Define Date of Last Activity for me please..

[rbomar]

I have searched this site and the web for the real definition of what does the "Date of Last Activity" mean. Equifax keeps updating my DOLA when they validate an account. I thought this date was the date of the last payment or any actual modification to the account. Could someone please explain this to me. Thanks !

[JerseyBaby]

What you're really looking for is the "date of first delinquency." That's the date that the account first became delinquent and was never thereafter brought current.

[rbomar]

So it doesn't matter what the Date of Last Activity says? Thanks for the reply.

[snowboardprincess]

Dont mean to hijack this thread but i had question regarding this too. My friend who i talked about yesterday has a credit card in collection. Would DOLA be the date she went delinquent with the credit card company or the date she made payment to collection agency? Yes I told her she was dumb for doing that. Thank you.

[pryan67]

the DOLA makes NO DIFFERENCE as to when the item will "fall off" of your reports

 

 

the DOFD (Date of First Delinquency) DOES matter...

 

that's the date on which you FIRST missed a payment that led to the charge off...paying a CA does NOT reset this date

[jh8314]

Just wanting some clarification: So if I have an unpaid collection account that is due to fall off my reports in 2009 and I pay it, it will still fall off in 2009 but until then just show on my reports as being paid? Will the payment in anyway affect my credit score?

[JerseyBaby]

Just wanting some clarification: So if I have an unpaid collection account that is due to fall off my reports in 2009 and I pay it, it will still fall off in 2009 but until then just show on my reports as being paid? Will the payment in anyway affect my credit score?

 

Yes, it will still fall off in 2009. As for the FICO effect of being paid, FICO claims that new versions of the scoring models correct the error that did not reward consumers for paying collections. But all earlier versions of FICO, including those most widely used currently, do not treat paid collections any differently than unpaid. However, paid collections can eliminate many hassles down the road, and they do look better to creditors viewing your reports.

[Curious]

Just wanting some clarification: So if I have an unpaid collection account that is due to fall off my reports in 2009 and I pay it, it will still fall off in 2009 but until then just show on my reports as being paid? Will the payment in anyway affect my credit score?

 

Yes, it will still fall off in 2009. As for the FICO effect of being paid, FICO claims that new versions of the scoring models correct the error that did not reward consumers for paying collections. But all earlier versions of FICO, including those most widely used currently, do not treat paid collections any differently than unpaid. However, paid collections can eliminate many hassles down the road, and they do look better to creditors viewing your reports.

 

I had an old unpaid utility bill, so when I bought a new home in July, I had to pay it before I could get service at my new home. The utility co reported it to TU as a paid collection and my socre dropped 50 pts. My Fico reason for lower scores now read 'delinquency as of this month.' TU scoring model still reads the date of payment as the date of delinquency.

[Why Chat]

When an old account is paid off the DOLA for any REAL transaction on the account is updated and will reduce the score.

 

It is POSSIBLE that there is SOME "credit" given on a FICO or a trimerged report for an old account that has been reaged because of payment, but I doubt it.

 

In addition, even though an old account is paid ( to a CA ) and THAT CA has changed their reporting to a paid collection account, the possibility exists that the "balance" will be sold to another CA who may report it as a new collection account based on the "settlement" agreement ( contract) made with the "old" CA.

[jh8314]

So I guess the moral of the story is that it doesnt pay to pay off?

[wvjules]

This is from Equifax's FAQ. It states DOLA, not date of first deliquency.

 

How long do you keep my credit information?

 

Payment in full does not remove your payment history. The length of time information remains in your credit file is shown below:

 

Credit Accounts

 

* Accounts paid as agreed remain on file for up to 10 years from the date of last activity (DLA)

* Accounts not paid as agreed remain on file for seven years from the DLA

 

Collection Accounts

 

* Remain on file for seven years from the DLA

 

Public Records

 

* Judgments remain on file for seven years from the date filed, whether satisfied (paid) or not

* Paid tax liens remain on file for seven years from the date released (paid)

* Unpaid tax liens remain on file indefinitely

* Bankruptcy

* Chapters 7, 11, and non-discharged or dismissed chapters 12 and 13 remain on file for 10 years from the date filed

* Discharged chapters 12 and 13 remain on file for seven years from the date filed

 

New York State Residents Only (must be current resident)

 

* Satisfied judgments remain five years from the date filed

* Paid collections remain five years from the date of last activity

* All other purge rules as noted above apply

 

California State Residents Only (must be current resident)

 

* Paid or released tax liens remain on file seven years from the date released or 10 years from the date file

* Unpaid or unreleased tax liens remain 10 years from the file date

* All consumer-initiated inquiries for the purpose of obtaining a loan and/or benefit remain on the file for two years

* All other purge rules as noted above apply

Edited October 11, 2006 by wvjules

[IDare]

I have searched this site and the web for the real definition of what does the "Date of Last Activity" mean. Equifax keeps updating my DOLA when they validate an account. I thought this date was the date of the last payment or any actual modification to the account. Could someone please explain this to me. Thanks !

 

How do you know that it's the CRA who's updating the DOLA, and not the data furnisher? I suspect it's probably the data furnisher updating that field when they VERIFY (not validate) in response to a dispute. IF they're causing the TL to remain on your CR for longer than it should when they tinker with that date, it's a serious FCRA violation each time they do it. If the data furnisher is a CA, it may also be considered an FDCPA violation.

 

Study the information here: What is "re-aging"?

 

You can skip the first paragraph about legal re-aging and just focus on the rest of that post.

[theshoediva]

the DOLA makes NO DIFFERENCE as to when the item will "fall off" of your reports

 

 

the DOFD (Date of First Delinquency) DOES matter...

 

that's the date on which you FIRST missed a payment that led to the charge off...paying a CA does NOT reset this date

Thanks Pryan for answering my question 2 years ago.

 

So as I understand it, paying a CA after the DOFD has been set (by the 180 days) does NOT reset this date for reporting purposes.

 

To break it down even further, say...

 

I opened an account with JCPenny in January 2000 and my last payment was made January 2001. After not making any more payments the account went to collections 180 days later (June 2001).

 

In October 2001 a CA purchased the account for pennies on the dollar and began collecting on it (sending me letters, calling me). I get frantic (because I clearly haven't discovered this site) and I enter into a payment agreement with the CA in December 2001, because I'm trying to avoid their taking Christmas away. After the Holidays come and go I stop making payments and the CA sells to another CA JDB.

 

In April 2007, I find this site! I get all the bad addresses taken off my reports and I dispute among many things the TL from the OC (JCPenny) and the first CA. They fall off. Well here comes the 2nd CA trying to collect. No worries because regardless of what state I'm in, 9 times out of 10 this is out of SOL and guess what.....? Its also past the 7 year running period described in the FCRA, so I need not worry about this debt ever again!

 

MODS- If I got this right, can we PLEASE make this a sticky?

[pryan67]

correct....DOFD can NOT be reset UNLESS you bring the account CURRENT and useable again...

 

 

now....if you were to make a payment agreement with the CA in the form of a new "credit card" such as what Midland and that gang tries occasionally...then THAT account can be reported...but the original account can NOT

[theshoediva]

correct....DOFD can NOT be reset UNLESS you bring the account CURRENT and useable again...

 

 

now....if you were to make a payment agreement with the CA in the form of a new "credit card" such as what Midland and that gang tries occasionally...then THAT account can be reported...but the original account can NOT

THANK YOU PRYAN....you're the bestest!

 

Now can you help me advocate to the mods for this to be a sticky or something similar where DOFD is explained.

[slowbra1]

correct....DOFD can NOT be reset UNLESS you bring the account CURRENT and useable again...

 

 

now....if you were to make a payment agreement with the CA in the form of a new "credit card" such as what Midland and that gang tries occasionally...then THAT account can be reported...but the original account can NOT

Here is what is going on with me, Target Visa. My wife and I got divorced, my ex wife closed the account in July 2003, the payment was not made that month, she kept paying until february of 2004, Now Target claims they closed the account in April of 2004 and my ex wife made a payment in October 2004 so they claim a charge off date of 4-2005.

 

I had no use of the card after June 2003. I asked for a 623 investigation and for all account history, they have no charge slips and no user agreement and there was no activity as far as purchases after 6-2003.

 

How does this affect me as a AU on the account ???

[centex]

correct....DOFD can NOT be reset UNLESS you bring the account CURRENT and useable again...

 

 

now....if you were to make a payment agreement with the CA in the form of a new "credit card" such as what Midland and that gang tries occasionally...then THAT account can be reported...but the original account can NOT

Here is what is going on with me, Target Visa. My wife and I got divorced, my ex wife closed the account in July 2003, the payment was not made that month, she kept paying until february of 2004, Now Target claims they closed the account in April of 2004 and my ex wife made a payment in October 2004 so they claim a charge off date of 4-2005.

 

I had no use of the card after June 2003. I asked for a 623 investigation and for all account history, they have no charge slips and no user agreement and there was no activity as far as purchases after 6-2003.

 

How does this affect me as a AU on the account ???

 

 

since they do not need to product a signed agreement or copies of charge slips, I would urge you to instead look at the contractual liability (or lack thereof in the case of an AU)...

[slowbra1]

correct....DOFD can NOT be reset UNLESS you bring the account CURRENT and useable again...

 

 

now....if you were to make a payment agreement with the CA in the form of a new "credit card" such as what Midland and that gang tries occasionally...then THAT account can be reported...but the original account can NOT

Here is what is going on with me, Target Visa. My wife and I got divorced, my ex wife closed the account in July 2003, the payment was not made that month, she kept paying until february of 2004, Now Target claims they closed the account in April of 2004 and my ex wife made a payment in October 2004 so they claim a charge off date of 4-2005.

 

I had no use of the card after June 2003. I asked for a 623 investigation and for all account history, they have no charge slips and no user agreement and there was no activity as far as purchases after 6-2003.

 

How does this affect me as a AU on the account ???

 

OK how ? They refuse to give me any info beyond, the last payment.

 

 

since they do not need to product a signed agreement or copies of charge slips, I would urge you to instead look at the contractual liability (or lack thereof in the case of an AU)...

[GamingG]

Authorized User = No contractual liability. Dispute based on that.

 

If you can get them to admit (in writing) that you were an authorized user only, this would give you a lot more leverage.

Edited May 9, 2010 by GamingG

[slowbra1]

Authorized User = No contractual liability. Dispute based on that.

 

If you can get them to admit (in writing) that you were an authorized user only, this would give you a lot more leverage.

Authorized User = No contractual liability. Dispute based on that.

 

If you can get them to admit (in writing) that you were an authorized user only, this would give you a lot more leverage.

 

 

They told me they cannot give me that information they said they do not have the records . They did disclose I was on the card from October 2002- until July 2003.

I already have disputed this info with the CRA's for a few years, I have also in writing asked Target to investigate it as well as the date they claim the account was closed, they are reporting the account closed by granter, its all incorrect, I'm getting nowhere fast with them.

[centex]

Authorized User = No contractual liability. Dispute based on that.

 

If you can get them to admit (in writing) that you were an authorized user only, this would give you a lot more leverage.

Authorized User = No contractual liability. Dispute based on that.

 

If you can get them to admit (in writing) that you were an authorized user only, this would give you a lot more leverage.

 

 

They told me they cannot give me that information they said they do not have the records . They did disclose I was on the card from October 2002- until July 2003.

I already have disputed this info with the CRA's for a few years, I have also in writing asked Target to investigate it as well as the date they claim the account was closed, they are reporting the account closed by granter, its all incorrect, I'm getting nowhere fast with them.

 

 

At what point in time did your written dispute to the bureau(s) specifically indicate that you had no contractual liability?

 

You don't need TFS to admit the AU status to you because it SHOULD show on the credit report tradeline that you were an authorized user as opposed to joint or individual ownership of the account.

Edited May 9, 2010 by centex

[hdporter]

This is simply an aside that I'm not sure that closure date is all that relevent in your dispute. An account can be closed and yet be brought to a current status by payments. The issue here is what was the DOFD (from which the account was never brought current) immediately preciding the charge off.

 

Date of account closure has no bearing on that date.

[slowbra1]

This is simply an aside that I'm not sure that closure date is all that relevent in your dispute. An account can be closed and yet be brought to a current status by payments. The issue here is what was the DOFD (from which the account was never brought current) immediately preciding the charge off.

 

Date of account closure has no bearing on that date.

 

They claim charge off 4-2005.

 

Last payment they claim was Sept 2004. They claim the payment was 225.00 They stated the minimum due was 435.00.

 

I had already been divorced by this time for a year.

 

The trade line does read AU.

 

hdporter Thank you for your response.

 

I cannot get any co-operation from my ex.

Edited May 9, 2010 by slowbra1

[centex]

This is simply an aside that I'm not sure that closure date is all that relevent in your dispute. An account can be closed and yet be brought to a current status by payments. The issue here is what was the DOFD (from which the account was never brought current) immediately preciding the charge off.

 

Date of account closure has no bearing on that date.

 

They claim charge off 4-2005.

 

Last payment they claim was Sept 2004. They claim the payment was 225.00 They stated the minimum due was 435.00.

 

I had already been divorced by this time for a year.

 

The trade line does read AU.

 

hdporter Thank you for your response.

 

I cannot get any co-operation from my ex.

 

 

If the TL reads AU, then the basis for dispute has been spelled out for you...nothing else is relevant on the account.

[credit-credit]

thanks.... definately need this

 

then SOL is from DOLA, right?

 

if I am wrong, dont get angry people..I can go reread the info

 

thanks!