Confused as to why creditor is reporting a seemingly wrong date of first delinquency.

[Anonymous]

Hey everybody, I have an old charge off from Discover credit card on all 3 of my reports. It lists the "dofd" as 01/2009, however looking back at my old records/Discover credit statements it clearly states that my first delinquency happened on December 15th in 2008. Overall, the December statement had a due date of December 15 2008, and I missed it and never payed it. Also my Discover statement billing cycle changed on the 20th of every month. Then I missed another payment for January 15 2009. But if my very first account delinquency was in 12/2008, and my second deliquency was in 01/2009, why are they stating 01/2009 as my dofd, shouldn't it be 12/2008? Since 12/2008 is the month/year that the very first deliquency happened.

[MarineVietVet]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hey everybody, I have an old charge off from Discover credit card on all 3 of my reports. It lists the "dofd" as 01/2009, however looking back at my old records/Discover credit statements it clearly states that my first delinquency happened on December 15th in 2008. Overall, the December statement had a due date of December 15 2008, and I missed it and never payed it. Also my Discover statement billing cycle changed on the 20th of every month. Then I missed another payment for January 15 2009. But if my very first account delinquency was in 12/2008, and my second deliquency was in 01/2009, why are they stating 01/2009 as my dofd, shouldn't it be 12/2008? Since 12/2008 is the month/year that the very first deliquency happened.

---

It looks to me as if the dates are correct.

The due date was 12/15/2008. You were late paying but it would not have been reported until 31 days later making the DoFD 1/2009.

If I'm reading the information correctly.

[Anonymous]

---

@MarineVietVet wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hey everybody, I have an old charge off from Discover credit card on all 3 of my reports. It lists the "dofd" as 01/2009, however looking back at my old records/Discover credit statements it clearly states that my first delinquency happened on December 15th in 2008. Overall, the December statement had a due date of December 15 2008, and I missed it and never payed it. Also my Discover statement billing cycle changed on the 20th of every month. Then I missed another payment for January 15 2009. But if my very first account delinquency was in 12/2008, and my second deliquency was in 01/2009, why are they stating 01/2009 as my dofd, shouldn't it be 12/2008? Since 12/2008 is the month/year that the very first deliquency happened.

---

It looks to me as if the dates are correct.

The due date was 12/15/2008. You were late paying but it would not have been reported until 31 days later making the DoFD 1/2009.

If I'm reading the information correctly.

---

Hey that makes everything clear. So basically even though I missed the payment in December 2008, the dofd would be January 2009, since that is the month/year in which the 30 day delinquency occurred and thus was reported. Thanks a lot.

[MarineVietVet]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@MarineVietVet wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hey everybody, I have an old charge off from Discover credit card on all 3 of my reports. It lists the "dofd" as 01/2009, however looking back at my old records/Discover credit statements it clearly states that my first delinquency happened on December 15th in 2008. Overall, the December statement had a due date of December 15 2008, and I missed it and never payed it. Also my Discover statement billing cycle changed on the 20th of every month. Then I missed another payment for January 15 2009. But if my very first account delinquency was in 12/2008, and my second deliquency was in 01/2009, why are they stating 01/2009 as my dofd, shouldn't it be 12/2008? Since 12/2008 is the month/year that the very first deliquency happened.

---

It looks to me as if the dates are correct.

The due date was 12/15/2008. You were late paying but it would not have been reported until 31 days later making the DoFD 1/2009.

If I'm reading the information correctly.

---

Hey that makes everything clear. So basically even though I missed the payment in December 2008, the dofd would be January 2009, since that is the month/year in which the 30 day delinquency occurred and thus was reported. Thanks a lot.

---

You're very welcome.

It's not often I make myself clear. 

[RobertEG]

Theri reporting is incorrect.

The billing due date sets the date after which,if at least the min payment is not received, the account is in default.

That becomes the DOFD.

A delinquency does not become reportable to a CRA until the delinquency has extended 30 days past the billing due date.

Thus, payment not received by a billing due date of 12/2008 sets a DOFD (and also a date of cause of action, beginning the running of SOL) of 12/2008.

If the delinquency continues for 30 days affter the billing due date, it becomes a reportable 30-late.

Thus, the month of a 39-late is usually 30 days later than the legal DOFD.

Why the creditor reported 1/2009 as the DOFD is most likely their same confusion as the prior response to the OP.

A minor misreporting that can be corrected before the end of the year.

[Revelate]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Theri reporting is incorrect.

The billing due date sets the date after which,if at least the min payment is not received, the account is in default.

That becomes the DOFD.

A delinquency does not become reportable to a CRA until the delinquency has extended 30 days past the billing due date.

Thus, payment not received by a billing due date of 12/2008 sets a DOFD (and also a date of cause of action, beginning the running of SOL) of 12/2008.

If the delinquency continues for 30 days affter the billing due date, it becomes a reportable 30-late.

Thus, the month of a 39-late is usually 30 days later than the legal DOFD.

Why the creditor reported 1/2009 as the DOFD is most likely their same confusion as the prior response to the OP.

A minor misreporting that can be corrected before the end of the year.

---

Didn't know that (I thought the 30+ day notation started the clock too), thanks senor!

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Theri reporting is incorrect.

The billing due date sets the date after which,if at least the min payment is not received, the account is in default.

That becomes the DOFD.

A delinquency does not become reportable to a CRA until the delinquency has extended 30 days past the billing due date.

Thus, payment not received by a billing due date of 12/2008 sets a DOFD (and also a date of cause of action, beginning the running of SOL) of 12/2008.

If the delinquency continues for 30 days affter the billing due date, it becomes a reportable 30-late.

Thus, the month of a 39-late is usually 30 days later than the legal DOFD.

Why the creditor reported 1/2009 as the DOFD is most likely their same confusion as the prior response to the OP.

A minor misreporting that can be corrected before the end of the year.

WOW! Thanks. So the 1/2009 date is truly incorrect, since 12/2008 is the date where the first delinquency happened. I will have to dispute this date (1/2009) among all 3 credit bureaus to have this updated (correctly to 12/2008 for dofd) before the exclusion period, just to make sure everything is accurate. 

---