[BayouLou]

Disputed a collection with the three CRAs in Dec, reporting as an installment at the time, last rpted in Nov 06. Disputed this acct, with others, xmas week.

(FYI: Dispute with CRAs was a generic "no knowledge of any accounts for the reported amounts and/or dates from the following companies; any similar accounts would be obsolete.")

Prior to the CRA dispute, Midland signed for a DV on December 07, but has failed to respond to it at all.

At time of DV, Midland TL on Exp stated (up to and including on date of Dec 19):

Status Details: This account is scheduled to continue on record until Jan 2007.

The account was not marked in dispute at this time.

-------
By Dec 21, presumably in response to the DV, the TL changed to:

Status: NO STATUS.

Additionally, most of the data fields were replaced with NA:

• Type: NA
  Terms: NA
  Monthly Payment: NA
  Last Reported: NA
  Credit Limit/Original Amount: NA
  High Balance: NA
  Recent Balance: NA
  Recent Payment: NA

At this time (on the 21st), the account was marked "Account in dispute under Fair Credit Billing Act" - inapplicable?? since they are the JDB, not the OC, and the acct was in dispute under the FCRA and FDCPA, not the FCBA.

-------
Pulled EXP today to find the status reported as follows:

• This account is scheduled to continue on record until Apr 2007.
  This item was verified and updated on Jan 2007.

Most of the NAs reverted to their early Dec values, with the exception of responsibility changed from joint to individual and the balance increased. The account now states: Account information disputed by consumer (Meets requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act) .

To date, still no response to DV. Waiting on CRA response to dispute via mail. Unable to chk EQ or TU online, so waiting on those responses also.

Why would Midland reage at this late stage - due to fall off this month changed to April? Can they do that?

I'm thinking no since DOFD has not changed and should have been reported years ago, since midland says they have been reporting since year 2000 on an acct they say opened in 2004.

Advice?
TIA.

[centex]

You would need to know what was previously reported as the DOFD before a claim of reaging can be made. Here lately, EXP has had some really screwy numbers for when stuff is supposed to fall off. I saw one the other day that was scheduled for removal less than six years from the DOFD.

A correction to the record is not the same as reaging...and you need to confirm what really occurred before you take your next step.

[BayouLou]

Thanks, Centex.

The post references the TL on EXP. We disputed with each of the CRAs at the same time. TU deleted. We are waiting on the response from EQ.

We would look into the dates for EXP but have no records for any account that Midland might own.

The TL is once again reporting as joint. Either way, it's an impossibility since the joint acct holder was dec'd 8 years prior to the date the acct is supposed to have been opened and my mom, who was 78 in 2004 has not opened any accts, not in ten years or more.