How do I get the derogatory "Settled - less than full balance" removed? Lender no longer in biz.

[nolamike]

trxxx

be aware that if you dispute electronically it will automatically go through eOscar, which means if the dispute is just the phone number not being answered then the eOscar won't help you.

if however you do it in writing, you stand a chance of human doing the research. not sure what they will do, but it will be a human doing it.

good luck and let us know what happens!

Mike

[Anonymous]

---

@nolamike wrote:

trxxx

be aware that if you dispute electronically it will automatically go through eOscar, which means if the dispute is just the phone number not being answered then the eOscar won't help you.

if however you do it in writing, you stand a chance of human doing the research. not sure what they will do, but it will be a human doing it.

good luck and let us know what happens!

Mike

---

I don't know what eOscar is but here is exactly what I'm trying to do. Hopfully you guys can let me know if I'm going about this right and as Mike points out, should I do it electronically or write in?

This exactly what I'm looking to do. I'm not asking the CRA to delete the entire Homward residential entry or account, just the remark that the debt was "settled for less".... My point is and the question I'm asking is, if I dispute the "settled for less" remark and for instance I contend in the dispute that the loan was paid in the full amount NOT a settlement so the remark is erroneous and I want it removed. The CRA will then have to contact the lender because of the dispute to varify the true status of the loan, correct? Now, the second part of my question has been and most importantly, if the contact info (phone number and address) for the lender that is listed under their account or entry on the CRA is no longer good therefore the CRA cannot make contact with the lender thru that info, will the CRA then have to or are they likely to remove the disputed remark because they were not able to contact the lender to corroborate the true loan status? Or, do they typically start researching to find new phone numbers and addresses to contact the bank for varification of status? My hope is that the CRA will call and/or send a letter to the bad number and address, get nothing in return and then remove the remark in my favor by default so to speak........?

[nolamike]

TRxxx

eOscar is an electronic data interchange system. Basically it is a computer to computer connection. Phone numbers are not needed.

In theory at least, if the communication is in writing, then the electronic data stored in the communication system is to an extent bypassed. If you disupt on line the computer system, not a person, will forward the request to whaterver entity is at the other end of the identification code that they use to track the entry on you report. Every entry will have a "reporting entity" that has an id number in the computer system. The "id" will route the request without human interaction. (this is the 50,000 foot explanation of how EDI handles a narrow id situation and is not meant to be more than that.)

Think about it, millions of requests per year come into each of the CRA's. The staff would have to be in the hundreds of thousands if people 'investigaged' and routed every dispute. Instead those claims that have to be answered by the reporting agency are just sent on electronically.

However, if you mail it in, then a live person has to read the mail, key in  the information you told them and manually enter the complaint as well as the appropriate codes. Each action takes time so if they key in the "old name" and it does not show up then a decision has to be made to further investigate or just mark it unverified. Each CRA will have different procedures and lattitude they allow the employees so there is no telling what "might" be done, just that by mailing it more human interaction is required, which is to your benefit.

you specifically say you don't want them to "dispute" the whole thing, just the comment. IF the comment / status is incorrect, then neither they nor the creditor (or ca) should have heartburn about changing it. According to you everything is paid and there is little reason to face a potential lawsuit over an inconsequential (to them) error in a status line comment. But to be honest, that comment is probably not in error.

I believe what Robert was trying to get at is that a short sale is a sale for less than the full amount owed a.k.a "settled for less".

He did not mention foreclosure or anything else. His point, I believe, is that the comment is technically a correct statement. There is no specific coding for "house sold at short sale. Loan Closed." 

while everyone here certainly understands your desire to get it off your credit, it a correct reporting status.

It is possible that Gdale is correct and your best path would be a Good Will letter.

Good luck and let us know what happens.

Mike

[Anonymous]

---

@nolamike wrote:

TRxxx

eOscar is an electronic data interchange system. Basically it is a computer to computer connection. Phone numbers are not needed.

In theory at least, if the communication is in writing, then the electronic data stored in the communication system is to an extent bypassed. If you disupt on line the computer system, not a person, will forward the request to whaterver entity is at the other end of the identification code that they use to track the entry on you report. Every entry will have a "reporting entity" that has an id number in the computer system. The "id" will route the request without human interaction. (this is the 50,000 foot explanation of how EDI handles a narrow id situation and is not meant to be more than that.)

Think about it, millions of requests per year come into each of the CRA's. The staff would have to be in the hundreds of thousands if people 'investigaged' and routed every dispute. Instead those claims that have to be answered by the reporting agency are just sent on electronically.

However, if you mail it in, then a live person has to read the mail, key in  the information you told them and manually enter the complaint as well as the appropriate codes. Each action takes time so if they key in the "old name" and it does not show up then a decision has to be made to further investigate or just mark it unverified. Each CRA will have different procedures and lattitude they allow the employees so there is no telling what "might" be done, just that by mailing it more human interaction is required, which is to your benefit.

you specifically say you don't want them to "dispute" the whole thing, just the comment. IF the comment / status is incorrect, then neither they nor the creditor (or ca) should have heartburn about changing it. According to you everything is paid and there is little reason to face a potential lawsuit over an inconsequential (to them) error in a status line comment. But to be honest, that comment is probably not in error.

I believe what Robert was trying to get at is that a short sale is a sale for less than the full amount owed a.k.a "settled for less".

He did not mention foreclosure or anything else. His point, I believe, is that the comment is technically a correct statement. There is no specific coding for "house sold at short sale. Loan Closed." 

while everyone here certainly understands your desire to get it off your credit, it a correct reporting status.

It is possible that Gdale is correct and your best path would be a Good Will letter.

Good luck and let us know what happens.

Mike

---

I'm glad I asked because now that I understand how the dispute works, doing it electronically would be the worst in my opinion because Homward and/or Ocwen have CRA electronic ID numbers that are no doubt on file although they may have gone thru 10 phone numbers and addresses. I think your right my best chance is to mail it in and hope for a lazy or incompetent agent. I'm in no big hurry anyway.

Honestly, Mike, I'm not worried about my ethical standing here. For almost 5 years now I've paid the price of that shortsale in more ways than just a hit to my credit. It's enough, how long should a person have to pay! The bank likely got their bailout and are no worse for the wear, probably made money. If I can make things happen in my favor by working the system then so be it. I paid that bank on time till then end and never missed a payment. The bank made the decision to bail out of that horrifying "Option ARM" of their own free will and were paid in full as per the sale agreement. So as far as I'm concerned they were paid in full... Symantics, eh...Ha. 

Thanks to you and others for guiding me thru this! Now I know how it works, where I stand and how best go about trying to fix it. It's worth a try.

-Darryn

[nolamike]

Darryn

yeah when you see the physical process of how data moves electronically, even from the 50,000 foot view, sometimes it makes sense to do things snail mail. For all who have been successful using the electronic dispute as many (or possibly more) have been unsuccessful and possibly quit trying.

In your worst case you have two more years of that entry being on your record and mid-700's are nothing to sneeze at; you can get anything you want credit wise ---only limited by your declared income.

Ethics-wise, I don't think anyone blames you for wanting it off, however I think a few have the obsevation that "techinically" a dispute might not get you what you want, though possibly a GW letter will.

Most everyone here has had some grief with the CRA's or OC's or CA's/JDB's. Even people like myself who did not make a mistake in paying, nor fell behind due to the economy, are harmed by shoddy reporting and the bad practices that abound in the credit industries.

We wish you luck and ask that you let us know what happens. Also read the forums, even with good credit there is good information worth learning here.

Mike

[Anonymous]

Thanks for all your help, Mike. If I get nowhere with the CRA's I will certainly try a GW letter. I will post results.