Disputed with TU, EQ was updated, why?

[darwin_wins]

So last month I called TU, spoke to supervisor in the hopes to get items deleted early. The guy said that its too early for that but he can dispute it with the same status (Too old to be on account). I said why the heck not as long as its not about the validity or anything else.

Just a week ago I see EQ updated with the statement in comment "Consumer dispute..." (dont remember the exact wording). Why did EQ update when I didnt open any disputes with EQ?

Also weird thing on EX, have AmEx which I paid off in Sept and it dropped off from my TU next month, EQ removed it too. But it still remains on my EX. I have one report from Sept 2015 which shows that the account should have dropped off from my report by Feb 2016 yet it is there. I wouldnt care about this but the comment for the account  status is  says "Paid, Closed. $1,927 written off." Nothing was charged off, as I paid every penny I owed to AmEx in Sept 2015. 

Is there anything I should do? More importantly should I call EQ and tell them that I didnt dispute anything and there is no reason to update the account?

[Anonymous]

I disputed an item from TU and had a collection deleted at the same time EQ deleted it.

[RobertEG]

When you have a dispute, it triggers certain things, one of which is required forwarding of the dispute to the furnisher of the information.

The furnisher of the information likely then made some communication with the other CRA.

Just an example of why an item such as a request for early exclusion should not be treated as a dispute.

As for the charged-off account, a charge-off is done by the creditor, and is the moving of a bad debt on their accounting books from a receivalbe asset to a non-receivable bad debt.  Once that accountng measure is taken, it is not later affected by payment of the debt, and remains.  The amount that was charged-off remains.

[darwin_wins]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

When you have a dispute, it triggers certain things, one of which is required forwarding of the dispute to the furnisher of the information.

The furnisher of the information likely then made some communication with the other CRA.

Just an example of why an item such as a request for early exclusion should not be treated as a dispute.

As for the charged-off account, a charge-off is done by the creditor, and is the moving of a bad debt on their accounting books from a receivalbe asset to a non-receivable bad debt.  Once that accountng measure is taken, it is not later affected by payment of the debt, and remains.  The amount that was charged-off remains.

---

That's interesting, had no idea. Oh well lesson learnt. 

@RobertEG what about DOFD that showed up on experian report from 2015. It says it should have dropped off in Feb but it didn't.

[RobertEG]

When a CRA provides an estimated exclusion date for a charge-off or collection, they almost invariably base that estimated exclusion date on a period of 7 years from the reported DOFD.

The required exclusion date under FCRA 605(c) is no later than 7 years plus 180 days from the reported DOFD, not 7 years.

The reason for the additional 180 days provision is a bit technical, and I wont go into it, but suffice to say, it is there.

Thus, the CRA is already granting their own standard form of internal early exclusion, and does not actually become in violation of the exclusion provisions of the FCRA until the addtional 180 days has expired.  They are still within their "cushion" period, and it will likely become excluded very soon.

[Anonymous]

I wish I would have seen this yesterday. I just called TU this morning to ask for an EE of a charge off that's supposed to disappear by June 2016. I am in the process of looking for a new apartment so I figured anything helps. All they said was that they could file a dispute :-/.

[RobertEG]

Yes, many CRA phone reps do not understand early exclusions.

Up until approx 2 years ago, these forums were absent any discussion of early exclusions.  They were not on anyone's radar screen.

They are a relatively new fad, and discussions are now replete in the forum.

There are no rules or regs governing early exclusions, and many customer service reps are unfamiliar with how to deal with them.

They are a form of good-will request for voluntary action by the CRA, and not an assertion of any inaccuracy in reported information.

They should not be handled as disputes, but some CRA reps will suggest doing so as a way to get you off the phone.

You open a dispute at your own risk.  However, credit report exclusion is a matter only for determination by the CRA, and does not involve any furnisher invovlement or need for their investigation and input.

Filing a dispute requires referral to the furnsiher, which can have unforseen results.

[darwin_wins]

Call them and tell them you don't want to dispute it anymore.