No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
Yeah so I pulled my EQ CR straight from them, just so Id have all the DoFD's.
One of my 6 CA entries shows a DoFD of 4/12, when in fact it is 5/06. The other CRAs have the DoFD correct, so I assume that I could easily back that up with EQ if it came down to that. Or easily get the info from the OC (cox cable - now suddenlink). I would think this HAS to be impacting my EQ FICO, considering all my other CA's fall off this year, making it "newest" going by the incorrect DoFD. Been wondering how my score from EQ is 80 pts less than other CRAs, all with similiar entries, pretty sure this would do it. EQ thinks i have a new CA less than a year old, while EX and TU has all my CAs 6 years old.
Anyway, my question: I disputed stating "incorrect DoFD of 04/12 reported. correct DoFD is 5/06. Please correct or remove."
I would assume I can do this, dispute only the DoFD? Im not disputing any other part of the entry...but i see nowhere that it states that individual specifics in the entry cant be disputed alone.
You can dispute specifics.
I would send the furnisher of the information (CA) a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8). Be specific in what you are disputing and why. Include a copy of every piece of documentation that you have, no matter how old. They are required to investigate, make corrections and report it correctly to the CRAs. They also have to inform you of the outcome.
I literally just did this yesterday by calling Eq directly.
I had disputed the account due to age (over 7 years almost 7.5 now) and they took 29.999 days to get back to me. They deleted one baddie completely but said "We have determined this account belongs to you" on the last one.
(It was a two item dispute)
I printed the report documentation and called them directly to tell them that the DoFD was incorrect. I explained that just looking at their own paperwork, I can show that the date of DoFD was at least 30-59 days after the fact using just their dates becuase of the coding . They had coded the month that their DoFD falls in as a 1 which is 30-59 days delinquent (their own language). I told them that if in that month the account was 30-59 days delinquent already, then obviously the DoFD should really be 30-59 days earlier as well. The EQ guy agreed with me and submitted another dispute wording things differently and told me he believes they will remove it pretty quickly.
Now, helping me is the fact that this account is seriously on the verge (like already past the mark or will pass it even with their dates inside of 30-60 days) of being removed just due to age alone. Its already over 7 years and darn near 7.5 years so I am betting that Eq is going to yank it to protect themselves from reporting past the 7.5 year deadline. (If my dates are right..and they are then we are already past the deadline. If their dates are right...it passes in March or April depending on which date is used)
This is a specific DoFD dispute and I will try to keep you posted on how it shakes out.
Thus far I have been successful with both TU and EX in getting this one deleted. Eq is the las one to knock out for me.
EDIT: I also have a 1099-C for this puppy as well.
@guiness56 wrote:You can dispute specifics.
I would send the furnisher of the information (CA) a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8). Be specific in what you are disputing and why. Include a copy of every piece of documentation that you have, no matter how old. They are required to investigate, make corrections and report it correctly to the CRAs. They also have to inform you of the outcome.
I agree with this assessment.
It is always advisable to dispute directly with the CA if at all possible. Direct disputes offer many advantages, and will allow you to specifically dispute something that the CRAs will not, as all disputes are sanitized through their eOscar system
-scott
great advice, all.
i had already fired off a dispute to EQ, but ill send that info off as well to CA. The info i have on the acct from older reports is from a previous CA, as this one was only assigned to collect on 7/12. new CA is progressive financial. ive looked around and they dont seem to have near as many compaints as some CAs, so im giving them the benefit of the doubt on a typo.
but at the end of the day, that typo puts my 'newest' CA at 7/12 (DoFD wise) vs the accurate info of 5/08....over a 4 year difference.
im guessin thats GOTTA be slammin me on the fico model...even with 6 CAs (ranging 4.2 years - 6.8 years old).....