Just another of dozens of reasons not to normally dispute through a CRA. Once they get involved in the process, usually only bad things happen.
First, they sanitize the supporting information in your dispute under their e-Oscar automated dispute process, which almost invariably means that all supporting information is not forwarded to the party who is the subject of the disputed information. Then they flag the account as under FCRA dispute, which will temporarily lead to Fico not fully scoring all iformation under the account, Also note that the CRA dispute process under FCRA 611(a) is referred to as a "reinvestigation" process, because once the CRA has heard back from the creditor. they review the resilts, and can interject their own decisioon making,
To deal with these and other problems, congress enacted FCRA 623(a)(8) in order to enable consumers to dispute directly with the party who posted the disputed information, thus bypassing the CRAs. Implementing the new "direct dispute" rules have been enacted under 16 CFR 660.4, and became effective on 7/1/2010. These rules set the same 30-day period for investigation of the dispute as are used in the CRA dispute process, but cut out the preriods of delay at the CRA in receiving and forwarding your dispute to the party for their investigation, and also eliminate referral back to the CRA for thenr reinvestigation. Direct dislute ensures that all innformation you provide in support of your dispute wiill go directly to the party, thus eliminating the CRA abuses through their e-Oscar process.
The only time I can think of where I would use the CRA dispute process rather than the direct dispute process is if you dont have the actual contact adddress of the creditor/debt collector, and thus dont know how to communicate directly with them. Then a dispute through the CRA will allow you to shift that burden to the CRA.
Other than that, I would suggest kicking the CRA dispute process to the curb, and dispute directly with the party who posted the disputed information.
