topic Re: Loan sold to several CAs confused when it will fall off in Rebuilding Your Credit

Loan sold to several CAs confused when it will fall off

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:28:14 GMT

I have an old private student loan that was sold to AES. It says date opened June 2006. It’s on TU as a charge off and states that estimated month of removal is 3/2018. On the colored grid on my TU report it looks like it first went delinquent in May 2011. Is that the date of first delinquency? The remarks state it was sold to another lender again this time in July last year to Sims Associates. Sims is also on my reports. Will Sims come off also in March along with AES? Just a week ago I got a letter from yet another CA called National Recovery Solutions. It states the original creditor was Doral Bank who had sold it to AES then Sims. The letter states that the current creditor is Coronado Student Loan trust whom I’ve nrver heard of. I’m confused what to do and what to expect? This loan has been sold so many times but at this point I don’t think any of them can report to the bureaus since the OC first became delinquent in May 2011 and my report states one of the CAs is coming off next month. Doesn’t that mean all CAs must stop reporting? Including the two most recent ones that got the account in July (Sims) and the one that wrote me last week? Should I call or ignore them? The SOL in IL is ten years for suing so they can still sue me until 2021 so I’m afraid to even call the newest CA!

Re: Loan sold to several CAs confused when it will fall off

RobertEG — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:10:31 GMT

The credit report exclusion period is no later than 7 years plus 180 days from the DOFD for any reported charge-off or collection, regardless of when reported. The exclusion date is thus a date-certain that is independent of how many debt collectors have obtained collection authority, or when any collection was reported.

The CRAs choose, for various reasons, to exclude a bit early, and base their estimated date of exclusion on calculation of 7 years from the reported DOFD, as opposed to the full statutory period of 7 years plus 180 days. However, the CRA does not become in violation until the full 7 years plus 180 day exclusion period has expired, so there is no requirment that they actually exclude by the posted estimated exclusion date. Exclusion of a charge-off and an OC account could thus occur a few months before or after the exclusion of any collection also reported in the debt. However, both must become excluded no later than the full statutory max.

The credit report exclusion provisions of the FCRA are imposed on the CRAs, not on the creditor or debt collector. See FCRA 605(a).

Thus, a creditor or debt collector is not required to "cease reporting" after the credit report exclusion date. The CRA is required to cease inclusion of the information in any (normal) credit report they issue after expiration of the credit report exclusion date.

A debt collector is thus not in violation if they continue reporting after their collection is excluded. It simply will not see the light of day.

Re: Loan sold to several CAs confused when it will fall off

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:18:42 GMT

I’m confused then. As long as the creditor don’t report on my credit reports I don’t care where they report after the seven years. I just care if CRS report it still. Are you saying the debt collectors report elsewhere? If it’s not affecting my ficos why worry?
Also if my TU report states the removal date is 3/2018 do I assume end of March? And if it’s still reported after March do I have a right to dispute it or do I have to wait six additional months for the 7 and a half years ?

Re: Loan sold to several CAs confused when it will fall off

RobertEG — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:30:30 GMT

No, I am not referring to the debt collector reporting elsewhere.

I am only stating that the FCRA does not bar a debt collector from continuing to report their collection to the CRA after expiration of the exclusion period. The "reporting" prohibition applies to the CRA including the collection in any credit report they issue, and not on the debt collector reporting information to the CRA.

As for disputing, you are correct that the CRA is not in violation if they fail to exclude by their estimated date.

They have the full 7 years plus 180 days before they are in violation.

Thus, a dispute is not appropriate until the full 7 plus 180 has passed.

Re: Loan sold to several CAs confused when it will fall off

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:44:50 GMT

Thank you for clarification! You must be in the legal field? If I decided to dispute prior to the extra 180 days would it hurt? Sometimes people get lucky. Just go online, dispute, and poof it’s gone.Do you think I should respond to the letter the most recent CA sent or just ignore them?

Re: Loan sold to several CAs confused when it will fall off

Anonymous — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 00:25:18 GMT

So I went to TU to start an online dispute to request early exclusion of the CA ( Sims Associates) which purchased the account in July 2017. For some reason it is stating a removal date of 2021. The DoFD of the OC was 2011 and OC estimated removal date says next month. Isn’t that 2021 date an error? My understanding was that once OC comes off, then all CAs that bought that debt must also come off. Hoping RobertE chimes in! Thanks

Re: Loan sold to several CAs confused when it will fall off

Anonymous — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 14:53:27 GMT

Bump

Re: Loan sold to several CAs confused when it will fall off

RobertEG — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 05:04:37 GMT

The date of first delinquency on an OC account is usually the same DOFD that also is used to determine exclusion of a collection, but not always.

The exclusion period for monthly delinquencies or for a charge-off that is reported on an OC account is the first delinquency in the chain of delinquency that preceded and included later delinquencies and/or the charge-off.

It is possible that a DOFD used to determine exclusion of derogs on an OC account could be different from that used to determine exclusion of a collection if the account was brought back into a non-delinquency status and then later becomes delinquent again, and that new, later initial delinquency in the new chain then results in a collection reported on the debt.

Thus, the first consideration was wether the account remained continuously delinquent from the original initial date of delinquency, with both the derogs excluded on the OC account and the collection thus both having the same DOFD.

If you can show that the account was continuously delinquent prior to both events, then the reported DOFD should be the same.

You can then file a dispute of the accuracy of the DOFD reported by the debt collection if the DOFD they reported was later than that reported by the creditor under the OC account, cited FCRA 623(a)(5)(B)(i), which permits use of a DOFD reported by an OC under their account if it also applies to the reported collection.