topic Capital One Re-Aged Account with Conflicting History (Resolved and Removed!) in Rebuilding Your Credit

Capital One Re-Aged Account with Conflicting History (Resolved and Removed!)

Zolomon — Sun, 02 Sep 2018 03:19:57 GMT

By the image shown below, would you call this a clear cut case of re-aging by the creditor?

My last payment made to this Capital One card was back in November 2009. It was subsequently closed. The DOFD should probably have been December 2009, but somehow a closed account went deliquent again in January 2013. What's interesting is while this deliquency has fallen off Equifax and Experian on their own, TransUnion can't seem to figure this out even after I submitted a formal dispute laying out the facts. How can they verify something with conflicting data? Last payment November 2009, but first deliquency in 2013 - really TransUnion?

My question is this. Do I have grounds to file a law suit against both Capital One for re-aging and TransUnion for reporting old negative/conflicting history? FCRA says each violation is $1000. Am I about to win a cool 2 grand?

Update (September 1st 2018): Transunion has agreed to remove the account from my report. Long story short, this account wasn't even the one I thought it was. I mixed this account up with another Capital One account that had already been removed months ago. This account was just reporting erroneous information and it is now resolved.

Re-Aging Reporting as Accurate

Re: Capital One Re-Aged Account with Conflicting History

RobertEG — Sun, 29 Jul 2018 08:22:26 GMT

It is difficult to tell from the updated information the true fact pattern on the account.

While the posted payment history profile does not show reported account delinquencies prior to 12/2012, was the account in fact delinquent at that time? Creditors are not required to report delinquency each and every month, and the substantive issue is whether or not the account was actually delinquent for the reported months 01/2013 to 03/2013.

While the post states that a last payment was made in 2009, what is not stated is whether there remained a delinquency after that date that remained unpaid.

If the account was delinquent in the months of 01/2013 to 03/2013, then that is not erroneous reporting.

However, if the account was continually delinquent from some time in 2009 up to the reported delinquencies in 2013, the account would have been delinquent for more than 7 years, and thus the error would be not in the fact of there being a reported delinquency, but rather in the fact that the CRA would be barred under FCRA 605(a)(5) from continuing to show the delinquencies after 7 years from the date the account became delinquent and remained so.

What specifically did you dispute as being the inaccuracy? The fact that more than 7 years has expired since the date of first delinquency?

What documentation did you provide to establish that the account was delinquent from 2009 up to the delinquency dates in 2013?

The issue is one of what did you speicifically dispute, and whether your dispute established inaccuracy in that reporting or that more than 7 years has expired from the date of first delinquency.

As for suing for having reported inaccurate information, the FCRA explicitly removes from consumers the right to file a private civil action against a creditor for having reported inaccurate information to a CRA. See FCRA 623(c).

Rather, the consumer must first file a dispute with the CRA, and then can sue for lack of reasonable investigation by the furnisher of the dispute. Thus, it is critical to pursuing any legal action what exactly was the inaccuracy that was the subject of your dispute, and thus what the creditor was required to have reasonably investigated.

The creditor clearly verified the accuracy, but the issue is what they verified.

Did the dispute contest the accuracy of the account having been delinquent in the months reported, or did it contest the lack of exclusion of the delinquencies based on expiration of more than 7 years from the date of initial delinquency?

If the account was indeed delinquent and your dispute contested that it was not, then the issue if not one of exclusion based on DOFD, but rather one of accuracy of the debt being delinquent at that time.

More information would be needed to assess what you have disputed, and thus what would be the basis for contesting the reasonableness of their investigation of your dispute.

Re: Capital One Re-Aged Account with Conflicting History

Zolomon — Sun, 29 Jul 2018 14:03:56 GMT

In summary, I disputed the deliquency in 2013 as an error that re-aged the account. When they sold to CITI, they made it seem like the account went delinquent for the first time in January 2013.

I submitted a complaint against both Capital One and TransUnion to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stating my case and presented more documentation (Capital One’s statements from November and December 2009 and TransUnions verified results.)

I’m trying to exhaust every means possible to have this removed before I go to court - if it ever comes down to that. I can show the judge I tried.

Re: Capital One Re-Aged Account with Conflicting History

RobertEG — Sun, 29 Jul 2018 21:58:02 GMT

Updated reporting by a creditor that a debt remains delinquent is proper, and while it effects scoring by extending the reported delinquency period since initial delinquency, that is not considered improper/illegal re-aging. It is simply normal reporting of current status on a delinquent account.

What is commonly referred to as improper or illegal re-aging is the reporting of a new or updated DOFD that is more recent, thus extending the credit report exclusion period of delinquencies or a charge-off that was reported.

The basis for an assertion of improper/illegal re-aging would thus not be the updated reporting of monthly delinquency status, but rather the reporting a new and later DOFD.

Creditors are not even required to report a DOFD to the CRAs unless they have reported a charge-off.

If you did not contest that the account was not delinquent at the time they reported delinquencies in 2013, then that reporting is not inaccurate.

The apparent inaccuracy is on the part of the CRA, who is, absent the explicit reporting of a DOFD, assuming the DOFD is 12/2012 or 1/2013 based on the apparent reporting of the account being in good-standing immediately prior to 12/2012.

If an account is returned to pays as agreed, good standing, then a new DOFD is properly set if/when a new chain of account delinquency is reported.

If your position is that the account became delinquent in 2009 and thereafter remained delinquent up to their later reporting of continued deliquency status in late 2012 to early 2013, the dispute should be that those delinquencies now require exclusion under the provisions of FCRA 605(a)(5) as being more than 7 years after the date of initial delinquency on the account. You would need to show when the account first became delinquent, and that it remained delinquent up to the time of the contested delinquencies.

CRA interpretation of FCRA 605(a)(5) relating to reported delinquencies is that they exclude all delinquencies in the same chain of reported account delinquencies once the first delinquency in the chain reaches 7 years.

Since the creditor has not, and is not required to, separately report the DOFD, then the issue is with the CRA, who is apparently assuming a DOFD based on a new chain of delinquency beginning in 12/2012 or 1/2013. That CRA assumption, based on the reporting history of the creditor, is not in my opinion willfully improper or an unreasonable finding in a dispute, as the reporting suggests that the account was returned to pays as agreed, good standing prior to the new chain of delinquency. Thus, in my opinion, you would not likely prevail in a civil action asserting willful violation of the FCRA.

I would file a new dispute that clearly and explicitly asserts exclusion of the reported delinquencies based on the exclusion provisions of FCRA 605(a)5). If your documentation of continuous delinquency is solid and they still verify no need to exclude, then you have basis for a civil suit.

Re: Capital One Re-Aged Account with Conflicting History

Zolomon — Mon, 30 Jul 2018 00:34:58 GMT

@RobertEG wrote:
If your position is that the account became delinquent in 2009 and thereafter remained delinquent up to their later reporting of continued deliquency status in late 2012 to early 2013, the dispute should be that those delinquencies now require exclusion under the provisions of FCRA 605(a)(5) as being more than 7 years after the date of initial delinquency on the account. You would need to show when the account first became delinquent, and that it remained delinquent up to the time of the contested delinquencies.

@RobertEG wrote:
I would file a new dispute that clearly and explicitly asserts exclusion of the reported delinquencies based on the exclusion provisions of FCRA 605(a)5). If your documentation of continuous delinquency is solid and they still verify no need to exclude, then you have basis for a civil suit.

This is gold! Thank you so much for clearing this up. This is the last item hindering my progress.

Re: Capital One Re-Aged Account with Conflicting History

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Jul 2018 12:32:24 GMT

@Zolomon wrote:
@RobertEG wrote:
If your position is that the account became delinquent in 2009 and thereafter remained delinquent up to their later reporting of continued deliquency status in late 2012 to early 2013, the dispute should be that those delinquencies now require exclusion under the provisions of FCRA 605(a)(5) as being more than 7 years after the date of initial delinquency on the account. You would need to show when the account first became delinquent, and that it remained delinquent up to the time of the contested delinquencies.
@RobertEG wrote:
I would file a new dispute that clearly and explicitly asserts exclusion of the reported delinquencies based on the exclusion provisions of FCRA 605(a)5). If your documentation of continuous delinquency is solid and they still verify no need to exclude, then you have basis for a civil suit.
This is gold! Thank you so much for clearing this up. This is the last item hindering my progress.

Leave it to Robert to lay the facts down.

Re: Capital One Re-Aged Account with Conflicting History

Zolomon — Sun, 02 Sep 2018 03:15:14 GMT

@Zolomon wrote:
By the image shown below, would you call this a clear cut case of re-aging by the creditor?

My last payment made to this Capital One card was back in November 2009. It was subsequently closed. The DOFD should probably have been December 2009, but somehow a closed account went deliquent again in January 2013. What's interesting is while this deliquency has fallen off Equifax and Experian on their own, TransUnion can't seem to figure this out even after I submitted a formal dispute laying out the facts. How can they verify something with conflicting data? Last payment November 2009, but first deliquency in 2013 - really TransUnion?

My question is this. Do I have grounds to file a law suit against both Capital One for re-aging and TransUnion for reporting old negative/conflicting history? FCRA says each violation is $1000. Am I about to win a cool 2 grand?

Re-Aging Reporting as Accurate

Update: Transunion has agreed to remove the account from my report. Long story short, this account wasn't even the one I thought it was. I mixed this account up with another Capital One account that had already been removed months ago. This account was just reporting erroneous information and it is now resolved.