Suggestions on Removing Negative Items on EX

[swoosh]

OK, I've had tremendous success over the past 2 years of my credit repair process (I was still smack dab in the middle of my Ch. 13 BK when I started). TU score around 660+, EQ at 690+ and EX should be over 700 (if I could purchase it).

 

All collections now gone from TU (although it's my lowest score--Alliant CU CC apparently does not report to TU, unfortunately). One remaining on EQ ... it's for an NSF check for $26 (not medical) that will remain until 9/11 unless I figure out some way to get it deleted. Also shows on EX. The CA that has it never responded to a PFD (well duh, it's really too small), so any ideas would be appreciated. I'm OK with just paying it now just to show it as $0 (I'd rather take a few point score hit now than later). I have no plans for any new credit in the immediate future (next year), except hopefully getting my current secured BOA card unsecured (I've had it nearly 9 months now and I've been adding $100 a month to it).

 

Some questions on the remaining negatives ... 1) should I just pay the $26 for the NSF check listed above? The CA did provide me with a copy of the check when I wrote them a DV letter. I don't see them deleting it.

 

Citibank (Dell Financial Svcs.), GMAC and First Premier ... have disputed all 3 several times ... they were included in my Ch. 13 BK and are reporting correctly as far as I can tell ($0 balance), so I'm not sure there's anything I can do but let them age off (will be deleted in late 2010).

 

Obviously my Ch. 13 public record is a negative ... no getting that off until 11/2010.

 

I've had a whole 'nother thread going about Time Warner and CMI. I've reached the point where I wrote to a VP of PR at Time Warner and they referred me to someone else in their PR Dept. that I had a phone conversation with last week. Basically what she told me was they'd be happy to take my payment ($170) and have CMI mark the account PAID. Well yeah, duh. So when I pushed her a bit, she said she'd talk with her supervisor. That was late last week and I haven't heard back. Any suggestions on how I can push this along would be appreciated. I've heard that cable companies are relatively easy deletes, but I've tried everything so far (pitting CMI against EX; offering PFD to CMI, and now working directly with TW).

 

The last 2, well one is for Verizon ($400), a charge-off that will age off in 1/11. I had success disputing 2 other Verizons (don't ask me how I had 3 with them at one time), but this one, although I already disputed it about a year ago, remains. I do NOT want the $1,000 one that I had deleted to "come back" by trying to call Verizon and figure out how it disappeared.

 

Lastly, Seventh Avenue. After some suggestions on CB last year, I paid the $190 CO and have sent a GW letter to them (I can't seem to track down any executive names to send it to--just sent to their Credit Dept. and that didn't help), so if anyone knows of some big wigs at SA, I'd appreciate it. Or any other ideas. It got deleted from EQ but still shows on EX and TU.

[Stryker]

ttt.

[BubbaG]

It seems you have gone the long way around on a lot of your disputes. Most vets recommend disputing directly with the CRA's for at least two rounds before ever approaching the CA's/OC's. The result of approaching the CA's and OC's first, many times, seems to be the same as your results--lots and lots of correspondence, but no deletions.

 

If I am right in my reading of your posts, you may want to consider taking a step back and using a different approach. If you decide to do some disputes with the CRA's you may want to read this thread

[swoosh]

Thanks BubbaG ... I had actually stumbled upon that thread yesterday after I posted and started reading it ... going to try it on Seventh Avenue which seems to be "STUCK."

 

But I do have a question on how SA is listed on TU (on EX, there's plenty to dispute, but on TU, not so much):

 

Balance: $0

Date Updated: 08/2008 (this is when I paid the account off directly to SA)

Pay Status: Payment after charge off/collection

High Balance: $190

Credit Limit: $200

Past Due: $0

Account Type: Revolving Account

Responsibility: Individual Account

Date Opened: 01/2006

Date Closed: 05/2007

Date Paid: 08/2008

 

Loan Type: Revolving Account - Charge Account

Remark: Dispute resolved reported by grantor

Estimated date that this item will be moved: 02/2013

 

Does TU NEED to list DOFD ... because they don't. And wouldn't the account be removed 7 years after DOFD, which wouldn't have been only ONE month after the account was opened (01/06 vs. 02/13 to remove it)? I guess I see where this can be disputed, but if others want to chime in on things I can pick apart with this on TU, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!!!!!

[motley6]

Citibank (Dell Financial Svcs.)

 

Dell Financial is not a subsidiary of Citigroup. CIT Bank is a subsidiary of Dell Financial. Two totally different creditors. You go disputing with Citibank for a DFS tradeline, you will have wasted a bunch of time.

[swoosh]

Thanks motley6.

 

Can anyone else respond to how I might "pick apart" (i.e., dispute) the Seventh Avenue tradeline listed on TU? As I said, there are numerous errors in how it's listed on EX (it's not on my EQ), but on TU not so much.

 

Any comments would be appreciated!!

[cardcardinsider]

Citibank (Dell Financial Svcs.)

 

Dell Financial is not a subsidiary of Citigroup. CIT Bank is a subsidiary of Dell Financial. Two totally different creditors. You go disputing with Citibank for a DFS tradeline, you will have wasted a bunch of time.

 

 

actually citigroup used to issue some dell account about 10 years ago....the accounts were closed and anyone with a balance had to repay with citi and the accounts were not sold to CIT.

 

also CIT is not a subsidary of Dell Financial or the Dell corporation.

 

http://cit.com/about-cit/index.htm

[motley6]

Citibank (Dell Financial Svcs.)

 

Dell Financial is not a subsidiary of Citigroup. CIT Bank is a subsidiary of Dell Financial. Two totally different creditors. You go disputing with Citibank for a DFS tradeline, you will have wasted a bunch of time.

 

 

actually citigroup used to issue some dell account about 10 years ago....the accounts were closed and anyone with a balance had to repay with citi and the accounts were not sold to CIT.

 

also CIT is not a subsidary of Dell Financial or the Dell corporation.

 

http://cit.com/about-cit/index.htm

 

 

 

 

edit: Nevermind, I see that Dell bought out controlling interest in the joint venture between both, not CIT itself.

 

Point is to the OP, don't dispute with Citibank over a DFS tradeline. All DFS tradelines are through CIT Bank since 1997. Before that, I don't know.

Edited March 27, 2009 by motley6

[swoosh]

OK, I am at a stalemate with EX here. I used the "Jack Attack" method and literally picked apart 4 separate tradelines that are still showing on my EX report. All 4 have been disputed with EX once before (just once), and quite awhile ago for each (about a year or more).

 

I sent my letter to them on 3/25, and I got a one page letter back from them a few days ago, "We are responding to your request to verify item(s) on your personal credit report. We have already investigated this information (yeah, duh, over a year ago) and the credit grantor has verified its accuracy. .......... If you have additional relevant information (anything new that has occurred between you and the credit grantor or courts that should result in a change to the information appearing on your credit report, such as a letter from the creditor, etc., ) that was not presented when you previously disputed the information, you may mail it to us, blah, blah, blah, blah.

 

So basically they're REFUSING to verify any of the 4, even though for EACH of the 4 I listed about 3-4 points that were "in error." One of the CA listings, disputed once before, isn't even listed as "in dispute", or that I ever tried to dispute it before (I know that I did, but they didn't mark it that way).

 

I'd be happy to list the 4 accounts and what I put in my letter (removing any personal information) if someone can give me some pointers here.

 

Thanks!

[swoosh]

bump, anyone??

[shanagain]

OK, I am at a stalemate with EX here. I used the "Jack Attack" method and literally picked apart 4 separate tradelines that are still showing on my EX report. All 4 have been disputed with EX once before (just once), and quite awhile ago for each (about a year or more).

 

I sent my letter to them on 3/25, and I got a one page letter back from them a few days ago, "We are responding to your request to verify item(s) on your personal credit report. We have already investigated this information (yeah, duh, over a year ago) and the credit grantor has verified its accuracy. .......... If you have additional relevant information (anything new that has occurred between you and the credit grantor or courts that should result in a change to the information appearing on your credit report, such as a letter from the creditor, etc., ) that was not presented when you previously disputed the information, you may mail it to us, blah, blah, blah, blah.

 

So basically they're REFUSING to verify any of the 4, even though for EACH of the 4 I listed about 3-4 points that were "in error." One of the CA listings, disputed once before, isn't even listed as "in dispute", or that I ever tried to dispute it before (I know that I did, but they didn't mark it that way).

 

I'd be happy to list the 4 accounts and what I put in my letter (removing any personal information) if someone can give me some pointers here.

 

Thanks!

 

You can file a complaint with the FTC for Experian's refusal to investigate. I'm not going to drag this up by memory, but down towards the bottom of this thread: http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=335165 you'll find where WhyChat directed me to file a complaint with the FTC, and how to further harass Experian.

 

Note: The medical baddies that were there are now gone, though I don't remember any specific action on the part of the FTC, to be blunt. But it still might be worth a read.

[swoosh]

Thanks Shanagain ... I haven't been back on CB in a little while so I didn't see your response immediately. I'm definitely going to check out the FTC complaint route.

 

I do have another question on the one collection that I've disputed twice with EX (it's just for $26.00, and I did offer to do a PFD after the CA sent me a DV, but obviously the amount is so small they really didn't care to deal with it). It's not medical.

 

The first time I disputed it was, I believe, on-line. I probably do have a copy of my dispute in my huge EX file (I'd have to dig for it), but the CA did verify it back then.

 

The second time I disputed was using the Jack Attack method, because there is plenty wrong with the tradeline, most importantly, after TWO disputes now, the tradeline has NOT been marked "IN DISPUTE" in any way. I checked my hard copy of my EX report and the back-door on-line version, and both are NOT marked in dispute. This was in late April, and all EX did was give me their standard letter (a week later) that "you have already disputed this in the past, so we're not going to do anything ... blah blah blah."

 

So, I know that's a violation, but not exactly sure which one, and hoping someone can help me out here in getting this deleted by going back to the CA (and not EX). I'll deal with EX on the others (by trying the FTC as they refuse to even verify the ones I'm using the Jack Attack method on), but for this, I think there's an easier way (I hope).

 

Can anyone chime in here? Thanks so much!!!

[swoosh]

Also, another notation ... or question ... whose responsibility is it to mark the tradeline in dispute, EX or the CA?

 

I did ask for DV from the CA in late 2007 (they provided it), but did NOT mark the tradeline in dispute (I have my DV letter to them on file).

 

EX has been asked to verify twice, the first time they did (but did not mark in dispute), the second time (just this past April), they refused to verify saying "previously investigated."

 

I'm trying to pinpoint the violation here (if there is one) and how to attack it. Thanks!

[swoosh]

bump anyone?

[creditreformer]

good luck- I'm having the same problem w/EX

[gdtobefree]

The main problem I see is that you are not following through with anything, you called warner LAST WEEK and you are WAITING on THEM to call YOU, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR???????

 

You have to stay on top of your efforts from the get go, if you don't follow through they will ignore you, no go get under their skin and bug them until they do what you are seeking just to get rid of an annoying customer.

 

 

The one thing you want to follow up on should be left alone, Verizon removed it poke a lion and it will bite the hell out of you! Leave that particular account alone.

[gdtobefree]

And why can't you get your Chap 13 off your report?

 

Is there anything wrong with the way it is reporting?

Are you done with your payment plan?

 

Did you know, that the court will only verify a public record in person and not via a phone call or online request, not even by email? Is there anything wrong with the way it is reporting?

[swoosh]

gdtobefree, thanks for the advice. Yes, I've been super busy with work, kids, life in general, so I have let some of these things slide (like TW). I'll give the rep that I talked to there a call again (she's in PR). Guess I can always try the Planet Feedback route also.

 

I have a year to 2 years before my DH and I want to build a house. My Ch. 13 BK will be off my reports in 11/10 so all related accounts IIB will be also, and as my scores have drastically increased from the work I've done so far, I've become somewhat complacent and not as aggressive in getting rid of the last things "hanging on." I know my EX score was hovering at 700 the last time I pulled it before you could no longer purchase them from myFICO. The other 2 (EQ at 691 and TU at 661) are pretty good for now. I think by the time we NEED a mortgage I'll be well into the 700's. I've also established new credit (BOA at $1,100 secured which turns 1 y/o next month; $1,800 Chase--formerly WAMU, $1,000 Alliant CU; $600 OB; $300 Macy's, all in my own name) and have a new car loan since 8/08 joint with DH.

[gdtobefree]

Well you have done some pretty good gardening there,

 

I have heard some good thing about planet feedback I must be a tech child because I can't figure it out LOL

[deni5251]

I fought with EX over 2 GMAC accts that were IIB & reporting all kinds of wrong. I got their previously disputed letters after 2 separate disputes, & was almost ready to just throw in the towel. I took a stab at filing an FTC complaint & also filed with the Texas BBB (in which I stated that I had filed an FTC complaint). EX actually responded to the BBB, stating that they could not investigate because I hadn't provided the ID documents they requested.

 

In my rebuttal, I asked if that was the case, then why did they send me a letter stating "previously investigated" & why could they not verify ID when DL & SS card were copied in color, directly on the bottom of the letter.

 

Within a week, EX deleted both TLs.

 

YMMV of course, but it worked for me.

 

Great job on the rebuilding. Hang in there!

[swoosh]

Hey deni5251, it's been awhile ... and I remember your mess with GMAC as I went through it myself with them at the end of my BK. Can't believe it's been a full year since my discharge (yay

 

Anyways, thanks for the advice on the complaints you filed ... I may have to go there with EX!!!