No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
Had a thought after re-looking at some things.
Lates are excluded from the 7 year mark, but I have my old BOFA account which had the following pattern:
3/2010: OK (first missed payment)
4/2010: 30D
5/2010: OK (paid up)
6/2010: OK (second round of missed payments)
7/2010: 30D
8/2010: 60D
9/2010: OK (paid), CBCG
We've always talked about tradelines being excluded based on DOFD (edit: collections and CO's specifically), but on every bureau my 4/2010 30D wandered away in March, which incidently I just noticed was the "DOFD" for that deliquency specifically.
Has this held for other people? I'm sort of expecting based on this that I'll have my remaining 30/60D excluded in June rather than that tradeline's being clean in August. Thoughts?
Yes, when an account first becomes delinquent under your account agreement, such as 3/2010 in the posted example, it does not become reportable as a 30-late until it reaches 30 days past the billing due date. That is similar to the determination of the DOFD for a collection or charge-off, which will also be one month prior to the date of a first reportable 30-late.
However, monthly delinquencies are not a specific type of "adverse item of information" that have their own, separate, and defined exclusion period under one of the provisions of subsections 605(a)(1-4). Monthly delinquencies are excluded under the catch-all provision of subsection 605(a)(5), which covers any other adverse item of information. The exclusion date is no later than 7 years from the date of the adverse item, which is not defined as the date of delinquency per se, but rather the date of the adverse item, which is the reportable 30-late. Thus, exclusion is no later than 7 years from the reported 30-late (i.e., 7 years plus one month from the date of the actual account delinquency).
An account delinquency of 3/2010 thus is not a reportable 30-late until 4/2010 does not have mandatory exclusion until after 4/2017.
In distinction, a DOFD is explicitly defined under FCRA 605(c) as being based on when the account first became delinquent, and not based on when it became a reportable 30-late. Thus, an account with a first delinquency in 3/2010 that had a first 30-late in 4/2010 would, if it remained delinquent and later was charged-off or referred for collection, have a DOFD of 3/2010.
In the posted scenario, there is no DOFD, as there is no charge-off or collection reported.
@RobertEG wrote:Yes, when an account first becomes delinquent under your account agreement, such as 3/2010 in the posted example, it does not become reportable as a 30-late until it reaches 30 days past the billing due date. That is similar to the determination of the DOFD for a collection or charge-off, which will also be one month prior to the date of a first reportable 30-late.
However, monthly delinquencies are not a specific type of "adverse item of information" that have their own, separate, and defined exclusion period under one of the provisions of subsections 605(a)(1-4). Monthly delinquencies are excluded under the catch-all provision of subsection 605(a)(5), which covers any other adverse item of information. The exclusion date is no later than 7 years from the date of the adverse item, which is not defined as the date of delinquency per se, but rather the date of the adverse item, which is the reportable 30-late. Thus, exclusion is no later than 7 years plus one month from the date of the actual account delinquency.
An account delinquency of 3/2010 thus is not a reportable 30-late until 4/2010 does not have mandatory exclusion until after 4/2017.
In distinction, a DOFD is explicitly defined under FCRA 605(c) as being based on when the account first became delinquent, and not based on when it became a reportable 30-late. Thus, an account with a first delinquency in 3/2010 that had a first 30-late in 4/2010 would, if it remained delinquent and later was charged-off or referred for collection, have a DOFD of 3/2010.
In the posted scenario, there is no DOFD, as there is no charge-off or collection reported.
Good info thanks! I touched up my post to be a bit more specific, as you're correct actual DOFD does not apply here I was just bastardizing the term, mea culpa.
So this is likely a bureau implementation artifact on the software side: basically it's easier and less prone to errors if they just copy the exclusion code around such that it works for all types. Occam's Razor this is probably what happened, especially if there's not some regulatory definition in this case.
Yeah, but I think the essential point is that the FCRA, and thus the CRAs, look at the reported 30-late as being the "adverse item of information" that is under consideration to be excluded, as opposed to the adverse item of information as becoming delinquent under your account agreement.
The CRAs dont consider exclusion of non-reported adverse information, such as being delinquent on an account agreement, they only consider the exclusion of reported adverse information, which in the case of a delinquency is 30 days after the account becomes delinquent.
@RobertEG wrote:Yeah, but I think the essential point is that the FCRA, and thus the CRAs, look at the reported 30-late as being the "adverse item of information" that is under consideration to be excluded, as opposed to the adverse item of information as becoming delinquent under your account agreement.
The CRAs dont consider exclusion of non-reported adverse information, such as being delinquent on an account agreement, they only consider the exclusion of reported adverse information, which in the case of a delinquency is 30 days after the account becomes delinquent.
Yes but by definition since a 30D implies two payments were missed, it's trivial to state the first deliquency is the month immediately preceeding it; a 60D would be two months preceding, etc.
If we assume deliquency reporting is standard, which it is by definition and library implementation, then this holds. I would assert that just because the initial one isn't reported to the bureaus, that if we know it, and lenders know it, it's certain the bureaus know it and can code for that in their exclusion code. If you are coding exclusion code for things like CO's and collections, why do it differently for general deliquencies reported to the bureau that are simply part of a tradeline's record rather than path to default / CO? It would be a poor design choice.
It'll be interesting to see in my case: all the bureaus whacked my 30D in March (the month preceeding the actual 30D which was from 4/10) but one of the bureaus took out a bigger chunk of my tradeline and whacked the second 30D I had later in the tradeline leaving only a 60D; if all the bureaus still whack the 60D at the same time, then I would suggest my read of their implementation as it stands currently is correct.
Again, the CRAs dont consider a missed payment to be an "adverse item of information" under FCRA 605(a)(5) that can be entered into a consumer's credit file.
Their clear policy is that a monthly delinquency must be a missed payment that has also extended another 30 days in delinquency..
I guess one could dispute the lack of reporting of a simple account delinquency, asserting that it is "incomplete" reporting under FCRA 611.
However, to date, no consumer has wished to add such a delinquency to their credit report.
It is a great opportunity to make credit reporting history!
@RobertEG wrote:Again, the CRAs dont consider a missed payment to be an "adverse item of information" under FCRA 605(a)(5) that can be entered into a consumer's credit file.
Their clear policy is that a monthly delinquency must be a missed payment that has also extended another 30 days in delinquency..
I guess one could dispute the lack of reporting of a simple account delinquency, asserting that it is "incomplete" reporting under FCRA 611.
However, to date, no consumer has wished to add such a delinquency to their credit report.
It is a great opportunity to make credit reporting history!
I think we're having two different conversations .
I'm only referring to when a legitimate deliquency (30D / 60D / +) has been reported on a tradeline, when it is deleted by the bureaus.
I apologize if I muddied it up, the missed payment that is being referred to in the 1-29D range is a red herring from a bureau reporting perspective, of course it's not there; however, that does not mean the month preceeding the 30D+ late string isn't the month where they get excluded... since that's precisely how they do it in other portions of their maintenance algorithms/scripts for other types of negative information on a credit report.
@RobertEG.
I'm curious about late reporting as well for accounts that are not charged off or in collections. My dilemma would refer to student loans. I have 63 lates reporting from June 2012 on several individual loans, 24 lates reporting from January 2013 individual loans. I understand that student loans can remain up to 10 years if history is positive but these are certainly negative. So my question is....will they start to expire from DOFD and began dropping off my report in 2019, 2020.
@Cherekas wrote:I'm curious about late reporting as well for accounts that are not charged off or in collections. My dilemma would refer to student loans. I have 63 lates reporting from June 2012 on several individual loans, 24 lates reporting from January 2013 individual loans. I understand that student loans can remain up to 10 years if history is positive but these are certainly negative. So my question is....will they start to expire from DOFD and began dropping off my report in 2019, 2020.
THe lates will drop off roughly 7 years from when they were tacked onto the tradeline, and the tradeline sticks around but the timing varies somewhat apparently.
Both EX and EQ just whacked my 30/60 pair on May 1, when they were from July / August specifically. TU hasn't budged yet on them, but this doesn't track with the original April 30 day late removal in March which prompted this thread.
Ah well, on EX my tradeline is now a perfect one with pretty green OK's everywhere, happy day. EQ whacked all my payment history but the tradeline is still there.
Thanks for the reply! Experian says they will start to drop off in 2019 so that's actually nice to know, assuming the EQ and TU follows suit as well. I will hopefully have a clean file in less than 3-4 years. If I had known that closing the account by doing a consolidation sooner would help them age off sooner, I would've consolidated earlier but as long as the lates are removed soon, I guess it doesnt matter.