cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

EQ misleading?

tag
Anonymous
Not applicable

EQ misleading?

I have a credit card opened in 5/2008 which has an "account paid for less than full balance" from March 2010. I spoke to TU and EX who both a) provided me with a concrete date that status would drop (7 years -- March 2017) and b) both have provided an early deletion -- TU already took effect and EX will take effect in December.

 

However, been on the phone with EQ a number of times and each rep gives different info. One said it stays on the account 10 years, another said it's not a negative status and therefore stays on the report "indefinitely". Supervisor says that it "doesn't matter" having a paid for less than full balance.

 

Anyone have any insight?

10 REPLIES 10
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: EQ misleading?

It depends upon whether one interprets that statement to, in and of itself, be an "adversie item of information."

 

FCRA 605(a) defines, in subparagraphs (1)-(4), various specific types of adverse items of information, and provides their required credit report exclusion periods.

If an item is not covered under any of those four subparagraphs, it is included under subparagraph (5), which sets a 7 year exclusion period for any other adverse item of information.  It is thus a catch-all.

 

If one interprets the statement that a debt was paid for less than its full amount to be an "adverse item of information", then that item of information would have a required exclusion period of 7 years from its date of occurence.

 

In my opinion, since it informs others that you did not pay the entire debt, it is clearly an adverse item of information that thus has a mnadated exclusion date of no later than 7 years from its date of occurence.  There is NO reasonable basis for any interpretation of a ten year period.

Message 2 of 11
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: EQ misleading?

Thanks for the quick reply. It certainly does not make any sense. I have an ongoing dialogue with the Cap1 EO regarding this but they've been investigating for 2 weeks as to when this item will drop off. As I mentioned, EQ's position is extra strange given that EX and TU dropped the item (and consider it a negative indicator). 

Message 3 of 11
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: EQ misleading?

If they refuse to exclude, then you have basis for filing a complaint with the CFPB, asserting lack of CRA compliance with the mandatory exclusion provision of  FCRA 605(a)(5).

However no violation would occur until the 7 year period has expired, so I would wait until 7 years after the date you settled the debt.

Message 4 of 11
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: EQ misleading?

As I mentioned, EQ's position is extra strange given that EX and TU dropped the item

 

It isn't all that strange... they are known for being very tight on early exclusions, usually within only a month or so of the "fall off' date, which, as you've been discussing with RobertEG, should be at the 7-year mark.  Similar to the exclusion dates provided by the other CRAs before they went ahead and excluded for you.

EQ will likely exclude it at the same point (March 2017), and you should be able to get them to do EE in late January/February if you wish to speed that up a little.  They are kind of hardlined on early exclusion, and tend to just simply ignore the requests made prior to about a month ahead.

 

The three CRAs do not act in symphony with each other - quite the opposite, actually.  Each one has its own quirks, policies, and procedures.  They are all bound by the FCRA's regulations and such, but don't really care what the others are doing.  I've known many people whose cries to X that " but Y did it!" yielded nothing but the equivalent of a blank stare from X.  For you, it probably just means that if you need any new credit in the meantime, you should avoid lenders who use EQ.  By the beginning of next year, you'll be free and clear on all three.

Message 5 of 11
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: EQ misleading?

Thanks for the info on the legal recourse after 7 years.

 

And thanks for the clarification on the EEs. I did read that EQ is pretty strict, but my chats with them recently prompted me to write this post. However, if they don't consider it a negative and claim it won't ever be removed, is it still possible that it would be automatically removed at the 7 year mark? That's why I'm confused. I get that each CRA has different policies etc. but it seems that EQ isn't even remotely close as far as interpreting the FCRA etc.

Message 6 of 11
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: EQ misleading?

If they dont apply the 7 year exclusion interpretation, then the comment will remain while the account remains.

 

There is a totally separate CRA policy of deletion of accounts from their files that have been closed for approx. 10 years.

CRAs dont keep files on closed accounts "indefinately."

Deletion of the account will inherently include deletion of the comment.

That policy is entirely an administrative policy of the CRAs, and is not a credit report exclusion requriement that is mandated under any provision of the FCRA.

That is their reference to possible deletion at 10 years, as the account is closed.

 

Message 7 of 11
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: EQ misleading?

I had an EQ rep tell me that an item I wanted to dispute was not on my credit report. I gave them all the information - name of agency, amount and account number. Pulled a new report a week later and there it was plain as day.

 

I hate calling Equifax, while my experiences with Experian and TransUnion have been rather pleasant. 

Message 8 of 11
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: EQ misleading?

It sounds like, then, my only recourse really is to wait and see if they'd do an EE in ~Feb 2017, and otherwise to see if the item drops in March. The first rep I got the other day *did* say that would be the case, but the other two said it's not a negative and will stay as long as the account is listed.

 

In the context of mortgage underwriting, I'm curious what this means, assuming EQ will NOT drop the item, when the other two CRAs have. My score is ~40 points higher with the dropped item, of course. Will it seem odd that 1 of 3 CRAs has that item? Or that the scores are wildly different? My history in the last 6-7 years otherwise is perfect. Low-ish utilization, pretty high credit limit, perfect payment history, two auto loans over the years in good standing, etc...

 

And yes, I had a similar experience -- one rep claimed to not even see the notation, period. TU and EX have been awesome though. 

Message 9 of 11
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: EQ misleading?

All CRAs will exclude information after its reporting life has passed.

In the case of late payments, charge-offs, collections, etc - that is 7 years from date of occurence or date of first default, whichever applies in a given situation. 

The statute provides the CRAs 180 days to comply, so effectively any negative item can remain on your report for 7 1/2 years.  It rarely does, though - all three routinely exclude items at 7 years, give or take a month or so for reporting to update.  They do not want to be noncompliant.  Anyone who told you that they will "never" exclude something - implying that it will remain on your report forever - is simply lying.  It will eventually fall off when its reporting life ends.  If they fail to remove it after that point (7 1/2 years) then they are violating the FCRA and should be reported.

 

Early exclusion is granted by each on request, in certain cases, at the whim of the customer service person or other agent you are speaking to (or who reads your e-mail or letter, or whatever).  TU and EX are far more lenient with this stuff than EQ is, as you have experienced firsthand.  The FCRA is actually quite simple, 7 years + 180 days - that is the maximum reporting life provided.  That other CRAs do not so closely adhere to the maximum and are willing to exclude earlier, to the benefit of the consumer, does not mean that EQ is doing anything wrong or actionable.  Not yet, anyway.

Message 10 of 11
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.