Can a CA still continue to report if the OC is no longer reporting?

[Veee]

My actual question is the title. 

In case you need or want history ...

OC=Providian

CA=Midland

I originally disputed both of these with all 3 CRA's (before myfico forums)

Everything came back verified (eventually) except for EQ deleted the OC

I currently have out an OC investigation letter to the OC since they verified

I also just did a DV to the CA and I'm currently in the waiting for 30 days stage.

Midland ...

Type of account: open

Collection agency/Attorney

Balance $2002.00

DOFD 7/2003

out of SOL

Police reports / Fruad info was completed in 2003

I know I still have to go through the process with TU and EX but it just seems there should be a way that EQ can delete the CA now that the OC is gone.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Veee

[RobertEG]

Yes they can, as long as their reporting is in good faith. 

What you apparently disputed with the CRAs was the original delinquencies reported to them by the OC.  For whatever reason (such as they had turned it over to a CA), the OC did not verify back with EX, and EX did the right thing, and deleted the prior OC account delinquencies from your account  But the OC then put the account into collection. 

The fact that they did verify back to two of the three CRAs is pretty clear indication that the CA will verify the debt back to you in reponse to your DV.

So you have now DVd with the CA, and you are awaitng their response.  If the CA posted a collection in any or all of your CRA files prior to the date of your DV letter, then it can remain in all three CRs for 7 1/2 years from the DOFD.  It is not a reprot by the OC.  What the CA is now precluded to do under the FDCPA is to post any further with the CRAs, or intitiate any further collection activity with you, until they respond to your DV letter.  But they have no legal obligation under the FDCPA to respond within any set period.  Maybe your state law might, but the FDCPA does not.  There is no 30-day response period for the CA to a DV letter under the FDCPA.

Message Edited by RobertEG on 10-13-2008 07:55 PM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 10-13-2008 07:57 PM

[Veee]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Yes they can, as long as their reporting is in good faith. It's not in good faith, I don't owe them this money.

What you apparently disputed with the CRAs was the original delinquencies reported to them by the OC.  No I dispute the entire TL. For whatever reason (such as they had turned it over to a CA), the OC did not verify back with EX, and EX did the right thing, and deleted the prior OC account delinquencies from your account Niether the OC or the CA can truly verifiy these accounts, they aren't mine, they all should have come back deleted But the OC then put the account into collection. Since I printed my first report in Aug 08 they have both been reporting OC $0 and CA $2002.00

The fact that they did verify back to two of the three CRAs is pretty clear indication that the CA will verify the debt back to you in reponse to your DV.  From what I read on these boards, Midland next to never responds to DV's.

So you have now DVd with the CA, and you are awaitng their response.  If the CA posted a collection in any or all of your CRA files prior to the date of your DV letter, then it can remain in all three CRs for 7 1/2 years from the DOFD.  It is not a reprot by the OC.  What the CA is now precluded to do under the FDCPA is to post any further with the CRAs, or intitiate any further collection activity with you, until they respond to your DV letter.  But they have no legal obligation under the FDCPA to respond within any set period.  Maybe your state law might, but the FDCPA does not.  There is no 30-day response period for the CA to a DV letter under the FDCPA.

Message Edited by RobertEG on 10-13-2008 07:55 PM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 10-13-2008 07:57 PM

---

How can I make them do a TRUE validation, if they did, these would be deleted!?

[RobertEG]

File a dispute under section 611(a) of the FCRA directly with the CRA, which has time limit constraints on validation.

DV letters wont do this.