Got it straight from FICO rep, WARNING!

[Anonymous]

---

Boscoe wrote:

Certainly that can't be true!!

---

Unfortunately, it is true, which is what all the fuss on this thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Ok..why don't we all do something about this ! How about a petition,class action law suit ..why are we letting this happen and doing nothing...honestly we would not let any one else who screws our credit up get away with it!

 Actually I found an old thread on another board where someone was wanting to sue for for innacurate information but I couldn't find any more information as to what happened...anyone know.

Really come on lets do something...!!! It's bad enough we all have to play this FICO game without knowing all the rules...but now we are basically being penalized by them for filing disputes because there almighty computer can't comprehend ...CRAZY!

These FICO points we are losing for alot of us are  preventing us refinancing, buying car's, houses etc..this isn't a game anymore for a lot of us...our lives,homes and those of our family's  are hinged on these scores..

FICO needs to be held accountable for this error they know about and choose to do nothing about!

It's unbelieveable they can get away with this!!!

[rom828]

This is crazy, but I sure am glad I read this before I filed a dispute.

I have a Providian charge off from 11-3 that was paid off 11-05.  It's been showing on my reports as just "paid' as of 11-05, but on the myfico EQ report I just pulled last week, it is now showing paid, but with 32   90 day  lates, 25 of which were after the charge off until paid in full 11-05.

I'd actually paid every month from 11/03 to final pyt of 11/05  to TriAdvantage, the CA for Providian.  Providian reported to the CRA, not the CA.

As it did not show this way before , I wanted to dispute it as inaccurate, altho I did see on another thread that someone had similar siutation and was advised OC can indeed report as late after charge off until paid. 

My beef is that it wasnt reported that way before and it shows in my explanation that I have these 32 'extra' 90 day lates and it's adversely affecting my score (620).

I'd intended to dispute just to see if I could get those lates removed, figuring it was worth a shot.  But reading this thread makes me scared to dispute anything!!

It cerainly seems ridiculous that our entire financial lives are dependent on a fico score that can erroneously computer manipulated, and even more ridiculous that there seems to be no recourse. We should be able to take some kind of action.......I just don't know what that is?!?!

[BoysMumx2]

It definitely makes me leery about disputing anything, BUT as I told the rep I talked to, I wanted my report to be accurate. I didn't know that I would take a penalty because of it though.

The sad thing is that I'd like to do something about it, but as we are noting on here, so much is dependent on these scores that I'm nervous about it.

I haven't read all the information about FICO 08, but I wonder - and hope - if they corrected this flaw. We already have such a hard time getting the bureaus to report correctly, it'd be a shame if FICO didn't try to improve the service it is providing.... for both the consumers and the lenders.

[rom828]

This is so frustrating!

With my scores so borderline...620 EQ,  677 TU..(went down a few points when my new mortage reported), I can't afford to lose any more points....

but the erroneously reported 90 day lates are hurting my EQ  score (according to fico score summary).

In Aug 05 Providian was reporting correctly that effective 11-03 pyts showed 'ok', and showed this thru 12-4, the for some reason Jan-April showed "RF" even tho I was still paying every month as agreed (and I the time I didn't know anything about disputing so didnt act), the pyts again showed ok May 05, June 05.  I paid the accout in full 11-05.

Now on the report I just pulled Providian is showing from 01/04 to 11/05 as "RF" and then ok 12-05!!

This acct even being called a charge off is not correct as I'd requested the acct be closed, but I was never able to get that straightened out.  Once I learned about disputes last year, I did that but came back as correct as reported so I gave up.  But now with these 90 day lates reporting, I feel that I should dispute, but I don't want to jeopardize my precarious score!  This account is due to drop off 10-09.....should I just let it ride?!?!?!

I only have one late pyt (30 days April 2001) on an active credit card, and another closed card (which correctly shows paid as agreed with ok's each month) has 2 60 days from '03 and 1  30 day from '03.  All other accounts including car loans, retail accounts, credit cards, etc are paid on time!!

Sorry to go into so much detail, but I'm hoping I can get some advice on the best way to handle this.

Any thoughts on whether I'm better off not disputing and letting it drop off late next year,  or would it be worth it to get these 90 days off  if possible?!?!

[haulingthescoreup]

rom, this is a really good question (and good post, btw), and it would get better answers over on General Credit Issues, but I don't want to move the thread since you're not the OP.

I would encourage you to start a new thread over there, and just copy/ paste your posts onto it. Now that a few of our MIA moderators are back in town, you can probably get more specific help over there.

This forum (Understanding FICO Scoring) tends to be the haven of math geeks and logic freaks, trying to reverse engineer the scoring formulas! Good luck

[rom828]

Thanks!!  I just posted!

[rom828]

Any updates on your  situation??  Did the dates change when corrections were made?!?!

I've still not tried to correct anything on the Providian acct yet.  Just pulled FICO  TU and EX this week, and interestingly, it's EQ and EX that show the Providian paid CO with  25  90 day lates for the time the acct was being paid off (11/03-11/05).  TU shows no lates at all, just paid charge off.

Another forum member had advised me this is a 'bureau' thing, not a fico thing, so it looks more like that from my reports, but I am still totally confused and frustrated as to what to do.

If I can somehow get the 90 day lates removed, but the account updates and stays on for another 7 years, I'm no better off that having them stay on till 10/09 when that acct is scheduled to drop.  It's even more frustrating for me as while I was paying on the acct, reports showed 'ok' for each monthly payment....once it was paid off, it changed to 25  90 day lates!! This still doesnt seem fair (or legal) that you're  penalized for having an account corrected. 

Please let us all know you're results....and any further advices you might have for me are appreciated!!!

[sh9730]

Rom,

Just so you understand this issue (as best as anyone can for now at least...I dont think anyone has been able to 100% confirm this yet...but Im in this boat and Im not willing to chance it!), it DOES NOT affect the drop off date at all.  That remains 7 years from the original DOFD, even if you dispute, BUT , the FICO score calculation will be based upon the NEW DATE of ACTIVITY, but that affect will only be in place until it falls off at its original 7 year date (10/09 in your case I think you said?).

It still sucks!!  FICO really should fix it....but...

[rom828]

Ok....I think I get it now....I'm sometimes a little slow!! and all this is still somewhat new to me (wonder how long I can keep saying that?!?..but I really am not as savvy as so many of the other members are, but thank God for this forum as I have really learned so much!!)... Anyway, if I understand what you're saying, the adverse effect is that by showing it as new activity, it has more detrimental effect on one's score. So, in my case for instance, this Providian charge off would be 'new' as opposed to over 4 years old?!?! And the end result of that would certainly be that my score would plummet! Is that correct? But I still don't understand how it's showing up ON EX and EQ with 90 day lates, but TU just shows it paid, with absolutely no lates. I didnt have EX or TU CRs from 2005, but the FICO EQ reports from April and August 05 showed it as a charge off, but showed each month paid 'ok'. Now it shows those months I was paying as 'RF' and with 25 90 day lates. I just don't get it!! How can they change the reporting just because it's paid off?? And if FICO knows this varies by bureau, why don't they score accordingly? It obviously hurts my score as FICO TU is 643 and FICO EQ (with all the 90s) is 620. On another note, TU shows my length of history as 'good' and EQ and EX show it as 'not good' and the reports are identical in that regard!! My scores are so borderline now I dont want to jeopardize them at all, so I'm afraid to dispute. But I was planning to refi mortgage in next few months so was really trying to improve score, and it would sure look better if I didnt have all these 90 day lates on the report. Sorry to be so long with this ....I'm just at a loss as to what to do!!