Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Next Steps: Successful EX dispute of Old addy tied to neg TL

Established Contributor

Next Steps: Successful EX dispute of Old addy tied to neg TL


I searched around but really couldn't find a direct answer to my situation.


I decided today on a whim to dispute some personal info (names and an old address) on Experian. I was suprised that I managed to get an address linked to my only negative TL (CO with a rather vicious CCC) deleted. I soon found out after going over my report that the address ID number tied to the CO is actually another address that I lived at for only 2 years (CO is 4 years old). Essentially, the address to which the ID number is tied to now is not that same address on the initial application for the CC, nor any other correospondence with that TL. 


I think I may have caught a lucky break, but I wonder if I dispute will the CO still come back verified beacause it is an address I lived at? Or, does the address ID have to match the address on the inital application? Experian lists reasons for disputes, but none of them are directly relating to false addresses. Would a simple online dispute or mail have the most impact?


Thanks in advance!

Message 1 of 2
Community Leader
Legendary Contributor

Re: Next Steps: Successful EX dispute of Old addy tied to neg TL

A dispute is directed at specifically identified information that you consider to be inaccurate or incomplete.


If the "reporting" that you consider to be inaccurate is their inclusion of an old adress in their prior reporing, they will simply update their records with the newly-provided address.  Even if you had provided an updated address prior to their reporting of the CO, that would not render the reporting of the CO itself as inaccurate.

It was obviously matched with your file based on other criteria, such as SSN and/or full name. 


The dispute would not be of the accuracy of the charge-off itself, so and verification would not be an issue if they simply update your address.

It's an administrative matter.



Message 2 of 2