Earliest time to request old accounts be removed...

[MoreInfo1]

Unexpectedly, I applied for a pre-approval for a home and the lender-pulled scores were better than I thought they were- EX: 701, TU- 697, EQ- 674.

However, I know have some (well, a lot actually- includes a paid collection, an unpaid collection, about 3 90 day lates) negative information that is due to fall off around 03/15-08/15 and was wondering if it's too early to try and get them removed from means other than goodwill? I've tried to goodwill them but it hasn't worked. I'm hoping that if the negative info is removed, I may be able to get to 720 before actually applying for the mortgage loan once I find the home of my dreams. My loan officer said there wasn't anything on there that would cause a problem from what he can see (underwriter is in the same office) but just that better rates would be available with a score of 720+. Any suggestions?

[TrueGeminiNC]

I am wonderig the same thing.  I have an account that is scheduled to be removed 4/2014.  

I contacted Experian today and they willingly removed the account without hesitation.  Thereafter, I contacted TransUnion and ran into roadblocks.  I even called TransUnion twice in an attempt to get a different representative/answer.  I was informed by TransUnion that the 04/2014 account will fall off either the first or last week of April 2014.  The representatives would not provide a definitive date nor offered to remove it early.  

Overall, I am satisfied that it has been removed from my Experian report.  I suppose I will wait until the end of April to check my reports again to confirm that it has been removed from TransUnion.

****UPDATE 28MAR14****

I received the confirmation from Experian this morning confirming that the account that was suppose to fall off 4/2014 has been deleted. 

Notably, I also decided to initiate an online dispute with TransUnion yesterday evening for accounts that were suppose to fall off 4/2014 and 07/2014.  On the dispute form, there was an option that suggested "account is too old, please remove".  I am HAPPY to say that I received a confirmation from TransUnion this morning informing me that both accounts have been removed. 

Now, the only thing left is for Equifax to update.

[cgussio]

From what I have read in other posts 6 months seems to be the earliest. It also seems that TU seems to be a lot easier than EQ or EX. I don't have personal experience with it though; I am still about 6 months out from giving it a try myself.

[TrueGeminiNC]

I am going to contact EQ tomorrow and see what they will do.  

[RobertEG]

As a side observation, I know that requests fo the CRAs for earlier exclusion of adverse items has been getting a lot of recent play on the forum.

It can obviously be worth the try when in an app process, and a few months can make a difference.

However, the more prolific such requests become, it could end up being self-destructive.

Considering the millions of adverse items the CRAs must track to determine credit report exclusion, it is obvious that their exclusion process is done by software, and is automated.  Each request for earlier exclusion requires manual intervention by a clerk.

If the practice becomes common, it might result in the CRAs setting policy not to consider such requests.  It could become a real resource burden.

It would seem prudent to me that consumers might best limit such requests only to immediate need situations, not a general desiire to see a score jump.

Also, it should also be noted that only collections become excluded from the consumers credit report, as they are in themselves adverse items under the FCRA/

Original creditor accounts themselves do not become excluded, only adverse infor reported on the account.

Thus, an OC account still reporting a balance with no reporting of paid will help scoring with exclusion of the derogs, but may still lead to creditor questions on a manual review as to the account history.  Earlier exclusion on OC accunts thus may not have the same benefit as exclusion of a collection.

[tld1104]

I just had 2 charge-offs and 1 CA deleted by Transunion this week...go online with TU and request early deletion.  

Mine were due to fall off in 6/2014 and 7/2014.  From what I understand they will most likely delete them if they are at least 6 months from the fall off date.  The only one of mine they didn't delete is due off in 10/2014...I will try again next month. 

[Anonymous]

From time requested till deleted was how long?

[surferchris]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

As a side observation, I know that requests fo the CRAs for earlier exclusion of adverse items has been getting a lot of recent play on the forum.

It can obviously be worth the try when in an app process, and a few months can make a difference.

However, the more prolific such requests become, it could end up being self-destructive.

Considering the millions of adverse items the CRAs must track to determine credit report exclusion, it is obvious that their exclusion process is done by software, and is automated.  Each request for earlier exclusion requires manual intervention by a clerk.

If the practice becomes common, it might result in the CRAs setting policy not to consider such requests.  It could become a real resource burden.

It would seem prudent to me that consumers might best limit such requests only to immediate need situations, not a general desiire to see a score jump.

Also, it should also be noted that only collections become excluded from the consumers credit report, as they are in themselves adverse items under the FCRA/

Original creditor accounts themselves do not become excluded, only adverse infor reported on the account.

Thus, an OC account still reporting a balance with no reporting of paid will help scoring with exclusion of the derogs, but may still lead to creditor questions on a manual review as to the account history.  Earlier exclusion on OC accunts thus may not have the same benefit as exclusion of a collection.

---

Interesting points...probably sound advice.

[Anonymous]

---

@surferchris wrote:

---

@RobertEG wrote:

As a side observation, I know that requests fo the CRAs for earlier exclusion of adverse items has been getting a lot of recent play on the forum.

It can obviously be worth the try when in an app process, and a few months can make a difference.

However, the more prolific such requests become, it could end up being self-destructive.

Considering the millions of adverse items the CRAs must track to determine credit report exclusion, it is obvious that their exclusion process is done by software, and is automated.  Each request for earlier exclusion requires manual intervention by a clerk.

If the practice becomes common, it might result in the CRAs setting policy not to consider such requests.  It could become a real resource burden.

It would seem prudent to me that consumers might best limit such requests only to immediate need situations, not a general desiire to see a score jump.

Also, it should also be noted that only collections become excluded from the consumers credit report, as they are in themselves adverse items under the FCRA/

Original creditor accounts themselves do not become excluded, only adverse infor reported on the account.

Thus, an OC account still reporting a balance with no reporting of paid will help scoring with exclusion of the derogs, but may still lead to creditor questions on a manual review as to the account history.  Earlier exclusion on OC accunts thus may not have the same benefit as exclusion of a collection.

---

Interesting points...probably sound advice.

---

I disgree and I think most do as well. We all are here to get our credit cleaned up and this forum service such a thing. Doing this is just another tool.

[SunriseEarth]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@surferchris wrote:

---

@RobertEG wrote:

As a side observation, I know that requests fo the CRAs for earlier exclusion of adverse items has been getting a lot of recent play on the forum.

It can obviously be worth the try when in an app process, and a few months can make a difference.

However, the more prolific such requests become, it could end up being self-destructive.

Considering the millions of adverse items the CRAs must track to determine credit report exclusion, it is obvious that their exclusion process is done by software, and is automated.  Each request for earlier exclusion requires manual intervention by a clerk.

If the practice becomes common, it might result in the CRAs setting policy not to consider such requests.  It could become a real resource burden.

It would seem prudent to me that consumers might best limit such requests only to immediate need situations, not a general desiire to see a score jump.

Also, it should also be noted that only collections become excluded from the consumers credit report, as they are in themselves adverse items under the FCRA/

Original creditor accounts themselves do not become excluded, only adverse infor reported on the account.

Thus, an OC account still reporting a balance with no reporting of paid will help scoring with exclusion of the derogs, but may still lead to creditor questions on a manual review as to the account history.  Earlier exclusion on OC accunts thus may not have the same benefit as exclusion of a collection.

---

Interesting points...probably sound advice.

---

I disgree and I think most do as well. We all are here to get our credit cleaned up and this forum service such a thing. Doing this is just another tool.

---

Robert's remarks regarding the future of CRA handing of such requests are speculative but are a considerable possibility.  For the time being, members are having success, but with anything, it's hard to say how long members will continue to be successful.  

It bears mentioning that discussion of Early Exclusion requests must still remain within Forum guidelines.   Disputes of accurate information on your CRs in attempt to "clean" one's credit history, for example, are not to be advocated on this forum.   This is why the forum only recommends calls or letters to the CRAs to request an early exclusion.   Early exclusion is essentially a form of GW, so there should be no expectation placed.