Hi Tackledebt -
1. First Premier is not a debt collector, they are the original creditor (OC).
2. First Premer still owns the debt (they never sell it off, they simply assign collection efforts to a 3rd party collection agency). Since they still own the debt, they may continue to report the account as 'Closed / Charge-off along with the outstanding balance. They may also update the tradeline with additional 'Failure to Pay' notations as they wish. The only time an unpaid charge-off must report a $0 balance is if the OC sells the debt. The term 'Charge-Off' is just an accounting term used by lenders to indicate financial loss.
3. In order to determine whether they are reporting accurately, you need to obtain hard (paper) copies of your credit reports from all 3 bureaus -- 4 including Innovis as they also report to them. The problem with relying on web-based reports to determine accuracy is the fluff front-end software used to present data to the consumer; it often either obscures or omits actual data provided by the lender. I saw the same on my web-based TU report for my First Premier charge-off -- no payment history at all -- but when I received my hard copy report, there was, indeed, a complete payment history available (most recent 24 months history is standard - you typically won't see history dating back to account open date). Hard-copy reports show the tradeline exactly the way it's being reported and includes more information than what is shown via online CMS portals.
I suggest you contact each bureau and request your hard-copy reports. Once received (usually about a week after requested), review each one for accuracy. Also make sure all bureaus are reporting the same information for this account (ie. late pays shown for the same months across all three). If you find any inncacuracies, you'll have grounds for a Direct Dispute, (Notice of Direct Dispute under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(D) and 16 CFR 660.4). This type of dispute would be filed directly with the OC - not through the credit bureaus - by mail, and would detail any and all discrepencies in their reporting across the bureaus (such as one month reported as late on one bureau but not another, different first month of delinquency notated, etc.) along with a demand that they remove the tradeline. (I was successful removing First Premier through this process).
FYI: You need to file a Direct Dispute before you dispute with the bureaus because if dispute with the bureaus first and they conclude without removing or correcting the tradeline, then the creditor can dismiss any subsequent Direct Dispute regarding the same information without any requirement to investigate. Furnishers are only required to conduct one investigation of asserted inaccuracy. You can still go ahead and file a Direct Dispute, but at that point they can dismiss it if they choose, deeming it frivolous.
Assuming innacurate reporting is found upon review of your reports, you can start your dispute with something like:
This is a Notice of Direct Dispute under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(D) and 16 CFR 660.4, of the accuracy of information First Premier has reported to my credit file. This correspondence further serves as notice that First Premier is in direct violation of FCRA regulations.
And include:
1. Identification of the specific information being disputed: specify the account number, and the specific information that is disputed under that account.
2. Basis for the dispute: how the reporting was inaccurate including any statutory, regulatory provision violations, violation of CRA reporting guidelines, etc.
3. Supporting documentation: ie. copies of the portion only of your recent credit report showing the innaccurate reporting of the tradeline on your credit file, old payment / bill statements, etc.
They have to respond and investigate a valid Direct Dispute. This will also allow you to provide as much detailed info and supporting documentation as you want = just take your time and make sure your dispute is as clear and concise as possible. Note: They do not have to remove the tradeline, they can simply opt to correct the errors - but you can demand they remove it altogether. If they correct the errors instead of removing them, check the udpated data for any new errors and file a new Direct Dispute, if warranted.
You're very welcome.
Mine started with the lack of a DOFD on my Experian report, and evolved to include other things (history of payment amounts included) from there. They actually made things worse each time they attempted to correct information.. becuase they are incompetent.
Here's the whole story on my dispute(s) with them:
I'd also like to mention that before I paid the charge-off and they updated the tradeline to reflect payment -- the payment history was so wrong across all three reports. But, at that time, I didn't know about disputing for innacurracies such as that --- so I just went ahead and paid it without dispute. When they updated the tradeline to reflect payment, they also corrected the errors to the 24 month payment history. Had I disputed the tradeline before the payment update, I probably would have been successful in removing it much sooner because I would have had more "major" innaccuracies. By the time I got around to doing a direct dispute, my innaccuracies were less and a bit more minor (aside from the lack of DOFD), pertaining to historical balance an payment amounts, not payment history, so it was a long fight for me with a lot of back and forth...
