Argh TU makes me want to punch a puppy (no...not really). Seasoned vets enter please

[Anonymous]

BEFORE THE OVERLYSENSITIVE PEOPLE JUMP ON ME FOR THE THREAD TITLE, I DO NOT CONDONE ANIMAL VIOLENCE. I ACTUALLY HAVE TWO DOGS AND MY WIFE AND I GIVE TO THE ASPCA MONTHLY. I THINK WE ALL CAN RELATE TO HAVING SEVERE FRUSTRATION WITH CRA'S, EVEN MORE SO WHEN YOU SPOON FEED THEM AND THEY STILL DON'T GET IT!!

Ah the joys of trying to repair your credit and the games they continually play with you. Just a recap, I filed medical bankruptcy in 2004 after my  medical insurance company initially approved my 5 day hospital stay claim and then went back and denied it.Now mods, this is no longer about BK anymore but rather trying to improve my reports and that is why it is placed here. 

I have since 3/2004, never had a late payment on anything and always paid every single bill I have. After seeing the decomposition of our current financial market, I decided to check out my credit reports and get them into in shape. As a result, I noticed that TU had accounts that were reporting the "DATE UPDATED or Verified" dates PAST the BK date of stay. Thus began my adventure as well as trying to get late payments after the date of stay expunged from my record. 

I recently filed some online disputes questioning some crapital one accounts that were showing "date updated of 2007 with an "unrated" status and IIBK in the "remarks". I found that odd, so I disputed the accounts, stating they were reported past the bk date of stay. 

Now I am a firm believer (because of another incident that I am currently trying to fix) that the TU "date updated or verified" is a very KEY piece of information as it relates to the FICO scoring. The reason I say this is because (I may be wrong here) it appears that if an old  negative account re-reports with a recent "date updated or verified", it demolishes your score and gets weighted extremely heavily (especially if most current delinquecy on report), regardless if nothing else has changed.

Now regarding those disputes, the two tradlines from 3/2004 now show the correct (3/2004) "date updated or verified status. However I guess just to stick it to me and remember I didn't dispute this portion, they went and wrote "past 120 days late" on the "paid status" area. That used to be an "unrated" for both accounts. I am quite certain that I was 30-60 days late prior to the the bk stay. The problem is that on the TU credit report, none of them show my payment history. That being said, should I dispute this information even though I already sent in a dispute on these account?. Since the "date updated or verfied" is now nearly 2 years older because of the update, is this really going to weight heavily on my score? That would put these baddies at 5 years old. I don't want a frivilous dispute charge from TU. Also they do not report a "paid" date on the accounts and never did. Should I request they make the "paid" date the date of bk discharge?

Additionally, I have pretty much every IIBK account going out in a mailed dispute with my reasoning and bk schedules and reports in such a 3rd grade fashion, I don't think they could rule against it. 

Arggh. They should just leave stuff alone, especially the stuff you are NOT contesting. 

Any help or insight would be much appreciated!

Message Edited by maxedout on 03-12-2009 10:02 AM

Message Edited by maxedout on 03-12-2009 10:16 AM

Message Edited by maxedout on 03-12-2009 11:25 AM

[Anonymous]

Well you asked for a vet, you are going to get one, even if not the kind you were looking for I understand your frustration and I don't think anyone is going to misunderstand the title of your post as being actual. I have been through a BK myself so I know how frustrating it is when CRAs totally don't act within the bounds of the statutes and keep screwing with you and how helpless a feeling that can be. Now that being said, when you dispute an item, regardless of what portion you are disputing, they will request and update for the item which means other information and new information will be or can be introduced. This sucks, especially when the new information is worse or more wrong than the ones you already had, but it happens. As long as you dispute based on a valid issue and is consistent with the facts of the law, they can't (although sometimes they do) label you frivilous and ignore you, they are required to act on it. Of course, Experian just simply says verified and piss off and there seems to be nothing to get them to act on anything, which should be illegal but that's a whole different story. You can either keep sticking with it and try to get it corrected and maybe even file a complaint against them with the FTC or your AG but likely nothing is going to come out of it; or you can just let it sit and fall off in time and take the hit in the short time. I have resigned myself to a couple of those already. Anyway, hope that helps a little and calms you down a bit. Don't let them get to you or they win.

[Anonymous]

Realistically, I just want to know if having "120 days past due" (remarks section) on an account that is now 5 years old that was included in BK (drop date 9/10) is going to damage my credit score. I have no alerts stating that it is.

Regardless, they are still in the wrong here and I may just send off a letter to the creditor asking for an explanation of how they came to the conclusion from "unrated" to "120 days past due".

Message Edited by maxedout on 03-12-2009 02:32 PM

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Realistically, I just want to know if having "120 days past due" (remarks section) on an account that is now 5 years old that was included in BK (drop date 9/10) is going to damage my credit score. I have no alerts stating that it is.

Regardless, they are still in the wrong here and I may just send off a letter to the creditor asking for an explanation of how they came to the conclusion from "unrated" to "120 days past due".

Message Edited by maxedout on 03-12-2009 02:32 PM

---

Probably to a lesser degree than it would if it was fresh and practically speaking probably not. But you are right to be upset since it is wrong and it should be fixed. Send your letter and continue your dispute and see what comes of it, the worst that happens is they say no and you are no worse off than you are now. Just find your center and don't let them get to you, they will use this kind of crap to test your will and break you down, don't let them win, stick with it and use the law as best as you can to help you. Unfortunately the vagueness of the statutes stacks the deck against us and gives them easy way to mess with us but hey if enough of us speak back, then it might eventually in time change. Who knows.

[haulingthescoreup]

OP, if this is on TU, it might be that the fields for the correct dates were left blank, and they were automatically filled in with current dates instead. (I can't tell for sure if that's what you're dealing with.)

If so, you need to find the correct dates from a copy of your TU report from annualcreditreport.com and fax them to TU, asking them to re-insert the dates.

Again, I hope this matches what you're currently dealing with. TU seems to have a lot of freakish little issues like this. It's always an issue when they change their reports slightly and don't coordinate with FICO, so the data no longer maps correctly.

hth

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the reply. I am not exactly sure why TU felt the need to redate my bk accounts to a later date than the date of stay. I  just am undecided whether or not I should pursue an investigation request for the "past 120 days" in the "pay status" section or not. Again it was "unrated" prior to this. The accounts are now dated from 3/04 which shouldn't have much weight being that they are 5 years old.