cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

tag
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency



@fused wrote:
There are other mods that will agree with me, I'll ask them to chime-in. I really believe if you pay this, your scores will improve. Hang tight!



This seems great! Either way, I think I'm just gonna go ahead and pay it anyhow. For the past year or so, so many have urged me to NOT pay it, claiming it was just going to do more harm than good. However, I want it paid, and plan to do so tomorrow if I can get some cooperation. I'm just wondering if anyone here wants to talk me out of it...
Message 11 of 65
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

i won't talk you out of it,
Message 12 of 65
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency



Timothy wrote:
i won't talk you out of it,


Agreed!

 
Message 13 of 65
fused
Moderator Emeritus

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

Darn, they logged-out. One last point, so long as this CO does not update the DOLA (date of last activity) ( this is not common) by paying it, you should see a good improvement in your scores
Message 14 of 65
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

I'm still here!  Left the office and now home.  This is my concern, the update of DOLA.  This is something else I'm going to try to work out tomorrow if they will not delete it.
Message 15 of 65
fused
Moderator Emeritus

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

DOLA seems to be a real issue with EQ.
Message 16 of 65
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

Today, I called a million people and tried PFD one...last...time. Of course, the guy remained a total a$$ and would not move. Oh well, I got my settlement letter faxed to me, and I'm gonna go ahead and do this tomorrow; I think he left immediately after faxing the letter to me, or something. This whole thing is likely going to take about a week to impact my credit score, so, I'll monitor and let you all know what happens. I really hope this doesn't bit me in the rear; it's truly sad when trying to do the right thing causes harm.
Message 17 of 65
upinflagstaff
Frequent Contributor

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency


@RobertEG wrote:
Hi ssstevie.
It is illegal under the FCRA to "reset" the period that a neg remains on your CR due to any payments, full or partial, made after a CO or CA is established. The date that it can remain is 7 1/2 years from the date of the last delinquency prior to the CO or CA. That date is fixed as a matter of law. Paying a CO or CA, while not directly beneficial to your score, could help a lot when you app for a loan that conducts a manual review. In fact, most mortgage lendors will require payment of the CO or CA as a condition of any loan.
And also, if you app for any loan of $150,000 or more, the 7 1/2 year drop off provision of the FCRA is exempted.

Does this mean that items which might not currently show on a CR by being disputed and "deleted" might remain in the system if pulled for a mortgage? I'm in the process of cleaning the last few items from my report and yet this clause seems to say that a foreclosure that I suffered in 2001 will haunt me forever (the second never cleared). So in these cases is a delete not really a delete. I was feeling pretty good about my reports, but now I'm a bit nervous.

Message Edited by upinflagstaff on 08-09-2008 10:23 AM
Message 18 of 65
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency



upinflagstaff wrote:
 
Does this mean that items which might not currently show on a CR by being disputed and "deleted" might remain in the system if pulled for a mortgage? I'm in the process of cleaning the last few items from my report and yet this clause seems to say that a foreclosure that I suffered in 2001 will haunt me forever (the second never cleared). So in these cases is a delete not really a delete. I was feeling pretty good about my reports, but now I'm a bit nervous.


No!  Items which have been removed by dispute cannot be displayed on a full factual report.  Only items which have naturally aged off of the standard report can be displayed on a full factual report.
 
Having said that, the odds that your mortgage lender is going to pull a full factual report for a mortgage are very, very, very, very slim, even though the FCRA technically allows it.  If they do pull a full factual, find another lender.
 
Message 19 of 65
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

Cheddar raises a practical point that superscedes the legalities of the FCRA.  The CRAs dont keep data forever.  When they choose to purge their files is something that is their business decision.
 
All I was trying to alert you to is ithat if, they still do have it in their files, and it meets the $150,000 exemption lobbied into the FCRA by the mortgage lendors, then it is legally exempt, and the lendor can get it.
 
If "deleted," then that would clearly imply no longer in your file,
 
 
 


Message Edited by RobertEG on 08-09-2008 09:53 PM
Message 20 of 65
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.