Tricky Attempt at Re-Aging?

Anonymous · ‎06-19-2015

Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster.

I pulled my credit report yesterday and was a little dismayed. Thought I was making more progress, but steady as she goes.

I was going through my files and I pulled out an old credit report and was really shocked/confused at what I found.

In 2006, I feel down an icy flight of stairs and ended up the hospital. I was unemployed at the time so I wasn't able to pay. Wasn't smart enough to work with the hospital about the situation at the time so I just pretended like it didn't happen (worst decision ever, possibly).

My debt went into collections and was eventually handed over to Grant and Weber.

The old credit report I have from 2011, shows that Grant & Weber owned the debt (original creditor: Local Hospital), and it was for $843. According to the report it was supposed to drop off my report in Feb of 2013.

My new report says that Grant & Weber owns the debt (original creditor: Same Local Hospital), and now it's for $1995. According to the new report, the account was opened in November of 2012.

I have not been back to that hospital ever. I don't even live in the same state, nor have I since 2011, so it's impossible for me to have gone back there and accrued more debt. I honestly think they just created a new account, added in penalties interest fees and what not to the original amount and start posting it as a completely new debt.

Do I send a DV letter, or file a complaint? What are my next steps? I'm just really shocked at what these people are doing.

Thanks,

J

InvincibleSummer3 · ‎06-20-2015

The first step is generally a DV. They may just remove it.

Anonymous · ‎06-20-2015

November 2012 is when the CA obtained the debt, not when the account opened/defaulted. It's correctly reporting. Does it list a DOFD on your report? That's the only date that matters as that's what determines the age of the debt. CAs also add interest & fees to the debt they buy, making what you owe more than the original.

Anonymous · ‎06-20-2015

The debt was originally owed to a hospital in 2006. It was then sent to Grant & Weber for collections back then. The clock would have started ticking then. They waited until the SOL was about to run out before magically creating another debt that I owed them that came from the original hospital. I think it's well past the SOL, and they are trying to re-age an account that should have dropped off sometime in 2013. I have credit reports from 2011 that show it has been with Grant & Weber since 2006 -- and given that I haven't been back to that hospital there's no way that it would have been renewed or legally re-aged.

Anonymous · ‎06-20-2015

Then I would dispute to all 3 CRAs that this account is too old.

Anonymous · ‎06-20-2015

Sorry, I totally misread the debt was originally from 2006. It should definitely be gone from your CR

gdale6 · ‎06-20-2015

@Anonymous wrote:
The debt was originally owed to a hospital in 2006. It was then sent to Grant & Weber for collections back then. The clock would have started ticking then. They waited until the SOL was about to run out before magically creating another debt that I owed them that came from the original hospital. I think it's well past the SOL, and they are trying to re-age an account that should have dropped off sometime in 2013. I have credit reports from 2011 that show it has been with Grant & Weber since 2006 -- and given that I haven't been back to that hospital there's no way that it would have been renewed or legally re-aged.

What you have here is an illegal reaging of the account, dispute as too old to remain on file and if its not removed and you can prove the DoFD in 2006 send the reporting CA an ITS letter (Intent to sue).

RobertEG · ‎06-20-2015

If you became delinquent on the debt in 2006 and never paid anything, then it should no longer be in your credit report.

However, before assessing fault and sending any intent to sue letters, etc. you should clearly determine who is at fault for its continued showing in your credit report.

It could be either the debt collector or the CRA.

The debt collector was required under FCRA 623(a)(5) to have obtained the DOFD on the OC account and reported it tot he CRA within 90 days after reporiting of their collectin. Thereafter, the CRA was responsible for monitoring the reproted DOFD and assuring it was excluded from any credit reprot they issued after no later than 7 yers plus 180 days from the DOFD.

You need to obtain the actual DOFD reported by the debt collector, and determine if they have reported the wrong date or they have updated it so that it is less than 7 years plus 180 days ago. Once you have that information, you can assess fault on the debt collector for inaccurate reporting or update of the DOFD.

However, if the debt collector reported the correct DOFD and it is more than 7/180 ago, then the fault resides with the CRA for violation of FCRA 605(c) by having failed to exclude by the max statutory date.

Anonymous · ‎06-20-2015

Thanks to everyone for the great advice. I'm going to send off some DV letters and see if I can get this off my report for good.

RobertEG · ‎06-21-2015

A DV is not apt to solve your issue.

The debt collector has no time period for or requiement to respond to a DV.

If timely, a DV imposes a cease collection bar, which remains in effect until such time as they provide debt valaidation.

They can choose not to respond, and simply cease futher collection activities.

If the DV is not timely, meaning not sent within 30 days after the consumer receives their dunning notice,it imposes nothing on the debt collector.

Lack of response to a DV does not result in CR deletion.

If you issue is a DOFD of more than 7 years plus 180 days ago, you should pursue by way as outlined by either complaint to the CRA or dispute of accuracy of the DOFD.