FEDLOAN SERVICES BACKLASH!

[NimbusIII]

So about every 3 to 6 months I do a dispute on my fedloan for a missed payment wich is over 2 years old. I am usually met with the simple comment "company confirms this information is accurate" this last time I got back updated notes "dispute resolved/consumer disagrees" Along with that they removed about 6 confirmed data point of previous green checked on time payments and inverted "no data". This has since lowered my score (not much, 4 points) as it lowered the total number of days since from the missed payment(this is easy to see on the credit Karma app). So the question is 1. Is this legal as it seems to go against the FCRA. 2. Do I dispute this further? 3. Has anyone ever felt with something like this before?

[Anonymous]

---

@NimbusIII wrote:
So about every 3 to 6 months I do a dispute on my fedloan for a missed payment wich is over 2 years old. I am usually met with the simple comment "company confirms this information is accurate" this last time I got back updated notes "dispute resolved/consumer disagrees" Along with that they removed about 6 confirmed data point of previous green checked on time payments and inverted "no data". This has since lowered my score (not much, 4 points) as it lowered the total number of days since from the missed payment(this is easy to see on the credit Karma app). So the question is 1. Is this legal as it seems to go against the FCRA. 2. Do I dispute this further? 3. Has anyone ever felt with something like this before?

---

@NimbusIII  Repeatedly disputing an item that a creditor has previously verified as accurately reported to the credit bureau(s) will eventually result in your additional disputes flagged as a"frivilous dispute."  That is what appears to have happened in this case which is the reason that the additional notation of "consumer disagrees" was added.

Is the late payment you're disputing accurately reported to the credit bureaus?

Please see this comment from @RobertEG  FCRA 623(a)(8) - right to dispute directly with furnisher - data share

"The direct dispute option under FCRA 623(a)(8) does not provide a second bite at the dispute apple.

If a consumer files a dispute with a CRA that is concluded, then a direct dispute that is substantially the same as the prior dispute filed with the CRA can be dismissed without any requirment to investigate as being "frivolous or irrelevant."

Stated differently, the consumer cannot compel the furnisher to conduct repeated investigation of the same issue.

When a dispute is filed with a CRA, the CRA is required to forward the dispute to the furnisher, and the furnisher is then requried to conduct  a reasonable investigation and reply back to the CRA.  The consumer cannot thereafter compel a second investigation of substantially the same issue by then filing a direct dispute.

See 16 CFR 660.4(f) for the implementing rule stating that a direct dispute that is substantially the same as a prior dispute filed with a CRA can be dismissed as frivolous or irrelevant without any requirement for investigation of the dispute."

[NimbusIII]

For the most part my disputes have varied in content and reason. I get that once varified its stagnant, but I don't feel they can legally retaliate by diminishing the previous accurate reported data.

[Revelate]

Actually they basically can but I'll bet you it didn't affect your FICO scores at all.  It wasn't personal, just some data idiosyncracy from their dispute system.  Disputes do weird stuff and there probably wasn't a human involved with the change.

Credit Karma, meh.  It did not re-age your late, green OK is exact same as a ND from a scoring perspective: payment history is the absense of deliquent/derogatory information, and file thickness is based on tradeline count anyway.  4 points could've been anything frankly in Vantage, I swear if you sneeze that score twitches.

Ultimately the data just has to be accurate.  If the late is on there, and it's valid, and the rest of the tradeline information is correct, it's accurate.  Payment history is basically fluff; I have an old BOFA tradeline that had a 30/60D on it, eventually I got to the exclusion point and literally the entire payment history got nuked: still same open date, still same close date, no shift in score.  It's accurate from a tradeline reporting perspective.

[calyx]

---

@NimbusIII wrote:
For the most part my disputes have varied in content and reason. I get that once varified its stagnant, but I don't feel they can legally retaliate by diminishing the previous accurate reported data.

---

You didn't answer the question about whether or not the late is valid.
It sounds like you are submitting frivilous disputes.

As Revelate says - ND vs Green doesn't actually make a difference from a scoring perspective, and technically it's not inaccurate, so there's no reason to dispute that (again).   It's not "retaliation."