There is no "clear" answer, as monthly delinquencies do not have their own, specific and separate subsection under FCRA 605(a) devoted to their exclusion. As a result, the statute is subject to interpretation, which has not been consistent among the CRAs.
In a statutory nutshell, all adverse items of information reported to a CRA are subject to exclusion based on the applicable and relevant subsection of FCRA section 605(a).
Bankruptcies are covered under subsection 605(a)(1), civil judgments under subsection 605(a)(2), and tax liens under subsection 605(a)(3).
Adverse reporting of accounts charged to profit and loss or reported as collections are covered under subsection 605(a)(4).
Any other adverse item of information reported to a CRA is then relegated to the catch-all subsection 605(a)(5), which is where monthly delinquencies fall. There is no separate subsection that details the exclusion of monthly delinquencies.
The catch-all subsection 605(a)(5) simply sets an exclusion period of 7 years, and because it is a generic provision, does not explicitly define the begin date for each of the endless possible "other items of information."
The event that sets the begin date of the 7 year period is thus subject to interpretation based on what is considered to be the "adverse item of information".
One CRA, namely Experian, has published its interpretation on its web page, stating that it considers the begin of the period of delinquency as the date of begin of the 7 year exlcusion period, and thus excludes all monthly delinquencies in a common chain at 7 years from the date of first delinquency in that chain of delinquency.
The other two CRAs have no official, published policy interpretation, and have variously over the years excluded based on date for first delinquency OR have treated each reported level of delinquency as its own, separate adverse item of information, and thus have not exlcuded higher levels of delinquency until each has reached its own period of 7 years from its own month/year of payment history profile.
Only the courts can establish a uniform interpretation of vague statutory language, and to date, there is no precedential case law in any appellate jurisdiction that clearly sets a uniform interpretation within their own appellate jurisdiction, let alone uniformly across all jurisdictions, which would require a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
You can, if a CRA is not excluding based on date of initial delinquency in the chain of delinquency, file a civil action and get it reviwed by the courts, and hopefully get a judgment supporting your interpretation. Otherwise, you have an unclear practice that is subject to individual CRA interpretations of subsection 605(a)(5).
