Disagreement code & resolution of dispute along with a $20.32 credit (GW response)

[Anonymous]

I sent a GW letter to Capital One over a two year old 30-day late and received a response stating that they verified that the information on my credit report matches the information in their records.  The response went on to state that Capital One has placed a "disagreement code with a resolution of dispute" on my credit file.  To me this sounds like the 30-day late will be notated with my disagreeing.  That's not the outcome I desired but what has really confused me is that a separate letter related to the same case file number stated that I have received a credit for $20.32 in applicable fees and/or finance charges (from this 2 year old 30-day late).  

Any ideas on why they would do both of these?

Has anyone seen a response of "disagreement code and resolution of dispute" end in a complete deletion of a late payment?

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

My GWs to Amex and Citi/Shell frequently result in a "disputed" remark on my CRs. I now have a "Customer dispute resolved. Customer disagrees." comment on my Amex so I'm curious to hear thoughts from others on this too.

[Anonymous]

I can understand them marking the dispute as "resolved" if they delete the 30-day late report.  Otherwise I would expect the comment to read "Customer disagrees" but I suppose, in the end, the customer does not have a say in what happens. 

[RobertEG]

It really means little.  The dispute has been resolved, regardless of agreement by the consumer.

You can always inform the CRA that you agree with the outcome of the dispute, and thus request removal of that designation.  It is an admin matter that does not go to the resolution of the disptue itself, and thus would not be basis for deletion of the delinquency.

If you do disagree with the resolution of the dispute, the significant right is that you can place a statement in your credit file as to your reasons for disagreement.

Adjustment fees is not per se an admission that the payment was not late or not of the minimum amount due.  Looks like a partial good-will on their part.