payment can restart the SOL clock for collecting. (But that's not re-aging - because it doesn't change the time it can be reported on a CR)

[IHateCAs]

The account can only have one default date. Once it defaults, it cannot default again. It can only die once. Time limit on reporting is based on the default date.

[Ahntara]

Many consumers confuse Reporting dates with re-aging. They ask if a TL with an updated 'date last reported', or 'date of last activity' means it has been re-aged. It doesn't. You'll come across lots of posts about that.

Re-aging used to be a common tactic of CA's prior to the last amendment of the FCRA (in 2003). Now, it's possible but unlikely, illegal, and would be grounds for a nice lawsuit.

Methuss also posted about legal (and appropriate) re-aging, wherein the creditor recalls the original account out of default.

Other than this..."The account can only have one default date...Time limit on reporting is based on the default date". (what he said)

[MadinKS]

Re-aging used to be a common tactic of CA's prior to the last amendment of the FCRA (in 2003). Now, it's possible but unlikely, illegal, and would be grounds for a nice lawsuit.

Apparently it's still pretty common. Prior to disputing a collection w/Asset Acceptance, the TL was due to fall off in June 2007. After dispute it was changed to Dec 2010. Same thing w/Arrow Financial. Due to fall off in 2009, now 2011. So, it does happen. I'm in the "what now" phase of how to deal w/this stuff. Any suggestions?

[LadynRed]

What you describe MadinKS IS illegal re-aging if the 2 CA's have, in fact, changed the delinquency dates. ASSet is known for that tactic. However, I believe it's Experian that updates the fall-off date by using the date you disputed, which is total garbage !

[MadinKS]

Lady-If I PM you with a letter I drafted for both Asset and EX would you critique them? Or I can direct you to the post. Whichever would be easier. I've had this very issue posted in the lawyer section but it's seems to have lost steam. I'm in a panic here because I don't want Asset to try to get us to court while it's re-aged.

[IHateCAs]

If you want any claim on re-aging, you need to submit CRA disputes for that specific issue. Multiple disputes to all CRAs until they won't take your disputes anymore.

THEN you have a case.