Incorrect info due to fall off soon

[Anonymous]

I have a TL from Charter Communications that should be gone soon. However, the information is incorrect. 

I had Charter from 1998 or 1999 (whenever they took over TCI) until 2005 when I switched to DirecTv.  Charter is claiming I owe them $129 from May 2001.  Couldn't be possible.  I owed nothing when I closed my account in 2005!  They didn't report the debt unitl 2006.  I called Charter and asked them about the account and they could find no information.  They said they had since changed their billing system (whatever).  AFNI is reporting the debt

So my question is,should I go ahead and DV them and dispute with TU and EQ or should I just let it fall off.  It's way past SOL if it's considered a utility or open account in my state.

Thanks for any help anyone can give

[Anonymous]

How soon is it due to fall off? Are you wanting to apply for any large things soon, such as a mortgage or car?

[Anonymous]

TU says estimated removal date is 4/2008.  not sure about the other one.  I'm not looking to purchase anything just trying to clean things up, just incase.

Another reason I want to fight it is pure spite.  I HATE Charter!

If I let it go, this probably shouldn't be a problem in the future though, right?

Thanks!!

[Anonymous]

---

katecrime wrote:

If I let it go, this probably shouldn't be a problem in the future though, right?

---

I would think not. But after reading FCRA, I wonder if things actually "fall off" your credit report and are completely deleted after 7 years or if they just do not appear on a regular report after 7 years.

FCRA 605 (a) is what governs when items are removed from your report. But FCRA 605 (b) says that the provisions of 605(a) subsections 1-5 do not apply in certain transactions.

So, it makes me wonder if all those things remain in the CRA database, and when running a regular report, anything that has a DOFD 7+ years is not included, but if running a report for one of the exempted transactions, everything appears.

[Anonymous]

---

sidewinder wrote:

---

katecrime wrote:

If I let it go, this probably shouldn't be a problem in the future though, right?

---

I would think not. But after reading FCRA, I wonder if things actually "fall off" your credit report and are completely deleted after 7 years or if they just do not appear on a regular report after 7 years.

FCRA 605 (a) is what governs when items are removed from your report. But FCRA 605 (b) says that the provisions of 605(a) subsections 1-5 do not apply in certain transactions.

So, it makes me wonder if all those things remain in the CRA database, and when running a regular report, anything that has a DOFD 7+ years is not included, but if running a report for one of the exempted transactions, everything appears.

---

We've discussed 605(b) before, and the consensus we reached at that time was that nobody had ever heard of a situation where any CRA applied the exceptions provided by that section.

Applications for mortgages, especially, certainly fall into the category that would seem to make the exception apply, but nobody has ever reported baddies older than seven years showing up again just because the inquiry was for a mortgage app.

[Anonymous]

I forgot to mention this.  Charter still claims I owe the money, they just don't know the hows or whys.  They are just saying I owe it. 

Could they reinsert this on my report?  I know they shouldn't but I'm a little worried they will.  I mean, they put something on my that is obviously incorrect and I'd hate this to surprise me later

Thanks for all the help everyone!

[Anonymous]

---

katecrime wrote:

I forgot to mention this.  Charter still claims I owe the money, they just don't know the hows or whys.  They are just saying I owe it. 

Could they reinsert this on my report?  I know they shouldn't but I'm a little worried they will.  I mean, they put something on my that is obviously incorrect and I'd hate this to surprise me later

Thanks for all the help everyone!

---

Are they physically able to reinsert it?  Yes.  Can they legally?  No.

If they do, you can sue them.

[Anonymous]

ok, I'll let it fall off then.  Save myself the cost of CMRRR and the aggravation that will certainly ensue.

If they do reinsert, I'll sue then buy all of you lunch!

[Anonymous]

---

cheddar wrote:

We've discussed 605(b) before, and the consensus we reached at that time was that nobody had ever heard of a situation where any CRA applied the exceptions provided by that section.

Applications for mortgages, especially, certainly fall into the category that would seem to make the exception apply, but nobody has ever reported baddies older than seven years showing up again just because the inquiry was for a mortgage app.

---

I remeber discussing it, but couldn't find the thread to look back at. I was going to call the CRA and ask about this, but decided that wasn't a good idea. Maybe I'll email the FTC.