Jump to content

CA sent letter but OC is listed as charge-off on report


Recommended Posts

Hi, all!

 

Lurker of a few years have only signed up recently to start working on my stuff -- I've been nervous to tackle it hah.

 

I have a CO from March of 2016 (Discover). In California, way past SOL. A CA (Radius Global Solutions) contacted me recently with their whole "we've been hired, etc. etc." looks like they did everything by the book. I responded certified mail that it is disputed and a validation is requested. They have until 11/26 to get back to me. 

Say they don't get back to me, does that give me a basis to dispute with CRAs that this CO from the OC  should not be on there? Or, does it not matter because the CA isn't on my report -- just the OC.  

 

What do you guys think about this and does anyone have any experience with getting OC COs removed based off a dispute with a CA who wasn't even on the report?

 

Thank you :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As it stands, the OC is reporting the balance (~$1200). The CA is no where on the report. If I "win" the dispute via a no response. Is it feasible to leverage this "win" to remove the OC via dispute with the CRAs? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fiderino said:

As it stands, the OC is reporting the balance (~$1200). The CA is no where on the report. If I "win" the dispute via a no response. Is it feasible to leverage this "win" to remove the OC via dispute with the CRAs? 

I don't understand what you hope to 'win.' It sounds as though the reporting is correct. 

 

What tends to happen with disputes on contingency paper is that it goes back to the OC.  They often then place it somewhere else.  This is the reason why tailored disputes are needed, as it creates the constructive notice needed to make a valid claim of continued collection activities down the road. 

 

If the OC is correct as of the last date they reported, there is nothing to expect a deletion from any bureau with though...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2021 at 11:18 PM, Fiderino said:

The reporting is absolutely incorrect. For example, the day of last active has a variance of up to a year. 

The CA responded saying they will not pursue collection activities anymore and the file is no longer with them. 

I call this a step forward -- now to take on the OC... 

Date of last activity can be just that...activity.  It does not mean consumer-initiated activity. 

 

If they have returned it, they didn't own it...you can expect someone else to soon come knocking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the original query, to successfully dispute a tradeline you must find an inaccuracy within that tradeline.  Collection activities have no bearing on the accuracy of the tradeline, if the tradeline data is accurate in itself.

 

I understand wanting to leverage a collection inaccuracy to dispute the OC tradeline, but they're not connected in that manner.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      183,004
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    dookieblaylock
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines