"Date Updated" on Credit Report

[dman23]

Just pondering something. I have 2 adverse accounts on my TU credit report. The Date Updated occurred in June and August of 2009. I understand this is the date the creditor last updated my file. These accounts were both paid in full on the same day as the dates updated. I learned I can write a GW letter and ask for removal.

Also, as I continue to research I came across FCRA Section 623 as a way to dispute negative information. Here's part of an article that begins to explain it:

How Does the 623 Dispute Method Work?

A 623 dispute does not work in the same way as a traditional dispute because you are not asking for "verification" of the debt, but for an "investigation" as to the accuracy of the records on that debt. If you creditor does not have accurate records pertaining to that debt, then they must remove the negative information on your credit report.

Will a 623 Dispute Really Fix Your Credit?

You think to yourself - "Hey, the Original Creditor must have great records, they will be able to show me proof in a heartbeat, right?"  Wrong.  There are a few creditors who keep decent records, but most credit card companies only keep records for 13-18 months. And if that's the case, and if you have lates on your credit report prior to this period, they won't be able to prove you were late and they need to remove negative information if they can't prove it, per the law.

It may be possible that since it's been almost 5 years since the these 2 accounts were updated that the creditors may have purged my account information from their systems. Is this worth a shot and are there any negative ramifications in trying this?

[RobertEG]

The difference between a direct dispute and one made through a CRA is primarily a difference in how the information you provide in support of your dispute gets into the hands of the party who furnished/reported the disputed information.

When you dispute via a CRA, they forward the dispute to the furnisher for their investigation.  When you file a direct dispute, you send it directly to the furnisher.

The requirement for investigation by the furnisher is the same.

Once the furnisher has completed their investigation, they respond back to the CRA if it was filed with the CRA, or they respond directly to the consumer if it was sent to them as a direct dispute. 

The requirements for their determination are the same.  They must either verify the accuracy as reported, correct so as to overcome any inaccuracy, or delete if they cannot verify or correct.

The furnisher is not required in either process to provide supporting documentation or "prove" the accuracy of the disputed information.

Yes, if in their investigation, they dont have sufficient basis to verify or correct, they are required to delete.  However, they are not required to prove the matter.

The important fact omitted from the article is that the consumer has the obligation to identify a specific inaccuracy, and sufficient supporting documenatation or argument to enable the furnisher to conduct a reasonable investigation.  General statement that you dispute does not compel any investigation on their part, and can be dismissed as "frivolous or irrelevant"

You must meet that initial burden in order to dispute.

The article also mentions the difference between a dispute and verification of a debt.

Requests for verification of a debt are not "traditional disputes" under the FCRA dispute process, they are debt collection practices matters under the FDCPA.

DV requests dont require a consumer to document any inaccuracy, and also dont set any period for the debt collector to provide verification.

Entirely different processes.  DVs are not normally referred to as "disputes."

[dman23]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

The difference between a direct dispute and one made through a CRA is primarily a difference in how the information you provide in support of your dispute gets into the hands of the party who furnished/reported the disputed information.

When you dispute via a CRA, they forward the dispute to the furnisher for their investigation.  When you file a direct dispute, you send it directly to the furnisher.

The requirement for investigation by the furnisher is the same.

Once the furnisher has completed their investigation, they respond back to the CRA if it was filed with the CRA, or they respond directly to the consumer if it was sent to them as a direct dispute. 

The requirements for their determination are the same.  They must either verify the accuracy as reported, correct so as to overcome any inaccuracy, or delete if they cannot verify or correct.

The furnisher is not required in either process to provide supporting documentation or "prove" the accuracy of the disputed information.

Yes, if in their investigation, they dont have sufficient basis to verify or correct, they are required to delete.  However, they are not required to prove the matter.

The important fact omitted from the article is that the consumer has the obligation to identify a specific inaccuracy, and sufficient supporting documenatation or argument to enable the furnisher to conduct a reasonable investigation.  General statement that you dispute does not compel any investigation on their part, and can be dismissed as "frivolous or irrelevant"

You must meet that initial burden in order to dispute.

The article also mentions the difference between a dispute and verification of a debt.

Requests for verification of a debt are not "traditional disputes" under the FCRA dispute process, they are debt collection practices matters under the FDCPA.

DV requests dont require a consumer to document any inaccuracy, and also dont set any period for the debt collector to provide verification.

Entirely different processes.  DVs are not normally referred to as "disputes."

---

Thanks again Robert for your sharing your knowledge. I highlighted part of your reply as, after further research, I came across the same. I just got back from post office after mailing out a Goodwill Letter. Will post reuslts when I find out.