"Dispute resolved - consumer disagrees"

[Anonymous]

I had an unauthorized charge on a credit card back in November and when I pulled my Experian report today, I noticed that the account had the notation "Dispute resolved - consumer disagrees".  Apparently, disputing a charge with a CCC shows pretty similarly to disputing an account with a CRA. 

Anyway, I did not know the dispute was resolved, as Citicard never contacted me about it.  But if it WAS resolved, it was resolved in my favor, as the reversed charge was not un-reversed.  So who is the "consumer" who is disagreeing?

I called Citibank and the first lady I spoke to was completely clueless and wanted me to call Experian and said Experian would call them to discuss it, so I called the backdoor number and the guy who answered told me I'd need to speak to Billing and they aren't there until Monday at 6 am.  So I was wondering if anyone was familiar with this particular notation, and if the "consumer" could mean the merchant.  I know I didn't disagree!

[Anonymous]

I've had this show up on my credit report as well, but don't ever remember disputing anything in particular. What, if any, effect does this have on your credit score?

[itsjustmeibe]

I disputed my HELOC reporting as revolving, before I knew that it was standard practice. It has that notation on my report. When I applied for a loan through my credit union, I was questioned about it, even though it was from month's prior. So my thought is that in a manual review for a loan, it may raise an eyebrow. It almost sounds like a negative comment, "We told you it's right and you don't believe us"

[rom828]

 I had this show up on my TU report after I disputed incorrect info on a closed Providian account.

I closed the acct Nov 03 (hardship) and had agreement (verbal)  w/Providian for payoff.  Account showed as closed and with payments as "ok" for all the months I paid off the balance. 

After I paid the account in full (Dec 05)  it started reporting as Paid Charge Off with 25  90+ late payments! (Plan was actually based on 36 pyts but I paid off early).  When I originally called to close the account and make repyt arrangements, I was  60 days behind ( 30 days in Oct and then 60 for Nov)  and wanted to "stop the bleeding", so to have it report with all those 90+s AFTER I paid it off was maddening!!

Unfortunately, I didnt have  any of the knowledge  then that I've now garnered from this forum or I  would have handled things differently!

At any rate, I disputed several times and nothing ever changed.   From this forum, I last year got a back door number to Trans Union for priority handling (!).  I filed the dispute with their rep and lo and behold, the lates were deleted but it was still shown as a charge off, and the note : "dispute resolved; consumer disagrees" was shown.

When I questioned this w/TU rep, she advised Providian listed the account as CO and that since I had nothing in writing to substantiate otherwise, the status would stand but the lates were removed, and that the notation just signified what it said...that there was a dispute, the dispute was resolved, but that I, the consumer, did nto agree with the resolution. 

This was still a better outcome than EQ and EX and they both show CO and  25 90+ lates (trying to get corrected has been an exercise in futility), and since this acct is due to drop off in Oct 2009, I've decided to let it slide.   I hadn't thought of the note itself being considered a negative, but I guess  it sure could look that way!

Message Edited by rom828 on 02-17-2009 11:05 AM

Message Edited by rom828 on 02-17-2009 11:07 AM

Message Edited by rom828 on 02-17-2009 11:08 AM

[Anonymous]

I thank you all for your answers; however, I did not dispute anything with Experian:  I disputed an unauthorized charge with the credit card company.

[rom828]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I thank you all for your answers; however, I did not dispute anything with Experian:  I disputed an unauthorized charge with the credit card company.

---

 Mike,  I  think that the CRA uses this notation (based on what the CCC advises....or on their (CRA)'s own little bogus verification) to signify that they have done all the "resolving' they're going to do, but that the comsumer doesnt agree with the outcome.  Or at least that's how I understood it in my case, which would mean that consumer means "us".

With your situation being so different, though, involving your dispute with the CCC over an unauthorized charge on your card itself as opposed to the CCC reporting  erroneous info to the CRA, it is really odd that you'd have this notation...or that such a dispute would anything to do with how it reports to the CRA..or that it even reports to the CRA at all!!

Maybe Citi doesnt understand  exactly what you were trying to dispute and they are treating it as though you've disputed CRA info.   But why the notation???  I sure can't figure that one since you certainly havent "disagreed" with the resolution since they didnt even advise you of it being resolved!!  And beyond that, it really has nothing to do with the  CRA...it's a problem with an unauthorized/fraudulent charge...NOT with reporting. 

Hmm..unless...did the unauthorized charge show up on your report?  Maybe that's why Citi is even  reporting to CRA, and maybe EX  used the code # for this particular  comment even though its not apropos.

Maybe what  Citi was really trying to tell them is that you disagreed with the charge and now the dispute is resolved, but EX used a  notation that is actually meant for a  different scenario:  one where the CCC considers a dispute resolved even tho customer doesnt agree. 

So maybe EX just used the wrong coding.  I've read a lot of posts on this forum about errors on CRAs being the result of incorrect coding.  I even remember seeing a post that had a list of the codes.

Obviously,  I don't have a "real"  answer and sorry if my musings may be more confusing that helpful!   

Message Edited by rom828 on 02-17-2009 12:35 PM

[rom828]

Mike, Pursuant to yesterday's reply, I've done some googling research and found a list of
Credit Bureau Consumer Codes".

Interestingly, code  XG : FCBA dispute resolved, consumer disagrees is  just above

                   code XH:   account previously in dispute, now resolved, reported by data furnished

If  Citi had reported to the CRA the unauthorized charge you disputed, then notified them to remove it, it looks very likely they did so and  applied the wrong code. 

I would assume Citi didn't know what you were talking about when you called them about the statement as this is a CRA code.

I think now the thing to do is to dispute with EX since it would appear they are the 'culprit'  as they've mis-coded the dispute resolution.

[Anonymous]

Rom, thanks for researching this for me!  I think I'll use the card during this current billing cycle so they report next month and see what the status is.  If it doesn't update, then I'll dispute.

[rom828]

You're welcome!

Please post back w/results!