topic Re: DoLA compared to DoFD in Understanding FICO® Scoring

DoLA compared to DoFD

Booner72 — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:29:48 GMT

Booner I've split this off to start a new thread.

MarineVietVet, myFICO moderator

I'm looking at the same problems on DH's reports. There are 2007 collections (DOFD) but the Date Reported is as recent as 11/11 - which is TOTAL B.S.!!! Does this mean that the FICO score was damaged by the Date Reported? I want to know about how these updated dates affect the FICO, not how it relates to CRTP bc I get that.

Now I know these collections have been reporting long before 2011, so was the damage done when it was first reported in 2009, or is the damage done again due to the updated Date Reported???

So I guess this is 2 questions.

SORRY about the hijack.

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

RobertEG — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 21:43:18 GMT

No.

Dates of last reporting are usually just updates or repetition of prior reporting.

When most reporting is made to a CRA, it is not isolated to only a single item that has changed. Reporting is usually a complete repetition of the entire prior data string provided to the CRA, with any necessary fields/codes updated as needed. Often, a new reporting actually contains no new data.

While a furnisher should NOT update the date of opening of a collection (it should remain their date of collection referral), that does not "reset" its credit report exclusion date.

The relevant date for CR exclusion of a collection always remains the DOFD on the OC account.

Unless the DOFD itself was updated, which if updated to an an incorrect date is serious illegal re-aging, it wont affect its exclusion date.

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

Booner72 — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 17:51:01 GMT

Thanks, MV and Robert.

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

Student_Loans_Kill — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:15:23 GMT

I basically have the same question. But mine is student loan baddies

through consolidation they all read 0 now, and William D Ford in good standing

However, I have accounts they say:

USA FUNDS "This account is scheduled to continue on record until May 2012. "

Blank University " This account is scheduled to continue on record until May 2013" "Last Reported:
01/2012"

EDUCATION CREDIT MANAGEMENT "Last Reported:
11/2011"

SALLIE MAE "Last Reported:
05/2006"

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION "This account is scheduled to continue on record until Dec 2012. ""Last Reported:
08/2011"

AES/PHEAA "Date Reported 01/2012, Date major Delinquency First Reported 01/2008, Date of First Delinguency 12/2006"

So can someone please define with my specifics? Since I started getting in trouble for student loans in 2005 and 2006 and consolidated this year in October, are my baddies comming off my report? Even if Date of last Report was as recent as 1/12

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

RobertEG — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 01:05:30 GMT

Actually, the blurb that "This account is scheduled to..." is a misnomer.

Accounts dont cease to be of record in your credit file based on the exclusion of prior adverse items.

The individual adverse items cease to be included in your credit report after their exclusion date, but that does not delete the account itself.

What it should say is "Item X is scheduled to remain in your credit report until......"

However, that would be cumbersome. Each adverse item has its own individual exclusion date. Monthly delinquencies, at 7 years from their individual dates of occurence, and collections and charge-offs after 7 years plus 180 days from the DOFD on the OC account.

To list each derog and its exclusion date is something that commercial credit reports have chosen not to do. So they use a misleading statement that really says nothing unless you have only one adverse item that faces an exclusion date. I would ignore that statement.

The date of exclusion of any adverse item is defined in FCRA 605(a) based on the date of occurence of the adverse item, NOT upon the date it is reported to a CRA, or the date of any update of reporting. Those dates are fixed by your activity on the accounts themselves, not how they are reported. The date of monthly delinquencies is simple.... the date they occured. The relevant dates of a charge-off or collection are a bit more complex, and the FCRA affixes that relevant date as being based on the DOFD on the OC account, and NO other date.

Updated reporting thus does not alter any credit reporting exclusion date.

What is particularly confusing to many is the reporing of a collection by a debt collector. They report a "date opened" for the collection, which is the date that they received their collection referral. Having the same title of "date opened" as is used for the OC account, it leads many to think that the date opened of their OC account has been "updated."

It has not. They refer to two entirely different things. Nothing reported by a debt collector, other than a possible, and illegal, reporting of a later DOFD, has any effect on when their collection must cease to be included in your credit report.

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

Student_Loans_Kill — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:36:52 GMT

Not gonna lie, that was very confusing.

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

fused — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:20:38 GMT

I'm not sure if you read this. If you haven't, maybe it might help.

DOLA, DOFD, SOL

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

ssghandless — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 04:07:57 GMT

What if I can prove the DOFD? Then what? Do I send this information to the NEW oc? or do I just contact the CB? Where does the blame go to and whom can enforce it?

Thanks in advance.

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

Booner72 — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:19:58 GMT

I am having a similar problem on a repo. The lates are all gone, but the account is still reporting until 10/12 because the account was included in BK which was filed 10/05.

The DOFD, however, is 12/04, and the account is gone from TU and EX, but EQ is holding onto it until 10/12 - because, I guess, it is IIB and the BK was 10/05?

I got ahold of Nissan since I believed they gave the wrong DOFD to EQ. I actually got quit a bit of help, and they updated the account to EQ with the new DOFD. (So, in your case, find out the DOFD from the OC, and make sure the CRA has that DOFD, and if they don't the the OC has to report that date. I've tried and tried to Dispute based on wrong DOFD but EQ says Nissan continues to verify, so what the heck?)

But IDK if the account is still going to stay until 10/12 because of the BK. I'm so confused.

I am hoping Robert comes along and tells me that now that EQ has a new DOFD, will it go away? Or will it stay until 10/12, 7 years past the BK??

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

ssghandless — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:29:51 GMT

My problem is the OC MBNA is out of business. BOFA bought them out...My wife just happen to keep the old payments and late payments. I dont think BOFA will expect that but I am CERTAIN they will deny it and NOT adjust it. I just want to know what my options are when they shut me down.

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

RobertEG — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 23:19:42 GMT

DOFD has zero relevance unless the item being considered for CR exclusion is either a collection or a charge-off.

The only use of DOFD in credit reporting is for establishing the date the CRA uses for calculation the ultimate date of exclusion of a charge-off or collection.

Other items have their own specific CR exlusion dates, which, except for paid tax liens, run from the date of occurence of the adverse item.

Tax liens are the exception, with their exclusion date based on 7 years from the date paid.

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

Booner72 — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 02:39:27 GMT

Wouldn't a bk be considerd a charge off?

So you are saying that the account stays til 10/12?

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

Booner72 — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 02:41:07 GMT

Okay now I'm totally confused. I thought ALL derogs were gone after 7.5 years EXCEPT ch 7 was 10 years??

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

RobertEG — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 07:48:53 GMT

No, a BK is unrelated to a charge-off.

When a consumer discharges a debt under bankruptcy, the creditor takes a 100% loss on the debt. The debt is gone, and is no longer collectible.

When a creditor charges-off the debt, they simply do an internal bookeeping measure, moving the debt from col. A (a receivalbe asset) to col. B (a non-receivable business loss), thus reducing net assets and getting a tax reduction. The consumer still has 100% liability for the debt, and the account still has a potential value of the receivable debt, but due to its status as having been stated by the OC as being "uncollectible," is a high risk purchase.

Debt collectors can buy it at a reduced value based on its risk, and yet try to recover the entire debt.

From a consumer's perspective, they are night and day. Owing 100% of the debt vs owing nothing.

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

Booner72 — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 03:35:54 GMT

Robert - will the account stay until 10/12?

Re: DoLA compared to DoFD

RobertEG — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:59:51 GMT

§ 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. §1681c]

(a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b)

of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing

any of the following items of information:

(1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the

date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be,

antedate the report by more than 10 years.

(2) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the

report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has

expired, whichever is the longer period.

(3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven

years.

(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report

by more than seven years.

(5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes

which antedates the report by more than seven years.

(6) The name, address, and telephone number of any medical information furnisher that

has notified the agency of its status, unless--

(A) such name, address, and telephone number are restricted or reported using

codes that do not identify, or provide information sufficient to infer, the

specific provider or the nature of such services, products, or devices to a

person other than the consumer; or

(B) the report is being provided to an insurance company for a purpose relating to

engaging in the business of insurance other than property and casualty insurance.

(b) Exempted cases. The provisions of paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a) of this

section are not applicable in the case of any consumer credit report to be used in connection

with

(1) a credit transaction involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a

principal amount of $150,000 or more;

(2) the underwriting of life insurance involving, or which may reasonably be expected to

involve, a face amount of $150,000 or more; or

(3) the employment of any individual at an annual salary which equals, or which may

reasonably be expected to equal $75,000, or more.

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