I didn't find many topics related to this matter so thought I would start one.
As many of you know that if you dispute an old paid charged-off account with CRAs and if it is validated, it will cause a huge drop in your credit score. For some of you who are not aware of this fact, here is how it works:
You file a dispute with CRAs, in a hope to get an old paid charge-off account removed and boost your score. The creditor will send information to the CRAs and will tell them, the account information provided is accurate. CRAs will update the status (and add comments in some cases). This will cause a huge drop in your FICO 8 score. The reason is, FICO 8 looks at "status updated" field as "current deliquency" (or any updates for that matter). It will show as if the charge-off just happened even though it is old. It doesn't actually renew the debt but still looks like it has been. Unfortunately, there is no cure to this problem but time. You will have to wait for the "status updated" date to get old.
So my question is, who is at fault?
1) FICO - For considering "status updated" as "recent deliquency"?
2) CRA's - For not providing additional fields, to differntiate between deliquency date and status updated?
3) Consumer - For being greedy and trying to get rid of an account with accurate information?
I know changing the deliquency date is illegal, but what is the difference between deliquency date change and this scenario when both of them are going to harm the consumer in the same way? Is there nothing that can be done?
