10-16-2013 08:17 PM
I have a credit card chargeoff with an initial date of delinquency of 12/2006. So 7 years from that time will be December of this year. How promptly do the credit beaureu's remove negative credit once it reaches 7 years?
Should I expect a 30-60-90 day waiting period or will it be removed on the 1st day of December?
I'm trying to buy a home in the spring and this is dropping my credit score a bit so i'm trying to get an idea of what to expect...
10-16-2013 10:23 PM
They can report 7 years plus 180 days. Most tend to delete at the end of the month. YMMV, though, of course. Depends on their individual 'moods'.
10-17-2013 08:24 AM
I don't think that it's because they 'have' that long. It's probably more like it take's that long for some of them to process and reflect the changes.
What company and which cra plays a factor sometimes. Most folks will tell you that TU is pretty good about deletions. In my case, I've things fall off early. When you pull reports from them on AnnualCreditReport, they tell when they are scheduled to drop or go from derogatory status to good.
Check out both of these. They are extremely helpful!
Hope this was more clear on my part!
10-17-2013 09:17 AM
I pulled my credit report and found out that TransUnion and Equifax have it down correctly and say it has a date of first delinquency of 12/2006 and have that it will be on my report until then, however Experian has another date. Experian Is using the date it was charged off (August 2007) as when the 7 year clock starts and plans on having that on my report until 08/14. On the Experian credit report it has no information for this credit card from 12/2006 to 07/2007 (shows ok before this period) and then all of a sudden it shows charged off.
So can I send Experian a letter (won't let me dispute it online) with copies of my TransUnion and Equifax report that show the date of first delinquency as 12/2006? Will that be enough for them to change it?
10-17-2013 10:22 AM
CRA's don't share info, so that wouldn't help. You need proof from the original creditor as to your true DOFD. If the debt has been sold, the collector is supposed to report the original DOFD, if known. If they are unable to get this information, they can use a best estimate.
If you have all of your original paperwork from the account, I would use that to determine for yourself your true DOFD. If it still shows discrepancies, you can do a dispute of accuracy with your paperwork as proof to the CRA. (Never give/send originals to anyone though).
10-17-2013 01:32 PM
Any party who reports either a collection of charge-off is required, under FCRA 623(a)(5), to report the DOFD on the OC account to the CRA within 90 days after their reporting of the CO or collection. That reporting is what the CRA then uses to determine the date after which they are prevented from including that reporting in any credit report they issue.
The additional 180 days, clearly set forth in section 605(c), is to account for the possibility that a debt collector,for example, could report their collection at the very end of the 7 year exclusion period, without need to provide the DOFD to the CRA for another 90 days. The CRA woud then have no way to determine when they would become in violation of a 7year period that has no known starting date. Thus, the debt collector has 90 days after reporting to provide the DOFD, and the CRA then is provided up to the remaining period of the 180 days fo process and exclude the reporting from subsequent credit reports they issue.
CRAs can choose to exclude prior to the max period of 7/180 from reported DOFD, so uniformilty in their statement of when they expect to exclude is not required.
To challenge the actual exclusion period, one must challenge the accuracy of the reported DOFD, or that the CRA has actually issued a credit reporting including the information after 7/180 from the reported DOFD of record.
If not in a commercial credit or free credit report that you obtain, you can get if from the CRA by way of an information request under FCRA 609(a)(1).
10-17-2013 03:03 PM
Thank you for clarifying that better, Robert I knew why (for the most part), but didn't really know how to explain it well.
10-17-2013 08:45 PM