When OC decides to delete a tradeline, does a CA then have to remove on that same tradeline

[corkyduckfan]

Okay, I will try to make this as short as possible.  I disputed 3 or 4 tradelines on my Transunion account just the other day.  I was impressed with how fast it took.  Transunion came back on-line with their investigative results in like 4 days. (Yesterday to be exact).  They verififes one bogus account, but much to my suprise, they deleted the other 3.  These were all due to fall off in the next 6-9 months or so.  At one time or another, I thought some of these had been reaged at one time or another, but it is now a non issue now that they finally properly removed them.  Two of these four accounts were very old paid charge-offs.  One was HSBC and the other WAMU/Chase.  They both were the OC's and promptly removed them when I asked for proof that they were mine.  However, in a related story, Arrow Financial Serivices is who took over these charge-offs and I paid them off in full around 3 years ago or so.  I disputed with Arrow on the WAMU/Chase account and it came back verified.  Aren't these greedy cheeseheads just happy that they get every penny plus interest over time, which rarely happens to a CA and could just go on with their day?  I am just a bit confused.  I have read so much info on here over the years that I cannot retain it all.  It just seems to me that once the OC has deleted said tradeline, that the CA is obligated to do the same by law.  Is there a letter I should send to Arrow Financial via snail mail or another better route to dispute.  I just don't see why they would have a different drop off date than the OC.  Once it was handed over to Arrow, I came into some money and dealt with them and paid them monthly for awhile.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you in advance for your help!!

[Anonymous]

Why did you dispute the accounts, are they not yours?

Just because they are paid accounts doesn't mean they have to come off your CR or come off any sooner.

And no, just because the OC deletes an account does not mean the CA has to.  Especially when the debt was sold to the CA, now the CA owns it.

I guess I am confused as to why you disputed in the first unless they have been on the CR longer than the allotted time.

[corkyduckfan]

No, the accounts were not mine.  I did not recognize them.  The only reason I paid Arrow Financial was because I allowed myself to be bullied and did not yet have the knowledge about junk debt buyers that I have now.  It was a costly mistake.  Not only do I not recognize the Arrow Financial accounts, but these idiots are also reporting it as open accounts.  I know of two things for sure.  I never seen these alleged contracts with my signature that Arrow bought proving they are mine.  Also , junk debt buyers regularly code things incorrectly after something is paid off as OPEN and this can't be an open account if it was paid in full.

[RobertEG]

If the account weas not yours, and you still wish to dispute on that basis, since the information is still included in your CR, you can still dispute the accuracy of their reporting.  Paying does alter the inaccuracy of their reporting.

"Accounts not yours" disputes need some level of supporting documentation.  Yes, it is difficult to document a negative, but the FCRA offers means to provide documentation.  The first is an identity theft report under FCRA 603(q), and the second is an identity theft affidavit.  The FTC has published a samepl Identty Theft Affidavit for use by consumers, which can be obtained from their web page.

The logic behind each is that if the consumer asserts that the account was never theirs, it is reasonable to conclude that it was reported by another, leading to the conclusion of potential identity theft.  Legal affurnation of such an assertion is needed.

In the implementng rules for the direct dispute process, 16 CFR 660.4((d)(3) specifically lists both identity theft affidavits and identiy theft reports as supporting documention for direct disputes of consumer obligation for an account.

I would pursue it by way of a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8).