Rebuild Thread And Some Questions

[WilbertSmithsonian]

31 minutes ago, hdporter said:

Score disparity I'd likely due to some other factor.  (You've noted getting EQ via myFICO; where are other scores sourced from / are they FICO 8?)

 

Re "bucketing":  It's a real thing, but more on a "macro" level.  Some people discuss it's impact like it's more volatile than wind direction.

 

All 3 are FICO 8, from myFico. I also get Experian from CCT with daily score/report updates.

 

You are right though about me forgetting a factor - EX has 4 hard inquiries. Although seems strange that it would be 38 points lower than TU, which has 2 hards. EQ has 0, and is in the middle (20 points higher than EX, 18 points lower than TU).

 

All reports have the same tradelines, same utilizations/balances reporting. And the 1 negative TL has the same status, date opened, date updated on all 3.

 

Probably not worth spending too much effort on trying to figure it out, but I do wonder what exactly is creating the 38 point gap between TU and EX.

[WilbertSmithsonian]

BOA decided to continue reporting my paid charge-off again this month, which was previously removed from all 3 reports. It just showed up on Experian today.

 

Looking forward to spending an hour on hold with Experian again in the morning, and possibly having to go through another round of disputes with TU and EQ.

 

I was under the impression that lenders would stop updating monthly once you pay something off. I know it's technically not illegal, but quite annoying that they are trying to keep the impact fresh after it's already been paid, updated and removed on all 3 reports.

 

If nothing else, I guess it will be an interesting datapoint to see how hard it hits my score until I get it removed.

Edited September 20, 2024 by WilbertSmithsonian

[WilbertSmithsonian]

Haven't bothered to call Experian yet because I spent 4 hours preparing letters to dispute the Transworld collection with the CRAs yesterday. Finally got them ready and was heading out the door to mail them off, and noticed I had an email from National Grid's Executive Office (I emailed them weeks ago and figured I'd never hear back).

 

I called the guy on the phone and he told me that since I paid using their portal, their policy is to recall from collections. He said he needs to find the exact date it was recalled, and then he'll draft a letter for me stating that the account has been recalled from Transworld.

 

This is great news as I was expecting to be stuck with this for a bit. If I can get that letter soon, I may actually be looking at clean reports very soon. Although to be honest I have a strong feeling that Transworld will continue to verify even if I dispute with a letter that the account was recalled. So I'm fully expecting to have to file suit against them.

 

Originally he sent me a letter with National Grid's letterhead, stating the following:

 

Quote

Dear Wilbert,

Thank you for your payment in the amount of $xxx.xx on 08/26/2024. This payment represents payment in full for services at <ADDRESS>, for the period ending MM/DD/YYYY.

 

I don't think this is enough proof to show that the account was recalled from collections though, so I think it's best to wait for a letter that explicitly states that it was recalled.

 

In the meantime, the BOA account popping back up on Experian cost me 62 points - which is the exact amount I gained when Discover dropped off. Discover had 180 day late, BOA only has a 60 day late before charge-off. So it's quite interesting that they had the exact same impact.

Edited September 21, 2024 by WilbertSmithsonian
added quote

[WilbertSmithsonian]

On 9/15/2024 at 9:13 PM, WilbertSmithsonian said:

I went ahead and filed complaints with the BBB, CFPB and NYS AG Office against Transworld.

 

This company is reporting an inaccurate date of first delinquency on a National Grid collections account and has falsely verified the inaccurate date after I disputed it with the CRAs. This is an attempt to re-age a debt and prolong the reporting period, which is a violation of my consumer rights under the FCRA.

 

This inaccurate reporting negatively impacts my credit for 1.5 years longer than necessary, prevents me from obtaining further credit, causes me to pay higher interest rates than necessary, etc.

 

I have bills showing my last payment date to National Grid was in March of 2020. I have bills from National Grid after March of 2020 showing that my first due date that I missed was May 8th, 2020. My final bill from National Grid was issued in August of 2021, which would be the chargeoff date.

 

This company seems to think that it's ok to report the chargeoff date as the DOFD, rather than the correct date specified under FCRA reporting guidelines, which is the **first missed payment that led up to the eventual chargeoff of the account** (May 8th, 2020).

 

Up until last month when I paid off this collection, Transworld Systems was reporting a "last payment date" of March 20, 2020 - so even they admit that I hadn't made any payments on the account between March 2020, and the chargeoff date of August 2021. Yet somehow they continue to verify false information that contradicts their own reporting, by reporting August 2021 as the date of first delinquency - rather than the true date of first delinquency, which is May 8th, 2020.

 

So I just got a response from Transworld through CFPB regarding this complaint...

 

Quote

Please be advised that the above-referenced account 1234567 TSIM is closed in TSI’s system and account 9876543 TSIM is closed in TSI’s system as paid. It is TSI’s intent to have no further communication with you regarding this matter. For any further inquiries on the above-referenced accounts, please contact NATIONAL GRID at 300 Erie Blvd. W B-2, Syracuse, NY 13202.

 

Enclosed please find a copy of an account payment history with our office for the above account 9876543 TSIM. Should there be a discrepancy, kindly contact us.

 

Please be advised that TSI have contacted the credit bureaus, with which we do business, with our request to update our listing of account 9876543 TSIM on your credit profile as paid. The above referenced account 1234567 TSIM is not currently reported on your credit profile. TSI cannot affect a change to how the creditor or any other company may have listed the accounts on your credit profile.

 

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your inquiry and provide you with the enclosed documentations.

 

Very truly yours,

TSI Consumer Affairs

 

What kind of crap is this? First of all there was no complaint about whether it was marked as paid or not so that info is completely irrelevant. Second of all, National Grid isn't reporting anything - only Transworld is. They "cannot affect a change to how the creditor listed the accounts on my profile"? The original creditor didn't list anything. They did.

 

I'm getting pretty tired of these people giving me the run around. There's no way I'm letting this sit on my reports until August of 2026 when it should be removed ~7 months from now.

 

Any advice? Not sure if National Grid will be of any help as they still haven't even gotten back to me after I followed up on the previous conversation. I'm guessing the next logical step is to contact an attorney and see if they think I have a strong enough case to represent me.

[hdporter]

I don't have advice, just observations:

 

-- It's apparent that Nat'l Grid (NG) never sold the account; just referred it for outside collection

 

-- It's possible that NG never provided the CA (Transworld) with account history details.  Instead, it may have merely provided the outstanding balance and date of charge off (or even just the date of referral to the outside CA).

 

-- Even though it is improper, the CA may have provided this date to the CRAs as the "DOFD".  However. You need to closely examine your hardcopy TU report.  Collection tradelines should report BOTH "Last Date Updated" AND "Date of First Delinquency".

 

Both dates are pertinent to tradeline history; the DOFD (of course) determines removal (obsolescence) date.  The best confirmation of an accurate DOFD is when the report states the anticipated removal date. 

 

It's possible thst you're looking at a "Last Update" date and incorrectly assuming it's on record as the DOFD.

 

-------

 

There are several avenues by which you might attempt a correction, once you've confirmed the DOFD associated with thus tradeline.

 

I would be inclined to obtain all physical statement copies, starting with the month prior to DOFD, and use them to prepare a concise summary of account activity that definitively establishes the correct DOFD.  Submit the summary, with backup statements attached to the CRA(s) reporting the inaccuracy. 

 

if you previously entered disputes with the CRA's themselves, you'll need to preface your dispute with the statement that you're requesting a review of their previous investigation in which the CA affirmed the existing reporting.  You're providing detailed statements that establishes that the reported DOFD is inaccurate.

 

Again, if previously investigated by the CRA, continue with:  A failure by the CRA to take the provided evidence into account and reinvestigate this dispute, and instead continuing to rely upon the CA's previous affirmation of the DOFD, will be cause to consider legal action re a possible intentional violation of the FCRA.

 

Most important:  Strip your dispute letter to a bare minimum of words.  Don't engage in spurious/unnecessary rhetoric.  it will only distract from the key message you wish to deliver.  Be as brief as possible.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2024 by hdporter

[WilbertSmithsonian]

7 hours ago, hdporter said:

I don't have advice, just observations:

 

-- It's apparent that Nat'l Grid (NG) never sold the account; just referred it for outside collection

 

-- It's possible that NG never provided the CA with account history details.  Instead, it may have merely provided the outstanding balance and date of charge off (or even just the date of referral to the outside CA).

 

-- Even though it is improper, the CA may have provided this date to the CRAs as the "DOFD".  However. You need to closely examine your hardcopy TU report.  Collection tradelines should report BOTH "Last Date Updated" AND "Date of First Delinquency".

 

Both dates are pertinent to tradeline history; the DOFD (of course) determines removal (obsolescence) date.  The best confirmation of an accurate DOFD is when the report states the anticipated removal date. 

 

It's possible thst you're looking at a "Last Update" date and incorrectly assuming it's on record as the DOFD.

 

-------

 

There are several avenues by which you might attempt a correction, once you've confirmed the DOFD associated with thus tradeline.

 

I would be inclined to obtain all physical statement copies, starting with the month prior to DOFD, and use them to prepare a concise summary of account activity that definitively establishes the correct DOFD.  Submit the summary, with backup statements attached to the CRA(s) reporting the inaccuracy.  (Do I take it this reports only to one CRA, the proper name of which is TransUnion?)

 

You'll need to preface your dispute with the statement that you're requesting a review of their previous investigation in which the CA affirmed the existing reporting.  You're providing detailed statements that establishes that the reported DOFD is inaccurate.

 

A failure by the CRA to take the provided evidence into account and reinvestigate this dispute, and instead continuing to rely upon the CA's previous affirmation of the DOFD, will be cause to consider legal action re a possible intentional violation of the FCRA.

 

Most important:  Strip your dispute letter to a bare minimum of words.  Don't engage in spurious/unnecessary rhetoric.  it will only distract from the key message you wish to deliver.  Be as brief as possible.

 

 

 

Thanks for the response. It is indeed confirmed as the DOFD, not the "Last Updated" date. The account has been updating monthly since this CA got a hold of it. But they are reporting August 18th 2021 as the DOFD, which is the date my final bill was issued by National Grid. Confirmed with a hard EQ report, and the drop off dates on TU/EX also align with this date. (Which answers your other question, it is reporting to all 3).

 

I did submit new disputes to the CRAs with overwhelming evidence that the DOFD is incorrect.

 

- Copy of final bill issued on August 18th 2021

- Copy of (a portion of) a credit report showing the DOFD listed as August 18th 2021

- Copy of credit report showing that "last payment made" was March 20, 2020, which also had a "last updated" of August 2024

- Copy of a bill issued by National Grid in April of 2020, which showed the payment I made on March 20th, 2020. And had a due date of May 8th, 2020

 

All of these things combined make it pretty clear that all parties agree that I hadn't made any payments after March 20, 2020. And the bill with a due date of May 8th 2020 also makes it clear that this would be my first missed payment that led to the eventual chargeoff.

 

Unfortunately I probably did elaborate too much in my dispute letters, but there isn't anything I can do about that now. Guess all I can do is wait and see for now.

 

Also to clarify in case there was confusion about the CA/CRA - the CA name is "Transworld Systems", I was not referring to TransUnion.

[hdporter]

Sorry fir my confusion on the CA name (I figured it out and had meant to edit that reference out.).

 

Update with what you hear from the individual CRA's.

 

Fwiw, I'll note the terse language suggestion reflects a 2 second attention span of whoever scans the text of such letters.

 

For future reference, if elaboration is required, it could be best to tersely summarize your letter in bullet points as a lead in to the more extended explanations:

 

e. g.  (15 words or less for each bullet point)

 

- issue

- requested correction

- summary of supporting evidence

- intended follow up

 

This helps focus when they then read on for details.  fwiw

 

 

[WilbertSmithsonian]

Thanks for the suggestion, will keep it in mind for next time to improve the chances of someone actually reading it. FWIW, this is the letter I sent.

 

Quote

September 20th, 2024
Certified Mail # 1234567

 

CRA Name
CRA Address
City, State Zip

 

Re: Tradeline Dispute For Transworld Systems

 

This letter is to inform you that I dispute a tradeline on my credit report.

 

I have included a copy of my NYS Drivers License, Social Security card and a credit card statement as proof of address/identity.

 

Full Name
Wilbert S

 

Social Security Number
111-11-1111

 

Date Of Birth
1/1/1

 

Current Address
111 1st St
City, NY 11111

 

Tradeline Dispute

I dispute the following tradeline, as it is inaccurate, and violates multiple sections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Since I have already brought this matter to the collection agency’s attention multiple times via disputes, complaints, etc, and these attempts have resulted in the same information being reported again - these violations include, but are not limited to:

 

• FCRA § 623(a)(1)(A)
• FCRA § 623(a)(2)(B)
• FCRA § 623(a)(5)

 

Transworld Systems
Account Number: 1234XXXX
Reason: Inaccurate date of first delinquency (unlawful attempt to re-age a debt)

 

Proof Of Inaccuracy

I have included 4 documents with my dispute, which prove that the date of first delinquency is no later than May 8th, 2020.

 

Proof Document 1

Document 1 is a bill from the original creditor (National Grid) issued on April 14th, 2020. This bill shows that I made a payment on March 20th, 2020. This bill also has a due date of May 8th, 2020 (it was never paid, and no payments were ever made on the account until 2024 after it was placed in collections).

 

Proof Document 2

Document 2 is a portion of a credit report issued on August 23rd, 2024. This credit report shows Transworld reporting August 18th, 2021 as the date of first delinquency.

 

Proof Document 3

Document 3 is a portion of a credit report from August 23rd, 2024, showing that Transworld reported a “last payment date” of March 20th, 2020 (proving that Transworld has knowledge that no payments were made between March 20th, 2020 and the date that the account went into collections, and also proving that this inaccuracy is willfully and knowingly being reported).

 

Proof Document 4

Document 4 is the Final Service Bill from the original creditor. This bill was issued on August 18th, 2021, which proves that Transworld is attempting to re-age this debt by reporting the date of the Final Service Bill under “Date Of First Delinquency”, instead of the correct date, which is the first missed payment that led to the eventual charge-off (May 8th, 2020).

 

Attempts to re-age a debt can have serious impact on a consumer’s credit profile, as it would allow the creditor to extend the reporting period for negative information, prevent consumers from obtaining new credit, cause consumers to pay higher interest rates on loans, extend the statute of limitations on pursuing lawsuits, etc.

 

Please correct or remove this damaging information from my credit report.

 

Correspondence can be sent to the NYS address listed on the documents I’ve included with this letter.

 

Truly Yours,
Wil S
 

 

Probably should've left out all the bits about "unlawful" and "willfully and knowingly" etc, as it comes across like more of a vendetta than seeking a correction. Also I realize I'm slightly incorrect about DOFD as it's technically the first 30 day late, not the first missed due date. But that's probably not a super important detail.

 

Anyway I will update when I find out the results.

[hdporter]

The dispute is decently structured.  But, yeah, I advise focus on inaccuracy and (next time) drop all reference to statute violations.  (Leave that to a lawyer if you actually pursue legal action.)

 

A well worded dispute simply identifies the inaccuracy and the necessary correction, period.  Frankly, that's all the clerk reading the dispute is filtering for.

 

On first dispute of a tradeline, all that likely happens is a query to the reporting creditor with a short blurb, such as, disputes DOFD.

 

It's doubtful that any other background you submit, including docs, is transmitted to the creditor.  On first pass, the CRA only ascertains that the creditor asserts that the reporting is consistent with their records, or else permits the creditor to update with a correction.

 

If you disagree with the investigation result and choose to ask for reinvestigation, now providing supporting documentation, things get more complex.

 

The onus is on the CRA to push back if your case is compelling.  Someone with a brain at the CRA should review what you submit to determine appropriate action.

 

But what I'll stress is that the effort is 10x more straightforward if you're able to work with the creditor to come to an agreement about a correction. 

 

More on this in a minute (plane is closing for departure).

 

 

 

[hdporter]

I grasp that neither Nat'l Grid, nor their reporting CA, cooperated with your dispute.  The problem with this is if you look to the CRA to resolve this themselves, I guarantee that you're going to be visited with a fk-loaf of frustration and hand-wringing in the process.

 

Yes, this is an expected function of a CRA.  But they don't structure themselves in any respect to facilitate this (likely purposely, so as to discourage more involved dispute investigations).  You ultimately have to pull them kicking and screaming into the process (or patiently bash away at them incessently). 

 

My heartfelt advice is to instead escalate further at National Grid, with the vp of Customer Relations, or any other appropriate Exec who you can obtain a name and contact for, and persuade them that NG is on the hook for a correction.

 

See, here's the nub of your dispute:  DOFD is a record that was generated by NG.  They relayed this information to their agent, the CA.  The CA reported an erroneous date.

 

ONLY NG possesses the original records that establish the DOFD.  Whether they reported it incorrectly to the CA or the CA flubbed it themselves, the CA is acting on behalf of NG.

 

Thus, the onus is in fact on NG to reconfirm the DOFD and convey that to the CA, instructing them to update the tradeline accordingly.

 

I'm not suggesting that this suggested alternative is simple.  But I guarantee it will be much more constructive that matching wits with the witless at the CRA's.

 

[WilbertSmithsonian]

I appreciate all the feedback @hdporter

 

I was actually in contact with someone from National Grid’s EO recently but he kind of just stopped responding after giving me some generic letter that says “your account is paid in full”.

 

So I submitted another contact form to their EO last night, outlining the DOFD issue more clearly and requesting that they either ask Transworld to remove the tradeline, or at least ask them to correct the DOFD.

 

Kind of hoping they will just do a goodwill removal but I’ll be more than happy if they can get the DOFD corrected. I’ll update if/when I get a response.

[hdporter]

Ultimately, you'll need to aggressively pursue whatever path you perceive as being most effective.

 

Clearly the EO failed to grasp what action you actually sought.  You do need to ask yourself if you're being sufficiently clear and concise and they're being dense, or if you're muddling the message a bit such that the crux is lost.

 

There are several potential ways to skin this cat.  In my experience, working with the reporter(s) of the debt is much more effective than trying to prompt a CRA into a correction that the reporter doesn't concede is appropriate.

 

One possible end run at this is to get to NG EO to issue a letter confirming the correct DOFD.  Then relay that to the CA, stating the DOFD on their tradeline is inaccurate and they must correct it to the date submitted by NG.

 

Keep that letter thst simple.  If the don't reply within 10 business days (2 calendar weeks), follow up with a phone call and nail them to a correction.

 

You might see if you can prod NG into proactively requesting/seeking the correction from the CA (reminding them that the CA was acting as NG's agent.

[WilbertSmithsonian]

Just a quick update on the Transworld DOFD thing. Disputed via CMRR with CRAs asking for a reinvestigation, provided undeniable proof and once again was verified as accurate.

 

National Grid's EO hasn't responded to me in weeks, neither the original guy that I actually had a line of communication with, or the attempt to submit a new request to their portal.

 

I guess I have to find the mailing address and see if sending in an actual letter might get a response. This is getting a bit ridiculous at this point but I'm gonna keep hammering away at it until I can get some kind of result.

[WilbertSmithsonian]

Updates:

 

Finally called Experian today to ask for removal (again) of the paid BOA chargeoff, since it's now 5 years from DOFD. Got it removed while I was on the phone, I'll have the updated score when I wake up tomorrow.

 

Regarding National Grid / Transworld, I followed @hdporter's suggestion of focusing on National Grid rather than Transworld. Called the standard customer service number for National Grid today, asked to speak to the collections department.

 

Explained the situation to the rep, and he seemed like he was having issues verifying what the DOFD actually was (something about not being able to access my statements from that far back).

 

I think he just sort of gave up because it was too much of a hassle. So he said "I don't think the collection agency should even be reporting this, I'm gonna send them an email and request that they remove it from your credit reports."

 

I know that Transworld isn't legally required to remove, technically, but I'm guessing that they will honor National Grid's request since NG is the OC who they are acting on behalf of.

 

Trying not to get too excited yet, but if this works, all 3 reports will be spotless and I'd imagine my scores will all be high 700s or low 800s. After having low/mid 500s across the board less than 90 days ago. Fingers crossed...

[WilbertSmithsonian]

BOA removal bumped EX 67 points.

 

Current scores are EX 664, EQ 682, TU 697.

 

Also, a few days ago I checked Cap Ones "guaranteed offer" pre-approval tool just for the heck of it. All they offered me was the Quicksilver Secured Rewards card.

 

Just looked again today after BOA dropped off - got offered Quicksilver Rewards, SavorOne Rewards and the Platinum Mastercard.

 

Part of me wants to accept the SavorOne, but I opened 3 cards recently that are all about to reach the 3 month mark in November. Was planning on gardening for a bit, but none of my current cards are even remotely good. 2 of 3 are secured, and the highest limit is $1k.

 

Will have to sleep on it, I guess.

Edited October 16, 2024 by WilbertSmithsonian
cap one offer

[supern8ural]

Be aware that there's at least two tiers of Capital One cards with the exact same name, e.g. Savor One For Good Credit is really Savor One For Meh Credit and has no SUB.  Savor One all by itself has a SUB.  Don't know if getting the card sooner is more important to you than a SUB or not.

[WilbertSmithsonian]

44 minutes ago, supern8ural said:

Be aware that there's at least two tiers of Capital One cards with the exact same name, e.g. Savor One For Good Credit is really Savor One For Meh Credit and has no SUB.  Savor One all by itself has a SUB.  Don't know if getting the card sooner is more important to you than a SUB or not.

Yep, no SUB on this as it’s the good credit one. Im not going to apply for it or anything else for now, I’ll at least wait until if/when this last collection is removed.

 

I’d think that would increase my prospects for prime cards substantially.

[supern8ural]

They're sensitive to velocity, too - I was approved for a Quicksilver (with SUB) last year, but have opened four cards since.  Last time I checked I qualified only for the "for good credit" cards; my scores haven't changed substantially since I got the QS (now a Savor One, they let me PC it earlier this year) - they're in the 720ish range although just recently my TU FICO 8 jumped up to 788 because a 120DL finally fell off (other two still show it and sadly will until January, but that's OK, I feel like I'm in the home stretch now).  I recently opened a Citi Double Cash, and when I checked just now I don't prequal for anything with Cap1.  I don't really want a Venture One for anything though so that's OK.

 

I don't know if they pull all three for a prequal although I guess I could pull another report tomorrow and check - but they DO pull all three when you apply.

 

I'm assuming it's the recent card app that's made the difference.

[WilbertSmithsonian]

4 hours ago, supern8ural said:

TU FICO 8 jumped up to 788

 

Congrats on the progress.

 

To be honest if my last collection does fall off soon, whatever my next card is - I don't think it'll be from Cap One. I'm only really checking their pre-qual to gauge if they're reacting to the improvements in my profile.

 

I think they probably would have me internally bucketed due to burning them twice, and having terrible profiles over the years. Once I can qualify for prime cards, I'll probably go for something different where I'm likely to get a decent starting CL and don't have a previous relationship with the creditor. Maybe the sapphire or something.

[WilbertSmithsonian]

13 hours ago, supern8ural said:

I don't know if they pull all three for a prequal

 

FWIW they did indeed soft pull all 3 of mine yesterday, I just checked.

[supern8ural]

Thanks for checking, I was curious myself, but have been doing nasssssty paid workses all day (and we hates it!)

[WilbertSmithsonian]

Transworld continues to report my account, just noticed the last update on my reports is from this week even though it was paid off a couple months ago.

 

The national grid rep told me last Tuesday that he emailed Transworld, requesting removal from my reports. He also said he would call me back when he got a response.
 

It’s been a week now, so I called National Grid again and another representative sent a new email to Transworld requesting again that they remove the account.

 

I know these things can take a month or 2 and I wasn’t expecting a result just yet, but being that Transworld continues to update the collection, it would seem like they either disregarded or didn’t get the previous email. So I figured I would get National Grid to pester them a bit since they’ve been so uncooperative thus far.

[WilbertSmithsonian]

Update

 

Just called Experian and asked for a supervisor to follow up on my Transworld disputes. Guy was very "I like to get things done so why don't we 3 way Transworld and see what they say."

 

Called Transworld and gave him permission to speak. He said he was trying to get the collection removed for me. Transworld rep didn't even really ask for anything and just said "we can request removal, it will take 30-45 days."

 

Experian supervisor said he will remove it on his end for now, but once their request goes through it will ensure it doesn't show back up again.

 

So, my Experian report is now clean! I'll have my updated score tomorrow morning. I'm not 100% sure if Transworld's request is only for Experian, or all 3 CRAs. So I'll wait it out for now and see if it also drops off of TU/EQ within a month. If not, I'll try calling them too.

 

Super exciting, my EX is currently 664 so I'm figuring this will probably push me over 700 for the first time ever. I also have my AOYA reaching the 3 month mark in a week so hoping for a slight score boost there too. Ideally I'd love to get over 740 but we'll see how things go.

[WilbertSmithsonian]

I definitely didn't stay up until 3 AM so I could get my updated Experian score.

 

+100 points, new score is 764. That's 235 points added since I started this thread 3 months ago!

 

Really hoping to see that last collection drop off EQ and TU as well, and then I'll be clean on all 3 major CRAs.

[supern8ural]

4 hours ago, WilbertSmithsonian said:

I definitely didn't stay up until 3 AM so I could get my updated Experian score.

 

+100 points, new score is 764. That's 235 points added since I started this thread 3 months ago!

 

Really hoping to see that last collection drop off EQ and TU as well, and then I'll be clean on all 3 major CRAs.

 

That's great!  You and I are in about the same place, I have one 90DL that is only reporting to Experian, I cannot wait until that falls off (January at the latest)  I don't know why it fell off Equifax, but I am not complaining.  As an aside they say that lates decrease in effect over time, that is not my experience, I went from 714 to 788 (TU) and 725 to 771 (Experian) just from that one derog falling off so having a late payment really is 7 years of bad credit.

 

Doesn't it feel great?  I know for my part I want to buy a house in the near future so seeing my file getting cleaned up is a great thing.

Edited October 24, 2024 by supern8ural