DOFD Differences...

[thomasjm99]

So...  I have a repo from a vehicle I had to surrender 5 years ago. There's a long drawn out story as to how all this happened but I'll spare folks the details unless ya'll really wanna hear... Short version is I work in IT, and contracts are often sold/outsourced so I had a period where consistent employment was shaky for a bit.

The odd thing is that EXP has my DOFD as Sept 2010 when I had a single 30 day late due to a mixup caused by deferment paperwork being misplaced when I was in between jobs. Anyway...  EXP has this repo set to fall off this month, YAY!!  However, EQ and TU have a different DOFD despite reporting the same information and show the tradeline to be reporting until 2019. So I have two questions:

Is this common?

Is there any way to get EQ and TU to report the same DOFD as EXP?

Thanks!

[RobertEG]

I assume that the repo resulted in a loss by the creditor.  Otherwise, it would not be governed by DOFD as the basis for the calculation of the exclusion date.

The creditor was required to separately and explicitly report the DOFD on their account to the CRA within 90 days after reporting a charge to profit and loss or its equivalent.  See FCRA 623(a)(5).  There should thus be no difference between the DOFD that the same creditor reports to different CRAs.

Basing a DOFD on the date of a reported 30-late is not proper.

For several reasons, the date of a first reported 30-late is not necessarily the DOFD.

The creditor could have delayed in reporting a 30-late.  It is common for some creditors to delay reporting of a 30-late.

Additionally, if the account is brought back into pays as agreed, good standing, after a prior delinquency, then the DOFD is only established if the account then becomes delinquent again.  DOFD is not necessarily the first delinquency.  It is the first delinquency in the chain that immediately preceded and included the charge-off.

If a reported 30-late was inaccurate and thus removed, it cannot stand as the reported DOFD.

First, you should determine whether the Sept 2010 reported DOFD is in fact accurate.  If it is, then you can file a dispute of the accuracy of the later-reported DOFDs with the other CRAs.  However, if the Sept 2010 date was not a legit delinquency, or the account was brought back into good-standing after that date, then there would be no basis for supporting a dispute asserting that to be the proper DOFD.

[thomasjm99]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

I assume that the repo resulted in a loss by the creditor.  Otherwise, it would not be governed by DOFD as the basis for the calculation of the exclusion date.

The creditor was required to separately and explicitly report the DOFD on their account to the CRA within 90 days after reporting a charge to profit and loss or its equivalent.  See FCRA 623(a)(5).  There should thus be no difference between the DOFD that the same creditor reports to different CRAs.

Basing a DOFD on the date of a reported 30-late is not proper.

For several reasons, the date of a first reported 30-late is not necessarily the DOFD.

The creditor could have delayed in reporting a 30-late.  It is common for some creditors to delay reporting of a 30-late.

Additionally, if the account is brought back into pays as agreed, good standing, after a prior delinquency, then the DOFD is only established if the account then becomes delinquent again.  DOFD is not necessarily the first delinquency.  It is the first delinquency in the chain that immediately preceded and included the charge-off.

If a reported 30-late was inaccurate and thus removed, it cannot stand as the reported DOFD.

First, you should determine whether the Sept 2010 reported DOFD is in fact accurate.  If it is, then you can file a dispute of the accuracy of the later-reported DOFDs with the other CRAs.  However, if the Sept 2010 date was not a legit delinquency, or the account was brought back into good-standing after that date, then there would be no basis for supporting a dispute asserting that to be the proper DOFD.

---

The 30-Day Late in Sept 2010 was accurate from CapOnes POV, and was reported to all 3 CRAs. They claimed I submitted paperwork for a deferment improperly, and while it was being settled I went 30-days late since my payment deferment was not in place in time. I fought with them about this for a long while with 0 results in my favor. After that, the account was brought back to good standing and was kept that way until a job situation that resulted in a $15k/year reduction in pay caused me to have to surrender the vehicle and CapOne suffered a roughly $6k loss after the vehicle was sold. 

It sounds like from your comments that EXP might be doing me a favor here and I should just leave it alone. Correct?

[RobertEG]

Correct.

The prior 30-late is not the DOFD if the account was brought back into good-standing prior to the repo/charge-off.

[thomasjm99]

Got it, thanks for the help!