I have 2 cc that are both reporting closed/charge-offs. The state sol on both was up in 2002, and they were charged off in 8/1998. I am hoping that they come off this year around 8/2005. Both of these accounts were transferred to CA's. The CR shows the OC on one line, and then it is showing the CA on the next line, both reporting the same amt. I want to know do I dispute this as duplicate accts., and request validation from the CA, and if the CA does not validate, do I request that the CRA delete because of non-validation? Will both the OC and the CA come off? Do I deal only with the fact that the CA is trying to collect after expiration of the state sol and request validate or delete from the CA????
How 'bout disputing with the CRA's as 'not mine' . Chances are they won't verify It's worked for me with OC that have less than 6 months to go before falling off... When did the accouts go to the CA's? S23
All the dates from all 3 CRA are different. EX is 10/99 EQ is 9/04 but it should be 6/98 TU 1/05 although it was previously reported charged off in 6/98. Is this re-aging an old acct where the SOL for the state expired in 02 or 03 depending on which one I look at, and it is months before the SOL for reporting would be up. I did read somewhere that an OC can report at the same time a CA is reporting and try to collect. Is this true, or did I not understand it fully.
Both the CA and OC can report adverse account activity for 7 years from the date of delinquency. If the OC has charged off / sold the account their listing should show 0 balance
I would dispute with the CRAs about the OC TLs and then wait for the green card then dispute with the CAs TLs as well. Chances are on TLs that old, the OC purged any info and will not be able to verify any information. The CA most likely does not have any info that it can stand on either. I sent one CA who I thought was trying to re-age one of my accounts a letter stating I was aware of a different date being used (since I have old reports that have the dates things are to fall off) and asked if that was an example of re-aging if they stayed on past the SOL of reporting and the account disappeared from all of the CRAs. I still have no idea if it was, but I managed to bluff my way through.
PD11604: Thanks for your input. This answers another post that I posted as well. The OC and the CA are both reporting a $ amt and not a 0 balance. Your suggestion at this point since they are not reporting 0 balances and it was charged off and sold to the CA. Thx Nkneed
you need to dispute with the CRA for any TL showing a dollar amount for the OC when in fact, it has been sold to a CA. If you live in a state that requires OC's to validate (ie: California for one, may be others) then you should have the OC validate the debt as well. Not only will you get the ball started as far as FCRA, FDCPA violations, but in the process the original date of deliquency should come out so that you can use it in cases of reaging As Ice_siren says - with old accounts both OC and CA may have trouble verifying with the CRA's
Dang It! Sorry... I asked the wrong question earlier What is the DOLA (Date of Last Acitvity) on your reports for the OC? don't worry about the CA- we'll get to that later.... EX can be a little confusing with the dates- listed under 'status details' the DOLA should be be 180 days before the chargeoff It's not 7 years after the chargeoff- It's 7 years from the last deliquency that led to the chargeoff. so.... it's possible that the 7 years was up 2/05 When did you get your CR's ? S23
