Is it possible to request a closed account to stay on CR longer than 10 years?

[elim]

---

@StartingOver10 wrote:

Shhhsh...don't say anything, but I have one that has been reporting since 1998. However, most delete after 10 years. Lost a bunch recently due to the 10 year mark (10 years after closing and/or refinancing).  It is a shame because I think it skews the credit history IMO.

---

   I have a 7 and 8 year gap that is about to remove the rest of my positive accounts and beat up my scores.  eh, we'll see.

[Anonymous]

I also have one that has been reporting since 1998!  Funny.

The strange thing about this is that there is no logic to it.  Surely whatever delete at year 10 policy that a CRA might have has to be computerized, right?  I.e. some program running on the back end that combs through the CRA database, identifies 10-year-old closed accounts, and deletes them.  I can imagine how such a program might not run every night.  For example maybe the CRA might only run it once a month.  So one see how a particular account might get deleted up to a couple months late.  (This can happen with two-year old inquiries, I believe.)

But computers don't accidentally overlook things, like a human does.  If an account has a value for the date closed field, and that date was 3650+ days ago, then it should be a candidate for deletion.  If not this month, then the next time the deletion program gets run.

Why would it be that some accounts stay on your report for years and years after that, even with a glaringly clear "date closed"?

[Thomas_Thumb]

Welcome to the new year.

Multiple people have reported closed accounts staying on reports well after 10 years. Clearly, a 10 year purge is not built into closed accounts.

Strongly suspect the card issuer is the trigger. If they stop reporting a closed account, it gets removed from the CRA files. Cap One did that to me on a BB charge card that was closed 6 years ago. They were reporting my CL as $300 when it was $5000. After sending them documentation on the CL, they decided to stop reporting the card to the CRAs (as opposed to correcting my CL) and "poof" card was gone from all CRA files. They did send me an "after the fact" letter saying the account was being removed.

In general, the lenders/issuers appear to control the shots - not the CBs. I don't recall seeing a specific mandate on a minimum of 7 years or a maximum of 10 years for closed accounts on file. If there is, evidence indicates it is not a hard rule.

[Anonymous]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

Welcome to the new year.

Multiple people have reported closed accounts staying on reports well after 10 years. Clearly, a 10 year purge is not built into closed accounts.

Strongly suspect the card issuer is the trigger. If they stop reporting a closed account, it gets removed from the CRA files. Cap One did that to me on a BB charge card that was closed 6 years ago. They were reporting my CL as $300 when it was $5000. After sending them documentation on the CL, they decided to stop reporting the card to the CRAs (as opposed to correcting my CL) and "poof" card was gone from all CRA files. They did send me an "after the fact" letter saying the account was being removed.

In general, the lenders/issuers appear to control the shots - not the CBs. I don't recall seeing a specific mandate on a minimum of 7 years or a maximum of 10 years for closed accounts on file. If there is, evidence indicates it is not a hard rule.

---

There just doesn't seem to be any good theory that explains it.  Your idea seemed great to me, but I glanced over a credit report from earlier this year a few minutes ago, and one of my closed accounts indicated a Date Last Reported of Dec 2013.  So the hypothesis that, if a creditor stops reporting an account, then it will vanish from your report -- that doesn't seem to hold either.

The particular case you gave (Cap One) may be explicable on the ground that they deliberately deleted it, rather than merely took a passive action of ceasing to report it.  In other words, a customer making a reasonable request that they do the right thing irritated them, and since the account was no longer open they just deleted it.

On the other hand, I freely admit to having no explanation that covers the facts either.  It's a mystery I'd love to see solved. 

[Thomas_Thumb]

Agree - The date last reported is not a trigger. The issuer must actively remove the account. If they choose to be lax and let things go past 10 years ... well.

In my case, the issuer actually deleted the closed BB account after only 6 years. So as mentioned, the issuer was in control.

On an unrelated matter, I have a hard inquiry (unauthorized) from PenFed that showed up on my EQ report in late November. I filed a dispute with EQ and they informed me there is nothing they can do. They said I would need to work with Pentagon to get it removed. Another case in point of lenders controlling the situation.

PenFed has verbally admitted to an error on their part - I am not even a PenFed member, but the issue is still open. Really not a critical issue for me but it is bothersome.

[Anonymous]

So it is not the act of a creditor stopping the reporting of an account that causes it to be removed (a passive act) rather it is the creditor actively removing it.  And only that will cause it to be removed.

The puzzling thing with that theory is the fact that almost every creditor "chooses" to actively reach out and remove almost every account at year ten.  If it is completely at the whim of each individual creditor, shouldn't we see some variation between creditors?  E.g. Amex tends to remove theirs at year 9, Citi at year 6, Quicken loans at year 12, Alliant at year 14, Chase at year 8, etc? 

It's interesting how the conversation has changed in speculation in the last few hours.  Just a short while ago we were thinking that the Removal At Year Ten was driven primarily by the CRAs and their need for low cost database storage -- now it is a decision completely outside of the hands of the CRAs and totally run by each individual creditor.  If anything that reveals how confusing the facts on the ground actually are, and the difficulty of finding any coherent and systematic explanation for what is actually going on.

[Thomas_Thumb]

I would not take things to such an either/or extreme regarding CRAs vs creditors.

I would more conservatively say CRAs may remove accounts after 10 year timeframe on their own accord. However, data suggests there is no dictate requiring the account be deleted. Converesly, if a creditor deletes an account, then it must be removed from the CRA reports.

[Anonymous]

Hi TT!   I am just trying to understand what you are suggesting is the mechanism for the deletion of closed accounts in good standing, the deletion of accounts that happens much of the time (but not always) at 10 years. 

There's no question that creditors can delete earlier if they go out of their way to do that.  We are all agreed about that.  It's rare, and it surprises and upsets people when they do this, but it can happen,

What I have been asking about is what causes the much more common deletion of closed accounts at year (roughly) year 10.

You first said that you were sure that there was nothing on the CRA's end that deletes closed accounts.  ("Clearly, a 10 year purge is not built into closed accounts.")  Do you still think this is true?

You followed that up by the suggestion that what does cause the deletion is if a creditor stops reporting an account.  (I.e. stops regularly sending updates to the CRA.)  I thought that was a good idea, but then I checked my creditt report and I saw at least one account where the Date Last Reported was a long while back.  And yet it was still on my report.  Thus, I explained, the passive act of non-reporting could not be the thing that causes the account to be removed.

You then suggested that maybe it was not the passive act of non-reporting, but that it must be that creditors actively reach into the CRA and delete the closed account -- that THIS accounts for all the accounts falling off at (roughly) ten years. 

But if so, I am suggesting that this would be strange -- why would all the creditors have the same policy of removing the closed record at exactly the same time?

You may be changing course and thinking now that there is some kind of CRA driven action that happens at year ten to explain the common deletion of accounts at that time.

But if so, then we are back to my original question: which is why does this CRA-driven deletion routine delete some accounts at year ten but not others?  Accounts that are clearly well over ten years old?  (I.e. have a clear DATE CLOSED that is well over ten years in the past.)

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hi TT!   I am just trying to understand what you are suggesting is the mechanism for the deletion of closed accounts in good standing, the deletion of accounts that happens much of the time (but not always) at 10 years. 

There's no question that creditors can delete earlier if they go out of their way to do that.  We are all agreed about that.  It's rare, and it surprises and upsets people when they do this, but it can happen,

What I have been asking about is what causes the much more common deletion of closed accounts at year (roughly) year 10.

But if so, then we are back to my original question: which is why does this CRA-driven deletion routine delete some accounts at year ten but not others?  Accounts that are clearly well over ten years old?  (I.e. have a clear DATE CLOSED that is well over ten years in the past.)

---

CGID,

Some of what you have re-stated does not match with my thoughts. So, let me re-state my thinking on the topic:

1. The CRAs must maintain closed accounts on file for 7 to 10 years unless instructed to remove them by the creditor. Usually date last reported is the same as date of closure.
2. A creditor (card issuer) can instruct CRAs to remove closed accounts from reports well before 7 years. Not sure minimum age for this. Account holder is notified
   1. The removed account could be closed in good standing or have negative information
3. The CRAs likely have self-cleaning algorithms that remove old closed accounts after a defined time as allowed by regulation if the account is coded for automatic deletion.
4. Quite a few posters have stated they have closed accounts still on reports that were closed more than 10 years ago.
   1. If these accounts show up on all three CRAs, then it appears the authorization code for automatic, time based, deletion likely comes from the creditor.
   2. If the account only remains on one CRA, then perhaps the CRAs do the coding and one CRA made a coding error.

Maintaining closed accounts on file does have an associated cost. Although minimum requirements exist for CRA reports as a default, poster data argues against a mandated maximum. The CRAs likely have a mutually agreed upon protocol for records retention/deletion beyond regulated minimums.

I suspect the creditor supplies a code to the CRAs authorizing automated account deletion.

[Anonymous]

Hi TT.  Great!  Sounds like we are making some progress.

It sounds like you believe:

(3) The CRAs likely have self-cleaning algorithms that remove old closed accounts after a defined time as allowed by regulation if the account is coded for automatic deletion.

You can probably see why I thought you believed that the CRAs did NOT have such self-cleaning algorithms.  It's because you said earlier "Clearly, a 10 year purge is not built into closed accounts" and then, in describing your ideas in subsequent posts, did not in any way mention the possibility of automated self-cleaning algorithms run by the CRAs (but rather emphasized the sole role of the creditor in causing an account to be removed).

But we are now clear that you think that such algorithms exist on the CRA database backend and are the chief cause of the removal of 10+ year old accounts.  (In what follows I am again solely interested in the phenomenon of closed positive accounts falling off one's report at roughly ten years or perhaps a bit later.  I am not talking about a creditor taking deliberate action to remove a closed positive account before then, e.g. at year 5.)

I am curious in exploring your ideas further.  You always have interesting hypotheses about pretty much anything.  It sounds like you think there is some kind of field embedded in each record at each CRA.  The field is not visible on credit reports to consumers, but it presumably can be seen by staff inside the CRA and (possibly) by the creditor.  The field permits someone (creditor?  CRA staff member?  CRA automated system?) to mark a closed positive account as a candidate for later deletion assuming that it reaches year 10.  You call this "coding" an account for deletion.

First, do I understand you right?  You think that such a field exists (and that it is a field distinct from the Date Closed field)?

Second, am I understanding you right that the act of "coding" it for deletion typically happens (you believe) well before year 10?  If so, when do you guess that the coding occurs?  For example do you guess that the coding usually occurs roughly around the time that an account closes?  In that event, the account is coded for later deletion and then the Date Closed field is used later to activate the final deletion -- right?  Or does the act of "coding" it for deletion in your view cause it to be deleted immediately or soon thereafter?  (In which case the "coding" would occur typically happen just before year 10.

I have some more questions -- but it probably makes sense to stop there, jsut so I can make sure I am understanding you right.