Okay, this is WEIRD... I have two accounts from CRAP1 that I got just after I filed for C7 BK or when it was dismissed in Oct. 2000. The DOLA on Equifax for the accounts is 4/2000 and 6/2000. How can this be? I didn't file a C7 BK until 7/2000. If the DOLA is wrong and in my favor, should I dispute as not mine, didn't have an account then? They were definitely opened POST BK. Do I risk C1 updating the DOLA, and would that be reaging, since they listed them as 4/2000 and 6/2000. I don't think these are correct. What should I do?
Well... If they do correct the trade line to the correct DOLA, it isn't re-aging, since they're updating incorrect information with the correct information. Reaging is when they update the information to an incorrect newer DOLA to keep the account longer than the obsolescence period specified in § 605. Which brings up the problem, technically the company can 'reage' the account on paper, the § 605 violation only occurs on the month of obsolescence + one month; because that is when the incorrect information resulted in damage to the consumer; it would only be a § 623(a) non-actionable violation unless the 'reage' is in response to a CRA dispute. The question is do you want to risk the trade line staying around a little bit longer if they verify it with the correct DOLA. If the consumer disputes (with a specific dispute of the incorrect information, akin to Johnson v. MBNA) the 'aged' date with the CRA's, then it would be a § 623(b) violation if it is still reported with the incorrect DOLA. But, here's the interesting rub, in your situation, if they do verify the 'aged' date with the CRA's, then you could make the follow-up dispute that, if the account did have a DOLA of XX/XXXX, then the account was IIB. Hopefully, Butch or another expert will chime in if there is anything incorrect, especially where the BK gets involved.
Would be the perfect way of phrasing the dispute to make sure that you are including the DOLA as a part of the not mine dispute (thereby complying with Johnson's requirement that the dispute include the relevant incorrect information). Just a little bit of tweaking on how you had phrased it in your original post.
nice tweaking jam been there done that and still no dice. this was after the CRA dispute/ investigation Crap 1 reaged the debt three xs now on the CR to show the C/o was 3 years ago to last year to last month. I have all the old reports to prove it. so the ping pong goes like this CRA says the furnisher reported that info to us as accurate. consumer sends CRA written docs and old reports showing the c/o was reaged and in return get the generic reject letter unable to use the documents you sent but will contact the source directly yada yada yada. then comes the updated report verified and new c/o date to show this month instead of last month wow what reaging so do you count each reage as another 1k violation?
I actually think I hope they reage it, cause then I've got a violation and something to sue them for, and negotiate it off completely for a VACATED JUDGEMENT against them. I'm just waiting a couple more months for the DOLA to be at SOL. According to EQ the account was opened before my bk was discharged. Not true. The DOLA shows the same, still not true. The real age is within the same year but at the end of it, when the discharge was complete. I'm going to let them sleep for now.
