Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
just8250

Dispute Came Back as "Updated" or "Previously Verified"

Recommended Posts

Hello All - I have a 30 day late reporting from a Citibank Thank You credit card on all 3 CRA from about a year ago.  I have tried goodwill letters (at least 3 times) with Citibank but no luck. I have also disputed the late payment  under the premises that there is not a late payment and the inaccurate late payment should be updated,  However, each time, the CRA comes back with either an "updated" remark in which the balance is changed and/or a "Previously verified" comment.  I think the next step is a verification request with the CRA to ask how they verified the late payment - but I am not 100% if this is the correct approach and also I could not locate a sample verification letter (I Iooked at Whychat's site and sample letters, but they seem to be for medical and not credit cards and/or the language is addressed to the creditor and not the CRA).  I appreciate any comments/help. Thank you in advance.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goodwill letters cemented it within the internal records.  If, presuming someone actually did their job on a dispute, Chittibank personnel were to review the files, they will see your letter bearing your signature in which you acknowledged being late.  And if it has previously been verified, then there isn't much upon which to stake any claims under the law...

 

Upon what basis do you believe the reporting is erroneous? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 2 years the "late" should automatically fall off. Disputing "lates" with the CRAs is ( IMO) fruitless. Or you can try this;

https://whychat.me/initdispltrsol.html

(edited for your purpose)


Please advise me as to the correct name and current address of this creditor, the name of the account holder, and the reported date of first delinquency.
If you can obtain this information, I also would need the name of the person providing this data, and the manner in which it was provided in order that I may pursue additional legal remedies.
 

Meanwhile to help prevent any future poisoning of your reports I suggest you opt out.

https://whychat.me/GUIDEBOOK.html

Edited by Why Chat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Why Chat said:

After 2 years the "late" should automatically fall off. Disputing "lates" with the CRAs is ( IMO) fruitless. Or you can try this;

https://whychat.me/initdispltrsol.html

(edited for your purpose)


Please advise me as to the correct name and current address of this creditor, the name of the account holder, and the reported date of first delinquency.
If you can obtain this information, I also would need the name of the person providing this data, and the manner in which it was provided in order that I may pursue additional legal remedies.
 

Meanwhile to help prevent any future poisoning of your reports I suggest you opt out.

https://whychat.me/GUIDEBOOK.html

Great, thank you.  I did not know that late payments would "drop off" after 24 months. The alleged late payments was July 2018,  So I am only 6-8 months away now, maybe I will just wait it out.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hegemony said:

a late can report for 7 years. what is this "falls off" in 24 months nonsense?

A DELINQUENCY stays on for 7 years. A "late" notation on a current account falls off in 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm...no.  A single late IS a delinquency.  It just isn't a charge-off.

 

Maybe there is some jurisdiction out there that screws with reporting as it is commonly known, but we cannot make a presumption that such would apply to OP since we don't know the State in question...

 

To claim that they fall off after two years means that probably half of the United States population that is of credit-holding age just became a member of a potential class-action involving the ongoing reporting of a single late payment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Why Chat said:

A DELINQUENCY stays on for 7 years. A "late" notation on a current account falls off in 2 years.

Which part of the FCRA says 2 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be in the FCRA as "late" payments are in your credit history and few OCs report credit history for more than 2 years.

 

The usual phrase at the top of each CURRENT account is

ACCOUNT HISTORY
The tables below show up to 2 years of the monthly balance, available credit, scheduled payment, date of last payment, high credit, credit limit, amount past due, activity designator, and comments

Edited by Why Chat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the consumer-friendly version of a paper credit report may only show the red or green boxes for a period of a few years on SOME accounts does NOT mean the delinquency just vanished into thin air.  The version of the report seen by the lender doesn't do all that shiny bauble color coding nonsense and it WILL generally still reflect the late payment. 

 

The data IS there for other lenders to see and that ALSO means that it is there for the score models to see and consider. 

 

And the claim that a current account only shows two years of history even on the consumer-friendly version is easily debunked.  Just looking at my Experian report, an account with no negative items that was printed earlier this month is showing the OK status from November of 2012 (along with each month across the past seven years).  A different account, which I closed more than six years, again in perfect condition, continues to report and has data going back to August of 2010.  There are some accounts with the data going back beyond that point in time but where the reporting had ceased circa 2010 when I closed the account. 

 

For S&G's, I also pulled a copy from the file of a Transunion report printed earlier this year...at random, AXP Plat had data that dated to 2011. 

 

The shiny bauble that EFX produced online and that I saved during 2018 only listed 2016, 2017 and 2018 for a number of the accounts, but the paper copy has FAR more information. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Why Chat said:

It wouldn't be in the FCRA as "late" payments are in your credit history and few OCs report credit history for more than 2 years.

 

The usual phrase at the top of each CURRENT account is

ACCOUNT HISTORY
The tables below show up to 2 years of the monthly balance, available credit, scheduled payment, date of last payment, high credit, credit limit, amount past due, activity designator, and comments

 

Bullsh!t.

 

Maybe you need to look at credit reports obtained directly from the CRAs instead of through Credit Karma.

 

My Experian report has an initial header on the report that specifically states the number of times "Accounts ever late:"

 

Each tradeline has a calendar entitled "Payment History" that includes every year from 2012 - 2019 on accounts opened more than just two years.  On new accounts, it only lists the past two years.  Duh.

 

Perhaps you need a math refresh:

 

2019 - 2012 != 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2019 at 6:32 AM, just8250 said:

Great, thank you.  I did not know that late payments would "drop off" after 24 months. The alleged late payments was July 2018,  So I am only 6-8 months away now, maybe I will just wait it out.   


The reason you didn't know they will "drop off" after 24 months is because they will NOT drop off after 24 months.  It's a myth and someone is feeding you a load of bullcrap.
 

Whether the late has much of an effect on your FICO Score after 24 months or whether many lenders hold the late against you after 24 months is another story.   But right now the simple fact is that the late will stain your reports for around seven -- count them ... 7 -- years unless you can get it removed earlier or you run into a freak string of luck.  

Edited by PotO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the OP's credit reports for this account display a credit history longer than 2 years then he should use the dispute letter

https://whychat.me/initdispltrsol.html

(edited for your purpose)


Please advise me as to the correct name and current address of this creditor, the name of the account holder, and the reported date of first delinquency.
If you can obtain this information, I also would need the name of the person providing this data, and the manner in which it was provided in order that I may pursue additional legal remedies.

 

( I have NEVER used Credit Karma and object to the vulgar language in "Pot O's" post)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Why Chat said:

If the OP's credit reports for this account display a credit history longer than 2 years then he should use the dispute letter

https://whychat.me/initdispltrsol.html

(edited for your purpose)


Please advise me as to the correct name and current address of this creditor, the name of the account holder, and the reported date of first delinquency.
If you can obtain this information, I also would need the name of the person providing this data, and the manner in which it was provided in order that I may pursue additional legal remedies.

 

( I have NEVER used Credit Karma and object to the vulgar language in "Pot O's" post)

 

You say it’s a dispute letter, but it doesn’t dispute anything.  Also, what “additional legal remedies”?   Legal remedies for what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, please do NOT follow guidance that will have the potential to place you into Special Handling for having made frivolous disputes.  I would encourage you to take the time necessary to read all applicable laws related to credit reporting as they apply to your jurisdiction, since they WILL be different than the ones in FantasyLand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usually for you naysayers, Why Chat is correct.   If you look at any data furnisher copy of a credit file, which is what a credit analyst would look at to decision an application it is readily apparent that each bureau reports a rolling 24 month payment history starting with the most recent reporting for any particular trade-line and goes back for 24 months.    Easy enough to count backwards and see when a customer was late within the last 24 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MarvBear said:

As usually for you naysayers, Why Chat is correct.   If you look at any data furnisher copy of a credit file, which is what a credit analyst would look at to decision an application it is readily apparent that each bureau reports a rolling 24 month payment history starting with the most recent reporting for any particular trade-line and goes back for 24 months.    Easy enough to count backwards and see when a customer was late within the last 24 months.

This is inconsistent with each and every bureau report that was contained in the DA's file on a client we had on some of the straw mortgages and it is ALSO inconsistent with the report that was pulled by the dealership and shown to me when I purchased my F-Type (and that had precisely zero negative items on it).  It is ALSO inconsistent with federal laws that speak to the duration in which an item may report.

 

Further, if an item disappeared after two years, then there would be zero reason for any of the four major bureaus to provide data going back beyond twenty-four months.  Yet they all offer 84-month reporting windows (where an account has existed for that length of time).  Curious that...

 

Whether the impact dissipates after a few years is an entirely different matter and has NOT been the issue in this thread even after the opportunity to clarify entered into the equation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This credit file supports both Why Chat and my own statement.   Want to show me where a payment history is more than a running 24 months?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if an account was late 5 years ago it is not reported anywhere on the tradeline? or is whychat playing semantics here? "After 2 years the "late" should automatically fall off"

 

or did I wake up in bizarro credit world? The late might not show on the rolling 24 but that does not mean it "fell off"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious about something.   Why all of a sudden, is there what I consider a general revolt against anytime Why Chat offers help and opinions.  No body every said a creditor could not figure out when you were late.    I know how to do that, but if it isn't on the 24month rolling history, it isn't to be found.  Our former owner breeze was a great friend of Why Chat.  Why Chat and breeze introduced me to CreditBoards.   I took over as much as I could from breeze, and for goodness sake, I would think everyone would remember the relationship status and honor what has been the past status.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarvBear said:

Are all lenders still getting the 2004 version in that .pdf?  EXP seems to have updated screening viewable on their website as they sell lenders more shiny baubles...

 

As seen in this example that appears to be 2009 with a Vantage rollout, while a rolling two-year window might be highlighted, it is clear that they make it easily known that the consumer has a history of late payment at any point within the seven year window... https://www.experian.com/screening-services/pdf/credit-report-sample.pdf

 

A different product sheet from 2017 makes clear that a lender will ALSO have an easily highlighted history of delinquency. https://www.experian.com/assets/consumer-information/product-sheets/credit-profile-report.pdf

 

So, again, it is disingenuous to claim that there would be no impact of a 30-day late because of a rolling two-year window having expired. 

 

There is no general revolt against a person.  What IS being discussed is a perpetuation of information or concepts that are flawed and where some want to cling to the past.  The reality, in law or any other walk, is that adaptation is required...there is a reason we have to log CLE hours on an annual basis.  There is no question that some of us choose the places that make for a better vacation, but sometimes you take the sessions where they fall precisely because of the information to be covered and a need to ensure one is current AND correct when they offer guidance.  We have, by example, an entire body of caselaw that has developed because of attorneys who gave incorrect guidance on the areas of post-conviction sentencing impacts.  At the other end, we have appeals that would have had merit but for the sentence having expired and the writ counsel not having included a simple caveat about the Applicant continuing to suffer collateral consequence.  We still see cases bounced where guidance was not given on immigration consequences of a plea.  All of these occur because attorneys did not take the time to come up to speed on the current state of the law.  Guidance cannot be given based on what worked ten or twenty years ago when it is clear that changes in the law or interpretations have occurred in the intervening years... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarvBear said:

This credit file supports both Why Chat and my own statement.   Want to show me where a payment history is more than a running 24 months?

 

Also...it would seem that the file is a trick question given that there are precisely ZERO accounts that are listed as either NOW or WAS del/drg.  There are 47 of 47 tradelines claimed to be reporting in a satisfactory manner.  As such, it is not an apples to apples with respect to the reality that the lender WILL see the OP's late payment for as long as it appears on the credit reports...which, as we all know, is potentially seven years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't post trick questions.   I just found an old archive file and did not look at it before I posted.  Innocent until you prove me guilty.    How many should I post that do show lates.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 7:42 AM, just8250 said:

Hello All - I have a 30 day late reporting from a Citibank Thank You credit card on all 3 CRA from about a year ago.  I have tried goodwill letters (at least 3 times) with Citibank but no luck. I have also disputed the late payment  under the premises that there is not a late payment and the inaccurate late payment should be updated,  However, each time, the CRA comes back with either an "updated" remark in which the balance is changed and/or a "Previously verified" comment.  I think the next step is a verification request with the CRA to ask how they verified the late payment - but I am not 100% if this is the correct approach and also I could not locate a sample verification letter (I Iooked at Whychat's site and sample letters, but they seem to be for medical and not credit cards and/or the language is addressed to the creditor and not the CRA).  I appreciate any comments/help. Thank you in advance.    

WAS the account late? I mean a full 30 days not just late during the new cycle. IS the account still open? If not, did you close it or did CITI close it?

 

If the account was really late, why did you dispute it as "never late?"

 

what means did you employ for your prior disputes? You may want to let the dispute button cool off a few months if you've been using online disputes.

 

is this the only (or the worse) derogatory tradeline on your reports? If not, you could turn your attention to other matters and then try again with Citi.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  




  • Today's Birthdays

    1. iliana
      iliana
      Age: 48
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      177,972
    • Most Online
      1,956

    Newest Member
    time2getserious
    Joined

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines