On May 10, 2007, I decided to start repairing my credit. Had gone through a lot of bad stuff in life and it was all behind me at that point (I was too chicken to look up my FICOs at that time). At that time, I started disputing derogs on my CRs (wish I had known about this site then). I immediately got responses from EQ and EX with very favorable outcomes from EQ and moderate results from EX. However, I got nothing from TU. I live in TU-land and thus can't stand them (I am sure the feeling is mutual).
I sent a 30 day violation letter to them with no response. Finally on Sept. 13, I sent it CMRRR (I know, I should've done that earlier). Still, I got no response. I finally called on Oct 29 and was informed that my reports were sent to my previous address and returned to TU. However, they know my current address, because the rep verified it with me (he actually read it to me).
After this conversation, I contacted my congressman and filed a complaint with the FTC (waste of time for me on this one). Dec 21, I got a call from the congressional liaison at TU informing me that there was something overriding my new address and was sending the reports to my previous address. This sounds really far-fetched.
I finally received my CR in the mail today (my first dispute was on May 10!! I have lost 7-1/2 months screwing around with these knuckleheads (good news 3 baddies gone).
Here is the question--if they had sent me reports along the way as they say (May 29, July 2, Sept 28) wouldn't those soft INQs show up on my current CR? The latest soft INQ shows up from 11/06 as an acct rev.
Does this sound feasible to any of you FICO Warriors? It doesn't pass my sniff test.
This site is the absolute best. I love this place. I am thoroughly addicted to all of the great information here.
FICO 5/10/07-??? Too scared to look
FICO 11/29/07 EQ 742 EX 669 TU 568
EX was 690 10/29 but erroneous baddy showed up sometime in Nov. Thanks to this site, I have DV'd the CA and will await the results.
Thanks for the help.
I sent a 30 day violation letter to them with no response. Finally on Sept. 13, I sent it CMRRR (I know, I should've done that earlier). Still, I got no response. I finally called on Oct 29 and was informed that my reports were sent to my previous address and returned to TU. However, they know my current address, because the rep verified it with me (he actually read it to me).
After this conversation, I contacted my congressman and filed a complaint with the FTC (waste of time for me on this one). Dec 21, I got a call from the congressional liaison at TU informing me that there was something overriding my new address and was sending the reports to my previous address. This sounds really far-fetched.
I finally received my CR in the mail today (my first dispute was on May 10!! I have lost 7-1/2 months screwing around with these knuckleheads (good news 3 baddies gone).
Here is the question--if they had sent me reports along the way as they say (May 29, July 2, Sept 28) wouldn't those soft INQs show up on my current CR? The latest soft INQ shows up from 11/06 as an acct rev.
Does this sound feasible to any of you FICO Warriors? It doesn't pass my sniff test.
This site is the absolute best. I love this place. I am thoroughly addicted to all of the great information here.
FICO 5/10/07-??? Too scared to look
FICO 11/29/07 EQ 742 EX 669 TU 568
EX was 690 10/29 but erroneous baddy showed up sometime in Nov. Thanks to this site, I have DV'd the CA and will await the results.
Thanks for the help.
Starting Score: 469
I think that ByrdMan is looking at his soft inq's to determine whether TU actually ever did anything at all, rather than a question of whether softs hurt.
ByrdMan, I see where you're going here, and I betcha that they never did diddley-squat, but I think the problem is that their internal checks probably do not show up as soft inqs. So if you're looking for a trail to show if they ever bothered to follow up on your dispute, you might be SOL on this one. And I don't mean SOL = statute of limitations, either!
ByrdMan, I see where you're going here, and I betcha that they never did diddley-squat, but I think the problem is that their internal checks probably do not show up as soft inqs. So if you're looking for a trail to show if they ever bothered to follow up on your dispute, you might be SOL on this one. And I don't mean SOL = statute of limitations, either!
@haulingthescoreup wrote:
I think that ByrdMan is looking at his soft inq's to determine whether TU actually ever did anything at all, rather than a question of whether softs hurt.
ByrdMan, I see where you're going here, and I betcha that they never did diddley-squat, but I think the problem is that their internal checks probably do not show up as soft inqs. So if you're looking for a trail to show if they ever bothered to follow up on your dispute, you might be SOL on this one. And I don't mean SOL = statute of limitations, either!
Hauling,
You are right. That is what I am insinuating. I don't think that they did anything. I looked at my old TU CRs and the softies always show up. I have one from 12/2005 on there right now. Do I have any recourse? I have always suspected that they did nothing. They just can't ignore a person's requests for disputes for seven months. It would do me just fine to have all of the baddies that I am disputing. I wouldn't mind a FICO in the 700's from TU (I haven't been there in over two years with TU).
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
This site is the best. I love all of the knowledge present. I know I keep saying this, but I am so grateful for all of the good people sharing their knowledge.
My New Years wish list: 800 FICOs across the board.
Thanks Hauling, I am going to wade through that thread.
Hi Hauling. Is this the piece that you were talking about?
The House Financial Services Committee is considering this bill tomorrow: H.R.3525, To require rapid implementation of guidelines and regulations regarding the accuracy of consumer information furnished to consumer reporting agencies that were required to be established by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 and have not been implemented, to provide that the Federal Trade Commission shall take the lead in implementation the guidelines and regulations. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., heads this committee.
The House Financial Services Committee is considering this bill tomorrow: H.R.3525, To require rapid implementation of guidelines and regulations regarding the accuracy of consumer information furnished to consumer reporting agencies that were required to be established by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 and have not been implemented, to provide that the Federal Trade Commission shall take the lead in implementation the guidelines and regulations. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., heads this committee.