What allows the CRA to change the DOFD and removal date for a TL?

[RobertEG]

The statutory max is 7 yrs plus 180 days.

Most CRAs exclude a few months early.

7 years might be when it becomes excluded.

[LifeSAVERS]

UPDATE: 01/21/2015

Merrick stating DOFD 07/2008

Disputed through CRA DOFD for Merrick - pulled all bank and statements for payments.  Found last payment April 2008 (which brought account current), letter June 2008 from Merrick stating 2 months now due (May and June 2008). August 2008 Merrick Statement showing 4 payments now due (May, June, July, August 2008).

Actual DOFD - May 2008

Filed Dispute with TU early December 2014 - removed TL

Filed Dispute with EX January 2015 - RESULTS: Verified and prior non-reporting of Merrick since May 2012 updated through January 2015 dropping score by making it current delinquent CC. Called EX, agent said would notify OC of my complaint of inaccurate DOFD, but EX will not remove, although per their agent to upload the proof, which I did.  EX stated to call back April 1st and they will remove at first of month.

EX states that 3 months early removal would occur April 2015.  However, if DOFD were corrected to May 2008, fall off date would be April 2015 and 3 months early January 2015.

Why would this knowingly occur...my theory -

Merrick is documenting wrong DOFD - possibly hoping the consumer will still pay if held out longer - need due to mortgage etc. (not in my case)

EX allowing with proof of OC error.  EX gets paid for membership monitoring, thus keeping members by maintaining inaccurate reporting.

[RobertEG]

It appears, at least to me, that at this point all of the discussion about DOFD and credit report exclusion is purely academic, and is no longer relevant to the facts of the account.

The original post stated that the creditor deleted all reported derogs.

That obviated any need to have even reported a DOFD, and any issues of when those derogs would become excluded.

FCRA 605(a) mandates exclusion of adverse items of information reported by the creditor at prescrived times.  It does not require deletion of an OC account based on any time period.

You have, in my opinion, and OC account that is absent the reporting of adverse information, and thus any issues of credit report exclusion are now moot.

The OC account itself is not an adverse item of information that is subject to credit report exclusion.

Deletion of the account would thus come about only if the creditor chose to voluntarily report its deletion to the CRA, OR if the CRA exercised its administrative policy of deletiion of the OC account based on it being closed for approx 10 years.

[LifeSAVERS]

Thank you RobergEG for your reply, however, something appears to be off in what I have made you believe from the above and the actual facts.

The only CRA that removed all derog on this TL is TU.

EX and EQ still maintaint it as negative/derog.

January 2015:

I am currently only dealing with EX and have not begun to tackle EQ on this.

Merrick has reported May, June, July 2008 as NR - without CO and/or 30, 60, 90 day late reflected.

Last payment was April 2008 that brought the account current, with DOFD May 2008.

This account was never paid, closed by creditor in 2007, charged off status Jan 2009 and still has a reported unpaid balance of $967

My whole reason for tackling this is that the original CRA "stated" removal date was April 2015 on both EX and EQ - 7 years after DOFD

By Merrick showing DOFD August 2008 - it now has moved to a removal date of August 2015.

That is the issue and I have filed dispute with EX, sent Merrick statements proving that there was not a payment made after April 2008 and that the DOFD is May 2008.

The 10 year rule would not apply here as the account was closed/charged off with a balance still owing.

To me this was a simple case of the TL was to fall off/be removed April 2015, if EX removes 3 months early than it should be removed January 2015.

Merrick has manipulated the payment/DOFD history to keep this TL open...This is adverse and reported as a derog, and with their updating my report from 2012 to 2015 has caused a large score drop as well.

I hope that clarifies it.

[gdale6]

A direct Section 623 dispute with the creditor may get the results you are after.

[LifeSAVERS]

UPDATE 03/01/2015:

After multiple reinvestigations, phone calls, etc the war has been won!

EX - 2 disputes, 2 reinvestigations - final phone call to Supervisor Merrick TL removed.  Uploaded 2008 statements, 2008 letter from Merrick, and persistance seemed to do the trick.

EQ - 5 disputes, 5 reinvestigations - last phone call beyond frustrating, but EQ reported removed today and score jumped 36 points! "Happy Dance"

gdale6 - Thank you for your suggestion of Section 623! I actually spent a good deal of time yesterday searching and reading the forum information and was ready to begin that process on Monday!

RobertEG - You are my "Credit Guru"!  I read so many educational comments from you yesterday alone from 2010, 2011, and 2012 regarding the changes in disputing and direct disputing (Section 623).  You must have the patience of the saints!  When my frustration reaches peak, I just have to find the topic with your comments and I become more rational! Time is a valuable commodity for us all and the time you have taken to write up all the information on this forum is astounding and I am grateful! THANK YOU!