GW for removing Charge off

[Anonymous]

I was wondering if writing a goodwill request to remove a paid charge off could backfire on me and they could update the charge off as satisfied with a new DOLA?

Has this ever happened?  I recently had the collection removed but the charge off is still showing with a $0 balance sold to another lender status.

Wondering if I should just leave it alone as the DOLA was 12/2005

[Anonymous]

Yes, this could happen.  It is one of the risks involved in asking for GW and not letting sleeping dogs lie, so to speak.

[llecs]

IMO, the chances of FICO reading this as newer are almost nil. Now disputing would very likely cause that to happen. Any danger would come from the OC removing this account causing a drop in history then a drop in score. If it was older than my average age, then I would not touch it. And if this were an old account showing no lates, then I probably wouldn't touch it either.

[RobertEG]

NO!  DOLA is legally meaningless.

The FCRA was specificlly amended back in 1998 to make it very, very clear that the date from which a CO or CA delinquency can be reported does NOT run from any date of subseqnet activity or inactivity on the account.  Under the FCRA, the date of the actual delinquency that led to any CO or CA is the only date that governs when the account may continue to be reported as a delinquency.  It is 7 1/2 years from the date of the delinquency, period.  Subsequent account activity, either on the part of the OC in charging off the debt, or their referall for collection, or any activity on the part of the consumer in making any payments on the account, are not relevant, period.

If they do that, it is illegal.

See FCRA section 605(c)(1).

[Anonymous]

---

RobertEG wrote:

NO!  DOLA is legally meaningless.

The FCRA was specificlly amended back in 1998 to make it very, very clear that the date from which a CO or CA delinquency can be reported does NOT run from any date of subseqnet activity or inactivity on the account.  Under the FCRA, the date of the actual delinquency that led to any CO or CA is the only date that governs when the account may continue to be reported as a delinquency.  It is 7 1/2 years from the date of the delinquency, period.  Subsequent account activity, either on the part of the OC in charging off the debt, or their referall for collection, or any activity on the part of the consumer in making any payments on the account, are not relevant, period.

If they do that, it is illegal.

See FCRA section 605(c)(1).

---

If we were talking about how long a CO has to report, then you would be correct.

I think the question is about whether FICO might see it as a more recent CO when DOLA is updated, and score it accordingly.

[RobertEG]

Cheddar, I agree.  I do not assert that FairIsaac is responsible for compliance with the credit reporting provisions of the FCRA.  The CRAs are.  FairIsaac sells their scoring algorithms to the CRAs, for their use in running their data, and generating a score.  Accuracy and legality of what is used in a credit score resides with the CRAs, and not FICO.

But legality has an ultimate source of challenge.

Dates, for either continued neg reproting in a CR, and thus for FICO scoring, cannot be updated with a DOLA, regardless of the source or scoring of the update.  The FICO algorithms should recognize this.

Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-05-2008 06:45 PM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-05-2008 06:48 PM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-05-2008 06:50 PM

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the replies.  I would say that this Bank has updated my CR twice because they sold the debt to CA and then resold to another CA after I paid it down to $233.

I settled and got the CA to remove their info but my Charge-Off remains with a $0 balance showing sold to another Lender.  I would like to ask the CO to remove via a GW but from what I have experienced anytime they update my scores go down.

I'm at 671 and trying to get to 700.  This seems to be the one thing holding me back