I have written a post about this account before and basically what is happening is I disputed an account with CRA's it came back verified, I sent numerous Validation request and then finally Estoppel to CA--all with no responses (sent CRRR) so with the copies of each of these and the receipts I sent to CRA's for deletion of an unvalidated TL, now The reports are coming in the mail as "verified remains", I have noticed on the credit reports there are different names for this account on each report, but same account number. I sent the validation letters to the collection agency that sent me a collection letter about this account. But since day one this company's name never did show up on any of the reports,but a different name on each report, Well anyway I called one of the CRA's today and they said it has been verified, I said who did you speak to and what is the phone #? She said we dont verify over the phone we do it by computer and if the information matches up then its verified. So I said "Then you never speak one on one to a live person?" she said "no". She then gave me the address of the collection agency which is totally different than the one I was dealing with. But my question is...What do I do now? I am not hearing from the collection agency that sent me the original collection letter anymore but this account continues to show up on the credit reports, Please help with some advice, I dont know what to do. thanks.
Whatever address they have in their computer for a particular company is where they send info for verification. Nevermind that it is not the office you dealt with or sent your payments to.
Also, How can this acccount show up on all three cr's and have different names and addresses BUT the same account number? And How do I get rid of this TL, how would I get this deleted?
If the CRA report lists a CA and address, and you attempt to contact the CA using that address, is that not good enough then? If not, then a CRA /CA could provide a new address at any point and all previous attempts at validation are useless. . .