No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
A little background info:
I was a co-signer on a car loan, which was paid off in 2008. There was a major delinquency late 2004/early 2005 which resulted in the original loan being "sold to another lender", although the statements still came from the original lender. This caused a 2nd TL on my reports. The lates on the original loan have aged off, but the 2nd TL showed 22- 120 lates and 3 - 30's a few months ago. I disputed because I was told by the car owner, after 2005 they were never late. Most of the lates were removed but it still showed 9 lates. I disputed again last month and it came back with 10 lates this time (they added a 30).
Now my question:
Are the actual statements from the lender, for the months in question, that show Past Due Amount $0.00 and the Amount Paid w/ Date Paid enough for the CRAs to remove the lates? The payments all show they were made well before the due dates.
Additional info: On every statement it shows a Miscellaneous Fee of $175. I was told that it was a Repo charge (never actually repo'ed), that was removed once the final payment was made.
Any thoughts?
In your situation, I would not even think about disputing through a CRA.
Your supporting documentation is important. When you dispute through a CRA, they use an automated dispute process called e-OSCAR to foward your dispute to the creditor.
That process routinely does not include forwarding all of your supporting documentation.
Consumers have the option of disputing directly with the furnisher of the disputed information. I would strongly advise using the direct dispute process, outlined in FCRA 623(a)(8) and in more detail at 15 CFR 660.4. That will assure that ALL of your supporting documentation is received by the creditor.
Well, I have already diputed the TL a month or so ago with TU on-line and with EX on-line a few days ago. I guess I'll prepare a dispute letter for the creditor while I wait on the on-line despute reults.
Thanks for the information. I was thinking I needed to continue disputing through the CRAs to get this resolved. I just didn't want to get the whole TL deleted.