[Lecasbas]

I have a dunning letter from a CA which claims to have purchased an old delinquent account. It has assigned its own account no. to a new account (in its own name) and is reporting both new and old as delinquent accounts on the CR.

To me, this would be obvious libel. The CA has caused the CR to contain unjustly unfavorable impression about the consumer which is not true and the CA knows it not to be true.

In addition to the libel question - what exactly is the CA supposed to do with the old account if it starts its own account with a new number? Shouldn't it tell the Big 3 so that the CR won't show the old account anymore?

There is not a question of ownership. In its dunning letter it specifically states that it is the new owner of the old account. From the letter the LSC can see that the CA has renumbered the old account to the new number. The CR, however, does not reflect this.

There have been no new agreements or transactions between the debtor and anyone trying to collect on the old account since before the account went delinquent over 4 years ago.

In the CA's dunning letter it did offer a 'certificate of acceptance' which was never sent in by the debtor. I think it is more than coincidental that the deadline for this 'certificate' to be received by the CA was the same date as the reaging of the account.

I've searched through past threads and found that there are two reason for reaging. One is to keep negative material on a CR longer and the other is to push the SOL back.

I believe the CA is applying intentional malice because it has already advanced the DOFD (Date Major Delinquency First Reported on CR) nearly 4 years.

Intentionally leaving the old account on the CR falls right in line with the intentional act of reaging.

[centex]

When you say older account, are you talking about the original creditor's tradeline?

If so, they have no obligation to delete simply because they sold it off. And the new purchaser is permitted to report their tradeline.

If you have issues with the manner in which particular data fields are completed, then attack those specific issues. Arguing a 'duplicate' tradeline point won't get the job done though...

[Lecasbas]

When you say older account, are you talking about the original creditor's tradeline?

This is correct. The OC sold the debt several years ago. The debt has been purchased by more than one CA over the years.

If so, they have no obligation to delete simply because they sold it off.

Then, when the OC sold the debt, did it wash all responsibilities from its hands? This would make sense to me but I remember reading something, in another thread "way back yonder", about the OC being able to report on the account it originally owned.

And the new purchaser is permitted to report their tradeline.

I think you mean that the purchaser can report the TL it purchased as its own without referencing the old account?

If you have issues with the manner in which particular data fields are completed, then attack those specific issues. Arguing a 'duplicate' tradeline point won't get the job done though...

Yes, I guess there are 2 issues here. Reaging and duplication.

I'm trying to figure out what all interested parties are supposed to be doing so that I can address the issues. I know that I should be sending a dispute to the Big 3 and a DV to the CA.

The DV is typed up and ready to go.

I am a little confused by the duplicate account. I don't know who is responsible for deleting the old account other than the Big 3 after 7 years.

[Hedwig]

It's not a "duplicate" account. The OC can report the original tradeline, but it should show aero balance, charged off, closed, and sold/transferred.

The party collecting can also report the collection account. It should fall off at the same time.

[Lecasbas]

It's not a "duplicate" account. The OC can report the original tradeline, but it should show aero balance, charged off, closed, and sold/transferred.

This is making a little more sense now that you pointed out the zero-balance part. I was looking at the 'High Credit' section which is listed as the same amount as the new account.

This revelation quells the fears I had about a double collection attempt on the same account.

However, adding a new delinquent account, with no references to the old, has had an affect on the FICO which led to demands for higher interest on a current CC.

Any Creditor who looks at the current CR will think that a new delinquency has occured. It will not know that the CA has simply revived an old...almost dead account.

I believe the CA is engaging in subterfuge. It has listed the opening of its account as N/A. Why wouldn't this date be applicable?

Then the CA goes on to report its account's DOFD as 2008 rather than the old accounts DOFD as 2004. Keep in mind that the debtor has made no agreements with any of the succeeding CA's to the delinquent account. DOFD should not have changed, isn't this correct?

I think the CA has purposely and deceptively reported its account so that it appears new regardless to the fact that it knows that the account is actually old.

It knows the SOL is coming soon. It knows that adding an addtional new delinquent account to the debtor's CR is negative information which will affect the FICO. It knows that this adverse information will now stay on the debtor's CR longer than the old account would have allowed.

Isn't this misrepresenting of the debt inappropriate procedure and libelous?

[centex]

which paper report shows N/A for the date opened field?

[Lecasbas]

Equifax is the current report that I am viewing. I will look at the other two and be back shortly.

TransUnion does not list a 'Date Opened' for the new account - this section is mysteriously missing. It does list the 'Date Opened' for the old account and, from a quick read, for all the other accounts on the CR.

Experian is reporting the new account's opening date as late 2007 (almost 2008).

[centex]

The open date simply reflects when an account was opened in the office. That is correct per the CDIA Metro2 guidelines.


It does appear, however, that you are going down paths that are less than advantageous and not a productive use of your time and energy...You will need to separate the wheat from the chaff and figure out which fields are essential for disputing purposes or else you are apt to wind up with something that is verified and more complete than you currently see...

[Lecasbas]

Well, yes...I am, unfortunately, chasing rabbits to see where their holes are at.

Help me out on one issue which I think I understand.

A CA cannot reage an account unless the debtor has made an agreement, with that particular CA, to pay and then went delinquent on that agreement, isn't this much correct? Or, are there other reason, beyond the control of the debtor, in which the CA can reage the account?

As far as the new and old account appearing on the CR together, yet appearing to be entirely different delinquent accounts...to be quite frank, I'm baffled as to why this may be allowable.

This negative material has already influenced one creditor to raise its interest rate. I know this is peanuts compared to a mortgage but damage, nevertheless.

[Lecasbas]

I looked up this reference that Enigma gave in another thread concerning the reporting of delinquent accounts by DF's:

See 623(5)(b). Especially 623(5)(b)(iii).

Tell me if I understand this section correctly...

The DF must report the DOFD within 90 days after first furnishing information on an account to the Big 3. The DOFD shall be the same date as the previous account owner reported.

The exception of this paragraph is conditional upon if the previous creditor reported the DOFD and if the consumer does not dispute.

If neither of these conditions are met, then the DF should 'ensure the date reported as the date of delinquency precedes the date on which the account is placed for collection'.

One question...'placed for collection' by who?

Just curiousity. Who placed the account doesn't matter in my case since the previous DF listed the DOFD.

[Hedwig]

Are you looking at the individual reports from each bureau or a trimerge?

What does it say is the date it will fall off?

[Lecasbas]

I was receiving a 3 in one up until a few weeks ago. Now I am mainly looking at the bona-fide CR from Equifax. I cross reference with the other two. Each reports things a little differently.

Equifax reports the Date Major Delinquency First Reported as the beginning of 2008. I thought this was EQ's rendition of DOFD but I now see where EQ has DOFD reported as it should be in another section.

What is 'Date of Major Delinquency First Reported'?

There still seems to be something wrong. I perused some other delinquent accounts. There is 6 months difference between DOMDFR and DOFD on those accounts.

On the account I am working with there is almost a 4 year difference.

I cannot see where EQ lists the fall off date for this account. TU and EX have the fall off date listed as correct.

I guess that the DOFD is being reported correctly. Possibly the DOMDFR is correct also, if I knew what it meant.

I guess I may have to edit my DV.