Inacccuracies

[Anonymous]

I have inaccuracies with my mortgage account from 2 and 3 years ago. It was a foreclosure. But I'm cleaning my credit up pretty good in hope's of getting another mortgage soon. For example one month it reports the 30 days late on one Bureau and for the same month it reports 60 days late on 2 other bureaus. This occurs twice in my account. If I dispute it, I'm afraid they will also report all the months they did not report anything. And some of those months were late as well. Two questions 1st.. can they report late payments 2 years after they happened if they haven't reported them yet and 2.. I'm disputing the inaccuracies in hope's to have it removed, could it back fire on me and make my credit worse. I've gotten it back up to almost 690 now and I'm afraid they will retaliate and report stuff they havent reported before.

[Anonymous]

What you're speaking of constitutes "poking the sleeping bear."  This is something you want to be very careful about.  A lender can at any time decide to report something if it's accurate... so if you're missing negative information on there and try to dispute something that is present, it's very possible that in correcting one error they'll also report the negative information on the other month(s) where it's currently not reported.  It's really up to you how you proceed here, as it's definitely a risk.

[RobertEG]

There is no time limit on when a prior delinquency can be reported to a CRA.

The requirement is that what is reported must not knowingly by inaccurate.  FCRA 623(a)(1).

Yes, a creditor can report delinquencies years after they occur.

Once a monthly delinquency has reached the 7 year exclusion period set forth under FCRA 605(a)(5), the CRA is thereafter prevented from including the reported monthly delinquency in normal credit reports they issue.

As for the accuracy of reporting of the period of delinquency, it can be argued that the accuracy and completeness requires that if a 60-late is reported, there should also be a prior reporting of a 30-late, and that if a delinquency is reported as 30-late with CRA A, it would be inaccurate to then report it as 60-late with CRA B.

However, it has become standard practice that each and every level of prior delinquency need not be reported, and that a late can be reported at a lower level with one CRA than its actual, full period of delinquency.  For example, if a debt is actually 60-late, it can be reported as such with CRA A, but can be reported as a 30-late with other CRAs.

Challenging that standard practice will likely result only in the creditor then updatng by showing each and every progressive date of delinquency, beginning a 30-late.  

Most consumers do not dispute reporting of a lower level of delinquency, or omission of a legit monthly delinquency, but you could do so if desired.

Note that a dispute of accuracy never requires deletion of the reported information if it can be corrected to overcome the inaccuracy, so a dispute will not mandate deletion of some reported delinquency if the account was, in fact, delinquent.

[CreditInspired]

There’s a proverb. “Let sleeping dogs lie.”

Also, congrats on starting to get your credit in order.

[Anonymous]

Thank you all for the advice. I think I am going to dispute something that's inaccurate for sure. Would it be better to dispute it through the credit bureaus or directly to the credit card company?

[RobertEG]

The FCRA provides consumers with the option of either filing a direct dispute with the party who reported the information to the CRA, or of filing the dispute with the CRA and let the CRA then forward a copy to the furnisher, recieve their response, and make the final determination via their"|reinvestogatopm" of the dispute.

There are several factors to be considered when deciding which process to use.

First and foremost is the legal provision of the FCRA that a consumer must fiirst file a dispute with the CRA before they can acquire the right to later bring civil action in a court related to the accuracy or completeness of reported information.

FCRA 623(c) removes from a consumer the right to bring their own civil aciton contesting the accuracy or completeness of information reported to a CRA.  The consumer is required to first bring a dispute via a CRA, and if the decision is the verification of accuracy, the consumer can then bring a civil action contesting the reasonableness of the investigation of the dispute by the furnisher.

Thus, if you anticipate that the furnisher will verify the accuracy and you wish to preserve the right to then seek review by the courts, you must file your dispute via a CRA.

Second, the CRAs have a long history of not sending all documentation and arguemnts presented by the consumer in support of their dispute to the furnisher as part of the CRA dispute process.  

If you have documentation or arguments that you wish to ensure are received in total by the furnisher, then filing a direct dispute will ensure that all is received directly by the furnisher.

Third, the implementing regulations for the direct dispute process (see 16 CFT 660.4) temove certina types of disputes from the direct dispute process, and thus if your disptue relates to an item of information that is excluded from the direct dispute process, ;you must use the CRA dispute process.

Items that are specifically exckuded from the direct dispute process include public record information (e.g., judgments, tax liens, BK, credit inquiiries, personal identifier information), then you must file your dispute via the CRA.

Be aware that once your elect one or the other, you cannot then file substantially the same dispute under the other procedure.

A second or subsequent dispute that is substantially the same as a prior dispute filed by either process can b e dismissed as a "frivolous or irrrelevant" dispute.  

One issue, one requirement for the furnisher to investigate the dispute.

[Anonymous]

I think I'll take the wild side and file with both. It certainly wont hurt my credit any worse than it is, I mean it's only a 686 after my foreclosure. Which by the way has everything to do with me struggling with PTSD. Too bad they cant get into my medical records and see how my PTSD has affected my financial reputation

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Thank you all for the advice. I think I am going to dispute something that's inaccurate for sure.

---

That's fine, just be aware as has been stated above that they may go ahead and "fix" the other inaccurately reported months of the account... that is, the months that are currently marked as OK could be [correctly] reported as late.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Which by the way has everything to do with me struggling with PTSD. Too bad they cant get into my medical records and see how my PTSD has affected my financial reputation

---

I don't mean for this to come off as rude or insensitive, but it's important to understand that the FICO algorithm doesn't have feelings and is all about assessing risk.  It doesn't care why someone has a poor payment history, it just knows that they've had trouble making on-time payments in the past and scoring then is what it is.  I think it's just important not to get caught up in personal feelings and know that there is no bias based on the reasoning behind why someone has missed payments in the past, or may be struggling currently.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for digging it in. I've already discovered that. But for your reference, before you discourage someone else who has a legitimate concern.. I've already called, talked to, sent medical records to a creditor who had me at the same time with 6 late payments. They read what my PTSD doctor wrote in her notes and deleted my bad months. It's ok to give advice but to jump into to a category you are not familiar with and discourage someone from moving forward is not helpful. Thank you for reading my blog but dont be that guy.