Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Thursday, June 22, 2000 - 12:46 pm  Incorrect DATES for collections/charge-offs are one of the most frequent and SEVERE credit problems, because the CRAs report for 7 years from THAT reported date. Those DATES are also very important to your Credit Scores, and the WORST date is NO DATE, as the most recent reporting date will be used instead. I refer to the Kosmerl FTC opinion letter, June 4, 1999, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/kosmerl.htm "Specifically, you ask (1) how the date is determined if there are multiple obsolescence dates where "you have several delinquencies preceding a collection or charge off (8/91 60+, 9/91 60+, 10/91 30+, 11/91 account closed by creditor)" and (2) if "adverse information listed on a report prior to 9/30/97 is exempt from" the procedure set forth in Section 605(c)(1) . 1. As explained in the enclosed letter (Johnson, 8/31/98), it was Congress' intent in enacting Sections 605(c)(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. 2. Section 605(c)(2) states that the section "shall apply only to items of information added to the (CRA) file of a consumer on or after" 455 days after the enactment of those amendments, or December 29, 1997.(2) We read this language to mean that a CRA is not required to use the commencement-of-delinquency date mandated by Section 605(c)(1) on an account where the chargeoff or collection ("item of information") was first reported to the CRA ("added to the ... file") prior to that date. Thus, adverse information such as collections or chargeoffs reported before December 29, 1997, are not subject to the new "commencement of the delinquency" provision. And here is the Johnson FTC opinion letter, August 31, 1998, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/johnson.htm "In sum, we believe that the phrase "commencement of the delinquency that led to the action" in Sections 605(c)(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." My advice: When the DATES are off from the original delinquency (no further payments were ever made again), dispute those dates with the CORRECT dates! I'd include the above quote from the Johnson letter with the dispute. There have been several discussions on the 1996 FCRA amendment and the 455 day provision, to read those do a Keyword Search for "455" Personally, I think it's rather irrelevant. 7 years is 7 years, and the 1996 amendment is just more specific. I'd like to know how CRAs, creditors and collection agencies respond to those disputes, so please POST your experiences.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |