The limits of Obsolete?

[Vinny2020]

What is the limit of how far one can use the obsolete letter? I have some things that are scheduled to fall off in Aug and Sept of 2009

and I was wondering if that was too ambitious to try getting them removed this early?

[yourguide]

What is the limit of how far one can use the obsolete letter? I have some things that are scheduled to fall off in Aug and Sept of 2009

and I was wondering if that was too ambitious to try getting them removed this early?

 

That might be a bit ambitious. Are they OC tradelines or CA tradelines?

[Marilie]

I've got stuff that falls off in October 2008 and I haven't even tried yet.

2009 is probably ambitious.

[Jess6]

I don't think there would be any repercussions to trying... right?

[heavyjay]

I have SL lates that are scheduled to fall off in Sept. I tried disputing as obsolete in early Feb. No dice.

[alleycatdee]

I only dared to push about 4 months out...still waiting on results!

[akaniks]

You think like me. I have a CO and a CA remaining on my report that are both due to fall off in February 09. I have some disputes right now but my next step if these didn't work was to try obsolete.

 

I know that they will fall off early next year... which is a great feeling... but getting them off any sooner would be that much better. I'm looking at 700's.

[Marilie]

I don't think there would be any repercussions to trying... right?

Probably not, but can't say for sure. I would just say, if you do dispute early, and it doesn't come off, make sure the account is not reaged.

[bing0]

Beware disputing as obsolete if you want to avoid a bad FF.

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=323145

[alleycatdee]

I thought you wanted to try to get them deleted as obsolete vs. them just falling off your report for FF purposes. Perhaps I'm wrong...anyone want to chime in on this?

[Jess6]

I don't think there would be any repercussions to trying... right?

Probably not, but can't say for sure. I would just say, if you do dispute early, and it doesn't come off, make sure the account is not reaged.

 

Aha! Yup, that would be one repercussion.

[mrliberty]

I think many people here think they know what obsolete means but are confused as to the definition of obsolete. There are TWO opinions regarding the use of an obsolete letter. One is the one that everyone here thinks is the best one (it isn't), and one that is an interpretation of someone from these boards who has an intriguing opinion on the matter (WhyChat).

 

First, the popular one here is for those who think that we just ask the CRAs to remove an account that will soon be obsolete, and once they see a close date for drop off they delete it anyway. This is NOT the version obsolete we're looking for, so stop thinking it through that way.

 

WhyChat's opinion is to use SOL statutes combined with the FDCPA and previous Federal caselaw to get things deleted or removed. As WhyChat shows, if you read up on the US Districtic court case of Sullivan v. Equifax, Inc. et al., from 2002, you'll see that the Federal Court found that anyone reporting a debt to a credit reporting agency is a communication covered by the FDCPA, specifically in §1692e(8). This is a violation of Federal law.

 

This is an important interpretation of the FDCPA and possibly SOL Statutes in your state. This is also why I am sickened that people are misinterpreting the idea of the obsolete letter because they're not following the steps properly. WhyChat's steps are fantastic, and can regularly delete debts just outside of SOL but well short of the 7 year reporting period. Be warned that disputing such debts could incur a 1099-C, but I've never personally seen it.

 

 

WhyChat's steps:

 

1. Dispute with the CRAs and specifically mention that if the debt is valid, it is obsolete because of the age. Don't mention the 7 year period. Fully request the name of the person verifying the debt to the CRA, and the manner at which the CRAs received that information. You're given the right to know that information, so ask for it up front. If the CRA verifies with that information, you have a great tool against the CA. If the CRA verifies without that information, you can send an ITS to the CRA for violating Federal law.

 

2. If its all verified, you send a time-barred letter to the CA, letting them know that any further communication with anyone, including the CRA, violates Federal law and State law. Communicating information (updates, etc) to the CRA is a violation of the SOL Statutes in your state (possibly!). This means they can tell the CRA NOTHING ELSE in the future, and you're warning them with that letter.

 

3. After the CA gets your "get lost" letter, you send the CRAs another dispute demanding deletion. If the CRA verifies with the CA, the CA breaks the law for communicating obsolete debt with the CRAs (if your state has such a law!). Sue them immediately. If the CA doesn't verify, the CRA will delete said debt.

 

Please people, understand the meaning of terms before offering advice. Obsolete can mean "It's getting close to the 7 year period, will you just delete it?" but that's the weak meaning of obsolete. The strong meaning is the one I detailed above, and has worked for over 100 deletions that I have worked on with others. It'll knock out 4 deletions for my DW this month.

 

 

Edit: I used, and continue to use, a very standard legalese-encrusted form letter that I wrote for this purpose. All 100+ deletions I've gotten were with the exact same form letters. This step is one that is just shy of an ITS, warning the CAs that they're on the verge of violating a Federal law along with State statutes. I don't like hand-written custom letters in this case, I like a stern "You're going to get it, and you're going to get it hard, and I'm going to give it to you with a Joshua tree and it's going to bleed badly" letter rather than a kind one.

Edited March 20, 2008 by mrliberty

[alicia671]

I thought you wanted to try to get them deleted as obsolete vs. them just falling off your report for FF purposes. Perhaps I'm wrong...anyone want to chime in on this?

 

My understanding is I think if they are manually deleted regardless of reaseon, they won't be on FF. If they just 'fall off' they will be. I mean, either way, if it's between trying to get it removed now as obsolete and staying on FF or having it fall of as obsolete and staying on FF, sooner the better.

[mrliberty]

My understanding is I think if they are manually deleted regardless of reaseon, they won't be on FF. If they just 'fall off' they will be. I mean, either way, if it's between trying to get it removed now as obsolete and staying on FF or having it fall of as obsolete and staying on FF, sooner the better.

 

QFT. I would never let anything fall off my credit reports at the 7 year mark except for inquiries (EX). I've seen a Full Factual from many years ago, and it was terrible (nothing bad, just had too much information).

 

You want it gone, and the steps I provided in the post 2 or 3 back will do it for you, if your state's SOL laws provide for such a dispute. If they do, use the steps I provided. I call this technique the "CA drops the soap in the jail shower" process. The CA is the skinny newbie, you are "Big Poppa."

[Jess6]

I think many people here think they know what obsolete means but are confused as to the definition of obsolete. There are TWO opinions regarding the use of an obsolete letter. One is the one that everyone here thinks is the best one (it isn't), and one that is an interpretation of someone from these boards who has an intriguing opinion on the matter (WhyChat).

 

First, the popular one here is for those who think that we just ask the CRAs to remove an account that will soon be obsolete, and once they see a close date for drop off they delete it anyway. This is NOT the version obsolete we're looking for, so stop thinking it through that way.

 

WhyChat's opinion is to use SOL statutes combined with the FDCPA and previous Federal caselaw to get things deleted or removed. As WhyChat shows, if you read up on the US Districtic court case of Sullivan v. Equifax, Inc. et al., from 2002, you'll see that the Federal Court found that anyone reporting a debt to a credit reporting agency is a communication covered by the FDCPA, specifically in §1692e(8). This is a violation of Federal law.

 

This is an important interpretation of the FDCPA and possibly SOL Statutes in your state. This is also why I am sickened that people are misinterpreting the idea of the obsolete letter because they're not following the steps properly. WhyChat's steps are fantastic, and can regularly delete debts just outside of SOL but well short of the 7 year reporting period. Be warned that disputing such debts could incur a 1099-C, but I've never personally seen it.

 

 

WhyChat's steps:

 

1. Dispute with the CRAs and specifically mention that if the debt is valid, it is obsolete because of the age. Don't mention the 7 year period. Fully request the name of the person verifying the debt to the CRA, and the manner at which the CRAs received that information. You're given the right to know that information, so ask for it up front. If the CRA verifies with that information, you have a great tool against the CA. If the CRA verifies without that information, you can send an ITS to the CRA for violating Federal law.

 

2. If its all verified, you send a time-barred letter to the CA, letting them know that any further communication with anyone, including the CRA, violates Federal law and State law. Communicating information (updates, etc) to the CRA is a violation of the SOL Statutes in your state (possibly!). This means they can tell the CRA NOTHING ELSE in the future, and you're warning them with that letter.

 

3. After the CA gets your "get lost" letter, you send the CRAs another dispute demanding deletion. If the CRA verifies with the CA, the CA breaks the law for communicating obsolete debt with the CRAs (if your state has such a law!). Sue them immediately. If the CA doesn't verify, the CRA will delete said debt.

 

Please people, understand the meaning of terms before offering advice. Obsolete can mean "It's getting close to the 7 year period, will you just delete it?" but that's the weak meaning of obsolete. The strong meaning is the one I detailed above, and has worked for over 100 deletions that I have worked on with others. It'll knock out 4 deletions for my DW this month.

 

 

Edit: I used, and continue to use, a very standard legalese-encrusted form letter that I wrote for this purpose. All 100+ deletions I've gotten were with the exact same form letters. This step is one that is just shy of an ITS, warning the CAs that they're on the verge of violating a Federal law along with State statutes. I don't like hand-written custom letters in this case, I like a stern "You're going to get it, and you're going to get it hard, and I'm going to give it to you with a Joshua tree and it's going to bleed badly" letter rather than a kind one.

 

Please elaborate: What law?, Where can we find if our state actually does have state law?

[mrliberty]

Please elaborate: What law?, Where can we find if our state actually does have state law?

 

Basically, the FDCPA details what is a violation of its statutes and what isn't. The lawsuit I listed above is a great read (Sullivan v. Equifax) because Sullivan sued Equifax because they were accepting report updates that were outside of the State's SOL. Equifax said that they're allowed to accept updates. This Federal case shows that the FDCPA says that continued reporting to the CRAs is considered "communications" and that all forms of communications on a debt that is no longer legally collectible is illegal. Therefore trying to collect a debt outside of SOL (time-barred debt) may infringe on a person's rights based on the FDCPA statutes, per this Federal legal case.

 

How to interpret it seems to be a state-by-state issue, though. Personally (and I am not a lawyer), I believe that WhyChat's interpretation covers all State SOL statutes, but I have no proof of that. I've only successfully used WhyChat's procedure in 4 States (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan, IIRC). The only way to know if it works is to try it. Since you're attacking a debt that is outside SOL, you can lose nothing for trying, other than up to 3 months of your time.

 

Keep VERY VERY VERY proper documents. Remember that you NEED the CRA to report how the debt was verified to them and who did the verification. If the CRA doesn't give you that information (and you MUST request it up front), they're violating the FCRA. Demand that information. Once you have that info, you know have that agency and person caught in the headlights. They violated the FDCPA for continued communications on time-barred debt, so you follow up a letter to them reminding them that they are now to C&D from updating your credit reports or sending ANY communications to the CRAs. Once they get that letter, you dispute again with the CRAs, telling them that your debt, if even proper, is outside of the legal timeframe to collect. Once you dispute, the CRAs will contact the CAs (probably electronically). If the CAs verify the new dispute, after you warned them that they can't, you can sue them and win.

 

I have never had a CA verify after the second dispute, once they received my Joshua-tree-in-the-rear letter warning them of future violations. I've been dreaming of them violating, though, because the Federal case (Sullivan v. Equifax) is excellent. It is one of the most beautiful cases to read for consumers with CAs bugging them. I pinned it to my wall and look at it from time to time and just chuckle, waiting for SOL to go away.

 

Sadly, I don't think the same statute works for OCs, but I may test it out in the future. I can hope it does work, and I have the money to pursue the case like Sullivan did, but against the OCs.

[sh9730]

Ok, but back to the more mundane version that many USUALLY are speaking of regading this topic. I have my last baddie CA that is accurately scheduled to fall off in June (although for some reason EX is gonna do it in April on their own). Is that simple letter listed a couple posts up the best method? Im still not sure Im gonna do it as Im worried about reaging and the timing is bad as Im in the mortgage hunt and cant wait until June to start that so I dont need a score hit right now. BUT, if I was 99% sure it would come off with the simple past CRTP letter I would do it!

 

Not worried about the FF aspect...will just be one of many things that are on their from my ugly past if someone really needs to know....this last one wont make any difference.

[Marilie]

Please elaborate: What law?, Where can we find if our state actually does have state law?

 

Basically, the FDCPA details what is a violation of its statutes and what isn't. The lawsuit I listed above is a great read (Sullivan v. Equifax) because Sullivan sued Equifax because they were accepting report updates that were outside of the State's SOL. Equifax said that they're allowed to accept updates. This Federal case shows that the FDCPA says that continued reporting to the CRAs is considered "communications" and that all forms of communications on a debt that is no longer legally collectible is illegal. Therefore trying to collect a debt outside of SOL (time-barred debt) may infringe on a person's rights based on the FDCPA statutes, per this Federal legal case.

 

How to interpret it seems to be a state-by-state issue, though. Personally (and I am not a lawyer), I believe that WhyChat's interpretation covers all State SOL statutes, but I have no proof of that. I've only successfully used WhyChat's procedure in 4 States (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan, IIRC). The only way to know if it works is to try it. Since you're attacking a debt that is outside SOL, you can lose nothing for trying, other than up to 3 months of your time.

 

Keep VERY VERY VERY proper documents. Remember that you NEED the CRA to report how the debt was verified to them and who did the verification. If the CRA doesn't give you that information (and you MUST request it up front), they're violating the FCRA. Demand that information. Once you have that info, you know have that agency and person caught in the headlights. They violated the FDCPA for continued communications on time-barred debt, so you follow up a letter to them reminding them that they are now to C&D from updating your credit reports or sending ANY communications to the CRAs. Once they get that letter, you dispute again with the CRAs, telling them that your debt, if even proper, is outside of the legal timeframe to collect. Once you dispute, the CRAs will contact the CAs (probably electronically). If the CAs verify the new dispute, after you warned them that they can't, you can sue them and win.

 

I have never had a CA verify after the second dispute, once they received my Joshua-tree-in-the-rear letter warning them of future violations. I've been dreaming of them violating, though, because the Federal case (Sullivan v. Equifax) is excellent. It is one of the most beautiful cases to read for consumers with CAs bugging them. I pinned it to my wall and look at it from time to time and just chuckle, waiting for SOL to go away.

 

Sadly, I don't think the same statute works for OCs, but I may test it out in the future. I can hope it does work, and I have the money to pursue the case like Sullivan did, but against the OCs.

So one would need to review their report to see when the baddie was last updated (if at all), and determine the SOL on collecting the debt, to determine whether Sullivan v. Equifax applies.

 

I've got some work to do when I get home.

[alleycatdee]

Alicia: that is exactly my understanding...if you can get them to delete it vs. it just falling off it is very good for your future FF pulls.

 

Mrliberty: thank you for better explaining whycats SOL letter...I've read it several times but for some reasong it didn't totally click in my head until you just explained it.

 

Vinny: I say that you try the WhyChat SOL method as described by mrliberty because you have plenty of time until the fall off period. Good luck!!

[Operation_Home_Ownership]

Question: What about neg info reported WITHIN an account, like history, lates to be exact, in NYC is it 5 years from the date of delinquency then considered obsolete, correct? Is that kind of stuff disputable as beyond SOL?

 

Just trying to make sure I understand 110%

[Jess6]

Please elaborate: What law?, Where can we find if our state actually does have state law?

 

Basically, the FDCPA details what is a violation of its statutes and what isn't. The lawsuit I listed above is a great read (Sullivan v. Equifax) because Sullivan sued Equifax because they were accepting report updates that were outside of the State's SOL. Equifax said that they're allowed to accept updates. This Federal case shows that the FDCPA says that continued reporting to the CRAs is considered "communications" and that all forms of communications on a debt that is no longer legally collectible is illegal. Therefore trying to collect a debt outside of SOL (time-barred debt) may infringe on a person's rights based on the FDCPA statutes, per this Federal legal case.

 

How to interpret it seems to be a state-by-state issue, though. Personally (and I am not a lawyer), I believe that WhyChat's interpretation covers all State SOL statutes, but I have no proof of that. I've only successfully used WhyChat's procedure in 4 States (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan, IIRC). The only way to know if it works is to try it. Since you're attacking a debt that is outside SOL, you can lose nothing for trying, other than up to 3 months of your time.

 

Keep VERY VERY VERY proper documents. Remember that you NEED the CRA to report how the debt was verified to them and who did the verification. If the CRA doesn't give you that information (and you MUST request it up front), they're violating the FCRA. Demand that information. Once you have that info, you know have that agency and person caught in the headlights. They violated the FDCPA for continued communications on time-barred debt, so you follow up a letter to them reminding them that they are now to C&D from updating your credit reports or sending ANY communications to the CRAs. Once they get that letter, you dispute again with the CRAs, telling them that your debt, if even proper, is outside of the legal timeframe to collect. Once you dispute, the CRAs will contact the CAs (probably electronically). If the CAs verify the new dispute, after you warned them that they can't, you can sue them and win.

 

I have never had a CA verify after the second dispute, once they received my Joshua-tree-in-the-rear letter warning them of future violations. I've been dreaming of them violating, though, because the Federal case (Sullivan v. Equifax) is excellent. It is one of the most beautiful cases to read for consumers with CAs bugging them. I pinned it to my wall and look at it from time to time and just chuckle, waiting for SOL to go away.

 

Sadly, I don't think the same statute works for OCs, but I may test it out in the future. I can hope it does work, and I have the money to pursue the case like Sullivan did, but against the OCs.

 

Thanks!

[inspiringmind]

Beware disputing as obsolete if you want to avoid a bad FF.

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=323145

 

 

Yeah, but the chances of anyone actually pulling an FF are slim to none unless you are looking at a mortgage. A CCC is not going to pull your FF for a CC.

 

But...What I read above for me is going to work!! The SOL in Ohio is 4 years. And even though this CA has not reported anything since 2002, they could not legally do so once I get the, "who verified this information letter from TU." I now understand why exactly this will work for me. My wish of course is that TU just deletes it soon, but if I have to I will send the second step letter and then the deletion demand.

Edited March 20, 2008 by inspiringmind

[heatmisr]

The obsolete strategy outlined about sound like it would work great for an unpaid CO reported by a CA, but what if the baddie is a paid CO and/or is reported by the OC instead of the CA?

Edited March 20, 2008 by heatmisr

[Jen23514]

Ok, but back to the more mundane version that many USUALLY are speaking of regading this topic. I have my last baddie CA that is accurately scheduled to fall off in June (although for some reason EX is gonna do it in April on their own). Is that simple letter listed a couple posts up the best method? Im still not sure Im gonna do it as Im worried about reaging and the timing is bad as Im in the mortgage hunt and cant wait until June to start that so I dont need a score hit right now. BUT, if I was 99% sure it would come off with the simple past CRTP letter I would do it!

 

Not worried about the FF aspect...will just be one of many things that are on their from my ugly past if someone really needs to know....this last one wont make any difference.

 

I've actually had luck 9 mos out with the standard obsolete letter.

[Fustrated]

Bump & Subscribe