Apologies if I have not looked back far enough. I have an OC who is due to drop off (DFD = 6/00) who reports every month as 120 days late even though the account was closed nearly 7 years ago and resold. The CA(s) who bought it have re-aged it but I know what to do about that. Are these guys allowed to mis-report an account like that? It's not 120 days late. It's 7 years late and closed! Thanks.
No, since they have sold the account to a CA, it should be listed as closed or sent to collections. I would dispute it with the CRA.
Before you dispute the account, I would verify with the credit reporting agaency (CRA) of when it is schedule for removal from reporting. Sometimes they go by the Date of Last Activity if the DFD is not listed by the creditor. If you dispute it at this point, you run the risk of it being "updated" to a "Charge Off" status, which allows 7.5 years reporting from DFD. Since you are only three months away from it falling off, I would leave it alone. The only dispute you may want to try, is to dispute it as "Past SOL" in late April perhaps. Often, the CRAs will remove up to 30 days before scheduled expiration. As for the CA, I would dispute that tradeline aggressively, as I'm sure it reports as a "Collection Account". The only thing you should verify, is that it is being reported the same way (as 120 days, with DFD 6/00) across all three CRAs. In summary, sometime reporting errors are in your favor, as in this case.
I might be reading into what I quoted a meaning that is not there. Are you saying that a collection account being reported as a "Collection Account" is improper/inaccurate reporting ?
My bet is that the debt purchaser is reporting the account type as "open" and probably past due as well. Dispute those data fields. In regard to the OC, they should be reporting as paid insofar as the account was purchased. Still, as Biz stated, it could change per your dispute to a more derogatory status. At that point, you could consider litigation though . . .
