Jump to content

Am I reading this wrong? DOFD


Donna47129
 Share

Recommended Posts

c) Running of reporting period.

(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

Okay, I am not reading this to mean what some people have posted on this forum.

I have a CO, that was CO'd this May. The account had been in late status since 2003 and we had been trying to work this out and a few of you say that the DOFD would be what rules how long this stays on my report, but the last payment we made was May of this year, which was the last payment before collections. HOWEVER, EVERY PAYMENT SINCE 2003 HAS BEEN CONSIDERED LATE.

According to highlighted above, our May payment would be the late payment that immediately preceded the CO, which means that the JDB did NOT re-age this account by showing 8/07 as the starting date.

Am I correct? Please tell me I am reading this wrong!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your date of major deliquency is when the clock starts ticking.

Hey Fizzle,

Thanks, and what do you consider major deliquency? Do you think that trying to enroll in that program a few years ago would be considered major? That's why we enrolled (even though they messed up) because we were majorly behind. Not just 30 days, I would say more like 90 or more.

Appreciate your input! Thanks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all those lates...did you EVER bring the account current?

You need to find out for sure...otherwise, if things stand as you

posted, I am going to agree with Fizzle.

Being late, but bringing it current month after month doesn't make the dofd

03. Now if you never ever brought it current, that might mean something.

Have you considered getting this information from the OC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the little boxes that show status show 30Days, 60 Days, 90 Days and then 90Days thereafter beginning in 2003, then the account has been late every month since 2003.

On the other hand, if those boxes show 30Days, 60Days, Current, Current...etc...beginning in 2003, the the account was brought current somewhere along the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

According to my print out I have had LP and OL charges since 2003 consistantly, month after month. It has not been current since then.

Here's the stickler: in late 2005 they said we could enroll in a program where they won't charge anymore fees if we pay $21.00 per month for ever til it's paid off. We said we would enroll. They never said the account would be considered current but that they would not add anymore fees.

After 4 months they began adding more fees. I called them they say we were not showing enrolled in that program, again, said they would definitely enroll us...4 more months then charges again. So we said F'it. They keep breaking the deal and kept saying we were not enrolled...BUT, it has never been paid up since 2003. The limit was $1k and it's been over $1k every since 2003. I made a couple of payments since then when we had extra money, but it's never been considered timely since 2003.

So, what do you think?

Thanks!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the little boxes that show status show 30Days, 60 Days, 90 Days and then 90Days thereafter beginning in 2003, then the account has been late every month since 2003.

On the other hand, if those boxes show 30Days, 60Days, Current, Current...etc...beginning in 2003, the the account was brought current somewhere along the line.

That's the problem, the OC never reported to the CRA, so it hasn't been listed until JDB bought it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the limit was $1k and its been over that since 2003, then IMO it was never brought current. Therefore, the OC's DOFD for credit reporting purpose is in 2003. And, therefore the JDB's DOFD is in 2003. However, the utlimate decider of this would be a court...and, this reasoning may not hold when it comes to your states SOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with willing on this one as far as the DOFMD. There is an FTC opinion letter about this same scenario (I'll try to find it). We've got an OC that is doing the same thing on ours (they've changed the DOFMD at least 3 times according to TU---it's a battle I haven't taken on yet.)

Although it is my understanding, through discussing it with Dive last year in another post, that this may not have anything to do with the start of the SOL clock--that would more than likely be based on your DOLP (but you need to check your state guidelines). So basically in this type scenario you would have different dates used for reporting time frame vs. SOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay,

I found an old CR and Aspire did in fact report this back in 2006. However, it was only on for 1 month because I added a statement saying:

"We dispute the fraudulent billing practices of this credit agency."

Poof, it was gone. I just dug up that CR from 2/14/06. Shows closed, and under account history:

180 days as of Sept 2005 (this is the last account history shown), nothing on this report has the boxes that they ex or show days past due.

Shows High Balance: $2191, Recent Blanace $2107, CL $1000.00

In my reasoning, this account would therefore have not been current nor ever current after the date of the report: 2/14/06 (notwithstanding 2003)

By using 9/13/07 as the date on our current report under Midland, they have re-aged this account since it's showing that it won't drop off for 7 years from then.

Thoughts? THANKS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry...those people I work for expect me to pay attention to them sometimes..

Anyway, IMO, whoever claims to own the account now and is reporting on your reports is legally bound by the OC's (Aspire?) DOFD. You can try disputing with the CRs claiming that the DOFD is blank or incorrect. If they don't change it, you can send them an ITS letter for FCRA violations.

Like I said before...if you can't scare them away like this, then the ultimate decider here is probably going to be a court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, IMO, whoever claims to own the account now and is reporting on your reports is legally bound by the OC's (Aspire?) DOFD. You can try disputing with the CRs claiming that the DOFD is blank or incorrect. If they don't change it, you can send them an ITS letter for FCRA violations.

.

THANKS!! Appreciate your input. I will try that dispute. I'll update the progress...thanks to everyone!! As usual, a BIG help!!

:)++

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.