“MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

[Anonymous]

I will be honest and upfront, I am a Credit Analyst and help individuals understand their credit reports, make decisions that would help their creditworthiness and also perform disputes or challenge what is reported.  I am not giving my background as a form of having anyone come to me.  I believe there is a wealth of information on this site, if properly used, and I for one have gained a lot of knowledge that has been quite helpful in what I do.  In essence, the reason I am starting this topic is one, I am seeking some help, guidance and or suggestions  And two, someone out there might be going through this very issue at the time being.  I have 6 individuals who I am assisting and have submitted disputes for.  The dispute in questions have gone to TransUnion.  The reason, they are reporting an account or more in the "Adverse Accounts" section solely because the creditor (s)reported the account (s) as being "MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM."  The very same accounts are positively being reported on Equifax and Experian.

No late payment (s) have been reported and in some instances, more than the minimum payment is being made.  Still, after having the Creditor (s) provide a letter where they make it clear that no late payments have been reported and or that they have the account (s) in good standing, TransUnion refuses to remove the account (s) from the "Adverse Accounts" section of their report.  I even submitted a Formal Complaint with CFPB after several disputes with TransUnion and no positive change.

Following is an excerpt of the dispute letter I use, feel free to make use and edit as necessary by anyone experiencing this very issue;

1. CREDITOR #1234567890 - PLEASE SHOW ME A JUSTIFIED REASON WHY THIS ACCOUNT IS LISTED UNDER THE “ADVERSE ACCOUNTS” CATEGORY WHEN AMOUNT PAID HAS BEEN MORE THEN SCHEDULED PAYMENT AND NO PAST DUE AMOUNT OR A SINGLE LATE PAYMENT IS BEING REPORTED.  VALIDATE YOUR REPORTING, OR REMOVE FROM MY REPORT.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated and hopefully this issue, if affecting others can provide some guidance so to positively address or resolve matter.

[youdontkillmoney]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I will be honest and upfront, I am a Credit Analyst and help individuals understand their credit reports, make decisions that would help their creditworthiness and also perform disputes or challenge what is reported.  I am not giving my background as a form of having anyone come to me.  I believe there is a wealth of information on this site, if properly used, and I for one have gained a lot of knowledge that has been quite helpful in what I do.  In essence, the reason I am starting this topic is one, I am seeking some help, guidance and or suggestions  And two, someone out there might be going through this very issue at the time being.  I have 6 individuals who I am assisting and have submitted disputes for.  The dispute in questions have gone to TransUnion.  The reason, they are reporting an account or more in the "Adverse Accounts" section solely because the creditor (s)reported the account (s) as being "MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM."  The very same accounts are positively being reported on Equifax and Experian.

No late payment (s) have been reported and in some instances, more than the minimum payment is being made.  Still, after having the Creditor (s) provide a letter where they make it clear that no late payments have been reported and or that they have the account (s) in good standing, TransUnion refuses to remove the account (s) from the "Adverse Accounts" section of their report.  I even submitted a Formal Complaint with CFPB after several disputes with TransUnion and no positive change.

Following is an excerpt of the dispute letter I use, feel free to make use and edit as necessary by anyone experiencing this very issue;

1. CREDITOR #1234567890 - PLEASE SHOW ME A JUSTIFIED REASON WHY THIS ACCOUNT IS LISTED UNDER THE “ADVERSE ACCOUNTS” CATEGORY WHEN AMOUNT PAID HAS BEEN MORE THEN SCHEDULED PAYMENT AND NO PAST DUE AMOUNT OR A SINGLE LATE PAYMENT IS BEING REPORTED.  VALIDATE YOUR REPORTING, OR REMOVE FROM MY REPORT.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated and hopefully this issue, if affecting others can provide some guidance so to positively address or resolve matter.

---

^^^^

What was Transunion's response?

(I only see your request in ALL CAPS, which by the way the people who are reading it ARE PEOPLE and have emotions too so they may react negatively to your ALL CAPS and may try every way not to help you so human psychology dictates to play nice to get a positive response from them)

[Anonymous]

What was Transunion's response?

(I only see your request in ALL CAPS, which by the way the people who are reading it ARE PEOPLE and have emotions too so they may react negatively to your ALL CAPS and may try every way not to help you so human psychology dictates to play nice to get a positive response from them)

"TransUnion refuses to remove the account (s) from the "Adverse Accounts" section of their report.  I even submitted a Formal Complaint with CFPB after several disputes with TransUnion and no positive change."

[takeshi74]

The reason is because such programs are viewed as adverse by a number of creditors.  See also:

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/Credit-Counseling-effects-on-score/td-p/4...

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Credit-Cards/Pre-selected-Amex-and-Citi-and-Denied-Credit/td-p/12545...

My wife was denied by AmEx for that very reason though she was just recently approved.

Even if they did move the account to a different section in the report it wouldn't make a difference as long as the notation is reporting on the account itself.

[Anonymous]

I sorta think differently.  Even if the notation is listed on the account and it were in the "Satisfactory Accounts" vs. "Adverse Accounts" section it might make a difference.  The notation might not be having an affect of the score, where the negative reporting is.

[Shogun]

With the account being service by a management firm, it means that the person has had to seek help due to financial reasons.  Without there being such a reason, then there would be no reason for seeking their service.

It's usually seen as an action to keep from going into BK, which would be the next step.  So does this show that the person is at a risk for credit?  Well sure it does, hence that is why it is in the adverse action category.

[youdontkillmoney]

---

@Shogun wrote:

With the account being service by a management firm, it means that the person has had to seek help due to financial reasons.  Without there being such a reason, then there would be no reason for seeking their service.

It's usually seen as an action to keep from going into BK, which would be the next step.  So does this show that the person is at a risk for credit?  Well sure it does, hence that is why it is in the adverse action category.

---

^^^

Yes that statement in all caps is like holding up a sign saying they are a high risk for defaulting, I'd try to get that off the report as soon as possible or choices owuld be limited in life financially when credit is needed. Creditors do read the report because I place 90 day "fraud" alerts on my reports and creditors call and ask about that to confirm my identity with a series of questions. These are extra steps but give me peace of mind that if someone tried to open an account in my name I'd get a call, not to mention I have Lifelock so they notify me in a few seconds via text/phone call as well.

[Anonymous]

A serious point is being overlooked here.  I understand the notation might be viewed as the individual attempting to avoid a financial disaster or something along those lines.   However, both Experian and Equifax have the notation showing on the account (s).  Despite the notation, the account (s) are not listed negatively.  No potentially negative account (s) in Experian, No Negative Accounts in Equifax.  Therefore, my question moreso is, where in the FCRA or any other rules and or regulations does it justify an account negatively reporting when no default payment has been reported?  Avoidance is not or should not be a factor when determining the status or classification of an account.  The payment history is. By having the account (s) listed in the "Adverse Accounts" section, TransUnion is misleading Creditors to believe that the individual has defaulted on their payment (s) at one point or another when such is not the case.  Financial situations change and some may proactively seek to get a hold of their finances.  That on its own, in my view, is a positive action taken by the individual.  Where in any rule or regulation does it state and or support the possibility of, the attempt to avoid are factors to be considered and justify a CRA classifying an account? 

As for the all caps, it is a dispute letter not writing to a friend, family member or business associate or anyone in good terms.  The mere fact that a dispute is being sent clearly indicates a disagreement.  All caps is also not a factor for the classification of an account.

[youdontkillmoney]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

A serious point is being overlooked here.  I understand the notation might be view as the individual attempting to avoid a financial disaster or something along those lines.   However, both Experian and Equifax have the notation showing on the account (s).  Despite the notation, the account (s) are not listed negatively.  No potential negative account (s) in Experian, No Negative Accounts in Equifax.  Therefore, my question moreso is, where in the FCRA or any other rules and or regulations does it justify an account negatively reporting when no default payment has been reported?  Avoidance is not or should not be a factor when determining the status or classification of an account.  The payment history is. By having the account (s) listed in the "Adverse Accounts" section, TransUnion is misleading Creditors to believe that the individual has defaulted on their payment (s) at one point or another when such is not the case.  Financial situations change and some may proactively seek to get a hold of their finances.  That on its own, in my view, is a positive action taken by the individual.  Where in any rule or regulation does it state and or support the possibility of, the attempt to avoid are factors to be considered and justify a CRA classifying an account? 

As for the all caps, it is a dispute letter not writing to a friend, family member or business associate or anyone in good terms.  The mere fact that a dispute is being sent clearly indicates a disagreement.  All caps is also not a factor for the classification of an account.

---

^^^^^

Two points:

1. ALL CAPS expresses a less than calm, antagonziing attitude to the reader and being humn, the lender will not act positively to it and at best, unconcered about your plight/concerns

2. In an idea world lenders should know the rules and regulations, but often they are misinformed as well, so when they read “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.” they conclude wrongly or rightly that this applicant is not financially responsible and the statement “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.” = "RISK" = RUN AWAY

My point is to focus in on the non technical, softer side of human interactions to get your way. Be a "fox" working behind the scenes craftily and not a "lion" roaring your way around people because when you are asking someone to do something for you, removing an item from a report, givign you credti etc....they have the power. In this case the correct approach is to be a fox. For example, in referencing the statement “MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.” you may also want to add in a rule/statute that states this is not to be held against someone etc if that is the case

Try this: even though you have a letter from the creditor explaining to remove it and shown it to transunion, what you need to do is: ask the creditor to contact transunion directly to remove it. 

[RobertEG]

With an issue of interpretation and assertion of improper reporting on the part of the CRA, the main issue at this point would be not how the CRA justifies their reporting, but rather how the CFPB responded.

What was the outcome of the CFPB complaint?

If resolution cannot be obtained via the CFPB review, then it would appear time to make the argument before a judge.