Warning re Citi and goodwill requests

[Anonymous]

So much for the goodwill ambassador.

I wrote to Citibank's exec office requesting a goodwill removal of a SINGLE 30-day late from my Home Depot account.

They wrote back with the standard "under the FCRA we are obligated to report account history" blah blah blah.

But here's the kicker. They added an additional paragraph, as if to turn the screws.

"Because you disagree with the information we have reported, we have requested the reporting agencies add a note to your credit profile stating that the information is 'disputed by the consumer.'"

Nowhere in my letter did I dispute or disagree with anything.  That's just vindictive.  I fired a letter back, and I will be writing the three bureaus as well.

Sometimes this process makes me a little bit testy.

[RobertEG]

You can play the same game.

If they have reported to a CRA that you have filed a direct dispute with them, they accept the obligation to treat it as they have interpreted it..... as a dispute.

That triggers their obligation to conclude a reasonable investigation within 30 days, and send you a formal notice of results of that investigation within 5 business days after conclusion of the 30-day investigation period.

Wait until after the investigation period has expired, and then send a formal complaint to the CFPB for their violation of the direct dispute process under FCRA 623(a)(8).

They cannot consider and report it as a direct dispute, and then igore their obligation to treat it as such.

Even if they did report it as a direct disptue,they would thereafter have to notify the CRA within 35'ish days therefafter that the dispute has been concluded.

Dollars to donuts that they dont follow thru and send any results of your "dispute."

[Anonymous]

I got the exact same letter and I never said I disputed anything in the email, just asked for a goodwill deletion. They put the comments on my report. I needed to get them removed fast so I could move forward with my mortgage. I called the credit bureaus  and had them removed. After about an hour of calling to get them removed I got an email from citi and all it said was, Refer to the letter from us sent on whatever date. Lol. So I got the letter and called the executive resolution department and talked to a nice lady. I told her what I was doing and she agreed to remove the comments. But I had already received alerts that they were removed before I called them. I wish I would a had more time so I could have followed the advice of RobertEG. 

[Anonymous]

If this was a dead account I was trying to get rid of, a charge-off or paid collection, that would be a useful tactic, I think. This is an open account that I use regularly, with just a single 30-day late that I politely asked to be removed.

I suppose, and RobertEG can correct me if I'm wrong, is that following that procedure, the ultimate goal is to have them remove the tradeline from the reports?  Wouldn't it just come back next reporting cycle after statement cut? I don't even think that's an option in this case. But I haven't dropped my letter in the mail yet, so I'm all eyes.

But I continue to be disappointed with the arrogant treatment of consumers by credit-related companies with what I view as too much power over our lives. That response seemed unwarranted and unprofessional, and there should be some sort of repercussions for it. After all, if disputes factor into my credit score, and this exec office representative initiated frivolous dispute comments on my behalf, then there is potential harm there, correct? And harm is the basis for every civil suit, correct?  Now don't get me wrong, a couple of dispute points are not worth my time and money to initiate a lawsuit, but someone with a more litigious mindset might feel compelled to do so, and those arrogant tools need to be taught not to mess with people that way. Especially people who, by nature of requesting goodwill, are trying to improve their situation and being attentive to credit issues and debt management. We may be annoying, but we're not the enemy.

[Anonymous]

I can't speak much to the Citi situation except to say them not removing one measly late payment is ridiculous.

I do totally agree that the CRA's have entirely too much control over our lives. Negative items impact people for far too long. Also a big issue is that people are not educated enough when they are young as to the importance of your credit.

Seven years is a crazy amount of time for late pays to show on your report. There really should be a tier of time frames based on infractions. For example, first time offenders (first 30 day) get a freebie, it never reports. Next 30 day late payment stays on for 6 months, and so on. The total amount any one late should show is 2 yrs. The only things that should report for anything beyond 5 yrs is BK, public records and unpaid CO's. If something was paid more than 24 months ago, it should be removed or, once paid, no longer be viewed so negatively. Heck, people get out of jail for murder quicker than negative items fall off a credit report. Something is very wrong with that.

Also, most lenders will tell you that they are OK with a BK over 2 years old. But I'm being punished for a CO from 6 yrs ago that I PAID! I didn't file BK on the $50k of debt I racked up in my 20's and have now mostly paid. However, someone who did can basically get any loan or CC they want 2 years post filing but I'm still being punished/denied SIX years later for a few CO accts (that are paid). That is utterly baffling to me.

Sorry to vent. This subject is my soapbox Stepping off now.

[Anonymous]

I'm right there with you I see over and over again people getting huge credit lines with American Express after bankruptcy and I can't even get a secured card with Bank of America. Citibank is a tough one. I've done numerous searches and there really isn't a way to proceed with chargeoff goodwill letters or lates. not a lot of success stories on here

[EW800]

I believe I have fallen into the same issue with Citi.  Robert, I would be curious if you believe this could be a FCRA violation as well.  

About a year ago I wrote a GW letter to the mortgage division of Citi, in hopes of having one 30-day late that was about three years old (now four years old) removed on a second mortgage account, which has since been completely paid off.  I made it clear in the letter that I was not disputing the late, explained what lead to the late and was very professional.  They denied the GW request, which is certainly their right, but also added the comment below to each of of my credit reports:

"Consumer Disputes This Account Information -- Meets FCRA Requirements"

(Note sure why they added the blurb about Meets FCRA Requirements.  I guess just to get an extra jab in at me!)

As soon as I saw the above comment start to show up on my reports, I called Citi and when I finally got through to a human in the credit reporting area, I explained that I had not disputed anything, again just asking for GW consideration.  I found that I was basically talking to a wall.  They told me that the comment would have to remain for as long as the account is on my credit report, because I disagree with their decision to not remove the 30-day late.  I came away from the call with the impression that they do this to encourage people to not even question anything they report.  To this day, the above comment still remains in the comment section of this account.  I assume that unless they remove the comment, it will even remain when the account turns positive in a couple of years, but not sure.  

Robert, based on your knowledge, should I take any further steps?  I know the account should turn positive in about 2+ years and that the 30-day late is having no impact on my scores at this point, but I sure don't like the comment that I am disputing something that I am not.  

Thanks for any thoughts!  

[Anonymous]

I agree late payments and paid items do stay on your credit report, way to long.  I do not agree with your assumption that people who file a BK can get almost any credit they want after 2 years. American express makes most people wait 5 or more years after a BK discharge to get a CC threw them and some companies wont give any credit to someone who has a 9 year old BK on there records. If you only have a 6 year old paid CO on your account and other wise steller credit, companies would be must more apt to give you credit then someone 2 years out of a BK. My son in-law with a 670 credit score and no BK, making 42k a year, has been able to get chase 4k, amex 6k, BOA 4k,  discover 3.5k. I am 2 years out a BK with over 700 Fico score and cant get any of these cards. i make 82k a year and since the BK have had perfect credit. Dont beleave all the hype, there are a few people out there that have been approved credit by these compaines 2 to 4 years out of BK but it's rare, really rare. I personaly did not get into credit card or loan debt, when i filed a BK it was only for Medical bills. I did not burn anyone other then medical bills, and still i cant get these cards you say they regularily give people 2 years after a BK

[RobertEG]

Adding the statement to the consumer's credit file:

"Consumer Disputes This Account Information -- Meets FCRA Requirements"

is NOT a proper conclusion of the dispute.

It is only their notification to the CRA that the dispute has been resolved with verification that the reporting is accurate.

However, that is not adequate.  That is only notice to the CRA, stating that they have concluded the dispute, when in fact, they have NOT done so by sending notice to the consumer..

FCRA 623(a)(8) and the implementing regulations for the direct dispute process at 16 CFR 660.4 require that the furnisher send a notice of results of their investigation to the consumer within the same period as that required for a CRA if you dispute via a CRA.  That period is 30 days to conclude their investigation, and 5 business days thereafter to send the notice of results to the consumer.

Yes, it is a violation of FCRA 623(a)(8) if they have not concluded the investigation and reported the results to the consumer.

Reporting to the CRA that they have concluded the investigation and that they have verified the results does not comply with the FCRA.

The intent of complaint to the CFPB is not to require any deletions of the account, or to ask that your GW be treated as a dispute.

It is to complain that they are clearly NOT sincere, as evidenced by their lack of compliance with the dispute process requirments, in even considering and reporting your communication as a dispute.  It is evidence that they acted improperly, and knew it.

[Anonymous]

bkRebound, yeah, everyone's situation is different for sure. My comments were based mostly from 1) users experiences on the forum and 2) reading the standard "don't apply with a BK in last two years" guideline that is on a lot of creditors websites.

I nearly filed myself, even met with and paid an attorney, but I decided against it because I wanted to eventually pay my bills as a lot of it was school / living related. I just never realized how long all of the negatives would stick with me. I would have been better off filing BK six yrs ago than I am now in trying to actually pay everything and that makes no sense to me. Credit reporting guidelines need to be totally revamped, IMHO.

I definitely have more than one negative reporting, I burned some creditors, and am now trying to take full responsibility for all of it. I'm just frustrated because I see story after story on here of people even less than 2 yrs out of BK getting approved for prime cards with nice SL meanwhile I can't even get approved for a secured Citi card and all my negatives are 6+ years old.

At least they'll all fall off in a year and I can truly start over.