topic Re: Worst Payment History Question in General Credit Topics

Worst Payment History Question

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:17:35 GMT

On a auto line I have 1 30 days late payment that is not showing on my 2 year payment history or the years showing on the fico report calender. All payments show green. When I click on "older derogatory events", it shows "invalid date" across all three CRAs, under more details in comments it says "Dispute resolved, Consumer Disagrees" across all three CRAs. I have written a letter to my auto line and they said they wouldn't remove the 30 days late because I was 30 days late, which I was. However, if its showing no red marks on the calenders for "2 year payment history" and invalid date for "older derogatory events".

Would that be grounds to challenge them again by written letter to "prove" that I was 30 days late? Can I use the information from myfico account to challenge them on the "worst payment history" remark. Thank you all that can help

Re: Worst Payment History Question

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:46:46 GMT

You don't want to dispute ("challenge" as you put it) accurately reported information. If you were 30 days late, which they said you were and you agree you were, you should not be disputing the information. That's only going to irritate them more and lessen your chances of getting legitimate GW adjustment, which is the route you should be going down. Even though you got a "no" answer once, you need to ask again. Then again and again, repeating the process until you get a yes. I suggest reading up on the Saturation Technique below if you want to amplify your chances at a favorable result:

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/The-Saturation-Technique-Best-GW-adjustment-odds/td-p/4727098

As for the payment history / 2 years thing, it sounds like the CMS front end summary software may only be taking into consideration the most recent 2 years of payment history. Credit Karma is well known to do this, which paints an inaccurate picture of what's really going on in terms of the back end and what the algorithm actually looks at. What was the date of your 30 day late payment? I'm thinking > 2 years but < 7 years? Negative payment history will impact your credit file so long as it's there, which typically is 7 years, even if CMS software is telling you otherwise.

Re: Worst Payment History Question

Medic981 — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:47:14 GMT

I would let sleeping dogs lie. If you dispute and the derogatory comes back as valid, it will renew the relevancy of the derogatory and have a greater negative impact on your FICO score.

Re: Worst Payment History Question

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:00:34 GMT

Thank you both, I understand what you're saying, it was Oct 15'. It is still showing on CK with a red x, two green months ahead of it. I'm assuming in 3 months the red x will be off of Ck as well. I will back off per you alls advice, I just wanted to get it off of my profile as its my only negative remark. I will have the vehicle paid off in 8 months. I am afraid that the remark will remain even after i've paid off the vehicle.

Re: Worst Payment History Question

Medic981 — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:39:43 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Thank you both, I understand what you're saying, it was Oct 15'. It is still showing on CK with a red x, two green months ahead of it. I'm assuming in 3 months the red x will be off of Ck as well. I will back off per you alls advice, I just wanted to get it off of my profile as its my only negative remark. I will have the vehicle paid off in 8 months. I am afraid that the remark will remain even after i've paid off the vehicle.

Unfortunately, the negative mark will remain on your credit report for 7 years. Fortunately, the effects diminish over time. Continue to build positive credit history and it will be but a smudge on your credit report. 30-day late payments are not good however they are a minor derogatory.

Looking at your signature line, all I see that you need to work on is lowering your utilization to less than 9%. A utilization of 8.9% or less on each account and accumulatively will give you a FICO score boost. You can do this by requesting credit line increases or paying down your balances. Just avoid the temptation of using more credit that you have the ability to pay off monthly.

Good luck and best wishes.

Re: Worst Payment History Question

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 21:35:11 GMT

@Medic981 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
Thank you both, I understand what you're saying, it was Oct 15'. It is still showing on CK with a red x, two green months ahead of it. I'm assuming in 3 months the red x will be off of Ck as well. I will back off per you alls advice, I just wanted to get it off of my profile as its my only negative remark. I will have the vehicle paid off in 8 months. I am afraid that the remark will remain even after i've paid off the vehicle.
Unfortunately, the negative mark will remain on your credit report for 7 years. Fortunately, the effects diminish over time. Continue to build positive credit history and it will be but a smudge on your credit report. 30-day late payments are not good however they are a minor derogatory.

Looking at your signature line, all I see that you need to work on is lowering your utilization to less than 9%. A utilization of 8.9% or less on each account and accumulatively will give you a FICO score boost. You can do this by requesting credit line increases or paying down your balances. Just avoid the temptation of using more credit that you have the ability to pay off monthly.

Good luck and best wishes.

Well that is just dandy, 7 years is very unappealing. I've paid my amounts down tremendously and am being very aggressive towards the rest. I plan to be at 1% by Christmas, then obviously go back up a bit. I do agree with you though and I'll be eyeing those increases soon, thanks alot for the info

Re: Worst Payment History Question

RonM21 — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 18:16:36 GMT

As BBS noted earlier in the thread, this is where the GW comes in. You want to ask as often as possible in hopes at getting lucky one of those times and them removing it. I have dealt with this before. Unfortunately, it was with Santander (known to be difficult) and a few lates that popped up when they took over my loan from another bank. I couldn't get it fixed and dealt with it being in my report for 7 yrs. No, it was not ideal at all.

The good thing is when I started repairing my credit, I was able to get my scores up near the 740+ range before it finally fell off and I gained about 40 or so points. So your credit can still be pretty good if you can't get this removed.

Re: Worst Payment History Question

Anonymous — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 13:51:02 GMT

@RonM21 wrote:
As BBS noted earlier in the thread, this is where the GW comes in. You want to ask as often as possible in hopes at getting lucky one of those times and them removing it. I have dealt with this before. Unfortunately, it was with Santander (known to be difficult) and a few lates that popped up when they took over my loan from another bank. I couldn't get it fixed and dealt with it being in my report for 7 yrs. No, it was not ideal at all.

The good thing is when I started repairing my credit, I was able to get my scores up near the 740+ range before it finally fell off and I gained about 40 or so points. So your credit can still be pretty good if you can't get this removed.

Thanks ron, that gives me some hope. I am fearful of sending another letter because of what someone stated previously in regards to them changing the "comments" on the account which would further ding my credit. Let sleeping dogs lie?

Re: Worst Payment History Question

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Nov 2018 02:46:44 GMT

"Comments" on accounts have no impact on score, so them changing your comments cannot further ding you. If a comment results in a dispute being initiated, that can temporarily cause that account to be "ignored" by the algorithm until the dispute is over. Having a negative account ignored may result in no score change at all, but if anything it could cause a score gain until the dispute is lifted. Anyway, it's important to understand that any comments added will not have any impact on your score.

Re: Worst Payment History Question

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:44:47 GMT

Thanks BBS, I always enjoy reading your insights. I've decided to leave it alone, I have 3.8k left on the jeep and i don't plan on financing another for at least a year after that, which may be a lease (for the maintenance & 2 year upgrade). I assume I have 2.5 years left on the late, since 4.5 years have passed. My payment history is reporting at 99% and I just wanted it at 100%

Re: Worst Payment History Question

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:06:17 GMT

My payment history is reporting at 99% and I just wanted it at 100%

Keep in mind that payment history percentage isn't really relevant. I'm not sure where you're seeing that... perhaps from some credit monitoring software (CMS) summary page? 99% verses 100% is significant, not because of percentage, but simply because you're talking a clean file verses a dirty one. It's good to know that someone with 90% (or 80%, etc) positive payment history may have no worse score than someone with 98-99% on-time payment history. All of the above files are considered "dirty" and when that's the case all that is really looked at is your most severe negative item and how old it is.

To sort of illustrate my point, let's say that Cornelius has 85% positive payment history and Rupert has 99% positive payment history. Cornelius has 15 late payments, all of 30-day severity and all 4-6 years old. Conversely, Rupert has only 1 late payment; It's a 90-day late from 6 months ago. Payment percentage wise, Rupert is clearly in a better place. On two otherwise identical files, though, Cornelius would probably have a better FICO score believe it or not simply based on the presence of a recent (relative to Cornelius) major negative item on Rupert's CR.

Re: Worst Payment History Question

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:19:25 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:

To sort of illustrate my point, let's say that Cornelius has 85% positive payment history and Rupert has 99% positive payment history. Cornelius has 15 late payments, all of 30-day severity and all 4-6 years old. Conversely, Rupert has only 1 late payment; It's a 90-day late from 6 months ago. Payment percentage wise, Rupert is clearly in a better place. On two otherwise identical files, though, Cornelius would probably have a better FICO score believe it or not simply based on the presence of a recent (relative to Cornelius) major negative item on Rupert's CR.

Well luckily that 30 day is from Oct 2015, 3 years, so I assume I have 4 more years to go before hitting 100%, That is kind of disappointing but I plan to have that as my only negative item, I've written them but they wouldn't budge on it, I may write them again once my CR stabilizes from the 2 new accounts that haven't reported yet