topic Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response... in Rebuilding Your Credit

Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 00:44:09 GMT

So I sent a GW request to the CEO of an autofinancer I had a repo on and this is the response I got back:

If we “broke the rules” and tried to help people improve their credit score the following could happen:

1) We could be canceled from using the credit agencies

2) A price would be established from finance companies to help improve people’s credit.

a. Pay a fee a get a derog removed or pay get credit not deserved

3) People would lose faith in credit reports

4) the United States would turn into a third world country

5) People would have to pay high interest rates or not get credit even when deserved

Not really sure what to do with this lol.

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

thornback — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 00:48:45 GMT

I busted out laughing when I read #4.

I don't know what to do with that either... that CEO is a pro.

Sorry, I got nothin'... I mean... he's technically right on every one of those points (except maybe #4) when looking from a business perspective..

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 01:08:02 GMT

His response was brilliant.

I would send him a letter back, by post, to thank him for his reply... and send hima small packet of rice and beans, "as I too share your concern for our fair country". 😂

He may appreciate the returned humor. Couldn't hurt. 😊

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 01:08:37 GMT

Yeah so time to go with plan B and dispute for deletion and hope they don't respond since the reporting is inaccurate anyway. It's reporting into 2018 but was paid off in August 2017.

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

Remedios — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 01:53:29 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Yeah so time to go with plan B and dispute for deletion and hope they don't respond since the reporting is inaccurate anyway. It's reporting into 2018 but was paid off in August 2017.

You think they wont respond?

I am going to direct you to your original post

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 01:54:21 GMT

If it was paid off in 2017, it may we’ll be able to report in 2018. When did the car loan go delinquent? It can report for 7 years plus 180 days from that date. It does not drop off once it’s paid if it’s been less than that amount of time since it was first late and never recovered. If you dispute it and it comes back verified, the updated reporting can actually hurt you further.

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 02:00:19 GMT

@Remedios wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
Yeah so time to go with plan B and dispute for deletion and hope they don't respond since the reporting is inaccurate anyway. It's reporting into 2018 but was paid off in August 2017.
You think they wont respond?

I am going to direct you to your original post

Hahaha well I am hoping it will go to some obscure department there

As for the timeline, I redeemed the repossession and made all the remaining payments on time. The account closed in good standing when I traded the car in. What I meant to say is that it is showing payments being made up to January on one CRA, and December on the others when the last check was cut to pay it off in August. I have proof of payment from the dealship I traded the car in to. One of them even shows a late for November.

The negatives on it are literally only the 30-60 day late that led to repo and the repo comment. The comment got me denied a CC with Wells Fargo and I have banked with them for 12 years.

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

SoCalifornia — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 02:52:52 GMT

Lol @XtraCredit

Might even get the goodwill removal after that, if the guy has a good enough sense of humor.

@Kantide

Plan B's typically work out best, from my experience.

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

thornback — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:37:08 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:

Hahaha well I am hoping it will go to some obscure department there

As for the timeline, I redeemed the repossession and made all the remaining payments on time. The account closed in good standing when I traded the car in. What I meant to say is that it is showing payments being made up to January on one CRA, and December on the others when the last check was cut to pay it off in August. I have proof of payment from the dealship I traded the car in to. One of them even shows a late for November.

The negatives on it are literally only the 30-60 day late that led to repo and the repo comment. The comment got me denied a CC with Wells Fargo and I have banked with them for 12 years.

You can try disputing with the bureaus, but you know, if this is the case, I think you should file a Direct Dispute, (Notice of Direct Dispute under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(D) and 16 CFR 660.4). This type of dispute would be filed directly with the OC - not through the credit bureaus - by mail, and would detail any and all discrepencies in their reporting across the bureaus (such as one month reported as late on one bureau but not another, different first month of delinquency notated, etc.) along with a demand that they remove the tradeline. (I've had success with this).

FYI: You need to file a Direct Dispute before you dispute with the bureaus because if dispute with the bureaus first and they conclude without removing or correcting the tradeline, then the creditor can dismiss any subsequent Direct Dispute regarding the same information without any requirement to investigate. Furnishers are only required to conduct one investigation of asserted inaccuracy. You can still go ahead and file a Direct Dispute, but at that point they can dismiss it if they choose, deeming it frivolous.

It's best that you obtain hard (paper) copies of all three credit reports so you provide copies of how the tradeline is reporting to each bureau. Don't use printed copies from your online reports because the fluff front-end software sometimes obscures the data being reported - besides, hard-copy reports show the tradeline exactly the way it's being reported and includes more information that what is shown via online CMS portals. Call the bureaus and request they send you paper copies of your reports.

You can start your dispute with something like:

This is a Notice of Direct Dispute under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(D) and 16 CFR 660.4, of the accuracy of information [Finance Co. Name] has reported to my credit file. This correspondence further serves as notice that [Finance Co. Name] is in direct violation of FCRA regulations.

And include:

1. Identification of the specific information being disputed: specify the account number, and the specific information that is disputed under that account.

2. Basis for the dispute: how the reporting was inaccurate including any statutory, regulatory provision violations, violation of CRA reporting guidelines, etc.

3. Supporting documentation: ie. old payment / bill statements, copies of the portion only of your recent credit report showing the innaccurate reporting of the tradeline on your credit file.

They have to respond and investigate a valid Direct Dispute. This will also allow you to provide as much detailed info and supporting documentation as you want = just take your time and make sure your dispute is as clear and concise as possible. Note: They do not have to remove the tradeline, they can simply opt to correct the errors - but you can demand they remove it altogether. If they correct the errors instead of removing them, check the udpated data for any new errors and file a new Direct Dispute, if warranted.

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

RobertEG — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 07:05:09 GMT

Those are the reasons why the CRAs have formally established a written policy that is incorporated into their standard credit reporting manual and into each of their credit reporting agreements that accurate reporting should not be deleted based on payment of the debt.

Yes, a furnisher could have their credit reporting agreement terminated by a CRA if they willfully delete contrary to that reporting agreement, and yes, condoning incomplete credit histories by the subjective deletion of accurate information would not be in the best interest of complete creditor risk assessment.

As an aside, I am currently residing in a third world country that has no credit reporting agencies, and interest rates clearly reflect the added risk based on lack of ability of creditors to obtain complete and accurate credit history of consumers.

While stating that the US would generally turn into a third world country is an exaggeration, the point nonetheless has merit with respect to their credit approval system.....

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 07:31:50 GMT

Welp at least you got a response. I wish I got a response too, just to have a piece of mind.

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

sarge12 — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 07:53:40 GMT

@RobertEG wrote:
Those are the reasons why the CRAs have formally established a written policy that is incorporated into their standard credit reporting manual and into each of their credit reporting agreements that accurate reporting should not be deleted based on payment of the debt.
Yes, a furnisher could have their credit reporting agreement terminated by a CRA if they willfully delete contrary to that reporting agreement, and yes, condoning incomplete credit histories by the subjective deletion of accurate information would not be in the best interest of complete creditor risk assessment.

As an aside, I am currently residing in a third world country that has no credit reporting agencies, and interest rates clearly reflect the added risk based on lack of ability of creditors to obtain complete and accurate credit history of consumers.
While stating that the US would generally turn into a third world country is an exaggeration, the point nonetheless has merit with respect to their credit approval system.....

I agree RobertEG...fair, accurate, and complete reporting is essential to make a credit report useful in predicting those who might default or become seriously delenquint in the future. Credit reports are not created to punish or reward individuals. they are created as a fact-based reflection of haw an individual has handled credit, both past and current, in order to assess the risk to the financial institutions future loans to such individuals. It is often frustrating to debtors, but it is a ncessary tool nontheless. Before there were CRA's, debts happened face to face with many unfairly declined based solely on their looks. A man in a suit who may have a horrible credit record might fair better than a man in coveralls who has always paid in full, and on time.

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 15:22:34 GMT

Yeah I just disputed with the CRAs. If they remove it, great. If not, oh well it'll fall off in 5 years. For someone doing a rebuild, and having made great progress in the last 2 years (no new issues) to have one mark be stuck on my report is sort of a pain. I am in a much better place now and all the difficult items are in the past. The older collections I had have all agreed to delete so I will have 0 on my report by the end of the month. Obviously this isn't too big of an issue, more of an annoyance. It's funny they're so concerned about accuracy when considering I financed a brand new Infiniti just fine after this happened so they're "accurate reporting" doesn't carry a lot of weight where it is supposed to. The only company that seems to take it into account is Wells Fargo where my 12 year baning relationship seems to carry less weight than what amounts to a 61 day late (which is also the only late on my report in the last 5 years now) -__-.

Guess in 2024 my report will be spotless :/

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

SoCalifornia — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 15:39:32 GMT

@Kantide

I'm right there with you. We must be rowing in the same boat. I too have spent the last two years climbing up. I've banked with Chase for seven years and while they have been reasonably good to me, they just won't budge over one 30 day late- the only time I had ever been late and it was during a difficult time. But, it's the small blemishes that seem to be the hardest to rub out. My report will be spotless by 2024 as well. But for us, at least it won't matter as much in the next couple of years. I say keep trying. The only Fail is the one not attempted 👍🏽

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

simplegirl — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:31:34 GMT

Did something happen in 2017 because all my negatives drop in 2024 too lol. Well for me Hurricane Harvey did but its still crazy.

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 23:18:10 GMT

That's funny. I have 2 negative accounts from 2016 and 4 from 2017. So I will have a bunch fall off in 2023-2024 as well.

Well that's unless my goodwill emails work, and also i'm taking into consideration moving back to NY, so the 5 year law would take into effect if I did that. That would make them drop on 2021-2022.

Re: Slightly rude and sensationalist goodwill response...

DebtJoe — Fri, 19 Apr 2019 00:04:00 GMT

I understand the feelings that some may have about upholding "fair, accurate reporting."

Unfortunately I can't side with the banks on this.

If accurate reporting was a real thing, we prolly wouldn't have had to bail the banks out a few years ago. Didn't banks essentially receive a "goodwill adjustment" from the government to keep them afloat? What happened to the millions of Americans who lost a large portion of meaningful retirement income because of that whole debacle?