Convergent Outsourcing Re-Aging recourse. Please help.

[redshoes]

Without going into the whys and wherefores, I went through some hard times a few years ago. Most of the baddies have aged off of my report. But five years ago, I walked away from a mobile-phone contract. Silly in retrospect, but I suspect plenty of us are here due to our own mistakes. Eighteen months ago, the debt was owned by a CA called Pinnacle. On the Equifax report I pulled in the process of renting a house, I noticed they claimed the date of first delinquency was 9/2008, which tracks with what I've confirmed with the mobile phone company. I was planning just to let it age off, despite the fact that it's no hardship for me to pay.

When I pulled EQ and TU this summer (Experian needed further info during the AnnualCreditReport pull and I didn't bother mailing in for my report from them), the Pinnacle debt had been sold to Convergent Outsourcing, who were now reporting a date of first delinquency of 12/2008 on EQ and a date of removal of 11/2015 on TU. It was a slight enough move that I didn't catch it until I got an alert via MyFICO on 10/18/13 noting that I'd just taken a 30-point hit on my EQ FICO score due to a new collection from Convergent. I then looked back at the 10/3 (EQ) and 10/15 (EX and TU) reports I pulled via MyFICO. The 10/3/13 Equifax report didn't show the collection from Convergent, nor did the 10/15/13 report from Experian — both stating that I had *no* collections. I also received an alert from CreditSesame that shows two notices from Convergent via EX. The 10/15 TransUnion report, however, *does* reflect said collection.

When I looked at the MyFiCO alert more closely, it turns out that Convergent re-aged the date of first delinquency to 1/2009 on EQ. I'm disappointed with the amount of info the MyFICO reports give; from now on, I'm going to pull directly through the credit bureaus themselves. I know this re-aging is illegal; Convergent has re-aged the debt twice in under six months — once when they took control of it in 6/2013 and once again this month (10/13).

My question is, what's my most likely outcome? Will it only result in a correction of the date of first delinquency on my reports if I dispute it with the bureaus? Or is this enough ammunition to get it removed? 

[redshoes]

Also note that this debt is past the SOL in the state where I live. Thanks in advance!

[Rkalynsmith]

Me and you are in the same boat. I disputed it once before and got it deleted but it was then sold to Convergent Outsourcing which put it back on my credit report and re-aged the debt. I'm currently deputing it now. T-mobile is a joke of it's self  but anyway I would depute it completely with the credit bureaus. Convergent Outsourcing should be SUED for doing this.  If that doesn't work then i would send a PFD letter if it still in the SOL. Mines isn't so if they don't remove it then a small claims letter will be on the way.

[redshoes]

I'm pretty sure these yokels have been trying to collect at an address I left nearly six years ago — I never received mail from them, or from Pinnacle, the debt's previous owner. I've got enough of a trail that it wouldn't be impossible to track me down at my current address, where I've been for nearly 18 months. And I was at the same address for 4 1/2 years before that. Does that give me any leverage as for incorrectness with the bureaus? I mean, above and beyond the two re-ages the rats have pushed since June of this year?

[redshoes]

Also, keep me posted on how your dispute goes, Rkalynsmith. I'm a noob, but why would you go small claims over PFD if it's past the SOL? Seems like small claims would open up a can of worms that a PFD may solve — though I've heard anecdotally that Convergent's stingy with PFDs. I'd be *happy* to do a PFD and have the means to do so without any pain at this point, I'd just wanna be sure they'd actually go for it.

[Rkalynsmith]

CRA's have nothing to do with re-aging. I would file a complaint with the FTC. I said small claims because the SOL had run out and they should not be reporting it. They can't even sue you for the debt. My depute is only 1 week old I believe but I will let you know the outcome.

[RobertEG]

FCRA 623(a)(5) sets forth the specific requirments to be followed in the reporting of DOFD, so the issue of whether their reporting is inaccurate depends upon whether they complied with that section in obtaining and reporting the DOFD.

The statute recognizes that the source for determination of the DOFD is the creditor under which the delinquency occured.

Steps are outlined for obtaining that date from the OC.

If the OC ever reported on their account, and provided the DOFD to the CRA, that reporting stands as the OC statement of the DOFD, and any debt collector is required to accept and report that same date.  Did the OC ever report a DOFD (which would have been required if they reported a C0)?

If your credit file is devoid of any reporting of the DOFD by the OC , the debt collector is then required to use reasonable procedures to contact the OC, and attempt to get that date.  If the OC provides them a stated DOFD, they must report that date.

The catch-all step is that if the debt collector has made reasonable effort to attempt to get the DOFD, but was unsuccessful, they can make their best estimate, but cannot report a DOFD that is later than the date of referral of the debt for collection by the OC.

Presuming that debt collector 1 followed that procedure, it is presumed that they obtanined that date from the OC.  While just a presumption, it is reasonable, as fi the OC had not provided them a DOFD, they would almost certainly have reported the date they received their collection authority.

So the issue is whether the new debt collector contacted the OC, and the OC was the source of the updated reporting.

Doubtful, but possible.

You can, if you have evidence that they did not recieve the later date by way of contact with the OC, either bring legal action or file a complaint with the CFPB.

You most likely are not privy to whether they made such efforts or whether the OC actually was the source of their reported DOFD.

You could make the presumption that the earlier reporting of DOFD represents the OC's statement to the first debt collector, and maybe the CFPB would buy it, or request the debt collector to make disclosure of whether they obtained the DOFD from the OC.

[redshoes]

Thanks for the info, RobertEG. One question, though. Why would it have disappeared from my Equifax for a month or two, then reappear with a later DOFD? Did Convergent need to pull the file from EQ, then re-submit it with the later DOFD? I mean, the whole thing reeks of fraud, because nobody's that inept, right? It took me about 10 minutes on the phone with the OC to verify DOFD. I'm assuming a CA has protocols in place to do that even faster. I'm also assuming that these bottom-feeders who buy five-year-old debts (past the SOL where I live) that've had no movement on the account in that time don't bother.

Also, I don't know if the mobile phone company ever reported. I don't see it on the file. I think I'm flying a little blind here relying on the MyFICO reports I pulled last week. I need to pull my reports from the CRAs individually and get to disputing them. There are some address screwups on my reports as well. Nowhere that I didn't live, but my old address from the time I had that phone was reported as late as July of this year. I'm pretty sure that has to do with these guys.

[redshoes]

My understanding of the SOL, Rkalynsmith, is that they're free to chase you as long as they want and they're free to keep reporting it to the CRAs up to 7.5 years past DOFD. It's just that past the SOL, they can't sue you. If they're re-aging your debt, however, they're breaking the law. What I don't get is why these guys have re-aged my account a couple of months, then re-aged it again one month further. Even re-aged, the debt is still outside the SOL, so they can't sue. The only thing I can think of is that they're using it as a ploy to get my attention.

[RobertEG]

To be clear, there is nothing improper with a debt collector continuing to report monthly account status to the CRAs.

I "updates" to the extent that it advises others that the debt is still under their actiive collection, and the current amount of the debt.

To the extent that reporting may effect a consumer's score is a FICO scoring issue, not improper reaging.  While debt collectors may use continued reporting as a tactic to update the DOLA, and thus tomaintain collection pressure on a consumer, it is not improper unless the reporting violates some provision of the FCRA.

Improper reaging occurs when the reporting provides inaccurate information that is in violation of a reporting provision of the FCRA, such as reporting a later DOFD that is not in compliance with section 623(a)(5), and thus lengthens the credit report exclusion period.