I agree with rckstrscott.
As I understand the thread of the post, the OC reported a charge-off on the account, which required them to report the DOFD on their account to the CRA within 90 days thereafter.
The issue is apparently the assumption, based on a restatement of the expected CR exclusion date, that the OC has now reported a new DOFD of two years later.
They apparently updated the current balance on the account. That is not reporting of an updated DOFD. While the reporting of the updated balance may have occured at the same time the expected exclusion date was changed, that does not mean that the OC actually reported a change in the DOFD. CRAs generate expected exclusion dates, they are not "reported" by the creditor.
One needs conclusive evidence that they actually reported an updated DOFD, and that the update is inaccurate, in order to support a dispute.
Unless the CR clearly states the DOFD, one would need to get the actual DOFD reported to the CRA in order to assert a violation of FCRA 623(a)(5), which controls the reporting of a DOFD. That can be done by way of a request under FCRA 609(a)(1).
If a dispute is filed regarding the accuracy of the reported DOFD that is supported by documentation of actual DOFD, the issue on dipute would be the correction of that reporting, not of the CO.
The CRA, under their reinvestigation of accuracy, will reinvestigate the accuracy of that date.
I dont see deletion of a DOFD as a possible outcome, as that would leave the file with no DOFD upon which they can determine the max statutory exclusion date.
If the CRA determines either that the new reporting is inaccurate or that they did not report a new DOFD, then the resolution would be acceptance of what the consumer asserts in the dispute.... use of the prior DOFD.
I dont see that the issue is ripe for establishing a clear, improper reaging of a reported DOFD.
