My questions are 1. I paid a CA for full deletion on an account in Aug 2007, the CA deleted off my report (yea Me) (I know, should have valadated, didn't know then what I know now) I do have the reciept with the OC account #. 2. The OC is still showing as Charge Off- I disputed with the 3 CRA's Jul 08and the OC verified as charge off with a balance due. (shouldn't it at a minimum reflect paid charge off?) 3. Does the CA have to report to the OC that the account has been paid? 4. Does the OC have to follow up with the CA to see if it is paid prior to verifying with the CRA? 5. Should I demand the OC or CRA remove it from my report, as they verified erroneous info?
I would dispute again.i don't believe the oc has to.Might try a goodwill letter to the oc,who is the oc?i'm sure somone else has a different way then this but it's worth a shot.dispute till they take it off.good luck
It depend's if they sold or assign it to them.hopefully some one has a better answer,if they sold it it would show a certain way and i'm not not clear on that.
charge off is true They may not remove it because it was charged off. If they sold it to a CA they charged off a portion of it.
Darn, thought I had the oc for incorrect verification. Sould I send the OC a copy of the reciept from the ca? Hopefully get updated to paid charge off, balance $0?
hmmm, dispute as ACCOUNT HAS ZERO BALANCE. Do you still have a copy of the payment to the CA? If you have a copy of the payment, if the OC validates the account still has a balance, then after they verify that the account still has a balance, you have a Johnson v. MBNA based case that the OC did not perrm a conclusive validation. (Or, you've uncovered that the CA did not remit payment to the OC, which the OC would love to hear about considering you have the canceled check showing that it was paid.) If the account was sold, the account HAS to have a ZERO balance, because they ZEROED out the balance when they sold it to the CA. To have a DF for incorrect verification the dispute has to be germane to the incorrect data being disputed. For instance, in Johnson v. MBNA, although it was a NOT MINE dispute, it was SPECIFIC that the account was NOT Ms. Johnson's but her ex-husband who declared BK's account. If you use a blank dispute, or a standard fill in the checkbox dispute, in most cases you're dispute won't be specific enough to have an incorrect verification suit. You may have problems if you try another more specific dispute, since some CRA's (EX) will try to flag them as "PREVIOUSLY VERIFIED", without flagging them as FRIVOLOUS, although FRIVOLOUS is the only way they can refuse to perform a dispute. In that case, you would want to demand through the CRA that the OC be demanded to PERFORM A CONCLUSIVE VERIFICATION from the ORIGINAL ACCOUNT RECORDS, instead of a CURSORY REVIEW OF THEIR COMPUTER SYSTEMS, pursuant to Johnson v. MBNA.
I do have a reciept from the CA here it what is says. Toll Free Tele: (866) 488-4299 August 29, 2007 Bay Area Credit Service LLC. PO BOX 4387 ENGLEWOOD CO 80155-4387 my name my address ACCOUNT DETAIL Creditor: Bank One Present Owner: MILE ROCK MASTER FUND I Your Account Number: xxxxxxxxxx Client Reference Number: xxxxxxx Amount Saved: $1.93 Balance Due: $0.00 * * * SETTLEMENT RECEIPT * * * Thank you for your prompt payment. Your account has been Settled in Full. Payments in the sum amount of (($4,828.57)) have been received and applied to the above referenced account as full settlement for this account and you have no further obligation. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Customer Service Department Bay Area Credit Service LLC. THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR AND IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Please see PAGE 2 of this letter for IMPORTANT Consumer NOTIFICATIONS
notice paid date is aug 07 verification date from OC is Jul 08 I have a copy of the dispute results also
