OC Will Not Investigate - Where Do I Go From Here?

[adamseve]

I've got several IIB accounts from OCs that have the BK date as the DOFD. In my case, the DOFD was well before the filing date of our BK. So, I'm trying my darndest to get this corrected.

I've taken a look at prior CR and the DOFD is definitely wrong, but no matter how many times I've disputed with the CRAs along with DV/OC investigation requeststhese things never change. Now, TU has given me the 'frivolous' label on one of the accounts to which I promptly submitted an MOV. Second, EX is giving me the 'previously investigated' crap.

I'm sending the OCs a 2nd letter to let them know they're reporting inaccurate information. If they don't respond or nothing changes what should be my next moves:

1. File FTC complaint on OCs
2. File complaint with AG & BBB on OCs
3. ITS to each of the CRAs with a copy to their legal counsel & RA

I am prepared to go to court so the ITS letters will not be a bluff.

Anything else I should be doing? Any suggestions on how to get these things corrected and/or removed, with removal being the best option.

Message Edited by adamseve on 08-04-2008 12:24 AM

[Anonymous]

---

1. File FTC complaint on OCs
2. File complaint with AG & BBB on OCs
3. ITS to each of the CRAs with a copy to their legal counsel & RA

I am prepared to go to court so the ITS letters will not be a bluff.

Anything else I should be doing? Any suggestions on how to get these things corrected and/or removed, with removal being the best option.

---

JMHO, but I wouldn't give them a second courtesy letter, I would file the AG, BBB and FTC complaints, print them out and include them with a big fat ITS.  If you send them yet another courtesy letter, you're simply prolonging the agony and, quite possibly, wasting ink, paper, stamps, envelopes and, most of all, time.  You've sent them one courtesy letter and if they can't read, why should that be your problem? 

[Anonymous]

Accounts included in BK will remain for 7 years from the date they were reported as being included in BK. This could be the reason for the DOFD being different.

I've never experienced this situation, so I could be wrong.

I can move your thread over to the BK forum or you can ask over there if accounts that were already delinquent will have a new DOFD once included in BK.

Let me know if you'd like me to move it.

[adamseve]

---

sidewinder wrote:

Accounts included in BK will remain for 7 years from the date they were reported as being included in BK. This could be the reason for the DOFD being different.

I've never experienced this situation, so I could be wrong.

I can move your thread over to the BK forum or you can ask over there if accounts that were already delinquent will have a new DOFD once included in BK.

Let me know if you'd like me to move it.

---

Please do move it as I want to know for sure how this is done.  From everything I've read on the FTC site the DOFD is what triggered the final outcome, i.e., chargeoff, bk, reposession, etc.

I even took a look at the PDF that tells information furnishers what they're supposed to do and how.  The examples all show what preceded the negative entry.

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Sidewinder - you sure about this?   Everything we have seen says the negative TL falls off the CR 7 years from DOFD, regardless of when that is or what happens next.

In the OP's case, let's say the DOFD was Jan 08 but he filed the BK in May 08.   The TL would fall off 7 years from Jan 08, or Jan 2015 - NOT May 2015 as you suggest.

I myself filed a BK in Jul 07, and had a mtg that I stopped paying in Feb 07.  On my EX and TU reports, it says that the TL is scheduled to stay on my file until Feb 2014.

My answer is this:   Leave the DOFD alone.  If it is OLDER than your BK, then it will fall off your report that much faster.   Your "last delinquency" for FICO scoring purposes will be the month you filed the BK in.   There should be NO items with delinquency dates AFTER you filed the BK.  Dispute those if that is the case.

[Anonymous]

DOFD does not matter in a BK. It's the DOA, or Date Of Adjudication, that matters.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcrajump.shtm

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcradoc.pdf

§ 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports

[15 U.S.C. §1681c]

(a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b)

of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing

any of the following items of information:

(1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the

date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be,

antedate the report by more than 10 years.

[adamseve]

---

Noah_Bodie wrote:

DOFD does not matter in a BK. It's the DOA, or Date Of Adjudication, that matters.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcrajump.shtm

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcradoc.pdf

§ 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports

[15 U.S.C. §1681c]

(a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b)

of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing

any of the following items of information:

(1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the

date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be,

antedate the report by more than 10 years.

---

What exactly does this mean?

[adamseve]

---

Noah_Bodie wrote:

DOFD does not matter in a BK. It's the DOA, or Date Of Adjudication, that matters.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcrajump.shtm

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcradoc.pdf

§ 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports

[15 U.S.C. §1681c]

(a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b)

of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing

any of the following items of information:

(1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the

date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be,

antedate the report by more than 10 years.

---

I can see how this would make sense with the actual BK, but not the IIB accounts if they were delinquent prior to the filing and were never caught up which was my case.  The BK didn't case the delinquency...the delinquency caused the BK.

Moderators please.

[Anonymous]

---

adamseve wrote:

I can see how this would make sense with the actual BK, but not the IIB accounts if they were delinquent prior to the filing and were never caught up which was my case.  The BK didn't case the delinquency...the delinquency caused the BK.

---

What dates are you ready to go to court over, because it does not sound like anything is reporting incorrectly.

What date or dates do you believe are wrong? What are they? What do believe they should be?

[adamseve]

---

Noah_Bodie wrote:

---

adamseve wrote:

I can see how this would make sense with the actual BK, but not the IIB accounts if they were delinquent prior to the filing and were never caught up which was my case.  The BK didn't case the delinquency...the delinquency caused the BK.

---

What dates are you ready to go to court over, because it does not sound like anything is reporting incorrectly.

What date or dates do you believe are wrong? What are they? What do believe they should be?

---

For example, one IIB account went delinquent and stayed that way prior to the BK in 6/03.  So, if we filed in 9/04 this account would fall off 1 year sooner if the DOFD is used instead of the filing date of the BK.  Am I making any sense?