First, I sure hope everyone is doing as well as they can be. It's been a while since I've bothered but I know a few heads are better than just this one!!!
Odd issue relating to the very first month an account is treated as far as the payment rating, not the account status. Those who are metro 2 knowledgeable, this would be fields 17A, 17B, & 18.
The reason for mentioning the particular fields/names is due to the root issue with the creditor not understanding that the month the account was opened has no rating with 2/3 CRAs. Granted, EFX & TU are a month "behind" with the rating per se but this has to do with the inception of, not the last status of, the account in question.
EXP & EFX both show PAA as the status and OK on the rating (GRID) for March - the same month opened, which also had a statement generate the same month. It was opened on 15 March and statement was 28 March, first reported shortly after this (1ST) statement cycle, along with the current balance, etc etc. it appeared on EXP first, then EFX, then TU 3 weeks or so later (didn't even check until week 2 knowing TU LOL).
TU, however, shows everything about the account the same with the exception of March does not have any rating unlike EFX & EXP. Looking at other accounts, the month the account was opened all have a rating for that month.
Further, there are only 18 months on TU compared to 19 on EFX & EXP. I have had 19 statements as well. Everything about the accounts age is 19 months except in TU's eyes LOLOL.
Nonetheless, every update the CU sends in results in the same thing: the date reported changes and there is no changes to the payment history profile. I hate to be picky here, but it is all about accuracy. I didn't get where I am by settling for anything less than expected performance from CRAs and/or DFs. Learned that lesson the hard way and won't make the same mistakes twice. That one month difference in age can, at some point, mean the difference in scoring due to age (or even historical payment data - who really knows).
It just makes no sense that this missing month cannot be added back on. If anyone has had a similar incident, irrespective of the resolution, I'm all ears. I've seen the AUD that the CU has sent to TU and there are 19 0's followed by a B (paid as agreeds or "OKs" for each month - the "B" is no rating since that is February, account wasn't opened yet). They've done everything right IMO but there just isn't any rhyme or reason there isn't resolution.
Last thought: CU asked if I should try disputing it from TU's side so they have to manually send back the corrections. There is no category that fits "Missing First Month's payment rating only" (looking st FAQs since I don't want to mess-up dispute access!) and I suppose "Other" will work with 50 characters. Then again, the whole tradeline could vanish like it did 3 months ago when the CU had me try the dispute route.
Thanks in advance and if you need any clarifications, just ask away as I'm not even sure I'm explaining this well. Again I apologize and appreciate everything in advance!
Take care
Odd issue relating to the very first month an account is treated as far as the payment rating, not the account status. Those who are metro 2 knowledgeable, this would be fields 17A, 17B, & 18.
The reason for mentioning the particular fields/names is due to the root issue with the creditor not understanding that the month the account was opened has no rating with 2/3 CRAs. Granted, EFX & TU are a month "behind" with the rating per se but this has to do with the inception of, not the last status of, the account in question.
EXP & EFX both show PAA as the status and OK on the rating (GRID) for March - the same month opened, which also had a statement generate the same month. It was opened on 15 March and statement was 28 March, first reported shortly after this (1ST) statement cycle, along with the current balance, etc etc. it appeared on EXP first, then EFX, then TU 3 weeks or so later (didn't even check until week 2 knowing TU LOL).
TU, however, shows everything about the account the same with the exception of March does not have any rating unlike EFX & EXP. Looking at other accounts, the month the account was opened all have a rating for that month.
Further, there are only 18 months on TU compared to 19 on EFX & EXP. I have had 19 statements as well. Everything about the accounts age is 19 months except in TU's eyes LOLOL.
Nonetheless, every update the CU sends in results in the same thing: the date reported changes and there is no changes to the payment history profile. I hate to be picky here, but it is all about accuracy. I didn't get where I am by settling for anything less than expected performance from CRAs and/or DFs. Learned that lesson the hard way and won't make the same mistakes twice. That one month difference in age can, at some point, mean the difference in scoring due to age (or even historical payment data - who really knows).
It just makes no sense that this missing month cannot be added back on. If anyone has had a similar incident, irrespective of the resolution, I'm all ears. I've seen the AUD that the CU has sent to TU and there are 19 0's followed by a B (paid as agreeds or "OKs" for each month - the "B" is no rating since that is February, account wasn't opened yet). They've done everything right IMO but there just isn't any rhyme or reason there isn't resolution.
Last thought: CU asked if I should try disputing it from TU's side so they have to manually send back the corrections. There is no category that fits "Missing First Month's payment rating only" (looking st FAQs since I don't want to mess-up dispute access!) and I suppose "Other" will work with 50 characters. Then again, the whole tradeline could vanish like it did 3 months ago when the CU had me try the dispute route.
Thanks in advance and if you need any clarifications, just ask away as I'm not even sure I'm explaining this well. Again I apologize and appreciate everything in advance!
Take care
