Can they do this?

[mlt]

I am trying to help repair my husbands credit report. I am using the debt validation techniques mentioned on this site to the letter....I disputed a very old PG&E account on his credit report with all three CRA's around March 15 of this year. The DOLA on the account according to older credit reports is 9/2001. It is showing as a collection/chargeoff. Now I notice they have posted that he was 120 days late as of Nov. 2006. I call PGE without getting into any account specifics and ask them how is it possible that they can mark an account 120 days late in Nov of last year when the DOLA on the account was in 2001. The lady informed me that they could tell the CRA that he was 120 days late anytime its disputed and in answer to the dispute. She went on to say thats the problem with disputing, sometimes it will update that info. I then said to her, well with everything else I have disputed for years no one has ever come back and marked the account like that. She just got all quiet and was like, well thats what we do.

My question is this, is this wrong that they did this? Doesn't it make it look like he made a payment in July of 2006 and then was late 120 days as of Nov 2006. The funny thing is, is that if they were marking this in regards to the dispute as she stated, then why wouldn't they have said 120 days as of March? Although they are reporting this debt to all three CRAs they only marked it 120 days late with Equifax, however I'm sure the other two will follow suit too. Thanks for any help with this!

[rm2738]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but they are breaking the law. The FCRA states that they have to report information ACCURATELY!

[VonAngel (aka EarthAngel)]

It is reporting accurately. The current status as of that month was 120+ days late. IOW, as of right now, you are STILL 120+ days late on the account. She was right. That's the problem w/ disputing negative accounts; if it's not deleted, the TL will be updated, which would look like a more recent collection in the eyes of FICO. Now, if the history states that he paid as agreed in October and then 120+ days late in November, then obviously that would be in accurate.