Jump to content

The last post in this topic was posted 2581 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

I need some clarification:

How long does it take a TL to fall off a credit report? 7 years from date of first delinquency or date of last delinquency?

 

I am looking at my TU report, hard copy right now.

 

I have a [30] from 03/2008, that would be date of first delinquency or not? (that is my first missed payment of this account and it says under account summary the date closed is 04/2008!?!)

 

After the [30], there are 3 months of [60] then [OK] until 7/2009.

 

From 7/2009, it goes [30], [60], [90], [120], [120], then 8 straight [CO]'s, with the last [CO] being 07/2010.

 

DOFD or DOLD are not listed under account summary. However, date of last payment is listed at 05/2009. (even though i have an [OK] at 06/2009).

 

The estimated month and year for it to fall off is listed at 05/2016... 7 years after date of last payment.

 

Sorry if this is confusing... but according to this data... when should this TL fall off?

Edited by pluckman4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically the CB's have 7.5 years from DOFD that was never brought current and caused the account to charge off. They usually delete around 7 years from date of first delinquency though. So, if you had a late payment, then brought the account current, you can't use that delinquency date. You must use the date of first default where the account was never brought current again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For TU specifically, a late payment on an otherwise positive trade line will fall off on the month prior to 7 years, e.g. delinquency 10/2007 should fall off 09/2017. In your scenario with it ultimately resulting in a charge-off, with the last delinquency cycle beginning in 07/2009, then it should fall off 06/2016. I cannot find a consistent rhyme or reason with TU sometimes, with their fall-off dates generally seeming to come earlier than what one would have expected. So, if they say 05/2016, then that seems correct.

 

However, many members generally have good luck with requesting early deletions from TU, up to 6 months prior to the projected fall-off dates. For example, I recently had two COs, one from Barclays Bank DE and one from HSBC Bank, scheduled to be removed 09/2014. I disputed them online as "obsolete" on 03/14/2014 and they were deleted on 04/11/2014.

 

So, beginning 12/2015 you could start disputing this item as obsolete, to try for the early deletion.

Edited by policebox
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can usually get an early deletion from TU (within 6 months of it falling off) by deleting as obsolete online. I had success getting rid of two Merrick COs that were both showing a balance that way recently. You can try doing the same with EQ - but the process is a little harder and takes a little longer. EX, you're pretty much going to have to wait for it to age off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can usually get an early deletion from TU (within 6 months of it falling off) by deleting as obsolete online. I had success getting rid of two Merrick COs that were both showing a balance that way recently. You can try doing the same with EQ - but the process is a little harder and takes a little longer. EX, you're pretty much going to have to wait for it to age off.

It was my understanding that people have had luck deleting as obsolete with EX within 3 months of it falling off. No?

Edited by bigbas101
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can usually get an early deletion from TU (within 6 months of it falling off) by deleting as obsolete online. I had success getting rid of two Merrick COs that were both showing a balance that way recently. You can try doing the same with EQ - but the process is a little harder and takes a little longer. EX, you're pretty much going to have to wait for it to age off.

It was my understanding that people have had luck deleting as obsolete with EX within 3 months of it falling off. No?

 

 

TU and EQ: up to 6 months early

EX: up to 3 months early

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You can usually get an early deletion from TU (within 6 months of it falling off) by deleting as obsolete online. I had success getting rid of two Merrick COs that were both showing a balance that way recently. You can try doing the same with EQ - but the process is a little harder and takes a little longer. EX, you're pretty much going to have to wait for it to age off.

It was my understanding that people have had luck deleting as obsolete with EX within 3 months of it falling off. No?

 

 

TU and EQ: up to 6 months early

EX: up to 3 months early

 

 

Good to know. Although EX is a pain in my butt lately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You can usually get an early deletion from TU (within 6 months of it falling off) by deleting as obsolete online. I had success getting rid of two Merrick COs that were both showing a balance that way recently. You can try doing the same with EQ - but the process is a little harder and takes a little longer. EX, you're pretty much going to have to wait for it to age off.

It was my understanding that people have had luck deleting as obsolete with EX within 3 months of it falling off. No?

 

 

TU and EQ: up to 6 months early

EX: up to 3 months early

 

^^This^^

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 2581 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Fred030
      Greeting Everyone,
       
      I am a new member. I want to thank all of you for your sincere efforts and guidance. Devoting time to help others is actually a best good some could offer. Thank you all.
       
      Now about me.
       
      I am working to clean up my credit. I have a student loan that is currently under deferment until 02/2016. Back in 2014, When it went to repayment phase, I was overseas. By the time I cam back in Aug 2014, the loan was already 180 Days late. I applied for Econ Harship that was granted and back dated to Feb 2014(The original date when the repayment was due). I have recently noticed that it is being reported to my Credit File as 180 days late despite Econ Hardship Deferment back dating.I disputed with the CRA but it came back as "updated" with same late data.
       
      I think my question is how I can resolve this with the CRA. The OC does not seems to understand that Econ deferment means as if the loan is being paid as agreed, and unwilling to report a removal of late status. My understanding is that when deferment is back dated it reads as no default has been occurred and loan is being paid as agreed. Is it possible that contest it of justify it through precedents are legal aspects. I may be misunderstanding. Please help me.
    • By Mrfreshnewstart
      So I had a perkins student loan defaulted on in 2000. I never made a payment or consolidated this student loan because I forgot all about it. now Fast forward to 2013 the dept of ed picks it up and I pay it off in full. On my credit report the dofd says 2009, I contacted the cra & dept of ed to tell them the original delinquency date was in 2000 not 2009. They both refuse to act on my dispute. Now I just received my letter from my school staying everything I said is true. So my question is can gov serviced loans have the ability to be re-agged?
    • By greenturtle
      Hello, if a similar post exists, please let me know and discard my post. Thank you.
       
      Three years ago, I had a lengthy short sale. At the end of the process, I settled with the bank by paying as much as we can on the loan with a balance as debt forgiveness. In the after settlement letter, the bank said the debt forgiveness will be reported as "account paid in full for less than the full balance". As little as I understood back then, I didn't think this would be a problem for getting a mortgage in the future when we rebuild our life.
       
      Now we are trying to buy a home and getting a mortgage, the lender pointed out this particular report on the short sale three years ago. Currently on my CR, it says:
       
      XXX Bank INS 03/11 91125 Coll/ChrgOff TRU01 acct#YYY 180 M 637 06/07 88215 0 * 03/11 637 3822 (EFX,XPN) SECURED UNPAID BALANCE CHARGED OFF The lender indicated that this line is a concern for the underwriter and should be changed to something like "balance is zero". Could you please give me some advice/directions how I can fix this: 1. Should I contact the short sale lender and request them to change the report? If so, what should I ask them to change to? 2. Or should I dispute with the CRAs (if it's disputable)? Thank you so much for your help!
    • By funkiehouse
      I have been trying to deal with two old HSBC accounts that were charged off. Long story short, I had 2 HSBC cards charged off before Cap1 bought their US credit card business. They went to Cap1 and I battled them for removal by disputes, EO action, and a CFBP complaint. Nothing came of any of those attempts. They have now been assigned back to HSBC from what i can tell because they now list the po box 9 address in Buffalo instead of the Cap1 Carol Springs, IL address.
       
      I have done recent CRA disputes about these accounts and here's how they are reporting (and came back as verified):
       
      Experian is reporting these as positive trade lines that will will remain until 2021 with the notation "sold to another lender" and a "closed" date in mid 2011. No payment history is reporting at all. No balance due. No charge off notation. Shows up on the backdoor online dispute in the positive accounts section.
       
      Transunion and Equifax are reporting these accounts as charge off accounts with "closed" dates of late 2010. Payment history shows lates leading up to CO. Purchased by another lender noted.
       
      Which of the following methods would you use? Or do you have a different idea?
       
      1. I have a 623 letter typed up with all of the issues mention above plus a few more. The two outcomes I think may come of this are either:
      (a) it will be removed because of the incorrect reporting or lack of records to review it since it went to Cap1 and then came back
      (b.) they will change the experian reporting to show the CO making it a negative account again
       
      2. File a CFPB dispute for the trade lines reporting completely differently after disputes. I have copies of the disputes showing the completely different reporting.
       
      My goal is complete deletion of these trade lines.
    • By BJKill
      This may provide some ammo to fight charge-off status still reporting on discharged debt.
      I just saw where one of my discharged debts had been sold after my BK 7. Couldn't figure out why. This is probably the reason.
       
      http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/debts-canceled-by-bankruptcy-still-mar-consumer-credit-scores/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      180,834
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    kglavin
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines