Experian Advising to Break Its Own Rules?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest creditors in the world (and more than likely very good customers of the CRA's, but that is just an inference) both took the liberty of removing negative, though completely accurate, information from what they reported to the CRA's.  All three.  Multiple times.  According to this thread, that is a massive breach of contract and they could be sued mercilessly if my situation was repeated for xxx other customers.  So again, I'd love to see that contract that is 'common knowledge" so I can leave my job, become a lawyer, and lead that lawsuit and become part of the 1% ;-)

---

Actually, I think its more like Android described in his response -- rather than "removing" anything -- they quit paying the bill to report it, and thus, the reporting ceased.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest creditors in the world (and more than likely very good customers of the CRA's, but that is just an inference) both took the liberty of removing negative, though completely accurate, information from what they reported to the CRA's.  All three.  Multiple times.  According to this thread, that is a massive breach of contract and they could be sued mercilessly if my situation was repeated for xxx other customers.  So again, I'd love to see that contract that is 'common knowledge" so I can leave my job, become a lawyer, and lead that lawsuit and become part of the 1% ;-)

---

Actually, I think its more like Android described in his response -- rather than "removing" anything -- they quit paying the bill to report it, and thus, the reporting ceased.

---

Nope.. there is simply a blank mark in those particular months, surrounded by on-time payments... for years before and years after.  The record from that particular month on that particular account is simply not reported... though it previously was, and was factually correct.  Therefor, according to OP, they have both breached their contracts with all the CRAs and are at risk of lawsuit.  I'm asking to see the contract OP refers to, since if they did it for me, and they have done it for reportedly thousands or millions of others, they have an egregious and repeptive breach of contract that should be worth millions/billions to some motivated lawyer... or, there is a SLIGHT chance that their contractual obligations do not state what OP (and others) are claiming.  SLIGHT.

[kjm79]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Just noticed on my USAA CMS (provided by Experian) that on the "Negative Information" tab it reports no items (yay!) but there is this little gem listed at the bottom:

---

Less is better, if possible try to make arrangements with creditors to remove the information – otherwise, most Negative Information will stay on your account for up to 7 years. Even if it isn’t removed, the longer an entry is on your account, the less likely it is to hurt you.

---

This would imply the Experian is advocating PFD and GW deletions...which are supposed to technically be against the CRA agreements.

---

I think all I'll add to this thread is that Experian isn't the one saying that removing the info would be better per the original post.  This particular information was from a third-party credit monitoring service (USAA).  The report data comes from Experian, not the tips and other misc information.  All of the credit monitoring sites will have varying pieces of advice (good and bad).  Go to the Experian website itself and I'll bet you that piece about trying to get negative information removed is no where to be found. 

[john398]

---

@kjm79 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Just noticed on my USAA CMS (provided by Experian) that on the "Negative Information" tab it reports no items (yay!) but there is this little gem listed at the bottom:

---

Less is better, if possible try to make arrangements with creditors to remove the information – otherwise, most Negative Information will stay on your account for up to 7 years. Even if it isn’t removed, the longer an entry is on your account, the less likely it is to hurt you.

---

This would imply the Experian is advocating PFD and GW deletions...which are supposed to technically be against the CRA agreements.

---

I think all I'll add to this thread is that Experian isn't the one saying that removing the info would be better per the original post.  This particular information was from a third-party credit monitoring service (USAA).  The report data comes from Experian, not the tips and other misc information.  All of the credit monitoring sites will have varying pieces of advice (good and bad).  Go to the Experian website itself and I'll bet you that piece about trying to get negative information removed is no where to be found. 

---

USAA is not monitoring the credit report it is experian that is, I always get billed by experian monthly not USAA\

This is what shows on my charge card for USAA/Experian monitoring

03/12/2012

Debit Card Transaction

Experian *CreditR 866 03/10Experian

$13.02

edit I mean to say on my debit card not charge card

[kjm79]

I also have the USAA credit monitoring.  And as I stated, the REPORT DATA is from Experian.  The other stuff, I like to call fluff, is from the third party CMS, in this case USAA.  If someone would like to go to Experian's own website and find that piece of info, I'll be happy to eat my words.  Experian isn't promoting the removal of information.  Credit Karma, Credit Sesame, they all pull data from a CRA, the adivce, tips, the FLUFF is from the CMS.  Which is exactly why all the posts on this board say the REPORT info is ok, but ignore the scores and advice from the third-party sites.  

[Anonymous]

---

@kjm79 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Just noticed on my USAA CMS (provided by Experian) that on the "Negative Information" tab it reports no items (yay!) but there is this little gem listed at the bottom:

---

Less is better, if possible try to make arrangements with creditors to remove the information – otherwise, most Negative Information will stay on your account for up to 7 years. Even if it isn’t removed, the longer an entry is on your account, the less likely it is to hurt you.

---

This would imply the Experian is advocating PFD and GW deletions...which are supposed to technically be against the CRA agreements.

---

I think all I'll add to this thread is that Experian isn't the one saying that removing the info would be better per the original post.  This particular information was from a third-party credit monitoring service (USAA).  The report data comes from Experian, not the tips and other misc information.  All of the credit monitoring sites will have varying pieces of advice (good and bad).  Go to the Experian website itself and I'll bet you that piece about trying to get negative information removed is no where to be found. 

---

Ok, really getting frustrated by people arguing points they simply don't know about. It's a white label product offered by Experian and sold by numberous companies. The entire program is hosted on an Experian sub-domain and is IDENTICAL across offerings. Experian provides BOTH the data and the context. Yes, if you buy just the report it won't contain that info just like it won't contain FAKOs, or any other advice. But it is still an Experian owned, operated and designed product.

---

@kjm79 wrote:

I also have the USAA credit monitoring.  And as I stated, the REPORT DATA is from Experian.  The other stuff, I like to call fluff, is from the third party CMS, in this case USAA.  If someone would like to go to Experian's own website and find that piece of info, I'll be happy to eat my words.  Experian isn't promoting the removal of information.  Credit Karma, Credit Sesame, they all pull data from a CRA, the adivce, tips, the FLUFF is from the CMS.  Which is exactly why all the posts on this board say the REPORT info is ok, but ignore the scores and advice from the third-party sites.  

---

Again, this is purely wrong misinformation. If you have USAA CMS, log in and you will see that you are actually on an Experian website. Moreover, it is the EXACT same service offered by countless resellers.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

In other words, I don't disagree with the fact that you believe it's a fact because you have heard it from many people.  What I disagree with is whether it IS a fact.. and facts and message board opinions are not necessarily equal ;-)  

You mentioned "published guidelines"... I'm googling and not finding those... happen to have a link so I can check it out?  I would definitely be insterested if that were the case... I might be able lead the CRAs and a mass-suing of all the creditors that have ever PFD in violation of their written contracts... I could take like a 1% finders fee or something since apparently the CRAs haven't realized that so many customers have violated their legally-binding contracts!

---

I don't believe it's fact, I know it is. You on ther other hand are disagreeing, despite having any evidence to the contrary. Do a quick search of the boards, you will see countless GWs and PFDs denied for this very reason. I have also been told personally by creditors that this is the case.

If you want to buy the handbook that has been put together by the big three and contains the clauses you want, you can purchase it here: http://www.cdiaonline.org/store/productdetail.cfm?itemnumber=6818

[john398]

When you go to the USAA CRA site it transfers you to

usaacreditmonitor.experiandirect.com and says that USAA is not repsonible for the data on the 3rd party site

It says you can contact customer service on the left

maybe the OP can call and ask if its Experian or USAA that gives that advice and than ask if its against the agreemet with experian to delete information than report back

CONTACT CUSTOMER CARE

• Call us at (left out)
• Monday-Friday 7:30am-9:00pm, Saturday 10:00am-6:00pm Central Time

[Anonymous]

It's really not that big of a deal. This thread has blown up. It started simply as an oddity that I noticed. Whether or not Experian or USAA gives the advice, it's still hosted and run by Experian. I'm not suggesting Experian should be sued or confronted. I just had a good laugh about it, and frankly it's not worth arguing about every minute detail. 

[Anonymous]

One final post in this thread for the people who refuse to believe the abundant information regarding derog deletion:

---

• Only inaccurately reported accounts should be deleted. Paid
derogatory accounts, such as collections or charge offs, should
be reported as paid; they should not be deleted.

---

---

• Do not delete paid in full collection accounts. 

Acceptable reasons for deleting accounts are:
— Accounts which have been canceled and returned to creditor.
— Accounts which have been forwarded or sold to another entity.
— Accounts reported in error.

---

Source: http://linux.ers2000.com/metro2inst.pdf

This is the 2000 version of the Credit Reporting Resource Guide