The payment history profile infers that the account first went delinquent in Jan 2013 based on their first reporting of a 30-late in Feb 2013.
It does not specifically report a charge-off status in the prior payment history profile, but they apparently presented either a special comment of current status of charge-off, as the credir report does reference a CO status, as further exhibited by it apparently having reached 180-late as of August 2013, which is the federal regulatory period of required charge-off of a revolving debt.
The creditor then apparently sold the debt to Midland, and properly updated the balance to $0 to reflect that they no longer owned the debt.
Thus, it appears that their taking of a CO was legit and proper, and the post does not contest the validity of the debt, as it was subsequently paid to the new owner.
The creditor, upon sale of the delinquent debt, thus apparently complied with all reporting requirements.
Subsequent payment of the debt to the new owner did not impose any requirement on the original creditor to delete any reporting of derogatory history on their account, and thus there does not appear to be any basis for disputing the accuracy of their reporting.
The debt collector cannot delete any reporting made by the original creditor, so contacting Midland would not be the appropriate step.
The proper process for pursuing removal of the original creditor derogatory reporting of delinquences and/or a CO or of their entire account prior to its expected exclusion date of after Jan 2020 would be to send a good-will request to the orginal creditor.
With their having taken a net loss on the debt, as they received no part of the payment ultimately made to the new owner, it may be a bit difficult to gain their good-will. Do you have compelling reasons for not having paid the debt to the creditor for that extended period that might elicit some sympathy on their part?
