@LaHossBoss okay. I was not arguing the point with you. Simply stated what may only be a, perhaps rare, possibility and accepted your personal experience as a far more common occurrence.
I was not arguing either, sorry you took it that way...I was just giving examples of when I have seen this, personally, but it is definitely possible, and I am sure in different scenarios (negotiated, etc), as I found nothing is entirely impossible in the credit game!
Once a period of no more than 7 years plus 10 days has expired since DOFD, however, FCRA 605(c) mandates that any credit report can no longer include any reference to the fact of the CO.
At that point, depending upon whether or not the account remains delinquent (i.e., the debt is unpaid), the entire account might also become excluded,which would result in a removal of all reporting under the account from scoring.
See, for example, the posted policy of Exp on their web page, which states that an entire account will become excluded at the time of exclusion of a reported CO if the debt remains unpaid. That is based on the separate exclusion provision of FCRA 605(a)(5), which excludes any other adverse information that has also reached 7 years. Continued current delinquency status on an unpaid account raises that exclusion requirement, resulting in need to then remove the entire account, which if retained must show correct current status.
Perhaps the ambiguity allows for the policy of handling paid chargeoffs upon reaching the exclusionary date to be determined by each bureau? It certainly seems like full tradeline deletion should only apply to those that remain unpaid - but that caveat is apparently not expressly stated under FCRA.
@thornback yes I totally understand and agree with Robert's post. There was another thread where he expounded on the topic as well. But a reading of the FCRA says no accounts that were charged to profit and loss shall be included if they antedate the report by more than 7 years. Didn't say no derogatory information, it specifically says no accounts, and continued delinquency status is not referenced.
I also totally understand they are using the other subsection and excluding the CO notation by Experian's interpretation.
However it can be beneficial to consumers. I'm simply curious how the other two bureaus handle it. And I'm also curious why @LaHossBoss 's reacted differently. Curious if there's a difference between loans and revolvers maybe?