question for the experts

[Anonymous]

As I go through my reports I notice on some of my accounts, that the dates of first delinquency are different, generally by one month each.It is usually Experian<Transunion<Equifax. Shouldn't they all be the same? This discrepancy is making it difficult to determine the statute of limitations. Is there a better way to determine the statute of limitations without directly contacting the creditor, if I cannot do so by the credit reports? Thanks in advance for any advice.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

As I go through my reports I notice on some of my accounts, that the dates of first delinquency are different, generally by one month each.It is usually Experian<Transunion<Equifax. Shouldn't they all be the same? This discrepancy is making it difficult to determine the statute of limitations. Is there a better way to determine the statute of limitations without directly contacting the creditor, if I cannot do so by the credit reports? Thanks in advance for any advice.

---

I can't answer your question but as a fellow disabled vet, I feel I should inform you to dispute all of those old accounts even before contacting a creditor, that's what I did and 80% of those accounts were taken off my credit report. The creditor will still try to collect from you even if it is off your report so in that case you write them a letter stating that they can not garnish (file judgement) on anyone recieving SSI/VA Benefits and add that you do not wish to be contacted again (this is a law in California, not sure about other states). When I sent those letters all of those creditors stopped contacting me. If your in a similar situation I highly suggest you do this and I can send you a draft of the letter to write them if you like. 

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

As I go through my reports I notice on some of my accounts, that the dates of first delinquency are different, generally by one month each.It is usually Experian<Transunion<Equifax. Shouldn't they all be the same? This discrepancy is making it difficult to determine the statute of limitations. Is there a better way to determine the statute of limitations without directly contacting the creditor, if I cannot do so by the credit reports? Thanks in advance for any advice.

---

AFAIK, only EQ reports show an actual DoFD. The others show an estimated removal dates - which is just that - "estimated", and may vary within a few months. If you are trying to determine DoFD from monthly payment history, thats not necessarily accurate either as not all the monthly derogs may be reported.

Best option is to call the CRA's and request the OC's reported DoFD on the accounts in question. You may have to pay a fee of $11, but they may just give you the info over the phone.

[Anonymous]

Gadgetmang thank you for your post and your service. I only receive va benefits so far no ssdi yet going to start that next no other income. I was not aware that they could not touch that money. Even the large settlement that the VA recently awarded me? Sure send me the letter any extra advice helps. Thank you again.

[Anonymous]

No problem glad I could help and I got a lump sum also, at first I was scared to place it in the bank but when I asked the bank manager about that garnishment law and he verified it so yes your lump sum is protected too (they have no idea what your amount is) but verify with your bank also.

There are exceptions to this but you get around those since they have to notifiy first before a judement can start which will give you plenty of time to modify your account.

More info on it here: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/askcfpb/1157/can-creditor-garnish-my-social-security-benefits-pay-deb...

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Gadgetmang thank you for your post and your service. I only receive va benefits so far no ssdi yet going to start that next no other income. I was not aware that they could not touch that money. Even the large settlement that the VA recently awarded me? Sure send me the letter any extra advice helps. Thank you again.

---

[Anonymous]

Norman you are absolutely correct about Eq. Let me be a bit more specific as to why I'm confused and provide a little more clarification. On one account for 2011 ex has on my payment history as July 30 days late and never current again. Tr has it start from August and eq from Sept. So it's hard for me to determine the actual sol and dofd.

[Anonymous]

It's actually moot for the account in question because worst case scenario the latest date is September and I'm past the sol being in florida and the statute of limitations here is 5 years. I was just asking more for trying to decipher other accounts going forward because there is more than one account with staggered dates like this and your suggestion to directly question the CRA'S anf pay for the information is probably what I will do in the future. Thank you for the good advice sir. It is appreciated

[RobertEG]

For several reasons, the DOFD used to determine credit report exclusion is required to be separately and explicitly reported to the CRAs, and is not determined based on any payment history profile reporting of 30-lates.  FCRA 623(a)(5) requries the separate reporting of the DOFD directly to the CRA no later than 90 days after reporting of either a charge-off or a collection.

First, the month of a reported 30-late is not the same as the definition of a date of first delinquency.

A delinquency occurs the day the account is late, while a reportable 30-late does not occur for an addtional 30 days.

Second, creditors are not required to report a first 30-late in the actual month in which it occured.  They can delay when they first report a late, and/or decide to wait and first report a 60-day or later late, or never report any monthly delinqquencies prior to reporting of a charge-off.

You need to determine the DOFD that was specifically reported to the CRA, not infer it from a payment history profile or from an estimated exclusion date, in order to contest its accuracy.

[Anonymous]

Robert Thank you very much that is very clear and I appreciate it.