Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'CRAs'.
Found 12 results
mizliz1011 posted a topic in Credit Forumthis is a very clear presentation of a 623 dispute so far as how the law applies to such a situation. I hope that others will find this helpful... 623 Dispute Method When the conventional method of disputing an inaccuracy on your credit report fails to yield results, the 623 dispute method may be a viable alternative to getting erroneous or unconfirmed information removed from your report. The 623 dispute method allows you to dispute any inaccurate information on your credit report directly with the original creditor. A 623 dispute does not work in the same way as a traditional dispute through the credit bureaus because you are not asking for verification of the debt, but for an investigation as to the accuracy of the records on that debt. If you creditor does not have accurate records pertaining to that debt, then they must remove the negative information on your credit report. The process usually follows these steps: 1. File a dispute with the credit bureau. 2. Await the results of the investigation. If the negative information is not removed, then proceed. 3. File a 623 Dispute notice with the original creditor, asking for an investigation into the debt or delinquency. 4. If the original creditor does not have proof of the debt or delinquency, the negative information must be removed from your credit report. 5. If the original creditor does not comply, you will have to file suit in order to have it removed. How It Works In order to successfully challenge negative listings on your credit report through the 623 dispute method, you must first dispute the information through the credit bureau. When you dispute the information to the credit bureau, you must wait for the 30 days for the investigation to be complete. If the original creditor verifies that the negative listing is accurate, then you move forward with the next step which is to dispute directly with the original creditor itself. Under the laws governing the 623 dispute method, creditors must conduct an investigation when requested. In addition, when investigating, they must review the information that you provide relating to that dispute, and they must respond within 30 days to your original investigation request. The new laws governing fair credit reporting explicitly require the original creditors to investigate when requested, and will take effect on July 1, 2010. This method will only work to remove entries on your credit report that are inaccurate, or entries in which the creditor no longer has to verifiable information. While you might think that the credit card agencies will have up-to-the-minute information about your past debts, this is often not the case. In fact most credit card companies will only keep your records for 13 to 18 months. Any late fees, charge-offs, or other information prior to this time they will not be able to verify through their records. The 623 dispute method works because anything that is inaccurate, or not in the records will have to be corrected on your credit report. What this means is, if the credit card company does not have any records on your account at all they must contact the credit bureaus to have the negative information removed. If you have disputed the information through the credit bureau before initiating the 623 dispute process, and the creditor refuses to remove erroneous information, you will have grounds to sue. Otherwise, your only legal recourse will be to have the state or federal authorities pursue the case, and it is solely at their discretion to do so. Warning: This dispute method probably will not work for a debt that is fairly recent. It is also unlikely to work for those companies who do keep detailed records spanning several years. In addition, you will need to be somewhat specific about the information you wish to be investigated and any records that you have that can prove that there is an error will be helpful. At the very minimum, you must identify the account by the actual account number and provide a reason to the original creditor explaining why you are disputing the accuracy of their records. If you do not provide this information as a part of your investigation request, the original creditor may determine that your request is frivolous and deny the investigation. Overall, the 623 dispute method works best for past delinquencies and charge-offs that may no longer be listed appropriately in the records.
Anyone call up the three CRA's to have all dispute language removed before starting a new round of disputes? Are the reps at the CRA's accommodating in doing this? Would doing this prevent the "we've already investigated this/frivolous" love letter we sometimes get back?
CRA wants notarized statement to correct info?!
HoustonLynne posted a topic in Credit ForumI know we have a Chex forum, and I've gotten help from there on a more Chex-specific issue, but this is more about FCRA and CRAs, in general. I want to file a complaint with the CFPB, but before I do, I thought I'd check with the pros. I disputed a misspelling of my first name (it's missing a letter) on my Chex report, and this is how they replied: (Let's say my name is Suzie Qewe.) "In addition, our records indicate that the disputed name Suie Qewe was provided by you in previous contact with us. Therefore, it has been retained in your consumer file. Should you wish ChexSystems to pursue this matter further, we must first receive a notarized statement confirming that this address does not belong to and has not been used by you. Once we have received this notarized statement, we will be happy to review the situation further and will inform you of any actions taken." Keep in mind that the sentence combines reference to a misspelled name and "address"...this makes no sense. And if I am the one who allegedly "furnished" this data to them, don't I have a duty to correct?? I included a copy of my TXDL, so they were looking at proof of identity. Do my creditors send notarized statements when THEY correct furnished data...?? (Nevermind the fact that I know how to spell my name, so I seriously doubt I furnished this data.)
Jack Attack- Still relevant?
ManofB posted a topic in Credit ForumSo I have a little lull in the action right now while my existing irons do their work in their respective fires, so I've been researching and reading, looking for trends of what has had some success, what has had minor results, etc etc. Came across the jack attack method in my readings, but haven't seen anything recent posted; seems like there was some good success with it in the 2009-2011 time frame, not much said since then. At least as far as I can find on here using the search. Anyone still use this method and have success with it? Am I right to understand that the point is to pick apart a trade line and dispute line by line the individual incorrect items with the hopes that the processor will just go for a quickie delete button rather than proceeding?
what does opting out do for you score wise?
mizliz1011 posted a topic in Credit ForumDoes Opting Out improve your scores? its been so long since someone spontaneously wanted to give me credit that I don't know if I should bother. top score is in mid 600's with TU but they are climbing fast as stuff is taken off of tradelines and resolved... just wondering...
collection and "skip"
mizliz1011 posted a topic in Credit Forumdoes anyone know what "skip? means? Its not like I skipped out on the debt- was at same address for 40 years...
Should I go for a credit sprint or just leave it alone
tavalon posted a topic in Credit Forum746 eq, 666 Trans and 622 exp. I have no idea why they differ so much? I do have one dispute open and Experian seems to be keeping it on my record until it gets cleared up. I have GECRB Amazon Card with 0 balance. Bill Me Later (doesn't report, it turns out) with $50.00 balance. I have two Cap One cards, one with a 2000 CL and $80 balance. The other only has a $500.00 CL but great rewards so I use it for groceries and pay it off immediately (inadvertantly messed up last month as I paid it off the day after it was reported. Won't happen again). I have the Chase Amazon card with a $3000 limit and about $150.00 balance. I'd say that looks pretty good. Unfortunately, the top three keep saying I'm using about 39% of my available credit. New math? I don't know. I think they are just behind. I paid these suckers down fast (2 months of a lot of overtime). One of Experian's complaints is that I don't have enough accounts, though they aren't happy that I've also opened too many accounts. Yep, that's what it says. So, I want the Disneycard (they sent me an invitation to apply that is to expire on May 6th) since we are going there later this year, but otherwise, I've no need for more credit, I'm just trying to play their game. My end game is to get a Nissan Leaf at the end of the year, with a great interest rate, hence the interest in my credit and making sure I play the game correctly. So, should I try now for the Disneycard, wait until May 6th in the hope the the CRAs all have accurate information? Or should I go ahead and take the hit for another card or two and then go for the Disneycard? Or none of the above. Thanks to anyone willing to help Tavalon
Best Way to Dispute an AU Account
david_weaver posted a topic in Credit ForumAnyone have advice on the best way to dispute the following: Person #1 had a Chase Flex Spending card as part of their health insurance at work. Person #2 was a dependent, and was added as AU on this account. Due to the way funds are added throughout the year, it is possible to spend more in a given month than is on the card. Person #1 gets fired, and Chase charges off the small negative balance. Person #2 now has this charge-off on their credit report. How does Person # 2, the AU, get this account OFF their credit report? Is it best to dispute via snail mail, so it is easier to explain, or will a simple online dispute where you say it is 'not your account but belongs to a family member' get it done? Or, is the best solution to dispute over the phone (I hear heads exploding now...) to get the speed and ease of an online dispute without missing out on the chance to explain that Person #2 was only an AU and has no obligation to pay and wants this entire trade-line removed from file? In other words, is a detailed explanation necessary, and worth the longer wait, or will it likely just fall off if disputed?
Should I Freeze or NOT?
david_weaver posted a topic in Credit ForumI have seen some conflicting opinions on here, and hope to get a more exact answer. My EX and TU (680's) top my EQ (630's) by 50 points, and I am having little success getting it to the range of the others. I am considering freezing my EQ so that I do not waste inquiries or get denials. There is no point in having anyone pull that. But I have seen some, like Hegemony, post replies on similar questions that freezing is a terrible idea if you are rebuilding. Anyone have insight as to whether it would be best to freeze just EQ, or just to leave it alone? Thanks!
Dispute CA's with CRA's All the first time?
smoothbelly8 posted a topic in Credit ForumIs it a hard and fast rule that CA's must be disputed with CRA's all the first time? I read in Psych Doc's transcripts that that was so, but I don't want to appear frivolous by listing most of them in the initial letter. Is there a recommended waiting period in between letters if it can be done on two different occasions? Sorry, while doing a lot of reading before posting, new and still a little lost. I have opted out and deleted addresses. Now to the rough stuff... Thanks
Odd Good Will - Any Ever See This?
david_weaver posted a topic in Credit ForumAs previously noted, a friend was having issues with US Bank, specifically errors in the reporting of the monthly statuses from 2012. Prior to 2012, there were numerous lates and even the start of the foreclosure process, which were not in dispute. Along with the diligent efforts to get the 2012 errors corrected, a separate goodwill letter was sent asking if anything could be done about the earlier lates? OK, no progress on the 2012 issue, and friend has been assured by US Bank that will be resolved by COB on Tuesday the 11th. However, yesterday ALL lates prior to May 2011 were removed. So now from the opening of the mortgage in 2007 to today, the only thing that shows late are the errors from 2012. My question is: The removed everything (even going way beyond the scope of what was requested) but were quite careful to NOT remove any lates in the last 24 months. Is this normal? As basically what matters most is the last 24 months, was it that as long as THAT was reported accurately they did not care to remove everything outside that range? I will let you know how the errors are resolved (or IF) tomorrow, but just wanted to know if anyone else has this sort of experience?