topic Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts? in Rebuilding Your Credit

Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

jbh — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:39:04 GMT

Ages ago, over 6, I had a cc that I must have tanked on. I barely remember it but I recall 8 or so years ago when I started with it and where I lived at that point.

well today, I see a CA listing on Experian for said account using my old cali address. Well, if that's the case, I'd like to know why Experian validated the D.O.F.D as 3 or so years later. If that's true, why did that 'positive history' before the DOFD not get reported?

It's listed with a low ball no name ca now. I think a company might have had it earlier and re-aged it/couldn't collect. I disputed with Eperian on phone (oops) but will send both a letter asking them for this anomoly.

What do you think? Smells like re-aging? The dofd took place 2+ years later from when I left that apartment and I know 144% that I had no such account from 2000/2001 positive until the "dofd". It's absurd. And if I am wrong about it being the Californa acount starting in 2000/2001, then it is physically impossible to be mine in the first place.

Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

Anonymous — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:28:20 GMT

i would:

1. send DV to CA no matter what

2. send request for compliance date to CRA

Armed with these pieces of information, if the date is wrong, I would send:

1. ITS letter to CA for illegally reaging debt in violation of FDCPA and incorrect reporting in violation of FCRA, total $2,000 payble immediately

2. Send letter to CRA informing them that DOFD reported incorrectly and giving them 10 days to amend

good luck!!!

Message Edited by demed on 12-02-2008 08:28 PM

Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

Anonymous — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:56:04 GMT

demed wrote:
i would:

1. send DV to CA no matter what

2. send request for compliance date to CRA

Armed with these pieces of information, if the date is wrong, I would send:

1. ITS letter to CRA for illegally reaging debt in violation of FDCPA and incorrect reporting in violation of FCRA, total $2,000 payble immediately

2. Send letter to CRA informing them that DOFD reported incorrectly and giving them 10 days to amend

good luck!!!

The CA is the one who re-aged the account by reporting an incorrect DOFD.

Here is a great thread on re-aging.

I've never known of a CA reporting the "positive history" up to the point of DOFD.

Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

Anonymous — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:45:09 GMT

Sidewinder,

thank you for catching my spelling mistake - I meant CA , CA, CA thus the distinction between 1 and 2

Message Edited by demed on 12-02-2008 08:45 PM

Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

Anonymous — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:39:19 GMT

demed wrote:
Sidewinder,

thank you for catching my spel;ling mistake - I meant CA , CA, CA thus the distinction between 1 and 2

No problem, I knew what you meant, just wanted to clarify it for those who didn't.

Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

jbh — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:31:12 GMT

But if I were to have a positive history from 2000/2001 --> 2004, would there NOT have to be reports of those payments on my credit report? (Not furnished by this ca, but from the creditor who I 'had a positive history with until the dofd'

?

You see what I mean? I will send letters, but I already contacted the BBB. I CANNOT afford this to go on my other reports and dv's never get responded to when I send them (since it's past the dunning stage). I want to attack and remove it NOW.

Thank you.

Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:46:22 GMT

I'm not sure what you mean here.

There is nothing you can do to stop them from reporting today if they want to.

However, if the collection is new (just appeared on your credit report), why would it be past the dunning stage? i don't understand.

if the Dv does not get responded and they keep reporting past 30dd you can sue them with less than $50 and they will have to defend themselves - normally they drop it if they are wrong, because fines and lawyers add up quickly, faster than the interest on your one's meager debt.

Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

jbh — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:32:18 GMT

There is nothing you can do to stop them from reporting today if they want to."

There is nothing I can do to stop a re-aged 7+ year account (if it's tied to the era I think it is, since it's listed as my account in California and the only one I had was 7+ years ago that wasn't active within the last 7 years)

There was also no dunning. This is a zombie debt that was just plastered on my reports. The DOFD is re-aged because it's TWO + years after I stopped using it. There was no life or activity on it for 2002, 2003, so if they say the DOFD is 2004, then the only way they could be correct is if I carried a positive history from 2000 to 2004.

Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

jbh — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:33:35 GMT

Also, I sent in a fax dispute and will also mail, but I am not eager to wait 30 days worth of potential adverse action when they are breaking the law. So I already contacted the BBB and if it's still on by Monday I will get the FTC/others involved.

I will mail a letter to Experian, pleading my case, in addition to the telephone initiated dispute, but I am sure they will gladly verify it as they will probably seek a commission from this collection.

Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:38:58 GMT

jbh wrote:
But if I were to have a positive history from 2000/2001 --> 2004, would there NOT have to be reports of those payments on my credit report? (Not furnished by this ca, but from the creditor who I 'had a positive history with until the dofd'

?

You see what I mean?

Is the OC reporting?

No one is required to report, they are just required to report accurate if they do report.

Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:41:13 GMT

jbh wrote:
"
There is nothing you can do to stop them from reporting today if they want to."

There is nothing I can do to stop a re-aged 7+ year account (if it's tied to the era I think it is, since it's listed as my account in California and the only one I had was 7+ years ago that wasn't active within the last 7 years)
There was also no dunning. This is a zombie debt that was just plastered on my reports. The DOFD is re-aged because it's TWO + years after I stopped using it. There was no life or activity on it for 2002, 2003, so if they say the DOFD is 2004, then the only way they could be correct is if I carried a positive history from 2000 to 2004.

If there was no dunning letter, then you aren't past your 30 days to DV.

If the DOFD has been re-aged, then you need to send a letter to them and the CRA specifically disputing the "FCRA Complaince Date".

File complaints with the BBB(which you did), your AG, their AG, and the FTC.

If the account remains on your report and continues to report inaccurate, file suit in your local courts.

Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

jbh — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:43:46 GMT

Do you agree that this is re-aging? The DOFD could not be 2004, I (if I even used it) would have last used it in 2001, the latest, and I think I've seen this on my reports a few years ago.

It's a major violation and, let's be honest, Providian would not have an active positive account go 2 + years without posting it. I just wanted to confirm that it would make a valid explanation as to how one can see proof that it's re-aged. If I was positive from 2001-2004, it'd be listed somehow as a positive account. If it was not, the dofd is made-up ( which it is, since I never had Providian the last 7 years)

I'm just scared that these jerks will get away with it. 2004 DOFD makes no logical sense in any way, as it's so far removed from any realistic point. That said, why would anybody truly believe that Providian would not report a cc account if I suppossedly opened it 2000 and went delinquent 3 or 4 years later?

There would be no logical reason for them to do that IF this was how it worked out. Clearly, it is not, but I cannot believe that one would be able to say "No, they would probably have reason to not report years of positive pay history"

Anyway, one of my letters to Experian is to ask them to check their archives, if it is possible.

Re: Smells Like Re-Aging. Thoughts?

jbh — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:45:32 GMT

Thanks, Sidewinder.

Yes, the DOFD is the basis of this complaint and I already submitted with the local B.B.B but I am not sure if they even received it yet (no response to me/no updates). I mail my letter to experian and will send, via mail, the same dispute I faxed over to the CA. While I have confirmation through Efax, it doesn't mean they will read it or take it seriously.

Thanks, guys, for confirming that I'm not past the 30 days. The report says the account opened in their office in "4/2007" so I was worried that I was too late. But since I never heard from them before...