topic Re: Repo 7 years old in Rebuilding Your Credit

Repo 7 years old

FreedomTrain — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:33:38 GMT

Hi guys, Have Repo 06/01/2001 you would think it should be off soon. Nope CA bought it 11/01/2006.

Am I screwed because they bought it and the 7 years starts all over or can I do anything about this?

Thank You

Think Ahead of Time.....

Re: Repo 7 years old

JShidell — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:58:30 GMT

FreedomTrain wrote:
Hi guys, Have Repo 06/01/2001 you would think it should be off soon. Nope CA bought it 11/01/2006.
Am I screwed because they bought it and the 7 years starts all over or can I do anything about this?

Thank You
Think Ahead of Time.....

What is the DOFD? Should fall off 7-7.5 years after DOFD, not when CA bought the debt.

v/r

JShidell

Re: Repo 7 years old

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:55:54 GMT

FreedomTrain wrote:

Hi guys, Have Repo 06/01/2001 you would think it should be off soon. Nope CA bought it 11/01/2006.

Am I screwed because they bought it and the 7 years starts all over or can I do anything about this?

Thank You

Think Ahead of Time.....

CRTP goes by DOFD, and is 7-7.5 years from DOFD. The OC sets the DOFD and once the account reaches charge off/collection status, it can not be changed.

DOFD would be the first missed payment date that led to the charge off/collection/ repo/etc.

If the OC is reporting, what DOFD are they reporting? This should be the same for the CA.

You may have to pull your reports directly from the CRA in order to find this information.

Re: Repo 7 years old

FreedomTrain — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:45:54 GMT

You know I did a little research and I still have over a year and half it comes off on 12/2009. But what do I do about the CA it says it will come off 2011

Re: Repo 7 years old

FreedomTrain — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:47:55 GMT

I indeed pulled them direct from the CRA.

Re: Repo 7 years old

JShidell — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:23:29 GMT

is the CA still reporting a balance? If so try to PFD. If you already paid the remaining balance try to GW the CA.

As far as the difference in fall off dates between OC and CA i'm not sure.

I'm kind of in the same boat. OC is reporting a 2012 fall off day and CA is showing 2011. I had a repo back in 2004. I've been sending GW letters to both the CA and OC in hopes of either the OC removing the negative remarks or the CA deleting their tradline or both.

Good Luck

v/r

JShidell

Re: Repo 7 years old

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:59:51 GMT

@FreedomTrain wrote:
You know I did a little research and I still have over a year and half it comes off on 12/2009. But what do I do about the CA it says it will come off 2011

That's a mistake. I don't think I'd dispute it though -- that would tank your score (since when they verify -- even if they correct the drop-off date, FICO will see it as "new").

I'd keep a copy of the CR with the original account in a safe place.

I'd also DV CMRRR the collection agency IF you're out of SoL.

Are you???

Re: Repo 7 years old

FreedomTrain — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:02:46 GMT

I have done DV to CA and OC. EQ deleted both the CA and OC, TU still fighting and just started with EX. My SOL is 4y so I have yet to fall in that time line since it was 2006 of the CA aquiring it.

Re: Repo 7 years old

mberry117 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:34:07 GMT

I just pulled Experian, and I have a repo that took place 12/02. The last payment was 8/02. The one reporting is the OC, but they have the date of last activity as 5/06????

TU has is as DOLA 8/02 and date closed 12/02. (EQ has the same as TU)

SOL is way past (3 for DE) but not sure when it rolls off, scard to dispute it.

Re: Repo 7 years old

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:04:10 GMT

@mberry117 wrote:
I just pulled Experian, and I have a repo that took place 12/02. The last payment was 8/02. The one reporting is the OC, but they have the date of last activity as 5/06????
TU has is as DOLA 8/02 and date closed 12/02. (EQ has the same as TU)

SOL is way past (3 for DE) but not sure when it rolls off, scard to dispute it.

It should fall off your CRs no later than 7 years and 6 months from the DOFD, which sounds as though it would be 9/02 (since that's the FIRST payment of the LAST delinquency). So it SHOULD fall off 3/10.

Message Edited by Wonderin on 08-06-2008 01:04 PM

Re: Repo 7 years old

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:28:26 GMT

From what I understand with a repo, SOL starts at the date the sale was at auction. The auction creates the deficiency balance. Hense, the beginning of SOL.
. However, the DOFD would not change that is when you made your last payment and did not bring the account current which resulted in the repo.. Someone correct me if Im wrong

Re: Repo 7 years old

Anonymous — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:47:13 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
From what I understand with a repo, SOL starts at the date the sale was at auction. The auction creates the deficiency balance. Hense, the beginning of SOL.
. However, the DOFD would not change that is when you made your last payment and did not bring the account current which resulted in the repo.. Someone correct me if Im wrong

You're wrong.

@Anonymous starts from, legally speaking, the date the last action occurred. So let's say that the last payment made was July, and Aug went unpaid. 60 days later, the bank repo's the car and sells it @ auction 30 days later.

The DOLA would still be July (and that is the date the SoL would start from). The car being sold would not count as a payment made by the owner. Because the owner did not make that payment -- the bank had to employ "self-help."

Re: Repo 7 years old

Anonymous — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:35:56 GMT

so then why wouldnt the DOLA be the payment from the acution. wouldnt that last payment create the deficiency balance

Re: Repo 7 years old

mberry117 — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:35:22 GMT

I'm only guessing here, but I would think the auction wouldn't be for the owner only because the owner no longer OWNS the car before that point.

Did that make sense?

Re: Repo 7 years old

Anonymous — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:04:46 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
so then why wouldnt the DOLA be the payment from the acution. wouldnt that last payment create the deficiency balance

Because, quite simply, the consumer did NOT make that payment. In essence, the lender sold the repossessed property (and they're required to as a means of mitigating the debt and securing the value of their loss as much as possible).

The "ex-owner" of the vehicle did NOT make that payment.

Re: Repo 7 years old

Anonymous — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:07:30 GMT

@mberry117 wrote:
I'm only guessing here, but I would think the auction wouldn't be for the owner only because the owner no longer OWNS the car before that point.

Did that make sense?

Well, yes and no. At that point, we'd be discussing semantics. It would MORE be a case of the consumer NOT initiating that action.

Now if the consumer sold the car prior to having it repo'ed, and paid the bank a lump sum, that WOULD be an action initiated by the consumer.

The BANK selling the car is simply the bank helping itself. Though its more complicated than that, since obviously, they're required to in order to mitigate the consumer's debt on that vehicle.