My midscore on my mortgage is 697. I need to get 3 points for a better rate. I have no derogs on my report except for one company. I have disputed them but they come back verified as accurate. They have responded to the CFPB as well. The baddies they are reporting are:
08/2017-30 Day
09/2017-30 Day
11/2017-30 Day
12/2017-30 Day
01/2018-60 Day
Also on another account one 30 day late on 01/2020. (They will not approve GW)
They are not accurate in that I have proof of a payment to remove the 09/2017 30 day... and they reported the incorrect month on another one. Also the 60 day late should be in December 2017 not 01/2018. Is this inaccurate enough for them to remove it? I want to go after them, but i would die if they did something to further drop my mid score as i am set to do my final Hard Pull in Jan/Feb of 2021.
Starting Score: 614
Understood. I actually thought about the AU thing. But have been reading that the Mortgage models do not recognize it and that Underwriters frown on it.
@Anonymous wrote:
@RobertEG wrote:As for their reporting of the prior payment history profile, yes, you can dispute the accuracy and/or completenes of a reported history and attempt to get it corrected.
However, your question appears to suggest that finding of an inaccuracy or lack of completeness will lead to required removal of the either the entire prior payment history profile, or even of the account per se.
If that is the question, then the answer is no.
You have an actual payment history profile for the prior months under consideration, which is the period from 8/2017 - 1/2018.
The assertion is that certain months within that 5 month period are not reported accurately.
In response to any dispute of the accuracy or completeness of their reported history, they are required to either verify the accuracy of what has been reported, or correct so as to overcome any agreed inaccuracy. The FCRA only requires deletion of reporting that cannot either be verified or corrected. Deletion of a payment history profile is not at issue, as it is something that must exist. The issue is only whether the reported history is accurate or whether it needs factual correction.
Your dispute appears to have some merit, in that it is not possible, under the CRA credit reporting manual, for your history to show the same, exact level of prior delinquency for two consecutive months.
The definition of a 30-day late is that the account was 30-59 days delinquent for the reported month. An account then becomes 60-late if it is 60-79 days delinquent for that month. It thus cannot technically be a 30-late for two consecutive months, rendering their reporting as it stands factually inaccurate, and thus their verification of its accuracy clearly unreasonable.
However, with all that being said, for any periods of consecutive monthly reporting, if the account was in fact delinquent, corrected could only increase the level of required reporting for the second month. That is likely not your desire, and thus pursuing correction for any such instance is not in your favor. That is why reporting two consecutive months at the same and lower level of deliquency is rarely pursued via dispute.
Both a 30-late and a 60-late are minor delinquencies, and being close to three years ago, are now having negligible scoring impact.
Yes, you can now file a civil action contesting the accuracy of their reporting, but while you will likely prevail, the result will not be the deletion of the payment history profile or of the account,but rather a minor correction of the inaccurate reported history.
I would leave it be and move on to more significant matters......
Definitely not to correct you in any way, but I have between myself and SO had consecutive 30d lates. This occurred from only paying the 30d past due and not the current balance, rendering it still 30d past due amd reported as such. Then when no longer able to catch up, then getting to 60d and back down to 30d and so on and so forth while trying to salvage the account.
Not sure if that is what you meamt, but there is definitely possibilty to have consective lates of the same level of delinquency.
I do agree, that if OP has proof of inaccurate reporting (statements/ bank record of payment clearing/etc) and has not previously submitted it, it is definitely an option to resubmit it. As they have 30d to investigate and return a decision, I would determine soon if you want to go down that road, as mortgage UW often will not move forward if an account is listed as being under dispute. They will want it resolved by the time you have your final pull. I would also be certain there is not lingering "currently in dispute" or something like that on your report(s) before the final pull is done so you have time to get them removed. You can check the reports for free (no scores) from annual credit report weekly through 4/2021.
Good luck!
My SO has consecutive lates of the same level on their reports for the same reason: falling behind and then not being able to completely catch up the following month. That month's payment would be applied to the previous, partially unpaid month, leaving the current month partially unpaid and another 30d, etc.
@RobertEG wrote:Making a paymnet that might be sufficient to cover a prior month's delinquency amount but is less than the current billing min amount due does not void the fact that it was late the prior month, and does not set a new date of initial delinquency. The account was continuously delinquent, and thus reportable as 60-late in the second month.
However, if a creditor choses to "reset" for reporting purposes if a partial payment was made that at least of an amount equal to the prior delinquency, they could argue the rationale provided above. They are giving the customer a break. That does not factually negate the period of overall continued delinquency, and thus does not set a new 30-late.
I would still argue that one cannot factually have two consecutive months at the same level since initial delinquency. Whether it is to the consumer's benefit to dispute such reporting is quite another matter, and I would not recommend doing so, but one certainly could.....
I don't think a lender would be accurately reporting if they did what you're describing, which would be to conflate days delinquent with days since no delinquency reported. If I miss a mortgage payment in June, and then make my regular payment amount every month until now, this month is only 30D b/c I'm only one payment behind: I made my June payment 30-59 days late, then I made my July payment 30-59 days late, then I made my August payment 30-59 days late, etc up through October's, leaving November's to go 30-59 as well. That my lender reported the 30D I was delinquent each month from July until now doesn't increase the number of days I'm behind at time of current reporting. I'm not an FDCPA lawyer or anything, but I've done collections and I didn't see days late counted in any way other than as number of days currently behind.