TU estimates a CA removal of 06/2013 - When does it actually fall off?

[LordAthens]

It had been some time since I had looked at my credit reports and I became quite surprised when I pulled them almost a month ago.

 

I found 4 collections between the three. I had 2 collections from Verizon FIOS quickly taken care of without much hassle. They had 2 collections on me, one for a supposed non-paid final bill and the other for non-returned equipment. The final bill was paid when I canceled the service last June and I'm currently using the "non returned" equipment on a new account. It took a lot of transferring around between billing and credit reporting for them to realize they screwed up, as well as some threats, but they fairly quickly removed them.

 

Sprint says I owe them $285 from late 2010 (being collected on by Enhanced Recovery Corp), only being reported on EQ. I haven't called them yet, but I don't believe I legitimately owe them money. We transferred service from my name to my fiances to take advantage of her corporate discount. The rep that did it clearly had no idea what she was doing. I think we ended up getting charged early termination fees when there shouldn't have been, since we never terminated service.

 

Lastly is Cingular, being collected on by Commonwealth Financial Systems. It's for $50, Transunion says it will be removed 06/2013. Can anyone give me an idea of when it will actually be removed? IE, come 06/01/2013 will it be gone? Sometime in June or at the end of June? CFS has to be a JDB because this is a really old collection and it would have originally been for $175. I worked for Radio Shack way back when, Cingular gave us employee accounts. Upon termination, we had to terminate the service. We were NOT supposed to have an early termination fee, but I got charged one anyhow. I never paid it because I didn't legitimately owe them and they weren't willing to fix it.

 

Anyhow, I would really like that one to go away ASAP. We're going to be applying for a mortgage soon and I need to build up my credit and diversify a little bit. I want to apply for the Walmart Discover to have another TL, but also for my TU score. I have EX covered with PSECU, EQ w/ myFICO.

[getsome]

I disputed a couple accounts that were within 6 months of falling off with TU as "obsolete" and they were removed. I did the dispute online for those only and they were removed fairly quickly.

[LordAthens]

getsome, thanks.

 

I'm always leary of disputing through the CRA's on things like this. I've seen instances where it has done more harm than good. I think I'm going to give it until 06/02. If it isn't gone by then, I'll file the dispute as obsolete.

[TheChosenOne]

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

[SCORPIO07]

I have use TU online dispute for accounts that are within 6 months of the deletion date and have had a 100% positive experience. I have had at least 15 accounts deleted this way in the last 4 months most were deleted overnight.

[NEWSTARTIN2013]

LA, IMO, I would follow the advice of the OP who have utilized this dispute method and have been successful. The debt is pass the SOL so no worries there, you have nothing to lose so go for it.

Edited May 25, 2013 by NEWSTARTIN2013

[LordAthens]

I decided to take the advice and dispute it. I disputed some things with TU yesterday (phone numbers, my ex as a co-applicant, etc), got an email this morning saying the dispute process was over.

 

Well now, I can't get to any point on their online system of actually disputing anything. All it will show me is the end of the dispute stats, report, etc and will not allow me to file a new dispute. Oh,and transunion.com has been down all day as well. dispute.transunion.com works, however.

 

We've had nothing but problems with TU on my fiance's side as well. We've never been able to login to dispute anything on hers, it always comes back with some error. Blah.

[mendelssohn]

 

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

That's the first I've ever heard of having accounts removed early once they have passed the collections SOL and not the reporting SOL. For example, in TX the SOL for collection is 4 years and the reporting SOL is 7 years.

[TheChosenOne]

 

 

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

That's the first I've ever heard of having accounts removed early once they have passed the collections SOL and not the reporting SOL. For example, in TX the SOL for collection is 4 years and the reporting SOL is 7 years.

 

 

Unless things have changed, validating a collection account is collection activity and once you send them a cease and desist for collection activity and the account is past SOL, they won't validate. I mean sometimes it takes an actual intent to sue letter, but eventually they let it go unvalidated when the CRA sends its validation request. This is how it worked a few years back. Someone correct me if it has changed since then.

[mendelssohn]

 

 

 

 

 

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

 

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

 

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

 

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

That's the first I've ever heard of having accounts removed early once they have passed the collections SOL and not the reporting SOL. For example, in TX the SOL for collection is 4 years and the reporting SOL is 7 years.

 

Unless things have changed, validating a collection account is collection activity and once you send them a cease and desist for collection activity and the account is past SOL, they won't validate. I mean sometimes it takes an actual intent to sue letter, but eventually they let it go unvalidated when the CRA sends its validation request. This is how it worked a few years back. Someone correct me if it has changed since then.

Never heard of that. SOL for lawsuit doesn't invalidate the debt or reporting. It just means they can't legally make you pay it.

[TheChosenOne]

 

 

 

 

 

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

 

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

 

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

 

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

That's the first I've ever heard of having accounts removed early once they have passed the collections SOL and not the reporting SOL. For example, in TX the SOL for collection is 4 years and the reporting SOL is 7 years.

 

Unless things have changed, validating a collection account is collection activity and once you send them a cease and desist for collection activity and the account is past SOL, they won't validate. I mean sometimes it takes an actual intent to sue letter, but eventually they let it go unvalidated when the CRA sends its validation request. This is how it worked a few years back. Someone correct me if it has changed since then.

Never heard of that. SOL for lawsuit doesn't invalidate the debt or reporting. It just means they can't legally make you pay it.

You need do a search on this site for cease and desist letters and what they're capable of. The act of validating a tradeline is indeed defined as collection activity. I have removed several tradelines with said technique. If you don't believe me, feel free to wait your sentence of 7 years of credit jail. And yes, they will even re-age an account to make you wait longer. CAs have no morals and have been known to break the laws.

[mendelssohn]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

 

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

 

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

 

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

That's the first I've ever heard of having accounts removed early once they have passed the collections SOL and not the reporting SOL. For example, in TX the SOL for collection is 4 years and the reporting SOL is 7 years.

 

Unless things have changed, validating a collection account is collection activity and once you send them a cease and desist for collection activity and the account is past SOL, they won't validate. I mean sometimes it takes an actual intent to sue letter, but eventually they let it go unvalidated when the CRA sends its validation request. This is how it worked a few years back. Someone correct me if it has changed since then.

Never heard of that. SOL for lawsuit doesn't invalidate the debt or reporting. It just means they can't legally make you pay it.

You need do a search on this site for cease and desist letters and what they're capable of. The act of validating a tradeline is indeed defined as collection activity. I have removed several tradelines with said technique. If you don't believe me, feel free to wait your sentence of 7 years of credit jail. And yes, they will even re-age an account to make you wait longer. CAs have no morals and have been known to break the laws.

Everything I have read on this site says that they can still report, but can not force you to pay. A cease and desist would be sent once it is out of SOL for collections. Why would TX law state clearly that it can be reported for 7 years then? Please link me to the law that states what you are saying.

[TheChosenOne]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

 

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

 

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

 

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

That's the first I've ever heard of having accounts removed early once they have passed the collections SOL and not the reporting SOL. For example, in TX the SOL for collection is 4 years and the reporting SOL is 7 years.

 

Unless things have changed, validating a collection account is collection activity and once you send them a cease and desist for collection activity and the account is past SOL, they won't validate. I mean sometimes it takes an actual intent to sue letter, but eventually they let it go unvalidated when the CRA sends its validation request. This is how it worked a few years back. Someone correct me if it has changed since then.

Never heard of that. SOL for lawsuit doesn't invalidate the debt or reporting. It just means they can't legally make you pay it.

You need do a search on this site for cease and desist letters and what they're capable of. The act of validating a tradeline is indeed defined as collection activity. I have removed several tradelines with said technique. If you don't believe me, feel free to wait your sentence of 7 years of credit jail. And yes, they will even re-age an account to make you wait longer. CAs have no morals and have been known to break the laws.

Everything I have read on this site says that they can still report, but can not force you to pay. A cease and desist would be sent once it is out of SOL for collections. Why would TX law state clearly that it can be reported for 7 years then? Please link me to the law that states what you are saying.

The key words here are "can be reported for 7 years". Nowhere does it state it has to.

 

The whole point of a cease and desist is to stop collection activity. Validating to the CRAs is defined as collection activity. They know if they validate then they get sued, so they drop it. There are letters you can send to make them fear being sued. There are many many post on this site that discuss it. Im not going to link you, use the search feature.

[mendelssohn]

Does this work with paid/closed student loan collections?

[beli]

 

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

Sol is in this instance is used when a creditor tries to sue you and you can use your States SOL as an affirmative defense. FCRA clearly states that negative accounts remain on your credit report for 7.5 yrs. Now that's not to say you can't use different things to try and get them off earlier than 7.5yrs.

 

Don't confuse the two.

 

Now just so you don't go arguing with me

 

605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports

[15 U.S.C. §1681c]

(a)

Information excluded from consumer reports.

Except as authorized under subsection (

of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing

any of the following items of information:

(1) Cases under title 11 [united States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the

date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be,

antedate the report by more than 10 years.

) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the

report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has

expired, whichever is the longer period.

(3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven

years.

(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report

by more than seven years.

Running of Reporting Period

(1)

In general.

The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)

6

of subsection (a)

shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (inter-

nally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or

23

subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on

the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the

collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action

Edited May 26, 2013 by beli

[TheChosenOne]

 

 

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

Sol is in this instance is used when a creditor tries to sue you and you can use your States SOL as an affirmative defense. FCRA clearly states that negative accounts remain on your credit report for 7.5 yrs. Now that's not to say you can't use different things to try and get them off earlier than 7.5yrs.

 

Don't confuse the two.

 

Now just so you don't go arguing with me

 

605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports

[15 U.S.C. §1681c]

(a)

Information excluded from consumer reports.

Except as authorized under subsection (

of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing

any of the following items of information:

(1) Cases under title 11 [united States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the

date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be,

antedate the report by more than 10 years.

) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the

report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has

expired, whichever is the longer period.

(3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven

years.

(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report

by more than seven years.

Running of Reporting Period

(1)

In general.

The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)

6

of subsection (a)

shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (inter-

nally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or

23

subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on

the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the

collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action

Right, the SOL part is for them suing. But if you look back to history of posts you will see that sending out a cease and desist can trigger a lawsuit, which is why I referenced the SOL and making sure you can't be sued. The key is to be past SOL and send out a C&D validation request. In most instances all they have is a computer print out of your name and amount owed which isn't considered validation. So you're protected by SOL for suits and C&D validation for reporting to the CRAs. Where was I wrong?

[TheChosenOne]

Does this work with paid/closed student loan collections?

 

I have gotten defaulted student loans off my reports. Its a bit different. I believe there is a student loan forum where they tell u how to do it. IIRC, Govt backed loans are an animal of a different nature.

[futurehomeowner?]

Hi TheChosenOne.. I am newer to this site and have read a lot. The OP has gotten hi jacked here but this is a topic that i would like to discuss further. I am going to start a new thread about this and I would appreciate it if you would chime in there.

[beli]

 

 

 

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

Sol is in this instance is used when a creditor tries to sue you and you can use your States SOL as an affirmative defense. FCRA clearly states that negative accounts remain on your credit report for 7.5 yrs. Now that's not to say you can't use different things to try and get them off earlier than 7.5yrs.

 

Don't confuse the two.

 

Now just so you don't go arguing with me

 

605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports

[15 U.S.C. §1681c]

(a)

Information excluded from consumer reports.

Except as authorized under subsection (

of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing

any of the following items of information:

(1) Cases under title 11 [united States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the

date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be,

antedate the report by more than 10 years.

) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the

report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has

expired, whichever is the longer period.

(3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven

years.

(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report

by more than seven years.

Running of Reporting Period

(1)

In general.

The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)

6

of subsection (a)

shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (inter-

nally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or

23

subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on

the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the

collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action

Right, the SOL part is for them suing. But if you look back to history of posts you will see that sending out a cease and desist can trigger a lawsuit, which is why I referenced the SOL and making sure you can't be sued. The key is to be past SOL and send out a C&D validation request. In most instances all they have is a computer print out of your name and amount owed which isn't considered validation. So you're protected by SOL for suits and C&D validation for reporting to the CRAs. Where was I wrong?

But you were referencing your State's SOL to have the account be removed from Cra... unless I read that wrong. You can't use your States SOL as a reason to have the account removed. Your states Sol is an affirmative defense when sued by the JDB/CA. Well you could try to use it w/ the Cra's, but they will just tell you they have 7yrs to report the debt.

[TheChosenOne]

 

 

 

 

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

Sol is in this instance is used when a creditor tries to sue you and you can use your States SOL as an affirmative defense. FCRA clearly states that negative accounts remain on your credit report for 7.5 yrs. Now that's not to say you can't use different things to try and get them off earlier than 7.5yrs.

 

Don't confuse the two.

 

Now just so you don't go arguing with me

 

605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports

[15 U.S.C. §1681c]

(a)

Information excluded from consumer reports.

Except as authorized under subsection (

of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing

any of the following items of information:

(1) Cases under title 11 [united States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the

date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be,

antedate the report by more than 10 years.

) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the

report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has

expired, whichever is the longer period.

(3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven

years.

(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report

by more than seven years.

Running of Reporting Period

(1)

In general.

The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)

6

of subsection (a)

shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (inter-

nally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or

23

subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on

the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the

collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action

Right, the SOL part is for them suing. But if you look back to history of posts you will see that sending out a cease and desist can trigger a lawsuit, which is why I referenced the SOL and making sure you can't be sued. The key is to be past SOL and send out a C&D validation request. In most instances all they have is a computer print out of your name and amount owed which isn't considered validation. So you're protected by SOL for suits and C&D validation for reporting to the CRAs. Where was I wrong?

But you were referencing your State's SOL to have the account be removed from Cra... unless I read that wrong. You can't use your States SOL as a reason to have the account removed. Your states Sol is an affirmative defense when sued by the JDB/CA. Well you could try to use it w/ the Cra's, but they will just tell you they have 7yrs to report the debt.

I don't understand what youre saying?? You use the SOL on suing along with the cease and desist to accomplish the deletion... maybe I didn't type it right but its what I meant and its nothing new to this site...

 

I don't like quoting from other sites, but here you go:

 

"The question is whether or not reporting to a CRA falls into this prohibition. Look carefully at the section of Section 805( which allows them to report to a CRA "a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law"

 

Since under Section 805©, the only remaining communication which is otherwise permitted by law is to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated; is there any way that the CA can report the account in such a way that the only thing that the CA is reporting is that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated.

 

The only answer to that question is no, since by providing such a notation to the CRA, the CA would be in fact, continuing collection efforts, since under the Cass Opinion reporting is a collection activity."

 

I have gotten a lot of tradelines deleted after making sure they were past their SOL of 4 years. Trust me it works. I don't know how else to explain it.

[SCORPIO07]

to the OP you can only submit a dispute with TU online once every 21 days after your last online dispute is completed give or take a few days.

[beli]

 

 

 

 

 

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

Sol is in this instance is used when a creditor tries to sue you and you can use your States SOL as an affirmative defense. FCRA clearly states that negative accounts remain on your credit report for 7.5 yrs. Now that's not to say you can't use different things to try and get them off earlier than 7.5yrs.

 

Don't confuse the two.

 

Now just so you don't go arguing with me

 

605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports

[15 U.S.C. §1681c]

(a)

Information excluded from consumer reports.

Except as authorized under subsection (

of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing

any of the following items of information:

(1) Cases under title 11 [united States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the

date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be,

antedate the report by more than 10 years.

) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the

report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has

expired, whichever is the longer period.

(3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven

years.

(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report

by more than seven years.

Running of Reporting Period

(1)

In general.

The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)

6

of subsection (a)

shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (inter-

nally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or

23

subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on

the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the

collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action

Right, the SOL part is for them suing. But if you look back to history of posts you will see that sending out a cease and desist can trigger a lawsuit, which is why I referenced the SOL and making sure you can't be sued. The key is to be past SOL and send out a C&D validation request. In most instances all they have is a computer print out of your name and amount owed which isn't considered validation. So you're protected by SOL for suits and C&D validation for reporting to the CRAs. Where was I wrong?

But you were referencing your State's SOL to have the account be removed from Cra... unless I read that wrong. You can't use your States SOL as a reason to have the account removed. Your states Sol is an affirmative defense when sued by the JDB/CA. Well you could try to use it w/ the Cra's, but they will just tell you they have 7yrs to report the debt.

I don't understand what youre saying?? You use the SOL on suing along with the cease and desist to accomplish the deletion... maybe I didn't type it right but its what I meant and its nothing new to this site...

 

I don't like quoting from other sites, but here you go:

 

"The question is whether or not reporting to a CRA falls into this prohibition. Look carefully at the section of Section 805( which allows them to report to a CRA "a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law"

 

Since under Section 805©, the only remaining communication which is otherwise permitted by law is to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated; is there any way that the CA can report the account in such a way that the only thing that the CA is reporting is that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated.

 

The only answer to that question is no, since by providing such a notation to the CRA, the CA would be in fact, continuing collection efforts, since under the Cass Opinion reporting is a collection activity."

 

I have gotten a lot of tradelines deleted after making sure they were past their SOL of 4 years. Trust me it works. I don't know how else to explain it.

The point is.. we don't want new people being confused between the two SOL's just because it worked for you, doesn't mean it'll work for everyone. We have enough people confused about knowing the difference between the two SOL's as it is. Saying it's going to work and does work time after time after other proven methods have and has been tested by various other people is giving the OP false hope. Not saying not to post your experience but to say it's a tried and true method is a bit disingenuous to others. For ones that the OP has that fall off next month, simply writing them and saying it's obsolete should do the trick. No need to get into C&D's or anything like that.

[hrguy]

 

In my experience from a few years ago, the date something is scheduled to fall off your reports is far beyond when you can actually have it removed, which is usually around 4 years depending on the state youre in, as long as you are willing to send out a few letters.

For example, If the statute of limitations on your debt in your state is only 4 years, you count from the time the account when bad and never became current again. Then you use the statute of limitations on collection activity for your state to stop the reporting agency from verifying the derogatory after the 4 years have passed. Since verifying is considered collection activity, usually the right letter telling them you'll be suing them will get it to fall off.

You have to do 3 things: 1.write a letter threatening reporting agency telling them they would be in violation of law to validate and back it up with a few facts about the law and intent to sue if validation occurred. 2. write a letter to each credit bureau disputing the item(s) and if validated, write another demanding method of validation. Meanwhile, 3. Hit up the bbb, feds and local consumer affairs offices in your area telling them about how the credit bureau is failing to properly investigate and/or show how the item was validated and let them send a letter to the bureaus.

Basically, you have to become a fly in the ointment. This is how it worked a few years back. Its been awhile for me so anybody feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong.

Continued collection activity? Using SOL as a reason to have accounts removed from CRA's that are less than 7 years?

 

Where did you get this information may I ask?

[LKH]

Federal law supersedes state law. The FCRA states a negative ie: charge off, collection, can report for 7 years =+ 180 days from date of initial delinquency. Verifying a consumer initiated dispute is not collection activity.

[Guest]

 

Sol is in this instance is used when a creditor tries to sue you and you can use your States SOL as an affirmative defense.

 

Since we are talking about it, is that describing "time-barred" debt, as to the period of time has passed that the debt is no longer collectable, and the OP never has to pay?