cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

EQ Fico up 96 pts

tag
fused
Moderator Emeritus

Re: EQ Fico up 96 pts

Maybe I can help here. As for the OP's large point increase, this does not surprise me. I have some questions before I jump in though. 
 
hgolf1848:
 
- Are you sure the derog trade line is being reported by the original creditor and not a CA.
- Is it a CC charge-off? If not what is it? What year? thanks
Message 21 of 33
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: EQ Fico up 96 pts



soalsrfr wrote:
You just made my point...that statement was intentional to see how you would respond.
 

Nothing about my reaction to your feigned ignorance made your point.  I responded the way anyone would.  I corrected you and expressed my surprise at your lack of knowledge in the area, given that you profess this field to be your career.  How would you expect anyone to respond?  What exactly did my response, or that little stunt, prove?  That people sometimes make mistakes that aren't really mistakes?
 


soalsrfr wrote:
 
Our company processes more that 1,000,000 files per year and we see that 60-70% have errors ranging from incorrect late payments to erroneously reported activity which not only negatively impact the customer's scores but also causes information to remain on their files longer than is permissible under the FCRA.
 

Then those consumers need to sue.  It does happen, and damages are awarded and collected.
 


soalsrfr wrote:
 
Unfortunately, it still boils down to the consumer having to dispute the items to hopefully have the information reported correctly. In this manner, I reference the FCRA as a guide particularly for creditors as it shows just how serious these entities take the regulations.
 

Yes, you do have to dispute to initiate an investigation.  That takes about five minutes.
 


soalsrfr wrote:
 
This is truly what the creditor hopes for in most situations. If they can get contact from the consumer, it increases their likelihood to collect.  Go ahead and threaten to sue...but how many times do you think they hear this?
 

I don't doubt this is the case.  It does not surprise me that creditors sometimes intentionally report incorrect information in order to initiate contact.  If you spend any time at all on these boards you will see that it is often advised to wait until the SOL is up before initiating any dispute process.
 
In any case, by the time the CRTP is up and it is appropriate to dispute an account as obsolete, the debt has most likely been sold to a JDB, or at least a CA.  Most OCs won't hold on to an uncollectible debt for the entire length of the CRTP.  This brings the FDCPA into play as well.
 
So, what it seems you are saying is that JDBs and CAs are willing to commit violations of the FDCPA on the outside chance that they may be able to initiate contact and collect on a debt that is outside of SOL.
 
This is not news.
 
Also, companies that do this do get sued.  Some of them have even been put out of business due to FDCPA violations.


soalsrfr wrote:
 
Of course when you make the proper dispute to the bureaus, all the creditor have to say is "oops, we're sorry we made a mistake." But again, that is only if the dispute is done properly. How many times have you seen people dispute through the proper channels and the bureaus return a result of "verified by creditor"?
 

Even if the creditor responds with "oops, we're sorry we made a mistake," then I win, because it means my tradeline will be deleted because it is obsolete, which is all I wanted in the first place.  I'm not sure how that supports your point at all.
 
"Verified by creditor" has nothing to do with whether the dispute is done properly.  In any case, it is not difficult to inititate a dispute properly.
 


soalsrfr wrote:
 
Are you aware that consumer disputes at the bureau are drilled down to a code? This code denotes the dispute inquiry that the bureau sends to the creditor.
 

Yes, I am well aware of the dispute and verification "process," such that it is.
 


soalsrfr wrote:
 
I is amazing how the FRCA is supposed to be LAW but it is still to difficult for most consumers to get a simple incorrect item fixed.
 

 
Yes, it is amazing.  But consumers have resources available to them to use against entities who refuse to follow the law. Are you suggesting we should just roll over and take it?
 
Let's recap.  This discussion started because you didn't believe the DOFD was the proper date to use to determine CRTP.  After I cited FCRA, you seem to have changed your mind on that, and now your argument is that it doesn't matter what they're supposed to do; all that matters is what they do as a matter of fact.  In addition, you say, it's not worth it to fight them because it will be either futile or counterproductive because once they've initiated contact with you, they may be able to collect in spite of their violations and SOL.
 
Is that about right?  If I'm misstating your position please let me know, because that's what I'm getting from your post.
 
Message 22 of 33
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: EQ Fico up 96 pts

How did you get collections removed. I was told that if I paid old collections, it would not help my credit score, as a matter of fact the clock would start all over once they were paid and stay on my credit record longer?
Message 23 of 33
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: EQ Fico up 96 pts

@Anonymous wrote:

cheddar wrote:Nothing about my reaction to your feigned ignorance made your point.

I responded the way anyone would.

I corrected you and expressed my surprise at your lack of knowledge in the area, given that you profess this field to be your career.  How would you expect anyone to respond?

What exactly did my response, or that little stunt, prove? That people sometimes make mistakes that aren't really mistakes?
My point was as easily as I made that mistake, creditors do the same with individuals credit.
@Anonymous wrote:

Yes, you do have to dispute to initiate an investigation.  That takes about five minutes.
Again...the consumer has to initiate the dispute properly and yes even though resources are available, most consumers are not versed in credit, FCRA requirements, Fair Debt Collection requirements to make a dispute that will resolve the issue on the first go around.
@Anonymous wrote:

I don't doubt this is the case. It does not surprise me that creditors sometimes intentionally report incorrect information in order to initiate contact. If you spend any time at all on these boards you will see that it is often advised to wait until the SOL is up before initiating any dispute process.

In any case, by the time the CRTP is up and it is appropriate to dispute an account as obsolete, the debt has most likely been sold to a JDB, or at least a CA. Most OCs won't hold on to an uncollectible debt for the entire length of the CRTP. This brings the FDCPA into play as well.

So, what it seems you are saying is that JDBs and CAs are willing to commit violations of the FDCPA on the outside chance that they may be able to initiate contact and collect on a debt that is outside of SOL.

This is not news.

Also, companies that do this do get sued.  Some of them have even been put out of business due to FDCPA violations.
Yes, all of the above is true and I agree. Unfortunately when companies like MEDCLR/NCO Financial who get sued and loose a $4 million+ law suit for improper reporting practices, then go right back to reporting the exact same way. It shows just how proactive the FCRA is applied. The FCRA is a set of laws that the creditors know how to manipulate. They have been doing this much longer than consumers have had access to monitor their credit. They know what to do to get the results they want, regardless of it being legal or not. 

That is what my point is.
@chedder wrote:

Even if the creditor responds with "oops, we're sorry we made a mistake," then I win, because it means my tradeline will be deleted because it is obsolete, which is all I wanted in the first place. I'm not sure how that supports your point at all.

"Verified by creditor" has nothing to do with whether the dispute is done properly.  In any case, it is not difficult to inititate a dispute properly.
And it seems like you are all about winning...you must be a lawyer. What you don't realize is that I never disputed what any FCRA laws or how they are supposed to affect an indviduals ability to make sure information is correct on their file. I only stated that the laws are there but still don't make it easy for consumers. Also, I stated that the FCRA does not force the bureaus to purge based on the DOFD.

I never said that it was the correct date to use. Only that this is what we see the bureaus using when working on the files that we process.

See what information is listed by Equifax right on the consumer information section of their site. I am sure if you research, you will find similar information on the others as well. See link below.

http://www.equifax.com/cs/Satellite/EFX_Content_C1/1165203960838/5-1/5-1_Layout.htm?packedargs=Locale%3Den_US

@chedder wrote:
Yes, it is amazing.  But consumers have resources available to them to use against entities who refuse to follow the law. Are you suggesting we should just roll over and take it

This discussion started because you didn't believe the DOFD was the proper date to use to determine CRTP.This discussion begain with me stating that the bureaus use the DLA to calculate purge dates as your were giving misinformation to this individual. I never disputed what should be used only what the bureaus do use.
After I cited FCRA, you seem to have changed your mind on that, and now your argument is that it doesn't matter what they're supposed to do; all that matters is what they do as a matter of fact.
I have not changed my standing on how the purge dates are calculated by the bureaus. And yes, the FCRA is supposed to govern these entities and the bureaus do a fairly decent job with the data collection but the creditors truly cause more problems with erroneous information than the consumer realizes.


The bureaus implement automactic systems to purge old information, which occurs in 7 years for derog accounts and judgements within their system to be on the safe side to comply with the FCRA requirements, but the date you were telling people is not the date that the system uses.


People can and do get this DLA information corrected to set the purge dates properly but it is not a simple cut and dry dispute as you make it appear. You continue to be nieve in this thinking and I will continue to tell people the truth about what the bureaus and creditors do.
In addition, you say, it's not worth it to fight them because it will be either futile or counterproductive because once they've initiated contact with you, they may be able to collect in spite of their violations and SOL.
You again make assumptions that are not the case. I never stated that fighting the information was not worth it. I did say that the disputes have to be done properly to acheive the results that are beneficial and correct for the consumer.
Is that about right?  If I'm misstating your position please let me know, because that's what I'm getting from your post.
You preaty much have my position incorrect.



Message Edited by soalsrfr on 02-23-2008 08:12 AM

edited to reduce font size on link so that thread wouldn't be unmanageably wide, and to get all the white spaces out. No text was deleted.

Message Edited by haulingthescoreup on 02-23-2008 01:41 PM
Message 24 of 33
sh9730
Regular Contributor

Re: EQ Fico up 96 pts

Soal,
 
Im battling you on this same issue on another thread.  Here is an example that shows they do use the DOFD for "purge" date as you call it:
 
From my TU:
 
" CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SVCS #xxxxxx

7 SKYLINE DR 3RD F
HAWTHORNE , NY 10532
(800) 501-0909 

Balance: 
$14,954  
Date Updated: 
01/2008  
Original Balance: 
$10,611 
Original Creditor: 
14 FORD CREDIT US 
Past Due: 
>$14,954< 
Pay Status: 
>Collection Account<  
Account Type: 
Open Account  
Responsibility: 
Individual Account  
Loan Type: Collection Agency Attorney
Remark: 
>Placed for collection<
Date placed for collection: [ 04/2006] 
Estimated date that this item will be removed:   06/2008
 
So, the DOLA an all my CRAs shows as 4/06 but yet all three CRAs show this dropping from my report during 2008 (slight differences depending on their internal policies, but NONE of them show a 2013 dropp off date!!) . 
 
So, if the CA (or JDB in this case) is providing factual information to the CRA they WILL show the drop off date correctly and as Cheddar said, my experience is that almost always the CRAs get this right, regardless of the million other errors that show up on reports. Also as Cheddar has said, FICO has a wierd quirk that shows this as a 22 month old collection (and scores it as such) instead of its actual 6.5 year old collection, but it has nothing to do with when it will leave my report. 
 
Finally, yes the JDB can continue to make collection efforts, even thought its past both the SOL and CRTP but they cannot LEGALLY (key word) enforce the debt.


Message Edited by sh9730 on 02-23-2008 10:18 AM
Message 25 of 33
sh9730
Regular Contributor

Re: EQ Fico up 96 pts

One last thing about a post from page 1 of this thread about how EQ reports.  I have daily pull with them and just reconfirmed.  They show DOFD on their report, but when it shows on MYFICO they convert that SAME date to DOLA.  I confirmed this not 5 minutes ago.
Message 26 of 33
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: EQ Fico up 96 pts



sh9730 wrote:
One last thing about a post from page 1 of this thread about how EQ reports.  I have daily pull with them and just reconfirmed.  They show DOFD on their report, but when it shows on MYFICO they convert that SAME date to DOLA.  I confirmed this not 5 minutes ago.


Thank you!  That is exactly what I have been wondering.
 
So the DOLA shown on MyFico EQ equates to DOFD on an EQ report straight from the bureau.
 
Awesome.  That answers a lot of questions.

 
Message 27 of 33
sh9730
Regular Contributor

Re: EQ Fico up 96 pts

Yes, so my statement above is SLIGHTLY in error (I ll admit it!) because when you pull a MYFICO report for EQ ONLY the DOLA is in fact the date that is used for purging (even though in reality the drop off date is determined by EQ and NOT MYFICO and they list it as the DOFD that we ve been discussing).  However, on TU and EX the DOFD is the correct date for purging.
Message 28 of 33
jackg
Established Contributor

Re: EQ Fico up 96 pts

hgolf,
 
Sometime ago I disputed an Ameriquest Mortgage TL. it was being reported as "60 days late" and "foreclosure began". I decided to dispute based on the fact that Foreclosure was not completed.
 
Here's the fallout:
1. I was hospitalized from Jan 30 thru Feb 9. on my return home I checked TC, EQ & EX and found out that EQ & EX had deleted a "Tax Lien" that was scheduled to fall off.
2. At EQ my FICO score dropped from 776 to 695. It seems like Ameriquest had sold my TL to Citi Residential Lending and they reported 10 delinquencies, 6 of which were over 120 days.
 
Is there any help for me?
 
FICO scores on November 17, 2014 (prior to applying for and being approved my mortgage)

EX=738
EQ=735
TU=754

FICO scores on March 4, 2015 after being approved for mortgage and buying the home, the mortgage isn't yet reporting.
EX- 689 EQ- 739 TU- 739
Message 29 of 33
haulingthescoreup
Moderator Emerita

Re: EQ Fico up 96 pts


@fused wrote:
Maybe I can help here. As for the OP's large point increase, this does not surprise me. I have some questions before I jump in though. 

hgolf1848:
- Are you sure the derog trade line is being reported by the original creditor and not a CA.

- Is it a CC charge-off? If not what is it? What year? thanks


Bumping to get thread back on track. I hope that hgolf will post back with this, as I am trying to learn all this stuff myself.
* Credit is a wonderful servant, but a terrible master. * Who's the boss --you or your credit?
FICO's: EQ 781 - TU 793 - EX 779 (from PSECU) - Done credit hunting; having fun with credit gardening. - EQ 590 on 5/14/2007
Message 30 of 33
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.