Collections falling off question?

[Jj1219]

I have several HUGE problems with NCT/AES on my credit report.  There are like 8 different ones.  They are the ONLY bad thing reporting and its making my score horrible.  Shouldn't they have fallen off by now?  If not, when?  I'm confused because I thought it was 7 years.  Thanks!  It reports as the following:

Closed                                                                                                                              AES/NCT                                                     (800) 233-0557
Account Name:	AES/NCT	No match found.	No match found.
Account #:	697393348PA0XXXX
Payment Status:	Claim filed with government for insured portion of balance on loan
Account Type:	Installment Loan
Balance: Show Detail	-
Date Open:	11/01/2005
Last Updated:	12/01/2007
Account Status:	Closed
Terms:	230 Months
Phone #:	(800) 233-0557
Address:	1200 N 7TH ST
Ownership:
Original Creditor:	-
Company Sold-to:	-
Credit Limit:	-
Monthly Payment:	-
Past Due Amount:	$829
High Balance:	-
Balloon Payment:	-
Comments:	-

[Beasley12]

Yes collections are supposed to fall off after the seven year mark. You need to find out the date of first deliquency. The date first opened may not be it. Order your free yearly report from annualcreditreport.com and it will give you the date that the collection will fall off.

[Mike_B03]

As pointed out, the 7 years starts on the date of your first missed payment. Looks like you opened the account  11/01/05, but what was the date that you missed your first payment?

[DaBears]

It's 7.5 years before a collection will fall off.

[Mike_B03]

---

@DaBears wrote:

It's 7.5 years before a collection will fall off.

---

I think that's the official rule but in my experience they fall off even before the 7 year mark, usually about 2 months before hitting 7 years.

[Anonymous]

YMMV as to when they will come off.  But, they can stay for 7.5 years from the DoFD.  And it depends on the CRA.

Is this a CA reporting or the OC?

[Anonymous]

If its a duplicate situation in which they are reporting it multiple times you can dispute the duplicates with the CRA.

Also yes the law states 7.5 years BUT it used to be a hard 7 years.  If in fact you have a debt which went delinquent under the 7 year rule, you can force its removal at 7 years instead of 7.5  Most of those however are off by now.

7.5 is the CRA liability line.  They typically remove closer to 7 years to give themselves room to avoid liability for misreporting.   Its a pretty big deal when someone disputes a baddie and the CRA leaves it on past the 7.5 cap anyway. (Provided its not BK or something longer)

A lot of times the first date of delinquency is earlier than what they chose to record on your credit file.  If you have a bill showing delinquency prior to the date on the current CRA file, you can may be able to get the first date fo delinquency changed as well. 

Good luck.

[RobertEG]

As I understand the question, it is when continued showing of a collection becomes a violation of the FCRA, not when it might administratively be excluded by a CRA.

Collections must be excluded after 7 years plus 180 days from the DOFD on the OC account.

There is no procedure for compelling exclusion 7 years from DOFD.

Debt collectors are required to report the DOFD to the CRA within 90 days after reporting their collection.

The CRA can only rely on the reported DOFD to calculate the max statutory exclusion date.

There are two possible violations of the FCRA if a collection still shows after it statutory exclusion date.

The first is that the debt collector reported the incorrect DOFD.  The procedures for debt collectors obtaining and reporting  a DOFD are set forth in FCRA 623(a)(5).

After one obtains the actual DOFD reported and finds it to be incorrect, the debt collector is at fault for violation of section 623(a)(5).  The accuracy of their reporting can then be disputed, either using the direct dispute process or by sending the dispute to the CRA.

The second possibility is that the debt collector reported the correct DOFD, but the CRA has violated section 605(a)(4) and 605(c) by continuting to post in the consumer's credit report after its statutory exclusion date.  Not the usual scenario, as the CRAs appear to be diligent in montoring reported DOFDs.  

The culprit for continued CR inclusion would then the CRA, and not the debt collector.  Thus, a direct dispute to the debt collector or a dispute to the CRA as to the accuracy of their reporting would not be appropriate.

Remedy would be by way of complaint to the CRA for their violation of the statutory exclusion requirement of sections 605(a)(4) and 605(c).

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

As I understand the question, it is when continued showing of a collection becomes a violation of the FCRA, not when it might administratively be excluded by a CRA.

Collections must be excluded after 7 years plus 180 days from the DOFD on the OC account.

There is no procedure for compelling exclusion 7 years from DOFD.

Debt collectors are required to report the DOFD to the CRA within 90 days after reporting their collection.

The CRA can only rely on the reported DOFD to calculate the max statutory exclusion date.

There are two possible violations of the FCRA if a collection still shows after it statutory exclusion date.

The first is that the debt collector reported the incorrect DOFD.  The procedures for debt collectors obtaining and reporting  a DOFD are set forth in FCRA 623(a)(5).

After one obtains the actual DOFD reported and finds it to be incorrect, the debt collector is at fault for violation of section 623(a)(5).  The accuracy of their reporting can then be disputed, either using the direct dispute process or by sending the dispute to the CRA.

The second possibility is that the debt collector reported the correct DOFD, but the CRA has violated section 605(a)(4) and 605(c) by continuting to post in the consumer's credit report after its statutory exclusion date.  Not the usual scenario, as the CRAs appear to be diligent in montoring reported DOFDs.  

The culprit for continued CR inclusion would then the CRA, and not the debt collector.  Thus, a direct dispute to the debt collector or a dispute to the CRA as to the accuracy of their reporting would not be appropriate.

Remedy would be by way of complaint to the CRA for their violation of the statutory exclusion requirement of sections 605(a)(4) and 605(c).

---

Aye.  You stated much more effectively what I was trying to convey. 

Making the right appeal to the right entity is key.