FICO vs TC vs Hard Copies.....

[jack1212]

I felt the need to create this, cause i found myself typing it over and over. I'll link it in my siggy.

 

Lots of posters are wondering why FICO and TC doesnt match up, or maybe even want to dispute based on what they see at those sites.

 

Granted FICO is more accurate than TC, you need to DISPUTE BASED ONLY ON YOUR HARD COPY REPORTS!

 

TC and any other 3 in 1 monitoring sites are only good for alerts and staying ahead of the game. Thats about it.

 

(and thats only if they even update on time)

 

If you see something wrong with TC or FICO, confirm it with the hard copies.

 

Far too many people copy and paste the fico TL and wonder why stuff is missing and want to dispute it.

 

Anyone else feel free to jump in.

 

jack1212

[Big Bear]

bump

 

You're right; this topic has been brought up quite frequently lately.

 

Only initiate a dispute after checking copies directly from the CRAs, and use only those reports for any and all disputes.

[ladyran]

None of us ever want to take CRA's, CA's or any of the 3rd party vendors to court but sometimes you really have no choice to get your reports to reflect accurately. (Yes I have been there, done that and have the t-shirt)

 

It really does not matter where you get your reports for general over view and general disputes. BUT it does matter if you have a real situation over inaccurate reporting that is causing you real damages!

 

Credit reports then need to be obtained either directly from the CRA's (and do include Innovis) or Annual Credit Report. The reasons are simple:

 

1. You need the addresses located on your credit report to send in your disputes to the CRA's and the Data Furnishers - most 3rd party reports do not include these addresses. Most reports also do not include various names and SS#'s used along with addresses. This information can be crucial to your case. And finally these reports do not include soft inquiries, again crucial information.

 

**** Finding addresses on the internet or on your statements is not what the FCRA dictates to you as the process.... Now if you have disputed as outlined under the FCRA and got nowhere and then used what you found on the internet.... then I would say it is icing on the cake with the cherry on top!

 

2. CRA's are suppose to keep "snapshots" of the reports they give you. Trust me when I say that the report you furnish and the one they furnish may not be the same. To close the loop hole of "you got it from somewhere else" you need the report from them directly or from annual credit report. And since annual credit report has to be maintained under the FCRA it would seem in your best interest to get your copies from them.

 

There is nothing better than having a "clean" paper trail for legal issues.

 

And as a final - use scorewatch - best system for telling you why your score has gone down.. "priceless" is all I am allowed to say!

[Stryker]

ttt.

[jack1212]

Also needed to add the "score" issue.

 

There are several "scores"

 

1. Fico Scores

 

2. Credit Scores

 

3. Fako Scores

 

just to name a few. (there are many more, but these are the basics.

 

Fico is the only score you should be concerned about. (Now SOME lenders do look at the indiviual credit scores, so you can ask them what they pull.)

 

I have had a 75pt difference in my fako vs fico score.

 

 

There. Now i dont have to type it 1000 more times.

 

jack.

[Mark Avery]

If you see something wrong with TC or FICO, confirm it with the hard copies.

I'm sure I'll get Jack-Slapped for this, but that's OK.

 

If I go to TU or EX and/or EQ and pay my money (note Jack, I'm not getting it from a 3-in-1 or FICO), can I use the electronic online get-it-right-now copy instead of waiting for a week for a hard copy from the CRA's laser printer delivered to me via USPS?

 

I'm guessing that if there is even a slim chance you might end up in a court of law then you should wait the week and work with something that came in an envelope.

 

But my remaining disputes are two 2006/07 BofA 60 days late and a 2002 Amex 120 day CA/CO (that was paid in full) - I just don't see the words "Your Honor" coming out of my mouth anytime soon.

[jack1212]

If you see something wrong with TC or FICO, confirm it with the hard copies.

I'm sure I'll get Jack-Slapped for this, but that's OK.

 

If I go to TU or EX and/or EQ and pay my money (note Jack, I'm not getting it from a 3-in-1 or FICO), can I use the electronic online get-it-right-now copy instead of waiting for a week for a hard copy from the CRA's laser printer delivered to me via USPS?

 

I'm guessing that if there is even a slim chance you might end up in a court of law then you should wait the week and work with something that came in an envelope.

 

But my remaining disputes are two 2006/07 BofA 60 days late and a 2002 Amex 120 day CA/CO (that was paid in full) - I just don't see the words "Your Honor" coming out of my mouth anytime soon.

 

 

"Jack-slapped" Love it!!!

 

Anyway,

 

Theres nothing wrong with buying from the CRA's, but if you are waiting for dispute results, it's best to have the US mail report that states the result of the investigation.

[mwjw]

I disagree with getting dispute copies online. I have ordered my reports online via myfico.com and also ordered them through snail mail. The snail mail paper reports directly from the bureaus definitely have more detailed information about the tradeline listed than what is reported through myfico. I have learned to base all my disputes off those paper reports directly from the bureaus.

[Mark Avery]

"Jack-slapped" Love it!!!

You must admit, you can be a bit intimidating. Your current sig photo and headline are a bit tame compared to what they were like when I first joined.

 

Maybe I'll create a sig that says, "I've been Jack-slapped and I loved it."

 

Oh - I am currenttly waiting on the snail mail responses to my disputes. I see on truecredit that things have gone from "under dispute" back to 30/60 (BofA) and 120 (Amex), so I know something happened. I'm just saying I will have to pull another credit report (unless one is enclosed with the dispute results) and wonder how/why the electronic version could have different data points than the snail mail version.

 

@mwjw - I wouldn't consider getting any CRA reports from MyFico, I will only get them from the CRAs.

[mwjw]

I've also gotten online from the CRA's and the online versions do differ from the paper report that comes snail mail. For example, I have one baddie left on TU. The TU online version does not list DOLA or DOFD but the detailed paper copy does. It's always your best best to order the report to be sent to you rather than ordering online. You get more detailed and accurate information that way.

 

I get the report from myfico.com when I want to monitor my score. I never dispute using the myfico.com version of the report.

[jack1212]

It's also important to note that the yearly freebies are based on a totally different algorhythm than the other hard copies.

 

This was confirmed in congressional testimony.

[Jen23514]

It's also important to note that the yearly freebies are based on a totally different algorhythm than the other hard copies.

 

This was confirmed in congressional testimony.

 

I missed that. Link please?

[jack1212]

Had to hunt for it........

 

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?s...mp;hl=disputing

 

 

Cant remember what page it is.........

[Jen23514]

Had to hunt for it........

 

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?s...mp;hl=disputing

 

 

Cant remember what page it is.........

 

I have that printed off in a binder with notes (believe it or not). Isn't it funny how I've probably read that thing a dozen times, but each time I read, something new jumps out at me? *sigh* So much to learn, so little time.

 

I'll look later after class. Thanks!

Edited September 3, 2008 by Jen23514

[Mark Avery]

Oddly enough, in today's mail was my wife's Experian credit report from Experian. They "updated" the results of a medical CO/CA - they no longer say "legally paid in full for less than full balance" but all three are still there and one says "paid in settlement". I'm doing the Why Chat version of the medical 1-2 punch.

 

Now that I've seen the CR printed by Experian, I can see where I would always want to have the hard copy in my hand.

 

I think I can do my research and write my dispute letters based on what it says online, but I will wait until I get the hard copy to double/triple check everything.

 

But here's the real P-O - my Experian report came back after disputing five non-medical items, but if I want the entire report, I have to check a box and mail it back within 30 days. And I have to mail this original - "Copies will not be accepted."

 

Why do they send my wife her entire report, but make me jump through a hoop?

[tjstexas]

Wait a minute! The CR mailed from a CRA is different from the online report from the CRA? Doesn't make sense! Now I have to actually pay again and get one mailed?

[Jen23514]

But here's the real P-O - my Experian report came back after disputing five non-medical items, but if I want the entire report, I have to check a box and mail it back within 30 days. And I have to mail this original - "Copies will not be accepted."

 

that letter chaps my butt. IMO it is in violation of the FCRA that says they have to send you an updated report.

[Mark Avery]

Wait a minute! The CR mailed from a CRA is different from the online report from the CRA?

The layout, the look, the sequence - everything is different. But the data contained within appears to be identical, I've gone item by item and cannot find a difference.

 

Here's my opinion and how I'm going to lead my life - if there's a chance I might have to show something to a judge someday, I want to have the CRA reports on CRA letterhead, not printed on my inkjet. On the other hand, if I'm disputing some late charges from two years back why should I wait the for the CRA to print and mail the report?

 

However, Jack should have the last word on this issue.

[Chris1111]

I got all of my baddies deleted from the 3 CRA's using ONLY True Credit for reference.

 

 

Every time I'd get another baddie deleted the CRA would send me a paper copy, but I'd just throw it away. I liked looking at True Credit more.

 

 

Do I get a spanking or something because True Credit was 100% responsible for getting all my baddies deleted?

[Mark Avery]

Do I get a spanking or something because True Credit was 100% responsible for getting all my baddies deleted?

I think you can be banned from CB for making that statement.

 

Chris1111, I think your sig is my absolute favorite one on this board.

[Jen23514]

I got all of my baddies deleted from the 3 CRA's using ONLY True Credit for reference.

 

 

Every time I'd get another baddie deleted the CRA would send me a paper copy, but I'd just throw it away. I liked looking at True Credit more.

 

 

Do I get a spanking or something because True Credit was 100% responsible for getting all my baddies deleted?

 

irresponsible, but if it worked, then good for you.

[jack1212]

Found it Jen!!

 

P34.....................

 

 

Finally, the FTC also deferred to the unsupported assertions of the national CRAs when rejecting consumer requests to require the delivery of the actual credit reports used in a credit denial rather than a differently matched product. Credit reports are furnished in electronic form and rarely look much like what the consumer actually receives. In fact, the CRAs use an entirely different algorithm and in one case even a different database to create the “free credit reports†they provide to consumers. The result is that the creditor often receives a materially different report than that provided to the consumer. For example, in 2003 I discussed the case of Teresa Davis. Ms. Davis, then in the Air Force, was denied credit at her local credit union. She was told that it was based on an Equifax credit report and was because of an outstanding collection. She requested a copy of her free Equifax report and was told in same that she had perfect credit. She again applied and again suffered the denial. It was only after three such attempts that she was able to obtain the bank’s copy of the report and saw that it contained different data than that provided to her from the CRA. From the perspective of a litigation advocate, this issue is often a difficult one. The CRAs claim to wipe the creditor report from their files after 90 days even though they retain indefinitely every consumer disclosure report they provide to the consumer. When a consumer plaintiff then attempts to use their disclosure as evidence of what the CRA would have reported to the third party creditor, the CRA will object and explain that the reports may contain different data.

[Chris1111]

Do I get a spanking or something because True Credit was 100% responsible for getting all my baddies deleted?

 

Chris1111, I think your sig is my absolute favorite one on this board.

 

I've just seen people on several forums who use a generic "I'm not a lawyer/doctor/whatever so don't take anything I say as medical/legal/whatever advice" and it always make me chuckle for several reasons.

 

1. As if someone in say, Kansas, could find someone else in say, Hawaii who posted on the internet under an assumed name to serve them papers to sue them for malpractice or something.

 

2. As if a lawyer would take the case with all the expenses it would take to track said person down and serve them (only to find out that the person they served who GAVE the bad advice is probably poor and a lawsuit against them would be getting blood from a stone).

 

3. it just doesn't work. I used to go on a body building forum where the moderator openly helped people get steroids, and he had a wonderfully worded disclaimer in his sig, and one day the website wasn't up and weeks later I read that the guy got busted for a bunch of steroid violations. The cute little disclaimer in his sig didn't do anything.

 

 

So I decided to use satire to make fun of it, and it hasn't happened yet, but I can't wait for somebody to be all "Oh my gosh, your going to get sued for that sig! You need to delete it now!"

[Jen23514]

Found it Jen!!

 

P34.....................

 

 

Finally, the FTC also deferred to the unsupported assertions of the national CRAs when rejecting consumer requests to require the delivery of the actual credit reports used in a credit denial rather than a differently matched product. Credit reports are furnished in electronic form and rarely look much like what the consumer actually receives. In fact, the CRAs use an entirely different algorithm and in one case even a different database to create the “free credit reports†they provide to consumers. The result is that the creditor often receives a materially different report than that provided to the consumer. For example, in 2003 I discussed the case of Teresa Davis. Ms. Davis, then in the Air Force, was denied credit at her local credit union. She was told that it was based on an Equifax credit report and was because of an outstanding collection. She requested a copy of her free Equifax report and was told in same that she had perfect credit. She again applied and again suffered the denial. It was only after three such attempts that she was able to obtain the bank’s copy of the report and saw that it contained different data than that provided to her from the CRA. From the perspective of a litigation advocate, this issue is often a difficult one. The CRAs claim to wipe the creditor report from their files after 90 days even though they retain indefinitely every consumer disclosure report they provide to the consumer. When a consumer plaintiff then attempts to use their disclosure as evidence of what the CRA would have reported to the third party creditor, the CRA will object and explain that the reports may contain different data.

 

you da man <---jen's happy dance

 

That pdf is so massive and full of testimony, I was not exaggerating a bit saying after reading it at least a dozen times, more things pop out at me each time. It's nuts.

[jack1212]

Found it Jen!!

 

P34.....................

 

 

Finally, the FTC also deferred to the unsupported assertions of the national CRAs when rejecting consumer requests to require the delivery of the actual credit reports used in a credit denial rather than a differently matched product. Credit reports are furnished in electronic form and rarely look much like what the consumer actually receives. In fact, the CRAs use an entirely different algorithm and in one case even a different database to create the “free credit reports†they provide to consumers. The result is that the creditor often receives a materially different report than that provided to the consumer. For example, in 2003 I discussed the case of Teresa Davis. Ms. Davis, then in the Air Force, was denied credit at her local credit union. She was told that it was based on an Equifax credit report and was because of an outstanding collection. She requested a copy of her free Equifax report and was told in same that she had perfect credit. She again applied and again suffered the denial. It was only after three such attempts that she was able to obtain the bank’s copy of the report and saw that it contained different data than that provided to her from the CRA. From the perspective of a litigation advocate, this issue is often a difficult one. The CRAs claim to wipe the creditor report from their files after 90 days even though they retain indefinitely every consumer disclosure report they provide to the consumer. When a consumer plaintiff then attempts to use their disclosure as evidence of what the CRA would have reported to the third party creditor, the CRA will object and explain that the reports may contain different data.

 

you da man <---jen's happy dance

 

That pdf is so massive and full of testimony, I was not exaggerating a bit saying after reading it at least a dozen times, more things pop out at me each time. It's nuts.

 

 

Hey, im the same way with the FDCPA and FCRA. I find something new every freakin time.