<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Portfolio, ugh in Rebuilding Your Credit</title>
    <link>https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/Portfolio-ugh/m-p/4077176#M425069</link>
    <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;@Anonymous wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;So the bf sent in disputes to all of the bureaus for the inaccurate reporting Portfolio has on his reports- open account in "other" section rather than "collection", misrepresented DOFD, misrepresented "late pymt" with Portfolio rather than Cap1, etc.&amp;nbsp; EQ shows that he's disputing the original Cap1 tradeline rather than the Portfolio line.&amp;nbsp; Should he send in a new dispute form and a copy of the original and request that Portfolio be disputed and the dispute remarks on the Cap1 line be removed?&amp;nbsp; This is so frustrating.&amp;nbsp; They're both due to fall off in January, but he was trying to get as much cleaned up on his own.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;Nothing should be done till the first dispute is settled then I would mail in a dispute on whatever TL that has errors in reporting. If you open another one without the first closing it gives them an additional 15 days to verify over and above the standard 30. He can also ask for the early exclusion 6 months in advance of scheduled drop off with TU and 2-3 months in advance with the other 2 CRAs.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:37:39 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>gdale6</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-06-16T19:37:39Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Portfolio, ugh</title>
      <link>https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/Portfolio-ugh/m-p/4076813#M425017</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;So the bf sent in disputes to all of the bureaus for the inaccurate reporting Portfolio has on his reports- open account in "other" section rather than "collection", misrepresented DOFD, misrepresented "late pymt" with Portfolio rather than Cap1, etc.&amp;nbsp; EQ shows that he's disputing the original Cap1 tradeline rather than the Portfolio line.&amp;nbsp; Should he send in a new dispute form and a copy of the original and request that Portfolio be disputed and the dispute remarks on the Cap1 line be removed?&amp;nbsp; This is so frustrating.&amp;nbsp; They're both due to fall off in January, but he was trying to get as much cleaned up on his own.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:03:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/Portfolio-ugh/m-p/4076813#M425017</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-06-16T16:03:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Portfolio, ugh</title>
      <link>https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/Portfolio-ugh/m-p/4077176#M425069</link>
      <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;@Anonymous wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;So the bf sent in disputes to all of the bureaus for the inaccurate reporting Portfolio has on his reports- open account in "other" section rather than "collection", misrepresented DOFD, misrepresented "late pymt" with Portfolio rather than Cap1, etc.&amp;nbsp; EQ shows that he's disputing the original Cap1 tradeline rather than the Portfolio line.&amp;nbsp; Should he send in a new dispute form and a copy of the original and request that Portfolio be disputed and the dispute remarks on the Cap1 line be removed?&amp;nbsp; This is so frustrating.&amp;nbsp; They're both due to fall off in January, but he was trying to get as much cleaned up on his own.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;Nothing should be done till the first dispute is settled then I would mail in a dispute on whatever TL that has errors in reporting. If you open another one without the first closing it gives them an additional 15 days to verify over and above the standard 30. He can also ask for the early exclusion 6 months in advance of scheduled drop off with TU and 2-3 months in advance with the other 2 CRAs.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:37:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/Portfolio-ugh/m-p/4077176#M425069</guid>
      <dc:creator>gdale6</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-06-16T19:37:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Portfolio, ugh</title>
      <link>https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/Portfolio-ugh/m-p/4078517#M425200</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;So, sending in a new dispute that asks them to dispoute the correct account would give them extra time?&amp;nbsp; At this point he has to wait the full 30 days already, why not start a correct dispute in the interim, EQ isn't even looking at the correct account at all at this point.&amp;nbsp; Why would a new dispute affect the timing of an older dispute on a different account?&amp;nbsp; I'm confised- maybe I'm misinterpretting what you're saying.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:33:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/Portfolio-ugh/m-p/4078517#M425200</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-06-17T13:33:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

