The FCRA does not use the specific term "date of first delinquency," but defines it in two statutory sections; FCRA 605(c) and 623(a)(5).
They refer to the "date of commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceeded the collection activity, charge to profit or loss, or similar action."
The FTC, in numerous opinions letters issued after the enactment of sections 605(c) and 623(a)(5), as well as a plethora of case law decisions, have uniformly held that the date of commencement of the delinquency that preceded the CO or collection is the date of delinquency after which the account was not brought back into good-standing. The delinquency began, and continued until the charge off or collection occured.
The entire reason that those two sections of statute were addded back in 1998 was to put to rest, once and for all, the spurious interpretations such as your debt collector is asserting. They are clearly wrong.
Their letter of response does not address the issue. It refers to the exclusion of monthly delinquencies at 7 years, not to the exclusion of a collection. DOFD governs collections and charge-offs, and is totally irrelevent to monthly delinquencies.
If they are reporting any date other than the DOFD on the OC account, they are in violation of FCRA 623(a)(5).
HOw to address it? The debt collector is not the party who determines when their collection is excluded. It is the CRA, They use the DOFD reported to them in their calculation of the 7 years plus 180 day exclusion period. The CRA is the party who has the reported DOFD in their files.
Thus, I would send a dispute to the CRA, along with your documentation of actual DOFD, and require them to reinvestigate the accuracy of the date being reported to them. They have the authority, under their reinvestigation rights, to correct the inaccuracy.
You could additionally send a formal complaint to the FTC, explaining their incorrect application of the statute. Make them explain to the FTC how the official position of the FTC is erroneous.
