As pretty much everyone knows, if I dispute information in my CR, the CRA essentially forwards my dispute to the creditor and when the creditor replies that the disputed information is correct, the CRA considers it verified and the dispute ended.
They do not require the creditor to prove accuracy, even if the information is ridiculous on its face. For instance, I had an auto loan that was reporting all on time payments until late October 2005. Then, all of a sudden, the report changed, and it was reporting all on time payments up to and including February 2005, but for March 2005 it was saying the account was 120 days overdue and was in repossession. And it also said the account was 120 days past due and in repossession for both April and May 2005. And for June 2005, and all later months, it reported on time again.
Even ignoring the fact that that until late October it had been reporting all on time payments, then retroactively changed, how could any loan POSSIBLY be on time one month (February) and then become 120 days past due the very next month (March)? What's more, has anyone EVER seen, or even heard of, any creditor repossessing an auto, keeping it in repo status for 3 months, then letting the debtor catch up and get the auto back?
This whole thing was both ridiculous and impossible on its face. There was no way it could POSSIBLY have been true. Yet, when I disputed it, and the creditor replied that it was accurate, the CRA accepted that.
Is there any law anywhere that one can use to FORCE a creditor to provide proof of specific information? I'm not talking about proving the validity of a debt; in the case I'm trying to deal with now, the debt itself was valid, sold to a CA (Midland Credit Management), and was, in fact, paid in December 2005.
The problem is with certain dates in the listing. And like my old auto loan problem, the CRA doesn't care that the information is ridiculous on its face. For instance, Date of First Delinquency is February 2002, and the account's Date Opened is November 2005. Even if DOFD is accurate (it's not, it should be September 2001), how on earth could an account become delinquent 3 years and 9 months before it was even opened?
When I disputed the information I pointed this inconsistency (and a couple others) out to the CRA. The creditor "verified" the dates, and the CRA accepted that.
I'm in desperate need of a way to force the creditor to PROVE the dates are accurate. If I can't I'm going to be stuck with a collection, albeit a paid one, which should drop off in 2008, staying on my report until 2012! What's especially bad is that this is the very last "bad" account on my report. Once it's gone, I will not have a single negative thing on my CR.
I've already written the OC, asking for the dates (Date Opened, Date of Last Payment, Date of First Delinquency, Date Closed, and Date Sold). However, based on past experience, I don't actually expect this information to get the CRA to change anything as long as Midland keeps "verifying" the information.
