Collection Agency Re-aging Debt

[odjohnson3]

I have this collection agecny that purchased a debt on repo'd vehicle. Original creditor was Santander and the collection agency is NCB.

The original creditor (Santander) shows the date of last activity 08/2013 on Equifax. Which is accurate.

On Trans Union it shows 09/2013. Pretty close to accurate

On Experian it shows 12/2015. Obviously Experian is way off.

The Collection Agency (NCB)

Equifax shows a date of last activity 09/2013. Pretty close to accurate

Experian shows 02/2016 and Trans Union shows 05/2019. Both way off.

The statue of limitations is close for reporting and it should fall off next year however, these credit bureaus have verified my dispute for "inaccurate date of last activity."

To try to get help in supporting my claim, I initiated a 623 direct dispute with Santander which was ignored and also a debt validation to NCB which was also ignored. 

Can someone help me with what I can do next?

I thought maybe filing complaints with BBB, Attorney General, and CFBP.  Any other thoughts or suggestions?

Thanks for any help

[vntrsc]

Date of last activity is not the same thing as the date of first delinquency.   The 7-year reporting period is based upon the date of first delinquency.

In regard to debt validation, credit reporting is not an initial communication, so your right to demand validation was not triggered.   

[odjohnson3]

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your help. I stand corrected, I'm actually looking for the date of first delinquency.

And for proof, I was trying to obtain information as noted.

In terms of debt validation, I don't recall receiving a dunning letter from the collection agency...im requesting on those grounds. That didn't work but it was worth a shot lol.

Being that the date of last activity is "inaccurate" and the FRCA states that all credit entries must be complete and accurate, I'd think it still gives me ground for a dispute that has been pretty much ignored.

I could be wrong, what's your take? Do I have any ground to stand on?

[Anonymous]

---

@odjohnson3 wrote:
... I'm actually looking for the date of first delinquency ... what's your take? 

---

DoFD is easily acquired by ordering your free credit reports. Seems to me DoFD would be prior to date of last activity and thus key to getting unfavorable information removed from your accounts. 

Any other activity on this item seems superfluous at this point. 

[RobertEG]

The "date of last activity" is not explicitly reported by the creditor or the debt collector.

DOLA is interpreted by the party who is compiling the credit report you are viewing, and represents their statement of when the information in the report was last updated.  A DOLA could represent any of a myriad of items of information reported by the furnisher, and thus if you contest that a DOLA statement is incorrect, your dispute must identify what the contested item is, and show why it is not accurate.

If the item under dispute is the date of first delinquency (DOFD), then you must show what was actually reported, and that the reporting is inaccurate.

REporting of a DOFD is only required by a creditor if they have reported a charge-off.  See FCRA 623(a)(5).

If you contest the DOFD reported by the creditor, did the creditor actually report a charge-off, and if so, what was the DOFD that they reported?

All debt collectors are required to separately report the DOFD.  The DOFD would not change/update based on when the debt collector last reported activity to the CRA,

It is unclear as to what specifically would be the item of information reported by either the creditor or the debt collector that is the subject of any dispute, complaint to the CFPB, or civil action.

If the date of last activity is merely an update that shows continued delinquency without changing the reported DOFD, that is not re-aging of the reported date of first delinquency that results in improper extension of the credit report exclusion date.

If it is clear that what you have actually disputed in a prior dispute to the CRA is the DOFD, and not some other information that represented a date of some later activity, and the furnisher (creditor or debt collector) has verfied the accuracy, you can either file a complaint with the CFPB or file a civil action contesting the reasonableness of their verification.

You dont obtain the right to file a civil action unless you have first filed a dispute with the CRA that has been verified.  See FCRA 623(c).

Even if you dispute or file a civil action, the outcome will pertain only to correction of the inaccuracy, and wont require deletion of it it can be corrected, and wont require removal of any other accurate reporting or of the entire account.

Can you clearly state exactly what you stated as the reporting inaccuracy in your prior dispute(s)?

[odjohnson3]

Sorry Ive been away for quite some time...

The problem I was having with an account is...

The original creditor listed the account going negative (first missed payment) in 03/2013

It was never paid after that..

It was sold to a collection agency in 06/2015. My concern was the collection agency reporting for an additional 2 years while the original credit would have removed the account after its 7 years. I was worried that the collection agency wouldnt remove the account within the same time frame because it was reporting a different DOLA (date of last activity). Which im coming to understand is completely different from the DOFD (date of first delinquency). 

[RobertEG]

Debt collectors are not the party who excludes their reported collection from your credit report.

Exclusion is imposed on the CRAs, who are responsible for exclusion of reported collections no later than 7 years plus 180 days from the reported DOFD (FCRA605 (c)) , and they usually exclude at 7 years.

To that end, FCRA 623(a)(5) requires debt collectors to separately and explicitly obtain the date of first delinquency on the account of the original creditor, and report that date to the CRA no later than 90 days after reporting of their collection.

The CRA then monitors the time since DOFD, and does the exclusion without any further notice from the debt collector.

[odjohnson3]

Thank you for clearing that up for me