topic Re: Poking Sleeping Dogs (Early Exclusion Strategies, Mostly Equifax) in General Credit Topics

Poking Sleeping Dogs (Early Exclusion Strategies, Mostly Equifax)

DXness — Wed, 04 Feb 2026 06:30:26 GMT

When you have really aged late payments set to drop off soon, conventional wisdom is to just let sleeping dogs lie, especially on EQ. However, there are exceptions to this rule and after pulling my more detailed ACR EQ report, I discovered one.

Tonight, I got early exclusion agnst and pulled all my reports on AnnualCreditReport to see when I'm eligible to try my hand at it. I never actually check ACR and now I regret not paying attention to it sooner. EX already takes EE into account and I'm set to have a clean report there in April (although I've heard you can try a month before the EX date?). Interestingly, ACR EX shows some of my bad student loans have 180s, not 120s as shown on my regular EX report...so if I really had 180s this whole time, I should have a quite massive score boost coming up, higher than I was originally expecting! I never knew how long they went deliquent originally, at that point in time I was flat broke and basically walked away, so 180 is definitely possible oops lol.

TU could be tried now, but I've seen people struggle to get EE out of them for lates on open tradelines, so I am not optimistic about my chances. I'm open to advice, if you got EE on TU for lates on active accounts, how did you accomplish it?

I've long thought that EQ will stay dirty for an extra year since it has an additional student loan reporting as a collection that was never reported elsewhere and the reporting history starts in 2020. Tonight I found there is no Date of First Deliquency listed anywhere on my ACR version, which is disputable under FCRA §605(a). Since this account doesn't report anywhere else, I figured the risk of disputing it is low.

When you go to dispute,they show you even more data that you normally don't see on the report. I actually did not know that and was fascinated to discover more bad payment history on that account going back to 2019 in line with my other student loans, but there was still no DoFD and no late string to C, it just goes from no data to 180 to C. Logically, the DoFD should be around 150 days before a 180 even though student loans normally don't start reporting lates until 90...going back this far would place that account within EQ's 1 month EE policy.

I also discovered that ACR EQ reported the account as brought current for 2 months after the last C, which is not shown on my normal EQ report. I wonder if winning the dispute would cause EQ to keep the tradeline as a positive account, keeping my aging metrics intact. I'd still be thrilled with tradeline deletion, but a positive account would be even better!

Please do tell me if I have my logic all wrong! I've never been through the EE dance before.

Re: Poking Sleeping Dogs (Early Exclusion Strategies, Mostly Equifax)

Patient957 — Wed, 04 Feb 2026 13:08:14 GMT

The usual rules on EE don't apply to late paymens in the same way they do to charge offs. I've never seen anyone successful at getting 6 months EE from TU on lates, but plenty have gotten it on COs. So the rules are just different. That said, here's some of my personal experience with EE of late payments on a student loan:

EQ gives 4 months of automatic EE on late payments:

https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/String-of-Lates-Equifax-Automatic-Early-Exclusion/td-p/6796072

also Capricornwon:

https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/String-of-Lates-Equifax-Automatic-Early-Exclusion/td-p/6796072

Also in my experience, TU gives 2 months automatic EE on lates. See my experience in this thread and also the OP's failure to get 6 months EE on request:

https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/General-Credit-Topics/Transunion-Early-Exclusion-Fail-on-student-loan-late-payments/td-p/6813184

I don't have any data on EX, because I was able to get goodwill on those late payments. For some reason Nelnet/Sloan was more generous with GW on my EX report than the other two. It worked out great, because I was able to use my clean EX report while I waited for the other two to clear up. But I digress.

Hope this info helps.

Re: Poking Sleeping Dogs (Early Exclusion Strategies, Mostly Equifax)

JoeRockhead — Wed, 04 Feb 2026 14:14:09 GMT

The rules really aren't any different, and this debate has gone on here before. How each CRA treats strings of late payments can vary by bureau. In the past, EX was most generous by granting EE on strings of late payments that didn't lead to a CO, whereas the other two would only delete a string if it led to a CO. Otherwise they'd delete them as they individually became eligible for EE.

A reported late payment is adverse information as defined by the FCRA and therefore eligible as any other adverse information is for EE. I personally have had late payments removed via EE from all three CRAs in accordance with their EE policies on adverse information.

Re: Poking Sleeping Dogs (Early Exclusion Strategies, Mostly Equifax)

Patient957 — Wed, 04 Feb 2026 16:49:31 GMT

@JoeRockhead wrote:
The rules really aren't any different, and this debate has gone on here before.

It's not a debate. The DPs are what they are.

Time and time again, we've seen members asking for 6 months EE from TU on late payments and getting denied. Time and time again, we've seen members asking for 6 months EE from TU on charge offs and getting approved.

The automatic EE I personally experienced and posted about in the links above are just data points. They are what they are and not debatable. Other members have also experienced similar. Does that mean it's guaranteed? Definitely not.

In the past, EX was most generous by granting EE on strings of late payments that didn't lead to a CO,

Fair enough. As mentioned, I do not have any DPs on EX.

whereas the other two would only delete a string if it led to a CO. Otherwise they'd delete them as they individually became eligible for EE.

Dpends on what you mean by eligible for EE. The data show that nobody is getting 6 months EE on a single late (whether part of a string or not). People who ask get denied. My DPs show that TU will however automatically give 2 months EE on each individual late, and they fall off 1 by 1. So you get 2 not 6 and you don't have to ask, at least according to DPs I know of. EQ is more generous. You get 4 without asking. Not just my DPs, others have confirmed.

Re: Poking Sleeping Dogs (Early Exclusion Strategies, Mostly Equifax)

AndrewF — Wed, 04 Feb 2026 18:26:37 GMT

@Patient957 wrote:
@JoeRockhead wrote:
The rules really aren't any different, and this debate has gone on here before.
It's not a debate. The DPs are what they are.

Time and time again, we've seen members asking for 6 months EE from TU on late payments and getting denied. Time and time again, we've seen members asking for 6 months EE from TU on charge offs and getting approved.

The automatic EE I personally experienced and posted about in the links above are just data points. They are what they are and not debatable. Other members have also experienced similar. Does that mean it's guaranteed? Definitely not.

In the past, EX was most generous by granting EE on strings of late payments that didn't lead to a CO,
Fair enough. As mentioned, I do not have any DPs on EX.

whereas the other two would only delete a string if it led to a CO. Otherwise they'd delete them as they individually became eligible for EE.
Dpends on what you mean by eligible for EE. The data show that nobody is getting 6 months EE on a single late (whether part of a string or not). People who ask get denied. My DPs show that TU will however automatically give 2 months EE on each individual late, and they fall off 1 by 1. So you get 2 not 6 and you don't have to ask, at least according to DPs I know of. EQ is more generous. You get 4 without asking. Not just my DPs, others have confirmed.

Equifax deleted all the late payments from my bankruptcy accounts just for asking. The guy said it would not make a difference to my FICO score and then that bureau jumped from 669 to 705 and went from being the worst to the best.

It's always good to ask for things even if they say no. The worst they can do is say no.

When creditors pull a tri-merge and use your average FICO score instead of a particular bureau, like Capital One does, that can really help.

Yesterday I spoke with a woman in Florida from Capital One, her name was Brenda, and I asked her all sorts of things like everything you ever wanted to know about Capital One but we're afraid to ask.

She told me that the tri-merge is so they can average your FICO score before the system applies their proprietary risk model, but it all starts with your average. So any wins on even a single bureau helps your odds with them.

Take your three bureau FICO scores and add them, then divide by three and that will give you an idea of what Capital One will see you as. If your low anchor bureau is much worse than the other two, it'll really hold you back, but in my case it brought my average up by 6 points.

Even more important, it gives you a new low anchor because your middle score will be the new low score, so if your low anchor goes from 669 to 705, and your new low anchor becomes say, TransUnion at 675, and your old middle score was Experian at 686, then your middle score becomes 686 not 675.

This helps you with a mortgage, if I recall correctly.

I plan to Early Exclude if TransUnion will let me. One of my bankruptcy accounts is theoretically eligible next month and the others in April.

If they say yes, then my report could be totally clean except for the bankruptcy itself. I believe a 750 on TU by May is not entirely out of the question here based on how I've seen FICO respond to negative info or entire accounts being deleted so far.

Re: Poking Sleeping Dogs (Early Exclusion Strategies, Mostly Equifax)

Patient957 — Thu, 05 Feb 2026 03:29:26 GMT

@AndrewF wrote:
Equifax deleted all the late payments from my bankruptcy accounts just for asking. The guy said it would not make a difference to my FICO score and then that bureau jumped from 669 to 705 and went from being the worst to the best.

I must admit, that's pretty funny. Made me chuckle.

Re: Poking Sleeping Dogs (Early Exclusion Strategies, Mostly Equifax)

AndrewF — Thu, 05 Feb 2026 21:21:24 GMT

@Patient957 wrote:
@AndrewF wrote:
Equifax deleted all the late payments from my bankruptcy accounts just for asking. The guy said it would not make a difference to my FICO score and then that bureau jumped from 669 to 705 and went from being the worst to the best.
I must admit, that's pretty funny. Made me chuckle.

I was in a pretty good mood and laughing when MyFICO told me that.

I had only asked them to correct a specific error on one account. He deleted the lates and the charge offs.

Re: Poking Sleeping Dogs (Early Exclusion Strategies, Mostly Equifax)

DXness — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 20:55:05 GMT

Update: EQ deleted the whole tradeline!

I did the dispute online, as incomplete info rather than too old, citing the missing DoFD. I felt this approach was stronger than asking for EE and it only took them 6 days.

Still trying to figure out the right way to ask TU. Someone reported there is a way, but it doesn't run through "too old" / the normal EE language. They didn't say what to ask...ulgh. I'm not confident about this getting any results, but I see no harm in trying.

Re: Poking Sleeping Dogs (Early Exclusion Strategies, Mostly Equifax)

JoeRockhead — Mon, 16 Feb 2026 14:51:12 GMT

@Patient957 wrote:
eligible for EE.
Dpends on what you mean by eligible for EE. The data show that nobody is getting 6 months EE on a single late (whether part of a string or not). People who ask get denied. My DPs show that TU will however automatically give 2 months EE on each individual late, and they fall off 1 by 1. So you get 2 not 6 and you don't have to ask, at least according to DPs I know of. EQ is more generous. You get 4 without asking. Not just my DPs, others have confirmed.

It doesn't depend at all on what I mean by eligible.

As per the FCRA 605(a)(5):

§ 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681c]
(a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this
section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following
items of information:
(1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of
entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by
more than 10 years.
(2) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by
more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the
longer period.
(3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven years.
(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more
than seven years.(1)
(5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which
antedates the report by more than seven years

As I said, a reported late payment is adverse information as defined by the FCRA 605(a)(5) and therefore eligible as any other adverse information is for EE. There is absolutely nothing in the definition of what the FCRA considers adverse information that differentiates a late payment from a charge off, or collection. According to the FCRA, they are the same. So if the FCRA considers them the same, how could a bureau consider them different?

Weird that EQ, which is notorious ~~(for screwing things up)~~ for not granting EE any earlier than 30 days is giving 4 months (am I understanding that right)? Also weird that TU will do it automatically 2 months out but not do it at 6 months if requested. Why would either of them do such a thing?

To say that nobody has been granted EE on a late payment is a bit absolute, and also demonstrably false. I have my own data points that say they will all grant EE on a late payment in accordance with their "normal" policies on EE. Others have had the same success as well.

If anyone is getting denied when they request an EE on a late payment from any bureau, they're simply talking to the wrong person.

Call them, ask to speak with a supervisor and politely point out that as per the FCRA a late payment is the same as a collection or charge off. That's how I and others have had success with it as per their own policies. If they're out there granting them automatically, especially EQ... Awesome.

Re: Poking Sleeping Dogs (Early Exclusion Strategies, Mostly Equifax)

Patient957 — Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:12:53 GMT

@JoeRockhead wrote:
It doesn't depend at all on what I mean by eligible.

As per the FCRA 605(a)(5):
§ 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports...

I'm not disagreeing with you about the language in the FCRA. The FCRA is only tangentially related to what I'm trying to say in my posts above in this thread.

I have my own data points that say they will all grant EE on a late payment in accordance with their "normal" policies on EE. Others have had the same success as well.

Yes, this is what I'm addressing in my post above -- namely the CRA's "normal policies on EE." Do you know what each CRA's normal policy on EE is? If so, please state. Because that's what I'm interested in. I've posted actual data points that address the answer to this question.

If you have contradictory DPs, or DPs that show 6 months EE on late payments from any bureau, I would be interested to see those. If you have personal DPs on this, perhaps you could restate them here.

@JoeRockhead wrote:
To say that nobody has been granted EE on a late payment is a bit absolute, and also demonstrably false.

That's not what I said. What I said is: "The data show that nobody is getting 6 months EE on a single late (whether part of a string or not)." Emphasis on the 6 months part, which you left out. And, while I agree with you that my use of the word "nobody" is probably too absolute, I will revise it to "nobody I've ever seen."

Again, if you have a contradictory data point, whether your own or someone else's, please post it.

Weird that EQ, which is notorious ~~(for screwing things up)~~ for not granting EE any earlier than 30 days is giving 4 months (am I understanding that right)? Also weird that TU will do it automatically 2 months out but not do it at 6 months if requested. Why would either of them do such a thing?

They're my data points I posted (https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/String-of-Lates-Equifax-Automatic-Early-Exclusion/td-p/6796072). They are what they are. I rigorously collected these data points and posted about them contemporanously as they happened. I posted nice pictures of my credit report each month as each late fell off 4 months early. I know you're not saying I'm making this up, but what are you saying?

@Capricornwon got a similar result from Equifax

https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/General-Credit-Topics/TransUnion-Data-Points-for-Early-Exclusion-EE/m-p/6803901/highlight/true#M334728

As to "Why would either of them do such a thing?" I have no clue. They just do. And THAT is the point I'm trying to make.

Re: Poking Sleeping Dogs (Early Exclusion Strategies, Mostly Equifax)

AndrewF — Tue, 17 Feb 2026 18:56:38 GMT

I'm not sure that I completely understand all of this, but I did log in to Experian and ask them to early exclude the late payments from my Chase credit cards that went into the bankruptcy as the late payments themselves started more than 7 years ago. I don't know if they'll do anything, but it's unlikely that anything bad could happen just for asking.

I'll ask about the accounts themselves in a few months regardless.