Continuous 30 day lates and DOFD questions

[nbean]

Hi guys,

I was hoping you can give me a better understanding on the DOFD rule. 3 years ago we got behind on our mortgage and stayed pretty steadily behind for 7 months(!) until we finally caught up. My question is - since to 30>60day lates were continuous is there an argument to be made that the file should be adjusted once the first 30day late hits 7years? Is it even worth it to try to get into it? How much are these lates effecting my score you think at this point ? We've been current now for 3 years so not sure of their effect. Any insight would be helpful. Below is how it's reflected on the account.

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012   J F M A M J J A S O N D

OK	OK	OK
OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
30	30	60	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	U	OK	OK
			OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	30	30	30	30

[Anonymous]

30 day lates only affect you for 2 years. I've seen the 30 day lates reporting for multiple months in a row and if you're consistently behind and only make a payment to stay 30 days behind, then that is what will reflect on your report. When the first 30 day late hits 7 years, it will fall off. Subsequent lates will fall off once their 7 year mark is hit.

[Burned2manybridgesB4]

---

@nbean wrote:

Hi guys,

I was hoping you can give me a better understanding on the DOFD rule. 3 years ago we got behind on our mortgage and stayed pretty steadily behind for 7 months(!) until we finally caught up. My question is - since to 30>60day lates were continuous is there an argument to be made that the file should be adjusted once the first 30day late hits 7years? Is it even worth it to try to get into it? How much are these lates effecting my score you think at this point ? We've been current now for 3 years so not sure of their effect. Any insight would be helpful. Below is how it's reflected on the account.

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012   J F M A M J J A S O N D

OK	OK	OK
OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
30	30	60	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	U	OK	OK
			OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	30	30	30	30

---

Since you didn't default on this account, it will change into a positive over time.

Each 30 day late will come off after it hits the 7yr mark of each individual late aging...one at a time, as each hits it's 7th birthday, so you're looking at 7-8 months worth of waiting after the first one hits 7, before they're all gone.

They're hurting your score, as they're multiples, and a derog in general. Regardless of age, they're taking your score down until excluded.

[RobertEG]

Each monthly delinquency becomes excluded no later than 7 years from its individual date of occurence.

DOFD is not relevant to the exclusion determination of monthly delinquencies.

Thus,, they do not all become excluded based on any one single date.

The DOFD is relevant ONLY to the determination of the exclusion of a reported charge-off or collection,

They each become excluded no later than 7 years plus 180 days after the DOFD.

The posted profile has no reported charge-off or collection.  Thus, there is no required reporting of a DOFD.

As for continuous reporting of 30-day lates, that has become acceptable reporting.

While not technically accurate, as an account cannot be only 30-59 days for multiple consecutive months,, it is not considered improper under the FCRA.

Reporting of a lower level of account delinquency than the actual periiod of delinquency is acceptable practice, as it is not dissputed by consumers.

What consumers generally find is that if they dispute anything related to delinquencies on such a scenario, the creditor will most often update to show the real,and thus increased, delinquency level for each month.  The posted scenario may have in fact reached 180 days late, which is the threshold that requires the taking of a charge-off.

I would not mess with the reported delinquencies, as it is very likely to have bad results.

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

As for continuous reporting of 30-day lates, that has become acceptable reporting.

While not technically accurate, as an account cannot be only 30-59 days for multiple consecutive months,, it is not considered improper under the FCRA.

Reporting of a lower level of account delinquency than the actual periiod of delinquency is acceptable practice, as it is not dissputed by consumers.

What consumers generally find is that if they dispute anything related to delinquencies on such a scenario, the creditor will most often update to show the real,and thus increased, delinquency level for each month.  The posted scenario may have in fact reached 180 days late, which is the threshold that requires the taking of a charge-off.

I would not mess with the reported delinquencies, as it is very likely to have bad results.

---

Can you clarify this? I can see how you can be 30 behind for multiple months. You miss Jan payment. Pay that in Feb- 30 days late, but now you are late on Feb. Pay that in March, 30 days late, and so on.

[RobertEG]

The CRA reporting manual divides monthly delinquencies into days past the original due date that an account is current in arrears.

A 30-late is defined as 30-59 days past the original billing due date, a 60-late is defined as 60-89 days past the original billing due date, etc.

Technically, one cannot have three back-to-back months where the delinquency is 30-59 days past the billing due date.

Even with 31 day months, at least one must extend to another month.

However, it has become extremely common practice in the reporting of delinquencies that a creditor can report a late that has, for example, reached 60 days past the original billing due date as only being a 30-late.  It might be argued to be "inaccurate," but I know of no consumers who have pursued disputes or brought  legal action asserting that they should be assessed a higher level of reported delimquency.

If you wish your file to show a perfect and consistent reporting of consecutive monthly progression from 30 to 60 to 90 days late, the creditor will likely oblige.