When a dispute is filed, it must identify the specific information being reported.
The party who reported the information under dispute is the "furnisher" of the information.
When a dispute is made via a CRA, the ultimate determination of the dispute rests with the CRA, not the furnisher. The CRA resolution process is called their "reinvestigation" of all information before them, and they are required to normally complete that reinvestigation within 30 days of receipt of the dispute, and communicate the finding of their reinvestigation to the consumer within 5 days thereafter.
As part of the information used by a CRA in their reinvestigation, they are compelled, under FCRA 611(a)(2), to foward a copy of the dispute and all relevant information in support therof to the furnisher within 5 days of receipt of the dispute.
The furnisher is then required, upon receipt of the dispute and the relevant supporting information from the CRA, to then conduct their investigation of the accuracy of the disputed information and report those results back to the CRA within the CRA's 30-day reinvestigation period. FCRA 623(b).
The CRA then, based on both the response from the furnisher and their own determination of accuracy, is required to send a Notice of Results of Reinvestigation to the consumer within 5 days after conclusion of their (normally) 30-day reinvestigation period.
As a matter of general practice, the CRA relies heavily, if not totally, on the investigation results provided by the furnisher. Often just a rubber-stamp to the findings of the furnisher. But they do have the authority to issue their own finding.
That is the required statutory schema.
However, you allude to the possible situation where the CRA receives no verification back from the furnisher, and is thus left holding the bag in making a determination in their reinvestigation. The CRA is given no extension on its obligation to send a consumer a Notice of Results of Reinvestigation within 5 days after the expiration of their (normally) 30-day statutory period. If the CRA determines that they cannot independenlly verify the accuracy of the disputed information, then they will make a determination that the accuracy cannot be verified. In that event, they are REQUIRED, under FCRA 611(a)(5)(A)(i), to "promptly delete that item of information from the file of the consumer."
That deletion, however, is not absolute and final. Any furnisher can, at any later time, report the deleted information for "reinsertion" into the consumer's file.
In any such request for reinsertion after deletion for failure to verify accuracy in a prior dispute, the furnisher is requried to provide a pre-certification of its accuracy as a condtition for any CRA reinsertion. FCRA 611(a)(5)(B).
In your situation, if you filed a dispute and the information was deleted as an outcome of the dispute, then ANY future furnisher attemting to get the information reinserted, not just the prior furnisher, is bound by the requirement to include a "certification of accuracy" to the CRA before the CRA can reinsert the deleted information. The newly-reporting debt collector must then have provided pre-certification of accuracy to the CRA, and the CRA must have accepted it prior to their reinsertion. If the proper process was followed, the FCRA requires that the CRA notify you within 5 business days after their reinsertion that they have accepted the reinsertion. Apparently, that did not occur.
So you either have a situation where the new debt collector improperly reported the deleted information without providing the certification to the CRA, and thus shielding from the CRA that it was a reinsertion request, or else the CRA did not follow their notification requirement upon its reinsertion.
Thank you very much for your insight. That's exactly what happened. The debt was sold from the original to a ca#1, I disputed and they deleted. They in turn sold it to ca#2. I called experian asking for a copy of the certificate of accuracy , they had no clue what I was talking about. I take it from what your saying that the ca is responsible for furnishing it to the CRA? I wonder then who dropped the ball? Experian has record of deletion of ca#1, but like I said no certification. Since the CRA has no certification, would that render the account posted invalid? I ve disputed it 10 times more or less and it always comes back legitimate. Wouldn't their behavior if it were deliberate in turn make those legitimate responses fraudulent? Or rather they d be obligated to delete it? Sounds like if they knowingly refused to submit the certificate to the CRA or couldn't get one, and faked it so they are in a whole lot of hot water legally?