why does my 7 year count start at the charge off date instead of the date of first delinquency

[fused]

I'm in the following club:

 A collection can report "up to" 7 years, and a CO (OC account) can report "up to" 7.5 years from the DOFD. 06 makes a good point, not all accounts that go bad take a full 180 days to CO.

[Anonymous]

---

@fused wrote:

I'm in the following club:

 A collection can report "up to" 7 years, and a CO (OC account) can report "up to" 7.5 years from the DOFD. 06 makes a good point, not all accounts that go bad take a full 180 days to CO.

---

The legislative history and committee notes show that Congress' intent was to make a date beyond which reporting was not allowed and not to mandate reporting must continue until that date.  Creditors have up to 180 days to remove a bad account from their books and that is reflected in the 180-day period leading up to collections or chargeoff.  Once charged off, you've got 7 years.

Otherwise they would have directly stated accounts drop 7.5 years from date account went delinquent and was never brought current.

[fused]

Notice how I quoted "up to"?

[Anonymous]

---

@fused wrote:

Notice how I quoted "up to"?

---

Of course! 

[MarineVietVet]

As long as it remains respectful I think discussions like this are helpful. It can really open things up and show not only how a person feels about a subject but also why. In my opinion that's more important than an attitude of "Well I'm more correct than you are". None of us have all the answers and none of us are immune to being  wrong at some point. (Except me of course!!!) 

I proudly served my country to give others the right to disagree with me. And to give me the right to disagree with them. 

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 9/09 pulled by lender 802
EQ - 7/06-663, 3/10-800
TU - 8/10-772
You can do the same thing with hard work

[RobertEG]

I refer you to the FTC staff opinion letter titled “Johnson” dated August 31, 1998,  published by the FTC shortly after implementation of FCRA 605(c).

I dont offer my opinion, just the words of the FTC:

“We are not in accord with the contention that the date "when (the creditor) first reported" the chargeoff to the CRA constituted the start of the delinquency. Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) were recently added to the FCRA to correct the ineffectiveness of the previous FCRA, under which the date that started the seven-year period was uncertain or under the control of the creditor.  The legislative history of these provisions makes it clear that they were designed to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from delayed creditor action:

“Current law generally prohibits consumer reporting agencies from including in a consumer report accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years. The Committee is concerned that this seven year limitation is ineffective. In some cases, the ... action occurs months or even years after the commencement of the preceding delinquency. ... Consequently, the consumer report may contain such information even if the delinquency commences more than seven years before the date on which the report is provided to a user.

“The Committee bill specifies that the seven-year period with respect to information concerning a delinquent account charged to profit and loss . . . may begin no more than 180 days after the commencement of the delinquency immediately preceding the ... action.

S. Rept. 104-185, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 39-40 (emphasis added).

“Thus, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- the start of the delinquency -- to begin the obsolescence period (now seven years, plus 180 days).(2) The alternate view stated to you (that the date of reporting controls) is at variance with both the plain language of these amendments, and the intent of Congress in enacting them.

“In sum, we believe that the phrase "commencement of the delinquency that led to the action" in Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) of the FCRA should be construed according to its normal meaning. If a consumer falls behind on an account and never catches up, the delinquency has its "commencement" when the first payment is missed. From that point on, the account is past due and thus delinquent.”

Reference: ftc.gov web page on published opinion letters pertaining to FCRA 605(c).

[MarineVietVet]

Robert, Robert, Robert.

Just as I was trying to calm the waters.  

[RobertEG]

LOL!

I understand, marinevet, and I dont post further on this issue in order to stir the waters.  That is why I offered no personal interpretations of opinions, but referred only to the interpretation of this issue as stated by Congress, in their legislative history, and by the FTC, who is charged with legal administration of the FCRA.

One can have their own statuory interpretations, but interpretations by the ones who passed the law, and by those who administer it, seem to carry the most effect on the stilling of the waters..

But if this issue remains unresolved in the minds of some posters, I think the most authoritative source shouid be interjected into the discussion.

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

LOL!

I understand, marinevet, and I dont post further on this issue in order to stir the waters.  That is why I offered no personal interpretations of opinions, but referred only to the interpretation of this issue as stated by Congress, in their legislative history, and by the FTC, who is charged with legal administration of the FCRA.

One can have their own statuory interpretations, but interpretations by the ones who passed the law, and by those who administer it, seem to carry the most effect on the stilling of the waters..

But if this issue remains unresolved in the minds of some posters, I think the most authoritative source shouid be interjected into the discussion.

---

I seriously doubt you have read the legislative history or the committee reports, but in any event the issue has been addressed by the FTC latest in your quote:

“The Committee bill specifies that the seven-year period with respect to information concerning a delinquent account charged to profit and loss . . . may begin no more than 180 days after the commencement of the delinquency immediately preceding the ... action.  S. Rept. 104-185, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 39-40 (emphasis added).

English is a precise language.  "No more than" does not mean "exactly."  It means 180 days or less.

[RobertEG]

Precisely. 

FCRA 605(a)(4) says it drops at 7 years from an unspecific date. 

That is precisley why FCRA 605(c) was enacted.  To make the date specifc.  But unfortunaly, FCRA 605(c) interjected this 180-day extension period, so still made the date still a bit murky for another half-year.  It is now  7 years from the DOFD, plus an additional,  potential 180-day window before any violation of FCRA 605(a)(4) can be enforced.

FCRA 605(c) gave the CRAs an additional period of not more than 180-days to finally cease all inclusion of a CO or CA in a consmer credit report beyond the 7-year period set forth in FCRA 605(a)(4).

Bottom line is that the DOFD sets the one single, date-certain from which CR deletion must be calculated.  FCRA 605(c) simply says that there is no vioation of further inclusion in a consumer's CR until 7 years, plus 180-days, from that DOFD.  The CRA can delete tomorrow, if they choose.  The only issue is when continued credit credit report inclusion beyond 7 1/2 years becomes a violation of FCRA 605(a)(4), as modified by FCRA 605(c).

That is clearly, in my opinion, 7 1/2 years from the DOFD.  One final date-certain.

(and yes, I have read most of the legislative history of FCRA 605(c).  So has the FTC)