Can a GW letter trigger "Account in Dispute" notation from the creditor??

[Anonymous]

I ask because I have read a recent thread where a forum member simply asked a creditor to report full and complete historical data.  Some positive history was missing.  The request resulted in a dispute status that they would not remove.  Yikes.

I have two of these letters drafted and ready to go, but as my luck goes, I fear a quick look by a busy credit department employee will yield a "account in dispute" status.  I know a literal look at a properly written GW letter will not be confused with a dispute letter, but who knows.  It may be just enough for a trigger happy CSR to send the whole shebang into dispute mode.

Anyone have any horror stories, or am I just paranoid?

Message Edited by TowerHill on 01-20-2009 05:22 PM

[CreditAble]

Goodwill letters are simply letters to ask for a favor from the creditor.

There is no disputing the validity of the lates involved when asking for lates to be removed by the creditor. The favor is granted by the creditor as an act of kindness, to promote "goodwill".

 I would highly recommend Goggling "Goodwill letters". I assume that you already have. I would read everything possible about the letters so that you can craft the best letters for your circumstances.

I mention in the other thread that I would wait till March to send the letters out. That would give you plenty of time to write the perfect letters so that the hardest creditor's hart would melt and grant your request.

[llecs]

A GW can result in the creditor marking the TL as disputed. I have been sending multiple GWs to an old, redeemed repo. Like clockwork, they will mark the TL as disputed. It's actually fun to watch.

When a TL is disputed, only the financial components are removed from the equation. So, if it is a current CC, for example, if read as disputed, the balance and the CL are removed from FICO. Certainly if open, a FICO score could drop if weighted heavily in utilization. Other components like lates, status, etc. will continue to impact the score negatively during a dispute. In my case, there's no negative impact at all to my score when marked as disputed.

[CreditAble]

---

@llecs wrote:

A GW can result in the creditor marking the TL as disputed.

 In my case,

there's no negative impact at all to my score when marked as disputed.

---

Does the dispute notation fall of the report? If so how long does it take?  Have you ever experienced the situation of a dispute notation being stuck on the report for an extended period of time?

Do you think that there is any chance of the OP's worst case scenario materializing? 

[llecs]

---

CreditAble wrote:

Does the dispute notation fall of the report? If so how long does it take?  Have you ever experienced the situation of a dispute notation being stuck on the report for an extended period of time?

Do you think that there is any chance of the OP's worst case scenario materializing? 

---

It is supposed to fall of the CRs, but I don't know if there is a specific timetable they are supposed to adhere to. I read a couple posts as saying 30 days, but in my example above, Americredit has kept it on for a really long time.

On Aug. 9 & 20, I sent two rounds of GWs. By this point, after GWing every 20 days, the dispute notation seemed to stick like glue. Fast forward to Dec. 8, after an extended break, I sent a new round of GWs. By this point 2 of the 3 CRs were still reporting it as disputed (I think EX stopped reporting as such, did get a TC alert saying the account has changed). So, in this case, it stayed on for over 3 months. Of course, the new GWs lead to that remark again.

Keep in mind, this is an old, closed TL. They don't report monthly nor do they have a reason to. Maybe I should send a GW to get the "dispute" notation removed. Won't help me any but would be interesting to see what they do.

---

TowerHill wrote:

I ask because I have read a recent thread where a forum member simply asked a creditor to report full and complete historical data.  Some positive history was missing.  The request resulted in a dispute status that they would not remove.  Yikes.

I have two of these letters drafted and ready to go, but as my luck goes, I fear a quick look by a busy credit department employee will yield a "account in dispute" status.  I know a literal look at a properly written GW letter will not be confused with a dispute letter, but who knows.  It may be just enough for a trigger happy CSR to send the whole shebang into dispute mode.

Anyone have any horror stories, or am I just paranoid?

Message Edited by TowerHill on 01-20-2009 05:22 PM

---

What kind of TL is it? Is it open or closed? Paid?

If closed & paid, then a dispute remark wouldn't hurt any. However, if this is an opened CC, for example, then a dispute remark would hurt OP if he/she needed the CC for utilization. For example, if this is a CC w/ a $0 balance on a $1000 CL and he has one other CC w/ a balance of $200 on a $300 CL, then they are at 15%. If a GW is sent to the $1000CL CC and a dispute remark is placed, then OP's utilization spikes to 67% (200/300). That would lead to a 50+ point drop w/ one simple GW. Sounds bad, but I bet the dipsute would clear out when the CC updates the following month. And not every TL will be marked this way.

[CreditAble]

---

@llecs wrote:

 Maybe I should send a GW to get the "dispute" notation removed. Won't help me any but would be interesting to see what they do.

---

If you dispute the tradeline directly with the bureaus as "inaccurate" (not currently in dispute), you might have some unintended consequences.

Since it is an old closed account the creditor might not respond within the proper time frame or at all. 

Furthermore the credit bureau might just delete the whole tradeline just to teach you a lesson.  

You might lose a valuable seasoned tradeline in good standing. (roll eyes & shrug shoulders)

[llecs]

---

CreditAble wrote:

If you dispute the tradeline directly with the bureaus as "inaccurate" (not currently in dispute), you might have some unintended consequences.

Since it is an old closed account the creditor might not respond within the proper time frame or at all. 

Furthermore the credit bureau might just delete the whole tradeline just to teach you a lesson.  

You might lose a valuable seasoned tradeline in good standing. (roll eyes & shrug shoulders)

---

I can't do that. It is reporting accurately. Even if the dispute remark is debateable, initiating a dispute would keep it in place. It is my fault the baddie is there and I'll continue with my GW campaign until either they help or it gets removed due to CRTP (which would hurt AAoA).

[Anonymous]

I have 7 baddies total in a 15 year file. all 30's

4 on closed accounts that will fall off due to age this summer, two from 2007 and one in feb 2008.

The 3 from 2007/2008 are on open accounts.  1 on a circuit city store card, and 2 on a auto loan installment account.

 My plan was to send my first round of GW letters after march (one year on clean history) to address the 3 recent lates only.  I was going to leave the old ones alone, as they will die of old age this year anyway.

I am a newbie to all of this and am trying to access a risk of firing off GW letters to creditors.  My scores are not terrible.  752 fico on my TU report.  I am preparing my reports the best I can for my first mortgage, which I plan within 18-24 months, and I don't want to do more harm than good.

I like the idea of GW letters because I just a have a few minor blemishes that would be nice to remove.

Is a "dispute"only a short term notation?