Mid November I pull copies of CR from all 3 CRA's. Today I go back to TU and go through the 'Disputes' section to initiate one, which also seems to pull a fresh copy of the report as up top it says "Report Date 12/05/12". I also had in my hand the hard copy of the report from a few weeks ago. I see an account listed here that is not listed on the annual free CR I got from TU in November. It is an account listed on the other CRA CR but was def not on the TU. Whats worse is the date scheduled to fall off is 6.5 years. This is that old account opened 10+ years ago and the 1st delinquency leading ultimately to the C/O I believe was past the 7.5 year mark yet according to data submitted to TU, you would think this just happened last year. So....my question is, is TU (or any CRA for that matter) hiding accounts depending on how the report is pulled? Also Do I just dispute it through TU, or do I send a DV LTR to the OC stating they're reporting inaccurate data. Does anyone subscribe to an unlimited monitoring service for all 3 CRA's that works well and isn't expensive?
1.) I would send a dispute letter to TU first stating that the SOL is over. (But to be clear are dates correct on the CR and are they over the SOL?) 2.) The 3-in-1 Monitoring from EQ and TU are your best bet: Credit Reports - Creditnet.com
Jason -- I'm 100% sure SOL is over. Whether I go by state I opened card in, or state I live in now, SOL, whether looked at as an open account or written, is 4 years -- long since I made any payments on account. Problem is IDK for sure when the initial delinquency that ultimately led to the charge-off occurred. I *believe* it was somewhere between 2004 and 2006. I realize this is a huge time span, so much changed in my life around then. So reporting time still being allowed could go either way....but still they are definitively not reporting accurately on TU acting like this just happened a year or so ago. 3-in-1....Thanks, I'll check into it.
Take a look at my Woah, Boy updates... You'll see what the caselaw recommends. Yes, I had a busy few hours of typing... and caselaw research...
Jam I started reading it before I came to this thread. In a nutshell it sounds like it's all going your way and you're in violation heaven against them! Question -- you said this is caselaw, does that mean that if after sending a simple first-round DV LTR to the OC and if I get back screen-shot nonsense that they're reporting correctly, I can quote certain sections of the caselaw you posted in a subsequent letter to the while concurrently disputing with CRA's that item is incomplete/inaccurate. Actually, I am not sure the reporting is the OC. Reporting from SST/CIGPF I CORP. IDK if they bought out Providian Bank years ago and that that would entitle them to be considered the OC, or if they're a CA. Google search of SST by itself makes it look like a card issuer but when attaching the CIGPF to the back of the name makes it look like a CA. But the CA that I sent a DV LTR to mid-late Nov said they were doing so on behalf of their client, SST/CIGPF (so can CA's assign accounts to other CA's?)
