CR Dispute on a 'Now Defunct' company = Automatic Win?

[ninjacookies]

Just curious, I have quite a series/string of delinquent marks on my CR on all 3 bureaus from 2 school loans handled then through Xpress Loan Servicing.  But, as I discovered just yesterday by navigating to their webpage, apparently they have gone under and outsourced their accounts/work to AES.

https://www.xlservicing.com/

I'm just curious (and I know this is probably a long-shot), but would a dispute with the CB's result in me winning, due to the fact the original company is no longer in business to substantiate/refute the disputes?   Or do the CB's verify company existence and forward all correspondances to new, pertinent parties?

Again, I know this is probably a far-fetched idea, but just wondering how these issues are handled.  Thanks again

[RobertEG]

It is defintely worth a shot, as long as you can come up with some legitimate reason for disputing the accuracy of their reporting.

If you can put together a legitimate reason to dispute, this is one of the rare circumstances where I would recommend disputing through the CRAs rather than using the direct dispute process.  Let the CRA scramle to locate and contact the reporing party.

Under the CRA dispute process, after having received your dispute, the CRA refers it to the party who reported the disputed information.  The CRA dispute process puts a total time limit of 30-days from date of your dispute for the CRA to complete their investigation.  That 30-days includes the back-and-forth time between the CRA and the creditor.  If the CRA does not get a response back from the creditor, they must still report the results of the investigation to you within 5-days after conclusion of their investigation.  If the CRA does not receive verification of accuracy back from the creditor, which may be likely in your case, then the CRA can delete the disputed information based on the lack of verification from the posting creditor, as is required under FCRA 623(b)(1)(E).

[ninjacookies]

Greatly appreciate your response, sir! Very informative!

My main concern is finding out what measures the CRA's use to obtain contact with the original reporter of the disputed information.  I know for a fact the 'address' on file for this company is no longer valid...but I'm thinking perhaps even if the address isn't valid that all correspondances will automatically be forwarded to the new company; AES.  But I suppose you are correct...if I can conjur up a good dispute, I really don't have much to lose at this point, so it is worth a shot.

Again thanks for the response and I shall report back my results!

[llecs]

It's paid, right?

[ninjacookies]

Only one of the two loans is paid, (these are student loans)...the other has since been transfered over to AES and I've been paying consistently on it with no issues within the last 2 years.

[GB44]

I'm in the same boat with XLS.

I disputed with all 3 CRA's. EQ removed the negative mark in about 1 day after completing the online dispute. I'm still waiting for EX and TU to respond to the dispute. 

Both of my loans were paid but I did contact AES to see if they would be handling this type of issue. I was told that since their not the original reporting company they could not provide a response to any investigations.

Just out of curiosity, I know that the company is out of business but are you sure the address is no longer valid?

[ninjacookies]

You honestly just made my day. 

CONGRATS on getting that removed! So it appears as if my theory may hold true in that the company is no longer in business to refute the disputes.  Wow, this would be absolutely incredible.   I will be doing so first thing tomorrow.

As per their address listed on the actual CR, I'm pretty sure since their company is now 'defunct' that this is no longer a servicable address.  Again, I could be wrong, but since they no longer handle student loans and transferred them over I would think even if the CRA's sent to those addresses regarding the disputes, they would not get a response. 

Here's hoping for the best for both our situations!  Please keep me posted in this thread and I shall do the same

[RobertEG]

In any dispute you file with a CRA, you can ask in your notice of dispute that, in addition to verifying the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information, they provide a full 'description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information.  See FCRA 611(a)(B)(iii).  This is commonly referred to as a method of verification, or MOV, request.  As part of that reqest, ask for the names of all parties contacted, the contact addresses used, and what response, if any, was received from each party contacted.  If they used e-Oscar to contact any parties, ask them to identify the electronic contact address used, and what response, if any, was received.

If the MOV request was made within the dispute itself, then any communication of the results of the investigation to you must include a description of their investigation procedures.  FCRA 611(a)(6)(B).

The MOV request should preferably be included in the initial dispute itself, but if the dispute has been concluded, you can still request it.  FCRA 611(a)(7).

[GB44]

I received a letter from TU and EX that the late from Xpress student loans has been deleted.

[RobertEG]

Great!

One of the rare situations where disputing through a CRA can actually be advantageous!  It appears that they were unable to obtain verification of accuracy back from the creditor, and you did not have to run around and try to locate them yourself!