topic Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency in Rebuilding Your Credit

why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 02:32:03 GMT

I just recvd a copy of my credit report and date that the 7 year count down is starting is 2006. Shouldn't the count down start at the date of the first deliquency which would have been well before 2006-- either 2004 or 2005. II'm pretty sure that I took the account out of my name in 2005 at the latest. Should I dispute this? Should I call the company.

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

RobertEG — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 04:22:12 GMT

You are correct. The date of the charge-off has absolutely nothing to do with when reporting of the CO in your CR must fall off.

Yes, it is 7-71/2 years from the DOFD on the OC account. FCRA 605(c). That is one date-certain.

This is just another repeated example of why you should not rely on your CR alone for projected drop off dates.

The CRA can only rely on the DOFD reported by the OC when projecting your CR falloff date. OCs dont always provide the correct DOFD to the CRAs.

Your account records are your legal proof of DOFD. Rely on that date. Once YOU are certain of that date, then if the CRA continues to include the CO in any credit report they issue after a max of 7 1/2 years from that DOFD, then you have a CRA violation of FCRA 650(a). That is when you can take formal dispute action against the CRA.

As an aside, let me give you a few examples of how an incorrect DOFD gets into your credit file, and thus what to be on the lookout for.

Legally, your DOFD is the date your first went one day late on a required payment, and the account was not therafter placed back into paid, good standing before they choose to do a charge off. The OC may have reported a 30-day late to your credit report, but failed to also update your "FCRA Compliance Date/Date of first delinquency" to your credit file. This is a separate code reporting that they should do, but often dont. IT can very easily not even be the date of the first reporting of a monthly delinqauency by the OC. Or the OC may not even have posted the intiial 30-day late to your CR, or maybe not even have posted a 60-day late. That is their choosing, but also does not affect your DOFD, and with each monthly reporting, they should have reported the actual DOFD. But again,the CRAs dont enforce monthly updatiing of your DOFD in your credit file.

So, even before the CO was done, you quite possibly could have NO reporting of the DOFD to the CRA, or maybe the last one they reported was incorretly reported as the date of subsequent delinquencies, and not the true DOFD. One reason for this very lax OC reporting is that a DOFD really means nothing until the account is either charged-off, or reported for collections. So in monthly reporting by an OC, it is simply not a priority for them.

The FCRA recognizes this. Once a charge-off or collection is a reported, then it is IMPERITIVE for the CRA to have a correct reported DOFD in your file in order for them to be able to calcualte the 7 1/2 fall of date under FCRA 605(c). That is the first time that the statute enters into the picture of DOFD reporting.

That is the purpose of FCRA 623(a)(5)(A), which simply states that the OC, once charging off the account or placing it into collection, MUST. within 90-days, report that DOFD to the CRA, and that it must match any DOFD that they previously reported. FCRA 623(a)(5)(B). They couild just once again confirm the prior, and improper, DOFD that they reported.

And your normal, consumer credit reports rarely, if ever, report FCRA 623(a)(5)(A) date reported by the OC. It should, in my opinion, be a requriement that any credit report issued by a CRA in which a CO or CA has been reported must include a separate inclusion of the FCRA 623(a)(5)(A) date reported by the OC. CRs dont provide that. Thereing lies the problems in having to rely on an unreliable DOFD.
But it is ultimately your legal proof of DOFD from your account records. that controls

Here is what I suggest. Know your legal DOFD from your own records. Wait until a CRA issues any credit report after 7 1/2 years from the DOFD that still includes reporting of the CO. Then hit the CRA with an immediate dispute letter under FCRA 605(a). REquest the FCRA 623(a)(5)(A) date as legal comparison of what the OC reportethem with what you prove in your documentation of the real DOFD.

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

RobertEG — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 04:54:07 GMT

As a further suggestion, providing you are willing to spend $10.50 to see your reported DOFD that is currently in your credit file before just waiting to see if the CO drops after 7 1/2 years, consider the following letter to the CRAs:

"This is a request under FCRA 609(a)(1) for "all information in the consumer's (my) credit file at the time of this request" that relates to the following information reported to my credit file under the provisions of FCRA 623(a)(5)(A)..

"Original credtior,

(identify the OC and account)

reported a charge-off to my credt file on (date)

"Under the provisions of FCRA 623(a)(5)(A), the above-named credtior was requried to have reported the date of first account delinquency to you within 90-days of their posted charge-off. What I specifically request is the date when they did this reporting to you, and the date of first delinquency that they reported in compliance with FCRA 623(a)(5)(A). If they failed to comply with the required reporting provisions of FCRA 623(a)(5)(A). then please notify me as such.

"I understand that this request requires the payment of the fee set forth in FCRA 612(f), which is currently $10.50. Enclosed is my check in that amount to cover the fee for this request."

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:02:06 GMT

@RobertEG wrote:
You are correct. The date of the charge-off has absolutely nothing to do with when reporting of the CO in your CR must fall off.
Yes, it is 7-71/2 years from the DOFD on the OC account. FCRA 605(c). That is one date-certain.
This is just another repeated example of why you should not rely on your CR alone for projected drop off dates.
The CRA can only rely on the DOFD reported by the OC when projecting your CR falloff date. OCs dont always provide the correct DOFD to the CRAs.
Your account records are your legal proof of DOFD. Rely on that date. Once YOU are certain of that date, then if the CRA continues to include the CO in any credit report they issue after a max of 7 1/2 years from that DOFD, then you have a CRA violation of FCRA 650(a). That is when you can take formal dispute action against the CRA.

...

This is false.

Let's look at the actual provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

§ 605(a)(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the
report by more than seven years.

§ 605(c)(1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6) 3 of subsection
(a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection
(internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and
loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period
beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately
preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.

Not only the FCRA itself, but also FTC advisories and judicial precedence has established that the 7-year period is to commence upon the account being placed for collection or being charged to P&L (i.e. chargeoff). The 180 day (6 month) period comes into place because businesses have up to 180 days to carry the delinquent account on their books after which it must be removed from their books.

If the DOFD was, for example, July 1, 2000, the CRTP would expire 7 years and 180 days from that date at the latest. However, if the creditor sent the account to collections on, say, August 1, 2000, the CRTP would require it stop reporting in August 2007. Should the creditor chargeoff or send the account to collections in, say, July 2001, the item would still need to fall off 7 years and 180 days from July 1, 2000.

You need to contact your creditor to get details on when the account went into default.

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

RobertEG — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:33:04 GMT

I stand by my last post and assert that it is NOT false!

O6, I have a great deal of respect for your knowlege and opinions, but on this point, I think you are wrong.

The amendment of the FCRA back in 1996 by implementing FCRA 605(c) was intended to eliminate such arguments that anything a debt collector reports can reset the DOFD. and thus reset the statutory drop off dates of charge offs and collections under FCRA 605(4). Congress spent months debating this, and finally, and clearly said, no, it is not what a debt colletor reports., but only what the OC reports as the is only controlling date under FCRA 605(c).

Just reading the words of the statute, you may arrive at spurious conclusions. But of you read the legislative history of FCRA 605c). it is not even a shade of grey. Congress devoted hours of time to dismissing the argument that anything a CA reports can reset the CR dropoff set forth in FCRA 605(a)(4) So they further defined FCRA 605(a)(4) by the clarification offered in FCRA 605(c). As stated in the statute, that is the "date of the delinquency that preceded the colelction activity." I know of no FTC decison that contravenes that interpretation of statute, and says that reporting by a CA after their initiatiaion of theier collection activity could precede their collection activity/.

How can a date reported as a later result of a collection actvity ever precede initiation of collection activity? It cant.

That was the expressed intrent when enacting FCRA 605(c). To eliminste debt collectpt reporting from reset of the one single. date-certain reliance of both CO and CA are, and to sssure CR drop off date as only being dependent on the DOFD with the OC/

Date of drop of a CO or CA is. under FCRA 605(c). and the hundreds of hours of Congressional intent. one date certain

That is the DOFD on the OC account. No CA reporting has ANY relevancy to that date-certain. fixed by congress when they enacted FCRA 605(c)

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:12:04 GMT

@RobertEG wrote:
That is NOT false!
O6, I have a great deal of respect for your knowlege and opinions, but on this point, I think you are wrong.
The amendment of the FCRA back in 1996 by implementing FCRA 605(c) was intended to eliminate such arguments that anything a debt collector reports can reset the DOFD. and thus reset the statutory drop off dates of charge offs and collections under FCRA 605(4). Congress spent months debating this, and finally, and clearly said, no, it is not what a debt colletor reports., but only what the OC reports as the is only controlling date under FCRA 605(c).
Just reading the words of the statute, you may arrive at spurious conclusions. But of you read the legislative history of FCRA 605c). it is not even a shade of grey. Congress devoted hours of time to dismissing the argument that anything a CA reports can reset the CR dropoff set forth in FCRA 605(a)(4) So they further defined FCRA 605(a)(4) by the clarification offered in FCRA 605(c). As stated in the statute, that is the "date of the delinquency that preceded the colelction activity." I know of no FTC decison that contravenes that interpretation of statute, and says that reporting by a CA after their initiatiaion of theier collection activity could precede their collection activity/.
How can a date reported as a later result of a collection actvity ever precede initiation of collection activity? It cant.
That was the expressed intrent when enacting FCRA 605(c). To eliminste debt collectpt reporting from reset of the one single. date-certain reliance of both CO and CA are, and to sssure CR drop off date as only being dependent on the DOFD with the OC/
Date of drop of a CO or CA is. under FCRA 605(c). and the hundreds of hours of Congressional intent. one date certain
That is the DOFD on the OC account. No CA reporting has ANY relevancy to that date-certain. fixed by congress when they enacted FCRA 605(c)

I can't seem to recall saying that the CA has any input on when the derogatory falls off. The dates in question are determined by the original creditor according to the facts of the case.

The FCRA is crystal clear that the derogatory falls seven years from the date of chargeoff or placement for collections, period. The FCRA - not to mentionand generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and the IRS - is also clear that the original creditor has up to 180 days from date of default or first delinquency to remove the bad debt from their books.

As such, the statement that "The date of the charge-off has absolutely nothing to do with when reporting of the CO in your CR must fall off" is false.

To arrive at the precise date, instead of your generalization of 7 to 7.5 years, by which the derogatory must fall off , the date of chargeoff or placement of the account with either an internal or external CA is crucial. Precisely 7 years from date of chargeoff or placement for collections, the derogatory must fall off. The original creditor has precisely 180 days or less to remove the debt from their books. There can be no debate. No matter what is claimed, the Earth is not flat.

The FCRA never states that anything will fall off in "7 to 7.5 years." It specifically and unequivocally states it will fall off in 7 years from one -- and only one -- precise date: the date of chargeoff or placement for collections which cannot, under any circumstances occur later than 180 days after the "delinquency which immediately
preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action."

To make things even more interesting, there are consumer debts that can remain appearing on your credit report longer than 7.5 years. Many loans have an acceleration clause which renders for credit reporting period calculations the DOFD practically useless. Regardless of when or when not the debtor misses their payments, when there is an acceleration clause it is the creditor -- and only the creditor -- who determines precisely when you are in default and that can be, on average, 90 days after you've missed your payment. From the date the acceleration clause is invoked, the creditor has 180 days within which the debt needs to be written off and precisely 7 years from the date of write-off, the debt should no longer appear on one's credit report. For this and other somewhat uncommon situations the FCRA does not say 7.5 years is the aboslute maximum for the CRTP.

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

MarineVietVet — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:59:30 GMT

As I wrote in another post:

You’ll get varied opinions about this subject. I’ve found at least three different views:

1. It is 7.5 years for both charge offs and collections.
2. It is 7 years for a collection and 7.5 years for a CO.
3. All accounts in CO or collection will come off after 7 years.

I know I’m not the smartest person on the planet and I’ve struggled with exactly how to interpret this. I lean towards opinion #1 because I think it clearly says that both CO’s and collections are gone after 7.5 years. But I’m not 100% convinced of my position and am willing to admit I could be wrong.

Others are certain that #2 or #3 are the only answer possible and I can’t and won’t say they are incorrect.

Each person will have to decide on their own what it says. However I think that we might agree that such derogatories will most likely remain for at least 7 years. If a person is fortunate it might go away even sooner. The debate goes on.

If these laws were written in English and not Congress(Lawyer)Speak I believe there wouldn’t be as much confusion.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 9/09 pulled by lender 802
EQ - 7/06-663, 3/10-800
TU - 8/10-772
You can do the same thing with hard work

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:21:58 GMT

@MarineVietVet wrote:
As I wrote in another post:

You’ll get varied opinions about this subject. I’ve found at least three different views:

1. It is 7.5 years for both charge offs and collections.
2. It is 7 years for a collection and 7.5 years for a CO.
3. All accounts in CO or collection will come off after 7 years.

I know I’m not the smartest person on the planet and I’ve struggled with exactly how to interpret this. I lean towards opinion #1 because I think it clearly says that both CO’s and collections are gone after 7.5 years. But I’m not 100% convinced of my position and am willing to admit I could be wrong.

Others are certain that #2 or #3 are the only answer possible and I can’t and won’t say they are incorrect.

Each person will have to decide on their own what it says. However I think that we might agree that such derogatories will most likely remain for at least 7 years. If a person is fortunate it might go away even sooner. The debate goes on.

If these laws were written in English and not Congress(Lawyer)Speak I believe there wouldn’t be as much confusion.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 9/09 pulled by lender 802
EQ - 7/06-663, 3/10-800
TU - 8/10-772
You can do the same thing with hard work

Don't see how you get #1.

§ 605(a)(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the
report by more than seven years.

I don't think it can get any clearer.

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

MarineVietVet — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:00:50 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Don't see how you get #1.

§ 605(a)(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the
report by more than seven years.

I don't think it can get any clearer.

In your opinion it can't get any clearer. I said I lean towards it's #1 because of FCRA 605(c)(1):

In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6) 3 of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.

We just interpret it differently. Your opinion doesn't make me wrong or vice versa. If legalese wasn't used writing this stuff we would probably all agree what it says.

There are those here who know much more than me who say It is 7 years for a collection and 7.5 years for a CO. They are just as confident in their position as you are in yours.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 9/09 pulled by lender 802
EQ - 7/06-663, 3/10-800
TU - 8/10-772
You can do the same thing with hard work

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:30:20 GMT

Not going to argue with anyone here but I am going to provide some current information to clear things up. Unfortunately I have a CO and so does my wife. NEITHER one went to collections. They both went 30-60-90-CO.

The date they are set to fall off on my reports obtained from the bureaus not any third parties are all exactly 7 years 6 months from the 30 day late that led to CO. Both accounts had 30 day lates previous and went current again.

Therefore based on the FCRA and the information in my credit reports they fall off 7.5 years from DOFD that led to chargeoff so based on the wording of the FCRA and the content in my credit report I have to agree with the knowledgeable Robert on this one. I dont know about the rest of you but I unfortunately have the proof in my reports. If they fell off 7 years from CO date I would get rid of them 3 months sooner but unfortunately again that isnt how it works. Hope this helps clear things up.

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

fused — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:03:11 GMT

I'm in the following club:

A collection can report "up to" 7 years, and a CO (OC account) can report "up to" 7.5 years from the DOFD. 06 makes a good point, not all accounts that go bad take a full 180 days to CO.

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:10:41 GMT

@fused wrote:
I'm in the following club:

A collection can report "up to" 7 years, and a CO (OC account) can report "up to" 7.5 years from the DOFD. 06 makes a good point, not all accounts that go bad take a full 180 days to CO.

The legislative history and committee notes show that Congress' intent was to make a date beyond which reporting was not allowed and not to mandate reporting must continue until that date. Creditors have up to 180 days to remove a bad account from their books and that is reflected in the 180-day period leading up to collections or chargeoff. Once charged off, you've got 7 years.

Otherwise they would have directly stated accounts drop 7.5 years from date account went delinquent and was never brought current.

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

fused — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:22:39 GMT

Notice how I quoted "up to"?

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:23:42 GMT

@fused wrote:
Notice how I quoted "up to"?

Of course!

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

MarineVietVet — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 04:56:12 GMT

As long as it remains respectful I think discussions like this are helpful. It can really open things up and show not only how a person feels about a subject but also why. In my opinion that's more important than an attitude of "Well I'm more correct than you are". None of us have all the answers and none of us are immune to being wrong at some point. (Except me of course!!!)

I proudly served my country to give others the right to disagree with me. And to give me the right to disagree with them.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 9/09 pulled by lender 802
EQ - 7/06-663, 3/10-800
TU - 8/10-772
You can do the same thing with hard work

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

RobertEG — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:12:49 GMT

I refer you to the FTC staff opinion letter titled “Johnson” dated August 31, 1998, published by the FTC shortly after implementation of FCRA 605(c).

I dont offer my opinion, just the words of the FTC:

“We are not in accord with the contention that the date "when (the creditor) first reported" the chargeoff to the CRA constituted the start of the delinquency. Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) were recently added to the FCRA to correct the ineffectiveness of the previous FCRA, under which the date that started the seven-year period was uncertain or under the control of the creditor. The legislative history of these provisions makes it clear that they were designed to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from delayed creditor action:

“Current law generally prohibits consumer reporting agencies from including in a consumer report accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years. The Committee is concerned that this seven year limitation is ineffective. In some cases, the ... action occurs months or even years after the commencement of the preceding delinquency. ... Consequently, the consumer report may contain such information even if the delinquency commences more than seven years before the date on which the report is provided to a user.

“The Committee bill specifies that the seven-year period with respect to information concerning a delinquent account charged to profit and loss . . . may begin no more than 180 days after the commencement of the delinquency immediately preceding the ... action.

S. Rept. 104-185, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 39-40 (emphasis added).

“Thus, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- the start of the delinquency -- to begin the obsolescence period (now seven years, plus 180 days).(2) The alternate view stated to you (that the date of reporting controls) is at variance with both the plain language of these amendments, and the intent of Congress in enacting them.

“In sum, we believe that the phrase "commencement of the delinquency that led to the action" in Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) of the FCRA should be construed according to its normal meaning. If a consumer falls behind on an account and never catches up, the delinquency has its "commencement" when the first payment is missed. From that point on, the account is past due and thus delinquent.”

Reference: ftc.gov web page on published opinion letters pertaining to FCRA 605(c).

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

MarineVietVet — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:47:04 GMT

Robert, Robert, Robert.

Just as I was trying to calm the waters.

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

RobertEG — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:06:40 GMT

LOL!

I understand, marinevet, and I dont post further on this issue in order to stir the waters. That is why I offered no personal interpretations of opinions, but referred only to the interpretation of this issue as stated by Congress, in their legislative history, and by the FTC, who is charged with legal administration of the FCRA.

One can have their own statuory interpretations, but interpretations by the ones who passed the law, and by those who administer it, seem to carry the most effect on the stilling of the waters..

But if this issue remains unresolved in the minds of some posters, I think the most authoritative source shouid be interjected into the discussion.

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:30:21 GMT

@RobertEG wrote:
LOL!
I understand, marinevet, and I dont post further on this issue in order to stir the waters. That is why I offered no personal interpretations of opinions, but referred only to the interpretation of this issue as stated by Congress, in their legislative history, and by the FTC, who is charged with legal administration of the FCRA.
One can have their own statuory interpretations, but interpretations by the ones who passed the law, and by those who administer it, seem to carry the most effect on the stilling of the waters..
But if this issue remains unresolved in the minds of some posters, I think the most authoritative source shouid be interjected into the discussion.

I seriously doubt you have read the legislative history or the committee reports, but in any event the issue has been addressed by the FTC latest in your quote:

English is a precise language. "No more than" does not mean "exactly." It means 180 days or less.

Re: why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

RobertEG — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 07:10:06 GMT

Precisely.

FCRA 605(a)(4) says it drops at 7 years from an unspecific date.

That is precisley why FCRA 605(c) was enacted. To make the date specifc. But unfortunaly, FCRA 605(c) interjected this 180-day extension period, so still made the date still a bit murky for another half-year. It is now 7 years from the DOFD, plus an additional, potential 180-day window before any violation of FCRA 605(a)(4) can be enforced.

FCRA 605(c) gave the CRAs an additional period of not more than 180-days to finally cease all inclusion of a CO or CA in a consmer credit report beyond the 7-year period set forth in FCRA 605(a)(4).

Bottom line is that the DOFD sets the one single, date-certain from which CR deletion must be calculated. FCRA 605(c) simply says that there is no vioation of further inclusion in a consumer's CR until 7 years, plus 180-days, from that DOFD. The CRA can delete tomorrow, if they choose. The only issue is when continued credit credit report inclusion beyond 7 1/2 years becomes a violation of FCRA 605(a)(4), as modified by FCRA 605(c).

That is clearly, in my opinion, 7 1/2 years from the DOFD. One final date-certain.

(and yes, I have read most of the legislative history of FCRA 605(c). So has the FTC)