I presume that you are attempting to get consistent reporting with each CRA?
As for EQ not reporting a CO, there is no requirement that they report any derogatory item to each CRA. Derogs and delinquencies are commonly reported to only one or two CRAs.
As for the inconsistency in the TU and EX reporting, one or the other is inaccurate. The creditor probably has not updated to both.
If a debt is charged-off, it is necessarily delinquent.... to the point of being considered uncollectible. An OC cannot, in its bookeeping, charge-off a bad debt and simultaneously keep the account open. They have removed it from their books as a collectible asset.
Any account has only one, single current status. An account closed may first simply report that status as closed, and indicate whether closed by the consumer or the creditor. If the account is then charged-off, the prior current status is updated to include its further status to indicate a charge-off of the debt. The old status code is replaced with a new one that does not include the specific words "closed," but nonetheless it must be. It appears that they have simply been inconsistent in updating with each CRA.
I would let this be. It appears that the current status on both could, and should, be updated to charge-off. If you dispute and compel them to accurately report the current status on both, you will just force them to report the charge-off on both. That is a major derog. I wouldnt push it.
