Advice on next steps with inaccurate TLs

[Anonymous]

I have disputed these accounts as inaccurate on multiple occassion.

One is a student loan I had with ACS (BoA). I was enrolled in school when it was supposedly "in repayment" and still in grace period when it was "defaulted". It was paid in full in 2014. Now, the strange thing is that they claim they were never paid, and that it was sold to the debt guarantor, and the Dept of Education states that they were the last servicer of the loan and that they did in fact receive the payment for the loan in 2014. All of this information is dated correctly in the NSLDS database. My account in ACS has had the payment history purged, and the only place I can find it is on my credit reports. It does not match the NSLDS or my own calculations based on withdrawal date from school in July of 2011. This account in particular is still reporting as deliquent with a 0 balance. That took 4 rounds of disputes to even get the balance 0'd out.

The others are all a multiplication of 4 tradelines from when I defaulted on my student loans. I shared them in a previous thread when someone questioned if they were actually duplicates (they are). And the 4 that actually exist, historically, should have a dofd of Feb of 2012 have dofd listed as March 2013. 

I tried the 623 direct dispute method and the US Dept of Edu stated they agree that they are inaccurate, but are unable to fix them, and to contact the CRAs to do it. I disputed again with the CRAs and they instantly came back verified. ACS basically told me to go f myself. Disputed that tradeline again... once again verified.

I'm not sure if I should go directly to filing a complaint at this point, or go with a demand letter to see the proof that they verified and validated. 

[RobertEG]

Are they in fact admitting that reported informtion is inaccurate, or simply stating that they are not reviewing the asserted inaccuracy because the loan is now closed?

Big difference.

What is the information that is asserted to be inaccurate?

Was that same inaccuracy previously disputed with a CRA and concluded?  If so, any direct dispute can be dismissed as frivolous or irrelevant without any need for investigation. 

Did they dismiss the current direct dispute, or was their only response a refusal to investigate because "the account was closed?"

The status of the account as closed does not negate their obligation to either dismiss or investigate your direct dispute.

As for a request to provide a description of the procedure they used to investigate a prior dispute filed with a CRA, that is not basis for a direct dispute, which is related only to items identified under 16 CFR 660.4(a). 

The procedure used by a furnisher is to conduct a reasonable investigation of a dispute referred to them by a CRA, and respond back to the CRA.  They need not provide anything more regarding how they investigated, and thus the direct dispute rules do not provide for request for disclosure of how they investigated.

A request for a description of the procedure used by a CRA, such as who the CRA refered the dispute to, and whether that furnisher responded to the CRA, must be sent directly to the CRA, as provided for under FCRA 611(a)(6)(B)(iii) and FCRA 611(a)(7).

[Anonymous]

Why was this moved to general credit topics?

This is quite clearly a rebuild topic and needs the eyes of those in that section.