It appears that I have a split board? So if some of you see this question again..please disregard. My mom paid a bill directly to the orignal creditor, now the CA refuses to remove it from her file. What can we do? Does estoppel work here?
First Validation, then when they presumably don't answer, estoppel. If they do answer, it clearly will be with bogus documentation (I got one back recently with a Post-It attached a copy of my validation letter-- Very professional), move on to the estoppel as if they didn't respond (they didn't send it certified, right?). Alternately, since you have proof of payment, you could just send them a copy and a very clear threat to sue for Willful Violation of your rights under the FCRA, and FDCPA at $1000 per instance plus punitive damages. Each CR they've blemished should be, I would think, a separate violation (but I'm not a lawyer). I might even mention the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Ninth Amendment, just to rattle their cage. Interesting how a thread titled "Credit Question" seems so unusual (and refreshing!) after the goings on here lately.
First of all, if the original creditor accepted payment for the debt, then collection activity on the account is required to stop. This isn't the answer to your question, of course, and I'm probably preaching to the choir, LOL, but it seems like a good place to begin regardless. In other words, if the CA is still attempting to collect the debt even if they claim they own it, they must stop the collection attempts. Second, as for your question regarding the remaining credit file tradeline, here's how I would handle this: Get a letter from the original creditor attesting to the paid-in-full status of the account. (That should be easy to do.) Next, ensure that the original creditor has at least changed the status from an R9 to an R5 (in Equifax-speak) or from a "charged-off account" to a "paid, was 120+ days past due" notation. Both are bad, but the second is far better than the first. Next, regard the collection notation as an erroneous duplication and dispute it on that basis, attaching a copy of the paid-in-full letter from the original creditor as proof that the account should NEVER have been acted upon by the CA and that their notation is both a duplication and an error. In any case, I'll bet the CA never revised their tradeline from R9 to R5 so it IS in fact an error and can be challenged on that basis as well. If the CRA doesn't play ball, you have the basis for a nifty small-claims action. Doc P.S. I just added this postscript as an "edit" after reading Quixote's great response. Evidently we were typing at the same time. Bottom line is that I like his answer a lot too! He's working the CA while I'm suggesting you work with the CRA. Do both! Rattle both cages.
