Date opened question

[Downto0]

I have an account which went delinquent several years ago, was closed, and was origianly opened in 2007.  Another creditor (not debt buyer) bought the delinquent account and also listed the account as closed and the date opened also in 2007.  Now a debt buyer bought the delinquent account, did not list the account as closed, and listed the opening date as 2014.

First, can the debt buyer list the account as apparently open, active, and not closed?

Secondly, can the debt buyer list the account as opened seven years after the original opening date?

I can't help but think that not reporting the account as closed and that it was opened just a few months ago is an attempt to make the account look recently delinquent.  They do not list any sort of "Date of first Major delinquency"

What's going on?  

[RobertEG]

The purchaser is a debt collector, and reports the date opened as the date they received collection authority, either by assignment from another owner, or by their purchase of the debt.

[Anonymous]

Back in my ignorance days I disputed a collection account based on the "open date" thinking it was the DOFD . Big mistake . It's kinda misleading to anyone that doesn't know much about credit reports .

[Downto0]

I think there is a little more to it then a collector listing their own account.  If that were the case then they would have their own account number.  They do not.  In fact, they are using the original account number that the OC used.  If that be the case then the opening date should be listed as the original account opening date.

Another thing, they are not reporting a DOFD, or any other such payment information...other than they have received '0' payments.  It really looks like they are trying to make the account appear new and newly delinquent.  And, there's a point to this...prospective lenders give less credence to older delinquent accounts.  It's part of the collector campaign of maximum derogatory reporting.

Whether its legal, or not, reporting an account as new and newly delinquent is more damaging than reporting it as old and nearly ready to drop off my cr.  Yep, zombie debt revived as newly derogatory.

And as far as a dispute on something like this, the CRAs generally stonewall a disputing consumer by sending out "cover all" form letters.  They find a form letter which they thing may fall within the realm of your dispute and send that.  

Is there any law which specifically covers how the data furnisher should list the opening of their account when they use the OC's account number?  I just think it is inaccurate to list the OC's account number and then state that the OC's account was not opened until 7 years after it really was.

[RobertEG]

When a debt collector reports, it is stored in an entirely separate segment of your credit file, called the K-segment. There is no statutory requirement or prohibition regarding the identifying account number. The fact that they might use a number that is the same as that used by the OC would not affect and of the data they report. The date opened for a collection is not used to determine exclusion of their collection, and is for the most part a meaningless date. A debt collector is required, under FCRA 623(a))(5), to report the DOFD to the CRA within 90 days after reporting of their collection. That date is needed by the CRA in order to calculate and monitor the ultimate exclusion of the collection from any credit report they issue after 7 years plus 180 days from that reported DOFD. Many commercial credit reports do not provide the DOFD. One cannot infer from the lack of showing in a credit report that the debt collector has failed to comply with their DOFD reporting requirement. Pulling your reports from annualcreditreport.com will normally provide a more comprehensive report that includes the reported DOFD.

[Downto0]

I do pull my reports from annualcreditreport.com.  I also pull reports from one of the big 3 when some sort of adverse action happens.  One of my current credit card providers, in addition, does give me my credit score and updates me to new accounts.  I go to one of the big 3 to verify.

The current reports I have either do show a DOFD or they show the date the adverse account will be removed.  You can walk backward from the date of removal and get a close estimate of the DOFD.  No violation here.

However, I don't think the opened date is meaningless.  Why even list the opening date if it does not mean anything?  

I also believe that the collector can use either the OC's account number or make up one of their own.  A number is a number, is a number, is a number.  Nevertheless, if they chose to use the OC's number then I believe the collector would have to use the same identifying information as what the OC provided since they chose to identify with the OC's number.  

An example would be the collectable amount.  It stays the same as when the OC closed the account and ceased charging interest.  I know for a fact that it is illegal for a collector to charge any interest where the OC gave up their pursuit of interest.  If the collector files suit on the debt then they usually do ask for interest but that falls under the state's allowable interest rate, not the OC's original interest rate.  I recently settled with a collector on these issues.

Another inconsistency is the date of 1st delinquency and major delinquency 1st reported.  They got the date of 1st delinquency right but they re-aged the major delinquency 1st reported to this year instead of 5 years ago.  I'm not completely sure of the differences between the two but I think the date of 1st delinquency is possibly for missed payments where the consumer later made sufficient payment which brought the account current and the major delinquency 1st reported is where the account went delinquent and the consumer never made another payment.

I have had no contact with the debt buyer who re-aged my date of major delinquency 1st reported - ever.  They may have a leg to stand on if they would have contacted me and demanded payment and I refused because that would have been a current demand for payment and a current refusal to pay.  However, no such demand or refusal has been made.  It would reason, then, that the more accurate date of major delinquency 1st reported should be the OC's date of major delinquency 1st reported rather than some date the collector created out of thin air.

Re-aging is simply making the account  and delinquencies appear current.  The CRAs know that an account is an old account but prospective lenders would not.  It's part of the maximum derogatory reporting that the collectors do.

[Anonymous]

---

@Downto0 wrote:

I do pull my reports from annualcreditreport.com.  I also pull reports from one of the big 3 when some sort of adverse action happens.  One of my current credit card providers, in addition, does give me my credit score and updates me to new accounts.  I go to one of the big 3 to verify.

The current reports I have either do show a DOFD or they show the date the adverse account will be removed.  You can walk backward from the date of removal and get a close estimate of the DOFD.  No violation here.

However, I don't think the opened date is meaningless.  Why even list the opening date if it does not mean anything?  It helps establish who actually has collection authority if more than one CA is reporting. Scorewise, its meaningless.

I also believe that the collector can use either the OC's account number or make up one of their own.  A number is a number, is a number, is a number.  Nevertheless, if they chose to use the OC's number then I believe the collector would have to use the same identifying information as what the OC provided since they chose to identify with the OC's number.  

An example would be the collectable amount.  It stays the same as when the OC closed the account and ceased charging interest.  I know for a fact that it is illegal for a collector to charge any interest where the OC gave up their pursuit of interest.  If the collector files suit on the debt then they usually do ask for interest but that falls under the state's allowable interest rate, not the OC's original interest rate.  I recently settled with a collector on these issues.

Another inconsistency is the date of 1st delinquency and major delinquency 1st reported.  They got the date of 1st delinquency right but they re-aged the major delinquency 1st reported to this year instead of 5 years ago.  I'm not completely sure of the differences between the two but I think the date of 1st delinquency is possibly for missed payments where the consumer later made sufficient payment which brought the account current and the major delinquency 1st reported is where the account went delinquent and the consumer never made another payment. Date of 1st delinquency is just that - the first delinquency prior to the account going into charge-off. Also known as DoFD and determione ultimately how long a derogatory account can be reported. Any delinquencies that are 'recovered' from are simply lates (30, 60, 90 day), they will occur prior to the DoFD, and have their own individual fall off dates. "major delinquency first reported" is another term which really does not mean anything from a scoring standpoint. Most likely it is simply the date the CA or OC chose to report the delinquency to the CRA's.

I have had no contact with the debt buyer who re-aged my date of major delinquency 1st reported - ever.  They may have a leg to stand on if they would have contacted me and demanded payment and I refused because that would have been a current demand for payment and a current refusal to pay.  However, no such demand or refusal has been made.  It would reason, then, that the more accurate date of major delinquency 1st reported should be the OC's date of major delinquency 1st reported rather than some date the collector created out of thin air.

Re-aging is simply making the account  and delinquencies appear current.  The CRAs know that an account is an old account but prospective lenders would not.  It's part of the maximum derogatory reporting that the collectors do. "Re-Aging" refers to attempting to change the DoFD. What you are referring to is 'refreshing' the reporting. Yes, it does the most damage to your score, yes many CA's do it, sometimes every month - but unfortunately it is not illegal.

---

[Downto0]

There is very little case law concerning re-aging.  Where did you get your info.  I don't doubt what you're saying.  However if I decide to file a claim I can't simply say that I heard it on the internet.  I will try the "refreshing" term the next time I do a case search. 

I agree with your definitions of DOFD and the Date Major Delinquency 1st Reported.  The Date Major Delinquency 1st reported would have to stay the same even though a debt buyer bought and listed the delinquenty account.  Each successive collector could not create their own Major Delinquency. As it stands right now, the current collector has listed their own Major Delinquency about 5 years past the original Major Delinquency.  

The opened date and major delinquency probably, as you say, do not have an affect on the score.  However this information must be complete and accurate.  It would not be accurate for a successive collector to make up their own date to make their account look as if the delinquency just happened.

[Anonymous]

The term 're-aging' applies to the DoFD because none of the others have any *real* legal meaning. The DoFD, OTOH, is defined by statute law. None of the other dates attatched to the report in any way establish the 'age' of the debt. So 're-aging' does not apply to those other dates.

A third party JDB can easily argue that their reported 'major delinquency' is simply your failure to pay after they sent a dunning notice. But since 'major delinquency' is not part of the scoring model, and its 'accuracy' is what they say it is, unfortunately, and you would really have no basis for a claim of such inaccuracy.

As for old items 'looking' new under the FICO scoring model when they are updated (sometimes on a monthly basis), thats really more of an issue with FICO's model, not the reporting.

IMHO, you're looking for a case where none really exists.

[scubaqueen]

Collections: PORTFOLIO RECOVERY score impact: high

Details

Account # 517805732479XXXX Account Type Factoring Company Account Creditor Type -- Account Rating Collection account Portfolio Type Open Owner of Account Individual

Amount Owed $1,191 Past Due Amount $1,191 Last Payment $0 Last Payment Date N/A Original Balance $1,191

First Delinquency Date N/A Placed in Collections Mar 25, 2014

Paid off Date N/A Closed Date N/A

Resolution

--

Current Status

Placed for collection

This account dofd nov 2010 but it severly impacting my score by smartcredit?