date of last activity vs date of first delinquency

[Anonymous]

I understand now,  I think it was the OC that reported first, then when they sold the debt to a collection agency it changed the date opened, as the collection agency probably  sent me a bill like another one did before and reported me for the date I was delinquent to them,  but from the sounds of it they should only be reporting the date I was delinquent from the OC.

[RobertEG]

No, a debt collector, even if they purchase the debt, cannot establish a new DOFD by billing you, and thus establishing a new chain with a new first delinquency.

Setting and reporting of DOFD is governed by FCRA 605(c) and FCRA 623(a)(5), and works like this.

Once a debt has been charged-off or referred for collection, the DOFD becomes frozen.  FCRA 605(c) states that the delinquency establishing the DOFD is the first delinquency in the chain that "preceded the collection activity...."   Period.

FCRA 623(a)(5) sets the following procedures for reporting of a DOFD by a debt collector, in the following order:

1. They must, if the creditor with which the DOFD occured has previously reported the DOFD on their account to a CRA, report that same date.  Period.

2.  If the creditor under which the DOFD occured has not reported a DOFD, then the debt collector must follow reasonable procedures to contact that creditor and get the DOFD on their account from them.  If they get a DOFD from that creditor, they must report that date.

3.  In the event that a debt collector has followed step 2, and yet was unable to get a date from the creditor, they can report their best knowledge of what the DOFD is, but in no case may they report a DOFD that is later than the date the debt was placed for collection.

If a debt collector EVER reports a DOFD that is later than the date they first received their collection authority, that is an unequivocable violation of the statute.

See FCRA 623(a)(5)(B)(iii).

In your case, since you state that the OC previously reported, the debt collector must report the same DOFD that was reported by the OC.  So they dont even have the hedge of using step 3 to report their later date of collection referral. 

[RobertEG]

No, a debt collector, even if they purchase the debt, cannot establish a new DOFD by billing you, and thus establishing a new chain with a new first delinquency.

Setting and reporting of DOFD is governed by FCRA 605(c) and FCRA 623(a)(5), and works like this.

Once a debt has been charged-off or referred for collection, the DOFD becomes frozen.  FCRA 605(c) states that the delinquency establishing the DOFD is the first delinquency in the chain that "preceded the collection activity...."   Period.

FCRA 623(a)(5) sets the following procedures for reporting of a DOFD by a debt collector, in the following order:

1. They must, if the creditor with which the DOFD occured has previously reported the DOFD on their account to a CRA, report that same date.  Period.

2.  If the creditor under which the DOFD occured has not reported a DOFD, then the debt collector must follow reasonable procedures to contact that creditor and get the DOFD on their account from them.  If they get a DOFD from that creditor, they must report that date.

3.  In the event that a debt collector has followed step 2, and yet was unable to get a date from the creditor, they can report their best knowledge of what the DOFD is, but in no case may they report a DOFD that is later than the date the debt was placed for collection.

If a debt collector EVER reports a DOFD that is later than the date they first received their collection authority, that is an unequivocable violation of the statute.

See FCRA 623(a)(5)(B)(iii).

In your case, since you state that the OC previously reported, the debt collector must report the same DOFD that was reported by the OC.  So they dont even have the hedge of using step 3 to report their later date of collection referral. 

[Anonymous]

I know qwest had reported me in 2010, because in 2010 I was in Idaho falls where the debt is originating from, In 2011 I did not even live in idaho, So I definetly have proof that I did not incur that debt in 2011.  I applied for a loan in may of 2011 and the qwest was the only thing stopping me from getting a loan.  Which the loan officer saw was in aug of 2010, and stated that it was within 12 months so i couldnt qualify.  So now on my report the qwest is not there, and it is a CA that is reporting, but from aug 2011, even if it was a mistake on what year they are reporting from what my options for recourse now?  Can I force them to correct the date on it? or remove the report?

[crunching_numbers]

---

@Booner72 wrote:

Maybe your bank doesn't know how to read credit reports? 

I know my LO didn't - I had paid off those medical collections which updated the dates and she's like "WHAT'S THIS!!!???!!!"

Luckily she believed me when I explained it and the UW obviously knew what was up bc the loan funded.

So you have an old credit report that has an old DOFD and one now that has a new DOFD?  I'd be so mad!

---

That is just scary! How can a loan officer NOT be able to read a CR?  It is what their job is all about. 

[RobertEG]

The date reported by the debt collector is almost assuredly their date of collection, which is only the date they opened their collection activities.

Again, a "date opened" on a collection neither relates to anything pertaining to the OC account nor the date of the adverse item.

Your LO is apparently viewing the reporting of a collection as being a derogatory item in and of itself.  If that is their policy, as narrow minded as it might be, then they are entitled to view it as such.  All you can do is to continue to point out that the supposed "adverse item" occured prior to and separate from the arbitrary date of reporting of collection activities to a CRA.  In the end, I see no violation of any statute, and am unaware of any regulatory provision, that would make their interpretation clearly improper.