Worth disputing? Discrepancies in monthly payment updates across all 3 bureaus.

[RobertEG]

There are two separate issues relating to disputing inconsistent or incomplete reporting.  The first is whether or not you can dispute a lack of completeness of reported information and the second is whether or not you should do so.

The answer to the first is clearly yes, while the answer to the second is subjective and depends upon the circumstances.

As to issue 1, FCRA 611(a) clearly specifies that a consumer may dispute either the completeness or accuracy of information that has been reported.  The obective legal answer is thus yes, you can file a dispute contesting the completeness of reported information.  Reporting of a complete and accurate payment history profile is mandated under the common credit reporting manual used by each of the big-3 CRAs, and inconsistent reporting to different CRAs can be argued as inaccurateand thus disputable under the FCRA  for the non-reported information, such as NR 

Similarly, lack of reporting to a single CRA of mandated information is disputable as incomplete reporting, regardless of whether it is reported to any other CRA.

Yes, initial credit reporting to any CRA is optional, and is not required. but once a creditor or debt collector has chosen to voluntarily report, they then assume the legal obligation set forth in FCRA 623(a) that whatever is reported must not be inaccurate.   The consumer then accrues the right under FCRA 611(a) to dispute either the completeness or accuracy of what is or is not reported.

Reporting to one CRA that is different from that reported to another is prima facia inaccurate in one or the other..

As to whether a consumer should dispute the completeness of reporting based on omission of information, or of inconsistency with the reporting of the same information to other CRAs, that is a subjective determination.

It may result, for example, in the addition of information to a credit file/report that is derogatory, and thus detrimental to the calculation of that consumer's credit score. 

[dragontears]

---

@Carlosjb3 wrote:

---

@dragontears wrote:

@OmarGB9 is correct, lenders are not require to report, the only requirement is that what they report is accurate. Having a NR (or ND depending on the CMS you are looking at) just says there is no data for that time point. It doesn't affect your score at all. 

What frequently happens when someone tries to dispute this type of thing is the creditor just deletes the data for that month and send an update to all 3 CRA because it is easier to not report any data than spending man hours it. Therefore, it would say NR on all 3 if you feel the need to pursue this. 

---

I have a charged off account where the data being reported for a specific month shows a mixture of NR/ND along with 60/90 day lates. However, out of the 3 credit bureaus only TU is not reporting the 60/90 day lates or even NR. In this case are you saying my odds are good that if I simply dispute the "NR" rating on the other two bureaus they will simply wipe out the data for that month including the 60/90 day lates? Those late payments are from 2015. I have read a multitude of opinions that 60/90 day lates are like repos/bk in that they suppress your score for up to 7 years, and others have said that it doesn't matter because ultimately it's the charge off itself that will still keep your scores low despite removing the lates leading to the charge off. 

If removing the 60/90 day lates from the charged off account won't make a difference to my score I might as well not dispute it. Ideally its the whole charge off that I want taken off but if wiping out 60/90 lates being reported on the months leading to the charge off helps then I'm all game. 

---

Let me clarify 

My comments were in regards to a NR instead of a positive "ok". From what I have observed if you try disputing a NR that is supposed to be a late payment, the creditor updates all 3 with the late. 

[RobertEG]

A common misconception  about disputes is that a positiv outcome, either due to lack of ability to provide verification of accuracy, or by agreement that the reporting is in fact inaccurate, requires deletion of the disputed information.

Some consumers will thus scour their reports for inaccuracies, in the belief that a favorable outcome will remove the derogatory reporting.

Deletion as a dispute outcome is only required if the furnisher or CRA cannot either verify the accuracy as reported or they cannot correct the inaccuracy.  In instances where the account was in fact delinquent but an asserted inaccuracy is disputed, such as level of delinquency or incompleteness of reporting by omission of reporting (e.g., reporting "NR" or "ND"), the furnisher always has the first option of simply updating the reporting to what is agreed to be accurate.  It is only when  the accuracy or completeness cannot either be verified or corrected that deletion is required.  Even then, deletion is only mandated for the specific information that is subject to the dispute, and does not extend to the entire account or collection.

In instances where the account was in fact delinquent in a given month, a dispute is likely to result in addition of a new delinquency rather than deletion of reporting of any level of delinquency.

[coldfusion]

---

@Carlosjb3 wrote:

---

@dragontears wrote:

@OmarGB9 is correct, lenders are not require to report, the only requirement is that what they report is accurate. Having a NR (or ND depending on the CMS you are looking at) just says there is no data for that time point. It doesn't affect your score at all. 

What frequently happens when someone tries to dispute this type of thing is the creditor just deletes the data for that month and send an update to all 3 CRA because it is easier to not report any data than spending man hours it. Therefore, it would say NR on all 3 if you feel the need to pursue this. 

---

I have a charged off account where the data being reported for a specific month shows a mixture of NR/ND along with 60/90 day lates. However, out of the 3 credit bureaus only TU is not reporting the 60/90 day lates or even NR. In this case are you saying my odds are good that if I simply dispute the "NR" rating on the other two bureaus they will simply wipe out the data for that month including the 60/90 day lates? Those late payments are from 2015. I have read a multitude of opinions that 60/90 day lates are like repos/bk in that they suppress your score for up to 7 years, and others have said that it doesn't matter because ultimately it's the charge off itself that will still keep your scores low despite removing the lates leading to the charge off. 

If removing the 60/90 day lates from the charged off account won't make a difference to my score I might as well not dispute it. Ideally its the whole charge off that I want taken off but if wiping out 60/90 lates being reported on the months leading to the charge off helps then I'm all game. 

---

As a friendly reminder,  discussion regarding disputing legitimate information from one's credit reports invites scrutiny here and where you are going isn't permissible.    Thank you for your cooperation.   --TOC