@Trudy wrote:Thank you to all who replied. Queen_Etherea, this is a reply that doesn't state "around". I'm aware "around" but trying to figure out specifically "when".
If a 30 day is removed the 1st of the month or on the date 7 yrs from the "first" deliquency, does that really matter when the same account also has a 60 day? I would think the 60 day is the most impactful and if it takes an addtional month to fall off then the 30 day falling off 30 days prior may be irrelevant from a scoring factor since there can't be a 60 day without a 30 day and a 30 day (from what I've read) has likely lost it's scoring impact based of my example. FICO references # of accounts with deliquency. My FICO report doesn't seem to factor in how many deliquencies unless it's greater than 60 days. Unless it does for scoring purposes?
An additional 30 days to fall off due to the 60 day late is not an issue for me at this time considering my example, which is actual. But from a knowledge base and future reference I'm trying to determine the formula as it may come into play for some and hopefully not me.
I'm aware profiles may vary, but wondering if this specific inquiry have proven hard and fast rules with FICO scoring.
All lates in a consecutive string will fall at the same time when the first one in the string reaches 7 years. So if you had a 30 day late in January 2011 and then a 60 day in February 2011 when January 1st comes around they will both fall. If you had a 30 day in January and then caught up payment and had a 60 day later say June, then each would fall on the first of the month it was late.
There have been quite a few threads on this around. The consensus is that a 30 does not hurt as bad after a couple of years and a 60 still hurts the entire 7, but this was up for discussion as some people think a 60 also stops hurting after time. 90 and above are major delinquencies and kill your score for the entire time. If these are the only two baddies on your account, then you should get a decent bump, but if there are other delinquencies then it may not see as much in score improvement until the last one falls.
So both my 1/2012 (30d) and 2/2012 (60d) will fall off on 1/1/2019. Thank you @dynamicvb for the clarification.
I will try to find one of those thread or just post here when I receive my next FICO quarterly report on 1/9/19 and provide whether I see a change in score due to the removal of my 60 day. This will leave me with one 30 day late dated 12/2012.
@Trudy wrote:@Anonymous both my 1/2012 (30d) and 2/2012 (60d) will fall off on 1/1/2019. Thank you @dynamicvb for the clarification.
I will try to find one of those thread or just post here when I receive my next FICO quarterly report on 1/9/19 and provide whether I see a change in score due to the removal of my 60 day. This will leave me with one 30 day late dated 12/2012.
Call TransUnion and ask to speak with a US based supervisor. Then ask them for an EE of the late payments. Mine was granted 6 months early. Then call Experian and ask for the same thing. Equifax automatically deletes them 1 month ahead. So they should be off your EQ report by the 1st of Decemeber. This is just my experience and obviously, YMMV.
Well the fact of the matter is lates do fall off around 7 years: I had some taken off my tradeline slightly early 1-2 months ahead (and all prior payment history too) as recent as last year.
The bureaus exclude them slightly early (sometimes) from the dataset and actually they are not consistent as to how early or when, and the rational reason that it doesn't matter at 6 years 11 months vs. 7 years vs. 7 years 1 month, other than the last case gets them in potential trouble so they likely just err on the side of caution.
I also had a string of lates, X / 30 / 60, get lopped in half a few months early where the payment history was just a 60D.
It's not as easy unfortunately as saying DOFD and going, that's true for collections but it's not true for deliquencies necessarily... and the bureau data handling is all wonky anyway. That all said, other than prepping for a mortgage I'm not aware of any other time-dependent application where a month here or there would honestly matter.
Thanks Revelate
I think knowing the DOFD applies to collections is a factor that confused me with lates. I am aware of the early removals and time lines for all 3. But since it's not guaranteed for all I was lookling to clarify the rule.
Regarding requesting early exclusions I tried this with EX in the past and was told since the late was verified and the account was still open it could not be granted. Maybe it was just their response for me. I've since decided to just wait it out since my scores are decent and not looking for credit. Although it would be nice to have a clean file.
Again, thank you all for providing some insight. I think I've got it now.
@Trudy wrote:Thanks Revelate
I think knowing the DOFD applies to collections is a factor that confused me with lates. I am aware of the early removals and time lines for all 3. But since it's not guaranteed for all I was lookling to clarify the rule.
Regarding requesting early exclusions I tried this with EX in the past and was told since the late was verified and the account was still open it could not be granted. Maybe it was just their response for me. I've since decided to just wait it out since my scores are decent and not looking for credit. Although it would be nice to have a clean file.
Again, thank you all for providing some insight. I think I've got it now.
I haven't personally tried, but from what I've read on the forums lates do not qualify for EE's only entire tradelines. If all you have is lates on these accounts and everything else is good, paid as agreed and a zero balance if its closed, then it would likely be better for your scores if they did not take off the entire tradeline which may reduce your average age or your oldest account, if this happens to be the case. So its better for your scores long term to just let the lates fall off and the account show as positive.