topic Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.” in General Credit Topics

“MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:22:31 GMT

I will be honest and upfront, I am a Credit Analyst and help individuals understand their credit reports, make decisions that would help their creditworthiness and also perform disputes or challenge what is reported. I am not giving my background as a form of having anyone come to me. I believe there is a wealth of information on this site, if properly used, and I for one have gained a lot of knowledge that has been quite helpful in what I do. In essence, the reason I am starting this topic is one, I am seeking some help, guidance and or suggestions And two, someone out there might be going through this very issue at the time being. I have 6 individuals who I am assisting and have submitted disputes for. The dispute in questions have gone to TransUnion. The reason, they are reporting an account or more in the "Adverse Accounts" section solely because the creditor (s)reported the account (s) as being "MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM." The very same accounts are positively being reported on Equifax and Experian.

No late payment (s) have been reported and in some instances, more than the minimum payment is being made. Still, after having the Creditor (s) provide a letter where they make it clear that no late payments have been reported and or that they have the account (s) in good standing, TransUnion refuses to remove the account (s) from the "Adverse Accounts" section of their report. I even submitted a Formal Complaint with CFPB after several disputes with TransUnion and no positive change.

Following is an excerpt of the dispute letter I use, feel free to make use and edit as necessary by anyone experiencing this very issue;

CREDITOR #1234567890 - PLEASE SHOW ME A JUSTIFIED REASON WHY THIS ACCOUNT IS LISTED UNDER THE “ADVERSE ACCOUNTS” CATEGORY WHEN AMOUNT PAID HAS BEEN MORE THEN SCHEDULED PAYMENT AND NO PAST DUE AMOUNT OR A SINGLE LATE PAYMENT IS BEING REPORTED. VALIDATE YOUR REPORTING, OR REMOVE FROM MY REPORT.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated and hopefully this issue, if affecting others can provide some guidance so to positively address or resolve matter.

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

youdontkillmoney — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:38:48 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
I will be honest and upfront, I am a Credit Analyst and help individuals understand their credit reports, make decisions that would help their creditworthiness and also perform disputes or challenge what is reported. I am not giving my background as a form of having anyone come to me. I believe there is a wealth of information on this site, if properly used, and I for one have gained a lot of knowledge that has been quite helpful in what I do. In essence, the reason I am starting this topic is one, I am seeking some help, guidance and or suggestions And two, someone out there might be going through this very issue at the time being. I have 6 individuals who I am assisting and have submitted disputes for. The dispute in questions have gone to TransUnion. The reason, they are reporting an account or more in the "Adverse Accounts" section solely because the creditor (s)reported the account (s) as being "MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM." The very same accounts are positively being reported on Equifax and Experian.

No late payment (s) have been reported and in some instances, more than the minimum payment is being made. Still, after having the Creditor (s) provide a letter where they make it clear that no late payments have been reported and or that they have the account (s) in good standing, TransUnion refuses to remove the account (s) from the "Adverse Accounts" section of their report. I even submitted a Formal Complaint with CFPB after several disputes with TransUnion and no positive change.

Following is an excerpt of the dispute letter I use, feel free to make use and edit as necessary by anyone experiencing this very issue;

CREDITOR #1234567890 - PLEASE SHOW ME A JUSTIFIED REASON WHY THIS ACCOUNT IS LISTED UNDER THE “ADVERSE ACCOUNTS” CATEGORY WHEN AMOUNT PAID HAS BEEN MORE THEN SCHEDULED PAYMENT AND NO PAST DUE AMOUNT OR A SINGLE LATE PAYMENT IS BEING REPORTED. VALIDATE YOUR REPORTING, OR REMOVE FROM MY REPORT.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated and hopefully this issue, if affecting others can provide some guidance so to positively address or resolve matter.

^^^^

What was Transunion's response?

(I only see your request in ALL CAPS, which by the way the people who are reading it ARE PEOPLE and have emotions too so they may react negatively to your ALL CAPS and may try every way not to help you so human psychology dictates to play nice to get a positive response from them)

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:47:50 GMT

What was Transunion's response?

"TransUnion refuses to remove the account (s) from the "Adverse Accounts" section of their report. I even submitted a Formal Complaint with CFPB after several disputes with TransUnion and no positive change."

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

takeshi74 — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:00:48 GMT

The reason is because such programs are viewed as adverse by a number of creditors. See also:

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/Credit-Counseling-effects-on-score/td-p/40952

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Credit-Cards/Pre-selected-Amex-and-Citi-and-Denied-Credit/td-p/1254553

My wife was denied by AmEx for that very reason though she was just recently approved.

Even if they did move the account to a different section in the report it wouldn't make a difference as long as the notation is reporting on the account itself.

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:54:53 GMT

I sorta think differently. Even if the notation is listed on the account and it were in the "Satisfactory Accounts" vs. "Adverse Accounts" section it might make a difference. The notation might not be having an affect of the score, where the negative reporting is.

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

Shogun — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:59:49 GMT

With the account being service by a management firm, it means that the person has had to seek help due to financial reasons. Without there being such a reason, then there would be no reason for seeking their service.

It's usually seen as an action to keep from going into BK, which would be the next step. So does this show that the person is at a risk for credit? Well sure it does, hence that is why it is in the adverse action category.

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

youdontkillmoney — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 02:09:45 GMT

@Shogun wrote:
With the account being service by a management firm, it means that the person has had to seek help due to financial reasons. Without there being such a reason, then there would be no reason for seeking their service.

It's usually seen as an action to keep from going into BK, which would be the next step. So does this show that the person is at a risk for credit? Well sure it does, hence that is why it is in the adverse action category.

^^^

Yes that statement in all caps is like holding up a sign saying they are a high risk for defaulting, I'd try to get that off the report as soon as possible or choices owuld be limited in life financially when credit is needed. Creditors do read the report because I place 90 day "fraud" alerts on my reports and creditors call and ask about that to confirm my identity with a series of questions. These are extra steps but give me peace of mind that if someone tried to open an account in my name I'd get a call, not to mention I have Lifelock so they notify me in a few seconds via text/phone call as well.

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:12:07 GMT

A serious point is being overlooked here. I understand the notation might be viewed as the individual attempting to avoid a financial disaster or something along those lines. However, both Experian and Equifax have the notation showing on the account (s). Despite the notation, the account (s) are not listed negatively. No potentially negative account (s) in Experian, No Negative Accounts in Equifax. Therefore, my question moreso is, where in the FCRA or any other rules and or regulations does it justify an account negatively reporting when no default payment has been reported? Avoidance is not or should not be a factor when determining the status or classification of an account. The payment history is. By having the account (s) listed in the "Adverse Accounts" section, TransUnion is misleading Creditors to believe that the individual has defaulted on their payment (s) at one point or another when such is not the case. Financial situations change and some may proactively seek to get a hold of their finances. That on its own, in my view, is a positive action taken by the individual. Where in any rule or regulation does it state and or support the possibility of, the attempt to avoid are factors to be considered and justify a CRA classifying an account?

As for the all caps, it is a dispute letter not writing to a friend, family member or business associate or anyone in good terms. The mere fact that a dispute is being sent clearly indicates a disagreement. All caps is also not a factor for the classification of an account.

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

youdontkillmoney — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:31:51 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
A serious point is being overlooked here. I understand the notation might be view as the individual attempting to avoid a financial disaster or something along those lines. However, both Experian and Equifax have the notation showing on the account (s). Despite the notation, the account (s) are not listed negatively. No potential negative account (s) in Experian, No Negative Accounts in Equifax. Therefore, my question moreso is, where in the FCRA or any other rules and or regulations does it justify an account negatively reporting when no default payment has been reported? Avoidance is not or should not be a factor when determining the status or classification of an account. The payment history is. By having the account (s) listed in the "Adverse Accounts" section, TransUnion is misleading Creditors to believe that the individual has defaulted on their payment (s) at one point or another when such is not the case. Financial situations change and some may proactively seek to get a hold of their finances. That on its own, in my view, is a positive action taken by the individual. Where in any rule or regulation does it state and or support the possibility of, the attempt to avoid are factors to be considered and justify a CRA classifying an account?

As for the all caps, it is a dispute letter not writing to a friend, family member or business associate or anyone in good terms. The mere fact that a dispute is being sent clearly indicates a disagreement. All caps is also not a factor for the classification of an account.

^^^^^

Two points:

1. ALL CAPS expresses a less than calm, antagonziing attitude to the reader and being humn, the lender will not act positively to it and at best, unconcered about your plight/concerns

2. In an idea world lenders should know the rules and regulations, but often they are misinformed as well, so when they read “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.” they conclude wrongly or rightly that this applicant is not financially responsible and the statement “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.” = "RISK" = RUN AWAY

My point is to focus in on the non technical, softer side of human interactions to get your way. Be a "fox" working behind the scenes craftily and not a "lion" roaring your way around people because when you are asking someone to do something for you, removing an item from a report, givign you credti etc....they have the power. In this case the correct approach is to be a fox. For example, in referencing the statement “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.” you may also want to add in a rule/statute that states this is not to be held against someone etc if that is the case

Try this: even though you have a letter from the creditor explaining to remove it and shown it to transunion, what you need to do is: ask the creditor to contact transunion directly to remove it.

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

RobertEG — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:36:22 GMT

With an issue of interpretation and assertion of improper reporting on the part of the CRA, the main issue at this point would be not how the CRA justifies their reporting, but rather how the CFPB responded.

What was the outcome of the CFPB complaint?

If resolution cannot be obtained via the CFPB review, then it would appear time to make the argument before a judge.

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:10:11 GMT

TransUnion is impacting the creditworthiness of the individual based on a assumption. Therefore, sensitivity and or pleasantries are not a factor, much less the issue in this matter. Actually, that is a distraction from the actual issue. Lenders can make their own determinations based on a notation on an account, CRAs do not have the right or authority to classify an account based on assumptions, their belief and or reason why. Should there be a need to express frustration and or disagreement, of course there is. The interpretation or how the dispute is read is not a factor. If however, having to be friendly or pleasant would be a consideration for the removal, then that on its own further supports the fact of an erroneous reporting or classification of an account, thus not the issue. Once more, the issue is what rule and or regulation supports the classifaction? Emotions do not bear any effect on this matter, rather distract from the issue.

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:24:27 GMT

Thank You RobertEG for your answer as it is along the lines of what I was looking for. After the complaint to CFPB, the reporting continued. Another dispute was submitted using similar wording as the letter indictates to TransUnion and their response has not yet been received. Basically, I am seeking answers to support what the next step would be should TransUnion decide to maintain the classification of the account (s) in question. Thank you for focusing on the issue.

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

youdontkillmoney — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 18:57:03 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Thank You RobertEG for your answer as it is along the lines of what I was looking for. After the complaint to CFPB, the reporting continued. Another dispute was submitted using similar wording as the letter indictates to TransUnion and their response has not yet been received. Basically, I am seeking answers to support what the next step would be should TransUnion decide to maintain the classification of the account (s) in question. Thank you for focusing on the issue.

^^^

This solution is simple whereas the execution can be challenging

Solution: get the creditor who put that on that credit report to directly contact transunion to delete it

Execution: you contact the creditor in writing and ask them to contact transunion to change it

Re: “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:44:10 GMT

The Creditors were the very first ones contacted as I wanted to have proof that no default payment or past due amounts were an issue. I even have copy of letters where the Creditors sent these to TransUnion asking they remove all derrogatory remarks from the account, still the status remains. Disputes have been sent with a copy of the letter as supporting documents and the status remains. Because of this, the formal complaint was filed and the status still remains. An additional dispute has been submitted and now I am making preparations for the next step should the status remain. That is what is being sought in this matter. Is there any rule or regulation that would support the manner in which TransUnion has choosen to report/classify the account (s) in question. If there is a need for legal action, I want to make sure the consumer has the best possible chance for a change. I know the CRAs do not want to be the case law for the other CRAs, and it is very likely that TransUnion would be smart about the reporting and make changes to their approach particularly if there is nothing that would support it and they could bear some liability for their assumptions, which in turn are affecting peoples lives. In all 6 cases I am overseeing that share this classification, no Creditor is reporting any default payments. All other accounts are in good standings and the payment history of those having that status even shows that more than the minimum payment is being made. The individuals are just being smart about their finances and trying to eliminate a debt as quickly as possible at the lowest possible rate. They should not be penalized for being proactive. Now, should there have been late payments at any given time, even with the accounts showing that as a status, I could certainly understand the "Lender beware" mentality. But such is not the issue. So in preparation for the next step, what grounds would TransUnion have to uphold its classification. Thanks everyone for your responses and involvement. Hopefully something positive will come from this that would in essence help others as well.