@Anonymous wrote:
@MarineVietVet wrote:On what basis would you dispute it? It's not reporting incorrectly..
I don't really have a good answer to that.
I just figured that people get late payments removed and derogatory accounts removed, and those are often accurate and correct. They just manage to dispute it or get a GW letter written to get it removed. And those are negative accounts - you'd think removing a positive account from your history would be less frowned upon than removing a negative account.
Good reply! Double edged sword!
@Anonymous wrote:
@MarineVietVet wrote:Just a very gentle reminder that disputing accurate information is considered unethical credit repair.
I don't disagree in the least!
But isn't that what every single goodwill letter is? By having a goodwill letter approved, you're having accurate information removed from your reports in order to repair your credit.
If someone defaulted on an account or had a forclosure or repossession, that's accurate information. If someone had late payments, that's also accurate information. Getting those removed from your report seems even more morally questionable, since you're getting rid of accurate negative information for the sole purpose of misleading future lenders and improving your current credit standing. Yet I'm always seeing threads here about people writing GW letters to get baddies removed.
+1
The difference is that when you send a GW or PFD letter, you are involving the business in the attempt. If they decide to cease reporting the negative(s), that was their decision. Remember, they were the ones who were technically "injured" by your action. (I realize that the word "injured" is overkill in this case, but it's all I can come up with.)
If you're disputing or whatever, you're essentially trying to manipulate the system to your advantage without allowing the lender to make the decision.
It would really help if everyone would realize that the forums are sponsored, run, and maintained by a corporation that is NOT allowed to engage in so-called credit repair. The job of the forums is to help consumers understand how consumer credit works, and what their rights and responsibilities are, and how they (we) can improve our use of credit and our credit profiles. That is why we have to keep removing these references, in order to keep FICO from being sued for illegally promoting or advocating credit repair activities. It's not because we're terrible meanies, or slaves of the Big Corporations.
There are other credit forums out there that are run by individuals, where pretty much anything goes. On these forums, we have to stick to the TOS (terms of service.) 
edited to try to clarify while on inadequate amounts of caffeine 
@haulingthescoreup wrote:The difference is that when you send a GW or PFD letter, you are involving the business in the attempt. If they decide to cease reporting the negative(s), that was their decision. Remember, they were the ones who were technically "injured" by your action. (I realize that the word "injured" is overkill in this case, but it's all I can come up with.)
If you're disputing or whatever, you're essentially trying to manipulate the system to your advantage without allowing the lender to make the decision.
It would really help if everyone would realize that the forums are sponsored, run, and maintained by a corporation that is NOT allowed to engage in so-called credit repair. The job of the forums is to help consumers understand how consumer credit works, and what their rights and responsibilities are, and how they (we) can improve our use of credit and our credit profiles. That is why we have to keep removing these references, in order to keep FICO from being sued for illegally promoting or advocating credit repair activities. It's not because we're terrible meanies, or slaves of the Big Corporations.
There are other credit forums out there that are run by individuals, where pretty much anything goes. On these forums, we have to stick to the TOS (terms of service.)
edited to try to clarify while on inadequate amounts of caffeine
I'm not sure this is totally true. The bureau has a responsibility to comminicate with the creditor about the dispute and I'm sure thier input on it influences how the dispute is handled.
@LS2982 wrote:
@haulingthescoreup wrote:The difference is that when you send a GW or PFD letter, you are involving the business in the attempt. If they decide to cease reporting the negative(s), that was their decision. Remember, they were the ones who were technically "injured" by your action. (I realize that the word "injured" is overkill in this case, but it's all I can come up with.)
If you're disputing or whatever, you're essentially trying to manipulate the system to your advantage without allowing the lender to make the decision.
It would really help if everyone would realize that the forums are sponsored, run, and maintained by a corporation that is NOT allowed to engage in so-called credit repair. The job of the forums is to help consumers understand how consumer credit works, and what their rights and responsibilities are, and how they (we) can improve our use of credit and our credit profiles. That is why we have to keep removing these references, in order to keep FICO from being sued for illegally promoting or advocating credit repair activities. It's not because we're terrible meanies, or slaves of the Big Corporations.
There are other credit forums out there that are run by individuals, where pretty much anything goes. On these forums, we have to stick to the TOS (terms of service.)
edited to try to clarify while on inadequate amounts of caffeine
I'm not sure this is totally true. The bureau has a responsibility to comminicate with the creditor about the dispute and I'm sure thier input on it influences how the dispute is handled.
I should have said that if you're disputing on shaky or downright deceptive grounds (i.e., "I was never late," when you know perfectly well that you were, hoping that they might not be able to find the late in their records due to the company having changed hands or something), that's an attempt to manipulate the system.
If the credit bureaus are reporting something incorrectly, you absolutely have every right in the world to dispute to have the incorrect entry corrected or removed.
Again, we're all grown-ups here, and we all know that there are ways to finagle the system. Just understand that we can't and don't discuss these ways here, for the reasons listed above.
Think of it perhaps as a version of there are things that are fine to do in your own place, but not fine to do at Grandma's. We're Grandma. As she might say, "Our house, our rules." 
@Anonymous wrote:
@CreditAble wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
They won't remove it for 7 years, it would probably hurt your fico if you removed it because of the aaoa
Say you apply for a card and get approved,but the terms (or CL) are awful, and
you decide you really don't want it.
If I didn't like the credit limit that was offered, I would not activate or use the card. I would call the card company for recon and if an immediate CLI was not provided, I would refuse to accept the card and ask for the deletion of the tradeline from all reports.
If the card company refused to delete the tradeline, I would dispute the tradeline directly with the bureaus as "inaccurate information".
If you activated or ever used the card there isn't much that you can do.
Disputing the tradeline with the bureaus is basically a "Hail Mary Pass". Nothing much to lose
It normally wouldn't show up on reports in the first place I'd think if you never activated it.
iv had cards show up on reports b4 i had them in hand