Reaging question

[alienfico]

I'm going to ask this here as well, maybe I'll get more traffic.  I apologize if i'm being redundant but I really need to understand how this re-aging thing works.

Okay here goes:

OC Contract date 2001, unknown DoFD, debt sold to CA#1, then resold to CA#2 

Should CO#1 and CO#2 are reporting, the OC is not reporting.  The debt is well over 11-12 years old, I'm unsure about the DoFD, although I know it had to have been sometime in 2003 or 2004.

Thanks, I have so many questions....I just don't want to stir the pot and then get burned.  BTW  SOL in 4 years in California, according to what I read.

[dursty87]

I answered this question in your other thread.  Contract/Open date has nothing to do with the time in which negative information can remain on your credit report.  This is strictly governed by the original DOFD with the OC that led to the charge off.

Only 1 CA and the OC can report at a time.  Sending a DV to both CA's would normally clear up who has the authority to collect.

If the charge off occured in 2003 or 2004, then this should be excluded from your credit reports.  It appears, from what you have reported in your previous thread, that this is indeed re aging and is highly illegal.  Re aging is when a debt is sold to another CA, and/or reported, even though it is outside the CRTP.

SOL and CRTP are two different things.  The FCRA regulates how long negative information can remain in your credit file (CRTP) which is 7 years + 180 days from the date of first delinquency.  Statute of Limitations is governed by your state, which you stated was California.  The SOL governs how long a creditor has to sue you and win.  They can still try to sue you, you would just insert the SOL and the fact that the debt is time barred as your defense.  Once again, as I stated in your previous thread, it appears from the information you provided that you are outside of the SOL.  California law on CC debt is 4 years.  

[alienfico]

---

@ssondubs wrote:

I answered this question in your other thread.  Contract/Open date has nothing to do with the time in which negative information can remain on your credit report.  This is strictly governed by the original DOFD with the OC that led to the charge off.

Only 1 CA and the OC can report at a time.  Sending a DV to both CA's would normally clear up who has the authority to collect.

If the charge off occured in 2003 or 2004, then this should be excluded from your credit reports.  It appears, from what you have reported in your previous thread, that this is indeed re aging and is highly illegal.  Re aging is when a debt is sold to another CA, and/or reported, even though it is outside the CRTP.

SOL and CRTP are two different things.  The FCRA regulates how long negative information can remain in your credit file (CRTP) which is 7 years + 180 days from the date of first delinquency.  Statute of Limitations is governed by your state, which you stated was California.  The SOL governs how long a creditor has to sue you and win.  They can still try to sue you, you would just insert the SOL and the fact that the debt is time barred as your defense.  Once again, as I stated in your previous thread, it appears from the information you provided that you are outside of the SOL.  California law on CC debt is 4 years.  

---

Sowwwwy! LOL Bear with the newbie, I'm treading in unchartered territory Thanks for the additional clarification.

[dursty87]

No need to apologize  I re-read my post and can see how it could be taken out of context.  Just wanted you to know I had answered your questions in your original post.  Good luck with your letters to the CA's about the re-aging.  Be sure to keep us updated!

[Anonymous]

I dont know if Im in the right place to ask this question but il ask anyways since you sound like your knowledgeable in this area . I have a Tmobile collections account that just showed up on my report a month ago .. on the report it says that the date opened/placed for collection was 2013 and the estimated year of removal is 2015 .. doest that make any sense ? I know its suppose to be 7 years . I dont remember ever opening a tmobile account anywhere near 2013 . The only time I ever had a tmobile account was around 2007 or 2008 . . Could this account be the one from 2007 ? Why would it say that the date it was placed for collections was 2013 ? 

[Anonymous]

Yes, it makes perfect sense. The 2013 date is when the CA bought that 'old' debt. If you had the account in 2008, then 2015 would be the correct timeframe for it to be removed.
If you are within 6 months of the listed removal date, you can request the CRA's to remove it early.

[Anonymous]

Thanks a lot . All those dates they list confuse me . So are the estimated dates of removal usually accurate ?  

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Thanks a lot . All those dates they list confuse me . So are the estimated dates of removal usually accurate ?  

---

Most of the time they are - but some CA are unscrupulous and will illegally re-age an account.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to bother you man one last question .. Do you dispute it to make it drop off if its within 6 moths ? or just sent a letter ?

[Anonymous]

I have not gone through any of that part yet, I I can't relly say - its not really a dispute, you are just asking them to drop it early. I think there are phone numbers you can call. Someone else on here surely knows.