Yup, but you might wanna make sure and wait for another member here to confirm it as I am not very confident. Better yet, why don't you contact the Lending Tree guys because they can assist you better...

Good show Butch..

Still doesn't change much of anything for those such as myself who claim that the clock starts on the day of delinquency and extends for 7 years plus 180 days. The reason that claim is valid is that although it is of great importance to know what is actually right and what is actually wrong what it really boils down to is not which of us is either right or wrong but whether or not that bill collector has committed a grevious error..

In most cases in which that becomes an issue (rather rare actually) there can be little doubt about the matter as the reaging is so obvious that the perp has no defense against the charge..

To make the issue even more untenable for him, his letters usually indicate clearly enough that it was his deliberate intent to reage the debt thusly imposing a greater period of suffering upon the debtor than was intended by law..

Another very important point I would like to bring out that is obviously far too often lost in these discussions is that it is not relevant who puts out the best arguments against the other fellow's posts that is of importance but rather the development of newer and better strategies regardless of who comes up with them. Mind you, not just newer strategies but also better, in otherwords based on a reasonably correct reading and understanding of the law, rule or regulation upon which that new strategy is based..

Endless arguments, discussions and/or verbal fisticuffs, although interesting and enlightening and at times even entertaining do absolutely nothing to further the interests of anyone except those against whom we must do battle in order to improve our lot in life. There is also another point along those same lines that I would like to bring but since I can't immediately figure out how to word it I won't bring it..

So far, I have yet to see anything more advanced than validate then estoppel and then maybe file complaints about unlicensed collectors on this or any other board and since a debtor has no standing to file suit against a collector for non compliance with state law and state agencies usually provide little or no immediate relief, filing complaints on that issue is about as effective as pounding sand and informing the collector of his errors is a sure way to shoot one's self in the foot..

Oh yes, I almost forgot to give credit to the concept of fixing one's problems by sending wave after wave of disputes to the credit bureaus trying to make them believe that a lie is the truth and the truth is a lie. While all of the above strategies do work to some limited degree, they hardly constitute weapons of mass destruction by any stretch of the imagination..

So if one fixes the date upon which he failed to make his last payment as firmly as possible in mind and projects that date 7 years into the future he will know what date that abominable derogatory remark must be removed and be close enough for government work. It is a practical date to use and to the best of my knowledge every time the point is hoisted before the credit bureaus they will hasten to comply if indeed they may be in error and I have yet to see the (perp)etrator who cared to argue the point before a judge and jury..

As our glorious???? leader is currently trying to point out, It is not arguments and discussions without end that gets the job done but rather a massing of the forces in a joint effort to depose the camels from their thrones and put an end to their reign of terror that gets the job done. So far, he apparently isn't having any more success than we here at home are having in subdueing those who terrorize us both in and out of court..

As it currently is on the world front, none of us wish to unleash the dogs of war however there are those times when it is a necessity and if we wish to win then we had best be better trained and better equipped than those we wish to depose or we will ourselves end up being deposed. Sadly enough that is what usually happens. We get shot down no matter what we do and the simple reason is that we almost always look for simplistic answers to complex problems and when a workable solution is proposed our eyeballs glaze over and we ignore the problem until it is far too late..

The final answer lies in the courtroom no matter how much we abhor the thought. The only way to win is to know and understand the law and how the court system works not endless discussions over the same old porridge...

I have argued directly with OC's that #2 is correct, DOFD, and they have removed info for me based on that premise...I think you can make a very good argument for that to happen, TECHNICALLY speaking. But regarding the 180 day period and such, I have another question:.

Is an OC in violation if they do not charge-off an account and list it as a "collection account" if payment has not been made in over 6 months? I though the FDCPA and some other data indicated that an OC was OBLIGATED to charge-off an account or list it as such after XXX number of days pass without payment. I have AMEX trying to keep an account on my file that was last paid in April, 2002, and the entry still just says 'collection account' and not 'charge-off'. There are several other violation here, including:.

1) They have the accounts listed as 'individual' when they were business accounts that were 100% backed by the company under a special arrangement..

2) They have never listed the accounts as 'disputed by consumer' after receiving some 5 cert./RR letters from me, and they have never responded to me with validation..

3) One of the accounts was backed by a SECURITY DEPOSIT (most people don't realize this, but yes, AMEX once offered a secured card for small businesses). They kept my deposit to cover the charges on the account when the company closed...I have all bank records, yet they report the account as "charged to profit/loss"..

I am serving them with court papers this week, I am curious if they will even show up...

There are a few things you may want to take into consideration before burning rubber to get to the court house..

I say that if it works do it..

I think you are bringing two completely different sets of laws into play here. One falls under banking regulations if they are a banking entity and the other under FCRA reporting regs. My thinking is that Amex would fall under both..

A violation it may be, but as most judges say, if it don't change the outcome of the case get it out of here. My point being that how would the change you suggest or believe violates the law affect the impact of the listing? If it would not get rid of it or turn it to a positive tradeline then why bring the charge?.

So you maintain that it was not your debt and you were never responsible for it under any conditions nor under any signed agreements? If so then that is at least one valid pont to bring..

That is two separate charges you might bring.

Prove that and you prove you are responsible for the debt thereby neatly kicking the bucket out from under your feet...

So?.

Rotsa Ruck...

BTW - #2 isn't right only because of a silly termonology misshap. It's the DOLD (date of last delinquency), ya know, the one that immediately precedes the charge off, not the DOFD, unless you're counting backwards of course..

:)..

If , as part of your lawsuit, you are claiming this was a business credit card, you might consider that business credit is NOT covered under the FDCPA or FCRA...

Thanks all for the information. A few points here:.

My overall feeling is that DOLA is just a mess since collection agencies tend to report this as the date at which they OBTAINED or TOOK CONTROL of the debt. So if a debt is sold agency to agency, the DOLA reflects the date at which they purchased the package, therefore my interest in DOFD. The argument is, one late payment is a delinquency, SO, derogatory info (aka 'delinquency') can only remain on a report for 7 years. This argument should hold water..

As for the AMEX issues, BBAUER said 'so what if the account was listed as 'charged-off' if it was secured by deposit'. Well, if they agreed to keep the deposit as payment in full, and the deposit was $500, the account balance $465, then AMEX owes me $35, but instead they are reporting the account as a charge-off. Additionally, they refuse to validate and/or respond to my notices requesting same, And they refuse to report the debts as disputed, x2, on all 3 credit reports. (6 offenses just there, right?).

Butch, I agree and see what you mean that the DOLD definitely is better however than the DOLA. BUT, the best would be DOFD, which, using the logic above, I think a case can be made for (at least with OC's) using same...

You didn't read or understand what I said. What I said had absolutely nothing to do with "if it was secured by deposit.".

Please reread and I think you will see that...

Yes butch, I am going ahead with a lawsuit against AMEX, will keep you updated re the secured card issue....And, yes bauer, I misread you..

BUT, we should make arguments for deletion from DOFD. Agreed? You are way too focused on what the law is versus what should be made the law.. It's like all these attorneys I am running into in California. Why does every attorney worry about what case law they can cite,,,,why don't they worry about what case law THEY CAN MAKE. Grab your balls and go to court and make new laws based on your court success...stop citing dogshit from 10 years ago. This is particularly relevant for Bauer..

It is a disgrace to the legal system that every person involved in legal process has become focused on quoting previous judgments rather than forging new laws in the future. It is an embarrassment to this country. Get off of your asses and get motivated. Sue your CRA's and CA's and OC's.... STOP QUOTING OLD JUDGMENTS and MAKE YOUR OWN HISTORY..

Let's put it this way: CRA's have more lobbyists than any other corporations in America. They have FCRA laws becoming pliable like super putty in their hands while we sit and quote crap from 5-10 years ago. Forget this SHIT AND GET MOVING FORGING NEW LAWS BASED ON OUR OWN LAWSUITS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Otherwise, we will have no rights in a year or two from now you passive suckers!..

Hehehe,.

Don't beat around the bush Kemcos, just come right on out with it..

:)..

Your post is most revealing indeed. It shows that you have not the foggiest idea of how the system works. Until you learn how the system works you will be forever doomed to doing nothing more than running around spouting off vulgarities so the public can really understand your level of intelligence..

The simple fact of the matter is that our courts cannot make new laws. They are forbidden to do so by our constitution. That keeps silly people from doing dumb things that would totally wreck our nation and our lives or at least it keeps them in check for the most part..

Your words also illustrate the fact that you do not understand that he who refuses to learn history is forever doomed to making the same mistakes forever thusly running around in circles never getting anywhere..

If man will not learn from the mistakes of others he will make the same mistakes they did..

So that is why all those libraries are filled with all those musty old books filled with pages upon pages of history known as case cites. By learning them and using them constantly we hope to steer the courts the way we think they should go in making their decisions. We tell us how other courts have ruled and that we believe they should rule the same way the previous court did. Or we explain why we believe that reliance upon that old case the other side is trying to spoon feed the court is not applicable to the current situation. That is the way it is done and it is the way it has been done since the time man became educated enough to paint symbols on cave walls and understand what they meant..

New law is made by those who have the influence or the money with which to buy the influence of those who have the power to make new laws which the courts of inferior jurisdiction must then obey..

New law is not made in the court room and if a lower court attempts to do that it is soon struck down in most cases..

You cannot make the system do your bidding unless you understand how it works and why it works the way it does. If you attempt to do what you think you can do you will have some mighty hard lessons to learn..

When in Rome you must do what the Romans do or they will squash you like a bug..

So wake up and smell the coffee and understand that you cannot simply change the entire course of human history by ignoring it and wishing it would just get out of your way and leave you to your own devices no matter how destructive they may be..

You ain't Gallelio and you ain't Plato nor are you even Geedubya. So get down off your hobbyhorse cuz he ain't going nowhere...

I am confused on this issue of Date of Last Acitivity versus Date of Firt Delinquency. Contrary to the posts on this board, Experian itself states that derogs will be deleted 7 years from the date of FIRST DELINQUENCY!.

From The Experian Website:.

Negative information.

Federal law specifies how long negative information may remain on your credit report. Most negative information must be erased after seven years. This includes late payments, accounts that the credit grantor turned over to a collection agency and judgments filed against you in court - even if you later paid the account in full. Unpaid federal tax liens remain for 15 years..

The length of time a bankruptcy remains on your credit report depends upon which type you file. Chapters 7, 11, and 12 remain for 10 years. Chapter 13 remains seven years..

>>Credit reporting agencies use the date of original delinquency or, in the case of public records, the date of filing to determine when negative information is deleted. Positive information may remain on your report indefinitely; however, Experian generally displays positive information for seven years..

Negative information remains on a consumer's credit report for the allowed period of time as long as it can be verified by the company that reported it. Usually only time can erase bad credit...

WHy would Experian list an incorrect statement if Butch and BBauer are correct? Please respond guys, looking forward to your comments...

The date of first delinquency would be correct IF the account was never brought current..

Example:.

If you have an account with several 30 day lates (or whatever) and the dates were reported in 2/95, 4/96, 6/96, 10/97. The dates of delinquency are followed by payments on the account and the account was brought current. In 2/02 the first 30 day late would drop off. In 4/03 the second would drop off etc..

If another payment had not been made on the account which led to the charge off or collection then the drop off date for the whole tradeline would be 2/02...7 years from the date of the first delinquency that led to the charge off...

Do you have a specific problem that you caould share more of the details for in regards to your question?.

Both dates are used to figure the drop off date. Equifax uses the DOLA and you have to watch them cause they like to put the date of your payment there if it was charged off and paid later in settlement. This reages the account...