Is this illegal reaging?

[Anonymous]

I read Tuscani's passage on reaging, but I am confused to if this will qualify as illegal reaging.  I recently looked at my experian credit report and saw that Afni-Bloom put two accounts on the report.  Both had differerent account numbers but had the same dollar amount.  Both also represented the same OC, which I only had one outstanding account with.  I quickly disputed both saying they were duplicates, probably a mistake.  Experian deleted the older account which leaves me with an account that has was opened 05/01/2007 instead of 12/01/2005.  The date of last activity seems to be the same as before, but this is a CA not a OC.  Is this reaging and what should I do?

[MidnightVoice]

Until someone intelligent gets here I will venture an opinion.

It is the date of first delinquincy that determines when it will fall off, not the other dats.

[Anonymous]

---

MidnightVoice wrote:

Until someone intelligent gets here I will venture an opinion.

It is the date of first delinquincy that determines when it will fall off, not the other dats.

---

Is that the same as date of last activity?

[MidnightVoice]

NO.  It is the date of the first missed payment that caused the whole process to start

[Anonymous]

The report does not state date of first missed payment.  It does have a different open date for the CA.(They are saying they took on the account in 07 when they actually took it over in 05.)  I thought that when an account is sold to a CA, the process can start over again. 

[MidnightVoice]

---

monro411 wrote:

  I thought that when an account is sold to a CA, the process can start over again. 

---

As far as I know, it is the DOFD, and you should be able to get that from the CA.  However, I will wait the arrival of an expert before saying any more 

[Anonymous]

I am not doubting you, but just want to make sure.  I am ready to go after these people.  BUMP

[Anonymous]

I'll take a stab at it.    The date of which is determined of when it will fall off your CReport is the date of First Deliquency that led to the charge off plus 180 days is from the OC.     The date you see from the CA could just be their reporting date and has no bearing of it's fall off date.    Once the OC date falls off the CA must follow and if not then yes it's illegal re-aging.

[Anonymous]

Boswd wrote:

I'll take a stab at it.    The date of which is determined of when it will fall off your CReport is the date of First Deliquency that led to the charge off plus 180 days is from the OC.     The date you see from the CA could just be their reporting date and has no bearing of it's fall off date.    Once the OC date falls off the CA must follow and if not then yes it's illegal re-aging.

The reporting date is clearly stated on the report.  You are saying that even if a CA takes over an account from the OC one month before it is to fall off, they must follow the same path as the OC and their account must fall off or be deleted at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Yes that is correct.