The Power of $200! *wink*

[Kutuzov]

That was BRILLIANT! The CA would not PFD cause some idiot made illegal, but accepting payment for an ancient account and deleting the newer one, is not illegal they only have to report accurate info to your CR if they report. So they can delete if they want to without you paying the account. It was a win win for them and yr. Congrats!

[Anonymous]

So I want to understand what happened -

You found an old obsolete bill from the same CA that was originally from 2004, past SOL and past 7 year date, and offered to pay 200 to settle that one and also to delete the new 95 one?

Assuming they are both now considered paid and will no longer be pursued, it was a brilliant idea on your part.

They doubled their revenue on what could have been excluded for the 7 year mark, and you got 495 of debt settled for 200.

Good deal!

[Joteism]

I basically agreed to pay a past-SOL bill in the amount of $400 from the same collection agency in exchange for the removal of the new trade line. I didn't word it quite that way in my request, but they quickly understood what I was trying to do. So as you said, instead of a write-off, they chose to make more money. I still ended up paying what I owed. Which I'm perfectly happy with. 

[Anonymous]

I congratulate you on your efforts and success.

Did you end up paying 200 like the Subject of the post, or 400 for the amount of the older one?

Either way a good deal.

[Joteism]

I totally forgot about my subject line and sat here wondering why everyone is asking if I paid $200!

$200 is the balance change amount that supposedly triggered my 101 increase on ScoreWatch.

I paid $400 in exchange for for having the more recent collection removed. Great deal!

[takeshi74]

---

@Joteism wrote:

Here's one alert that some might find slightly misleading

---

The reason cited for the alert/update isn't misleading.  It's correct, however one cannot use it to determine the cause(s) of a scoring change on its own.  One always has to carefully review reports from before and after the change.  The alert will only provide the reason for the alert/update -- i.e. the activity that triggered the alert/update.  However not all activity with a scoring impact is trigger activity.

Like any other tool, understand how it works and how to use it as well as what the tool isn't suited for.  You seem to be aware of this but for others make sure you understand the triggers if relying on myFICO monitoring:

http://myfico.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/463/~/understanding-what-triggers-fico%C2%AE-3-bu...

---

@Joteism wrote:

Needless to say, I'm friggin elated! I just wonder how this score compares against my FICO 04.

---

You really can't compare and just have to pull it.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Congrats on getting the last baddie off, but hard to see how that small collection was the only reason for such a large score jump....

I have only one small medical collection (from 2013) on my EX, and my score for them not far from my TU/EQ with no baddies. 

---

It's not that hard if you have an idea of the standard factors and their relative weights.  We always advise addressing derogs first given that they can have a significant impact and hold one down.  Small/large doesn't really matter.  They're red flags and a report with no derogs will generally be better than a report with any derogs.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I have only one small medical collection (from 2013) on my EX, and my score for them not far from my TU/EQ with no baddies.

---

Are all three reports 100% identical otherwise?  It's certianly possible in your case but people seem to tend to overlook difference that do have a scoring impact.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Wow, EQ is harsh on any baddie I guess.

---

It's not EQ it's the FICO model that evaulates the report data and generates a score.