No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
Ok so I set up a payment plan with DHS to catch up on the back insurance bill (even though they reported it as "child support" but whatever). Its WAS listed under negative accts with current status past due 120+, and bal due (but no monthly history so not showing 120's for x number of months). My focus WAS going to be (on payday) to pay it to 0, and then GW them to delete (its my understanding they do it automatically but not the point of this thread). After making my first payment, they updated to the following:
Previously reported | Newly reported | |
Balance: | $921 | |
Past due: | $0 | $0 |
Status: | At least 120 days or more than four payments past due | Pays account as agreed |
Last activity: | Not on Record | 2/1/2013 |
Description: | Child/family support Collection account | Child/family support |
So, since its status 'pays as agreed', and has no history to show the past 120s, and they dropped the 'collection account' description, would the FICO model still be reading it as a negative? Im basically trying to figure out whether to stick to the payment plan (no threats of garnishments etc while current) and focus the lump sum elsewhere, or pay it off (and deplete my next month's 'work on credit score' money. Just comes down to it still being a 'negative' or not.
FICO scoring is unbiased because it does not consider race, color, sex, marital status, salary, residence location, interest rates being charged, child support or rental agreements. FICO only looks at credit behavior which results in more consistency as to who gets approved and who doesn't. Using credit scoring, lenders can focus only on the facts related to credit risk, rather than their personal feelings.
Ah, just checked TU (the above was EQ), and they are listing the same thing (pays as agreed etc), but they give a payment history of all 'ok'. The cut n paste isnt showing up as 'ok' but its there on every months entry.
Recent payment history [?]
hhmmm...so since its 'child support' in description, the model would just ignore the entry entirely?
Yes, according to that blurb it isn't factored in at all.
I don't see a negative aspect to that TL, however I don't see the entire monthly reportings. But from what I see here, it's OK>