UPDATE>>>Midland Loophole??????????? MAYBE?

Anonymous · ‎04-16-2015

I have had a paid Midland Collection only on Experian since May of 2010. In my stupidity, (before studying in depth about disputes) I disputed in Oct 2014 that Midland had reaged my account and even sent filed a CFPB complaint. The date of course was when Midland first aquired the account. After this dispute and CFPB complaint, the following items have been changed from and to the following:

EXPERIAN REPORT FROM JULY 2014:

Status: Paid, Closed

Date Opened: 05/2010

Reported Since: 07/2010

Date of Status: 02/2012

Last Reported: 02/2012

Account History: Collection as of July 2010 to Jan 2012

EXPERIAN REPORT FROM OCT 2014:

Status: Paid, Closed

Date Opened: 05/2010

Reported Since: 10/2014

Date of Status: 10/2014

Last Reported: 10/2014

Account History: Collection as of Oct 2014

My concern is that Midland purposely put in the Reported since date of Oct 2014, making this look completely NEW to FICO, which ultimately has affected my credit score in an adverse way.

Do I have a leg to stand on at all??????????????

*************I called Experian this morning and explained the difference between my report from July of 2014 and then the report from Oct 2014. The gentleman that I spoke with stated that the CA cannot change the dates as Midland has done above, In addition, Midland erased all the payment history from 2010 through 2012 and the new updated status only shows Oct 2014************** He wanted to Dispute the account. I told him to wait and that I did not want this to be updated as new again. . He told me he understood and to go ahead and upload the documentation that I have and they will look at it to make a determination.

Not quite sure what to do here.... Do you think he is correct or incorrect? If he is correct, I would rather go straight to the CFPB as Midland purposely (in my opinion) caused additional detriment to my credit score!!!!!!!!

THOUGHTS?

gdale6 · ‎04-16-2015

@Anonymous wrote:
I have had a paid Midland Collection only on Experian since May of 2010. In my stupidity, (before studying in depth about disputes) I disputed in Oct 2014 that Midland had reaged my account and even sent filed a CFPB complaint. The date of course was when Midland first aquired the account. After this dispute and CFPB complaint, the following items have been changed from and to the following:

EXPERIAN REPORT FROM JULY 2014:
Status: Paid, Closed
Date Opened: 05/2010
Reported Since: 07/2010
Date of Status: 02/2012
Last Reported: 02/2012
Account History: Collection as of July 2010 to Jan 2012

EXPERIAN REPORT FROM OCT 2014:
Status: Paid, Closed
Date Opened: 05/2010
Reported Since: 10/2014
Date of Status: 10/2014
Last Reported: 10/2014
Account History: Collection as of Oct 2014

My concern is that Midland purposely put in the Reported since date of Oct 2014, making this look completely NEW to FICO, which ultimately has affected my credit score in an adverse way.

Do I have a leg to stand on at all??????????????

No standing, the date of status is the date Fico looks at.

Anonymous · ‎04-16-2015

That Blows....I guess I will just have to GW them. It just seems unfair, as I had a similar dispute with Synchrony and they did not touch the dates. Just updated in the comments section.

Anonymous · ‎04-16-2015

midland are a bunch of bottom feeding dirty snakes! i hate them, would rather pay chase 3x the amount originally owed than give those scumbags a penny! but i did because they had me by the youknowwhats. they are still reporting every month open with a balance too. i emailed a dispute through their website with no response, and i just snail mailed another dispute yesterday. hope to never deal with them again, sorry for your luck!

Anonymous · ‎04-16-2015

@Anonymous wrote:
midland are a bunch of bottom feeding dirty snakes! i hate them, would rather pay chase 3x the amount originally owed than give those scumbags a penny! but i did because they had me by the youknowwhats. they are still reporting every month open with a balance too. i emailed a dispute through their website with no response, and i just snail mailed another dispute yesterday. hope to never deal with them again, sorry for your luck!

They are pretty hard to deal with. But I can't blame anyone but myself....I ignored things when times got tough.... NEVER AGAIN.

Anonymous · ‎04-16-2015

@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
midland are a bunch of bottom feeding dirty snakes! i hate them, would rather pay chase 3x the amount originally owed than give those scumbags a penny! but i did because they had me by the youknowwhats. they are still reporting every month open with a balance too. i emailed a dispute through their website with no response, and i just snail mailed another dispute yesterday. hope to never deal with them again, sorry for your luck!
They are pretty hard to deal with. But I can't blame anyone but myself....I ignored things when times got tough.... NEVER AGAIN.

never again...you got that right! most expensive mistake

Anonymous · ‎04-16-2015

They changed/updated the dates cuz you disputed . You poked the bear .

RobertEG · ‎04-16-2015

Additionally, disputes are not intended to act as "loopholes" to compel deletion of information that can simply be corrected.

They are intended as a mechanism to get information corrected, and not necessarily deleted.

Having reporte inaccurate information is not per se a violation of the FCRA, and any dispute provides the option of permitting the info to be corrercted.

Reporting of inaccurate information only becomes a violation of the FCRA if it is knowingly, or should have reasonably been know to be, inaccurate when reported.

If you see any inaccuracy in reporting, you can dispute. The resolution of the dispute can be either verifcation that the information is accurate as reported, correction of the inaccuracy, or determination that the information has neither been verified or corrrected.

It is only if the info is not verified or corrrected that deletion of the information is required, and even then, deletion apples only to the information under disptue, not the entire account or other accurate reporting.

Taking the prior dispute as an example, even if it had shown a clear error in the reporting of the DOFD, that would not necessarily be basis for deletion of the collection.

They could simply update the DOFD in view of the showing in the dispute. Any issue of intentional misreporting of the DOFD would be separately addressed either by complaint to the CFPB or by initiation of your own legal action.

Anonymous · ‎04-20-2015

Please see update. Thoughts?

@RobertEG wrote:
Additionally, disputes are not intended to act as "loopholes" to compel deletion of information that can simply be corrected.
They are intended as a mechanism to get information corrected, and not necessarily deleted.

Having reporte inaccurate information is not per se a violation of the FCRA, and any dispute provides the option of permitting the info to be corrercted.
Reporting of inaccurate information only becomes a violation of the FCRA if it is knowingly, or should have reasonably been know to be, inaccurate when reported.

If you see any inaccuracy in reporting, you can dispute. The resolution of the dispute can be either verifcation that the information is accurate as reported, correction of the inaccuracy, or determination that the information has neither been verified or corrrected.
It is only if the info is not verified or corrrected that deletion of the information is required, and even then, deletion apples only to the information under disptue, not the entire account or other accurate reporting.

Taking the prior dispute as an example, even if it had shown a clear error in the reporting of the DOFD, that would not necessarily be basis for deletion of the collection.
They could simply update the DOFD in view of the showing in the dispute. Any issue of intentional misreporting of the DOFD would be separately addressed either by complaint to the CFPB or by initiation of your own legal action.

Anonymous · ‎04-20-2015

Anyone?