Anything wrong with 'fixin' 1 CRA at a time?

[jc]

Can this be a bad thing?

[Toothfairy]

That's how I started in the beginning. It's sometimes less confusing that way, expecially when you are just getting started. If you don't have any specific timeline, like you want to get a car or mortgage soon it's probably just fine. 8)

[Manequinne]

I agree with toothfairy too, but (not a bad but ), I (you) would do all three if I (you) really had the time.

 

It gets sooooooo time consuming doing 1 at a time....it might take about 7 months to get 1 clear, when you could have been working on all 3 during those 7 months.

 

Also, if you dispute the same tradeline on all three reports, and they are 'updated, verified, etc', and reading differently on all three reports, you can figure out what is going on, and get you some deletions that way.........aah...you don't know what you are missing :twisted:

 

I mean.....do it the way you feel most comfortable with :wink:

 

If you reallllllly organize, you can do it!!!!!

[breana902]

Also, if you dispute the same tradeline on all three reports, and they are 'updated, verified, etc', and reading differently on all three reports, you can figure out what is going on, and get you some deletions that way.........aah...you don't know what you are missing :twisted:

 

I mean.....do it the way you feel most comfortable with :wink:

 

If you reallllllly organize, you can do it!!!!!

 

Yeah - like when 2 of them delete something, but the other calls you frivolous! I just started and am doing all 3 at once. I did find that I had to sit down and really organize myself because I started to get confused. I am also working on all 3 of my husbands now, guess I can't be called very patient!

[jc]

But is there any greater risk of reinsertions, or TL's 'sharing' wrong info if I concentrate on 1 at a time? As long as I'm not going to finish with one, then turn focus onto another, then glance back at the 1st one only to find new or reinserted crap on there! I'd freak out and give up, I'm sure.

[LKH]

If you have the same acct listed on all reports and you work on one report at a time, the reporter of info is going to be notified about your dispute 3 times over a period of time. My thinking is that may get them to verify at least once.

 

If you do them at the same time, they still will get 3 notices, but if you dispute them all at the same time, they won't be reminded of it over a period of time. Just a thought.

 

Personally, I did all 3 at the same time while working 55 hours a week. It can be done. The only time consuming thing would be sending out dispute letters once every 40 days or so.

[breana902]

If you do them at the same time, they still will get 3 notices, but if you dispute them all at the same time, they won't be reminded of it over a period of time. Just a thought.

 

Personally, I did all 3 at the same time while working 55 hours a week. It can be done. The only time consuming thing would be sending out dispute letters once every 40 days or so.

 

Good point about reminding them! Only the beginning is time consuming, once you get the hang of it, it is pretty easy - actually boring really waiting for the responses to come in! I have the dispute letters saved to a file - when it is time to send out a new one I just change some things around. I would suggest you look over all 3 reports very carefully. If an account is listed on more than one CRA - look very closely to see what is different between them. I saw alot of differences that I didn't notice at first glance. For example - one of them might say I owe $82 - but the other says $83. There is my next dispute reason right there, if it comes back verified. Also, when you receive your updated credit report - check it against the previous one. One of my accounts showed a different open date. I almost feel like sending them a letter thanking them for such sloppy record keeping! But I won't - at least not until I get things all cleared up.

[SassyinAz]

( Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.

<<snipped>>

 

(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information

 

They don't do that, though they are required to. So if you reports aren't all the same, and no one's are use that as leverage against the creditors themselves.

 

DanceRat used that as a strategy based on that provision (as a basis for deletion) and in the hopes they would pull a report (with no purpose, in response to the dispute). Basically saying, you are reporting inaccurate information, I disputed with the CRA's it's been verified, yet all my reports are still different. You dummies blew it, based on my reports as evidence, no more chances for you, delete to cure the violation.

 

Also, once updated (or if updated) with any CRA, they are prohibited from furnishing the inaccurate information.

 

So, all further inaccuracies on your reports would be something they know or consciously should know was inaccurate!!!

 

Use that too!

 

a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

 

(1) Prohibition.

 

(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing

 

Sassy

[smontoya5]

Hmmm... Sassy I'm really glad you mentioned that little tidbit of the FCRA. It just MIGHT be what I'm looking for.

 

Do you think if I sent say, EQ, a copy of the investigation results from EX, showing an item that they keep verifying was deleted

 

Along with a copy of that portion of FCRA & demand deletion on that basis, would it MAYBE work? Technically, it should.

 

Wow...I have TLs that have been deleted from 1 CRA but continue to report to the others...I can also go after the companies giving the CRAs the information...

 

What am I missing here?

[SassyinAz]

Hmmm... Sassy I'm really glad you mentioned that little tidbit of the FCRA. It just MIGHT be what I'm looking for.

 

Do you think if I sent say, EQ, a copy of the investigation results from EX, showing an item that they keep verifying was deleted.

 

You could try it, ya feeling lucky? LOL

 

Along with a copy of that portion of FCRA & demand deletion on that basis, would it MAYBE work? Technically, it should.

 

Those portions are from section 623, Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information.

 

The creditors (OC's and CA's) furnishing the information are required to do it, not the CRA's.

 

Wow...I have TLs that have been deleted from 1 CRA but continue to report to the others...I can also go after the companies giving the CRAs the information...

 

Nodding, what you proposed to do above, do just that, to the OC's and CA's.

 

I was being sassy and really mad one time :shock: and mailed a CA a copy of the summary the FTC provides of their responsibilities. The same one the FTC says to the CRA's thou shalt distribute.

 

And, I'll be damned if they didn't delete and send me a THANK YOU, the guy (the collector himself) had never seen or read one before!!!!!!!!! That's about when I decided that the CRA's include it in their weeeee fine print contracts and only the head nose pickers get to ever see them.

 

Then get the green card, dispute -- if verified, then you could package everything up and send it to the CRA's with LKH's fine letter out front or something similiar.

 

What am I missing here?

 

Nothing, just know that it is a requirement of the information furnishers, whoever is listing the TL on your reports.

 

Sassy

[smontoya5]

BEAUTIFUL!

 

I'll give this a try! Thanks!

[jc]

Wow Sassy...thats great!!! I'm so glad I'm here. I think that is excellent, and I saved that info for when I might need to use it. Any more tips are more than welcomed!!

[Credit Please]

Sass,

 

Would this also be appropriate to send to the CA on a partial validation?

If you were saying that before, please forgive me for asking again.

 

 

( Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.

<<snipped>>

 

(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.

 

a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

 

(1) Prohibition.

 

(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.

[SassyinAz]

Sass,

 

Would this also be appropriate to send to the CA on a partial validation?

If you were saying that before, please forgive me for asking again.

 

( Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.

<<snipped>>

 

(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.

 

a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

 

(1) Prohibition.

 

(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.

 

hmmmm creditplease,

 

No, it's more important to follow-through on the validation requirements, because if you don't get validation they can't continue collection activity, and that information comes to you.

 

Sassy

[jzacknae]

Sassy,

 

HELP me please with this one. TU deleted both neg tl's with cross country, I truely believe they are obsolete, you can't ever tell they way it's written on the cr's. Eq deleted one, but updated the other. Ex just updated both. How can I get them (eq & ex) to delete the tl's that tu deleted? They should have the same information. I think ex updates or lets the tl remain unless the creditor tells them to delete. I don't think they will delete if the creditor (ca/oc) just doesn't verify. I say this because I know one ca said that the tl is not theirs and would delete. They deleted on the other two. Ex left it on there, results were "remains" and then 4 days later after the dispute was over it just disappeared. No reason or nothing. I think ex had finally got the statement in from the ca to delete. But that meant that ex didn't get verification from the ca and just left it on there. If the ca wouldn't of sent anything it would still be on there.

 

I went way off the subject. I really need to know how to do this with the OC listed on my cr's. Can I use tu's deletions to get ex and eq to delete also?

[jzacknae]

bump

[NextLevel]

Bump - because this is an awesome thread.

[Amanda]

I am doing mine one at a time. I am also starting with mine to get the hang of it, then moving on to DH's. (My credit is better than his.)

[shorttime]

Thanks Sassy, this is another reason to read, read and read again I have gotten 2 deletions by reading topics not related to me or so I thought and this may be a third

[genseeker]

Sassy, is there somewhere I can print a copy of that summary you mentioned from the FTC that CRA are supposed to provide to CAs? I have a few CA reporting different on multiple reports and this sounds like just the way to get rid of them. And it does work fo rOC as well, correct? I have a couple nasty CC that just ignore all other letters but report different as well on all 3 reports.

[daintygoat]

Here is a summary from the FTC that relates to section 623 - not sure if this helps or if it is the one Sassy is referring to.............

 

Credit Reports: What Information Providers Need to Know

[Clouds]

bump

[mstevens765]

I can see a potential negative to it.

 

Let's say you have one neg TL that is reporting to all 3 CRA. Why not 1-2 the CA and all 3 CRAs at the same time. If 1 falls they all fall (maybe).

 

Or else, you'd have to do it 3 different times thus giving the CA better odds of screwing you.

 

At least tackle it TL by TL, not CRA by CRA.

 

This way, if a TL is reporting to multiple CRAs you can get them all removed in the same session.

[LooGie]

this thread is freaking awesome...

[sprib]

bump

 

Looking for more advice on tl's from OC's being deleted from TU but verified by EQ & EX. Data is not the same (dates and/or balance) on the updated reports from the 2 who verified.

 

Thanks.

 

Also, just for my edification, what date is it that this 7 year reporting period begins?