I am not a fin advisor, credit counselor - etc. Never advocate for anyone not to pay their bills.
I just love the data. As such - wanted to ensure what I am stating is clear.
For this one, I hope you agree to disagree.
The DOFD/FCRA Date (in theory - see link below), is the issue I am pointing to, and then where the OP can, elect to request an EE, or whatever other remedies they desire. I am also pointing out that 120 lates, can only ever naturally occur - once.
Kinda like a bday - you only ever turn 1, once.
To the OP - to the benefit of you, even after the 7, 120 stamps, it does not appear that it was Charged off - it was just reported late, closed and then sold. Additionally - the date of removal is using the 60 day time stamp, as the driver for removal.
In the Tradeline listed above - I am not relying on the date that is displayed on the Tradeline for removal.
Rather - I am looking at the data.
Respectfully - there is some inaccurate information on this Tradeline.
I am attaching a screen shot from TU - that displays the natural progression expected, when adverse activities actually occur.
Based on what is reporting - what is the DOFD/FCRA date being used for this Tradeline of the OP?
It cannot be, the 60 day stamp that TU is using to derive 2/22, as the removal should be based on the first Month that the account was reported late, 30 days is missing
- That month - with a 30 day late, is, when?
- If it was 2/2015, it is in fact not reporting.
- Instead - TU's system is using the 60 day stamp.
- If there was a 30 day late, reported in February - the removal Date would be January, and NOT February.
The point of this post was and is to demonstrate the issues, with the data - and where the "ASK" maybe using data, that can be demonstrated as inaccurate.
Again, I agree to disagree - but, the data speaks louder than us both.
Have a great day - be safe, healthy and happy.