Good afternoon everyone,
So I finally decided to take a very good luck at all my credit lines and how they are being reported in terms of being paid on time. I noticed that almost all my credit lines have some discrepancies in terms of monthly payments not being reported as "OK" when paid on time. For example, for one of my AMEX cards for the month of August 2018 Experian and Trans Union shows "OK" for payment made on time for that month but Equifax shows "NR". Is this something that I should be disputing?
Thank you!
Not really. As long as it's not reporting inaccurately, such as a late payment when it was actually on time. NR just means for whatever reason they decided to not report the data for that month.
@OmarGB9 wrote:Not really. As long as it's not reporting inaccurately, such as a late payment when it was actually on time. NR just means for whatever reason they decided to not report the data for that month.
But doesnt' having that "OK" being reported increase the total number of on time payments being made thus increasing my percentage of late payments vs on time payments, if just by a miniscule amount? I'm trying to squeeze every bit of juice here.
@Carlosjb3 wrote:
@OmarGB9 wrote:Not really. As long as it's not reporting inaccurately, such as a late payment when it was actually on time. NR just means for whatever reason they decided to not report the data for that month.
But doesnt' having that "OK" being reported increase the total number of on time payments being made thus increasing my percentage of late payments vs on time payments, if just by a miniscule amount? I'm trying to squeeze every bit of juice here.
There is nothing to dispute, NR is common and as pointed out happens when they just don't report a particular month. The CRA has incomplete information but this does not impact you in a negative way. If you don't have any lates you will still have perfect payment history.
@Carlosjb3 wrote:
@OmarGB9 wrote:Not really. As long as it's not reporting inaccurately, such as a late payment when it was actually on time. NR just means for whatever reason they decided to not report the data for that month.
But doesnt' having that "OK" being reported increase the total number of on time payments being made thus increasing my percentage of late payments vs on time payments, if just by a miniscule amount? I'm trying to squeeze every bit of juice here.
That's not really a thing. That's just credit monitoring "fluff." The whole "on time percentage" isn't real. Only 100% on time matters. If there are any lates, they bring that down and hurt you for between 2 and 7 years. 30 day lates generally only hurt the first 2 years, then lose their sting. 60 day lates or worse hurt the entire 7 years.
@Anonymous wrote:
@sxa001 wrote:
@Carlosjb3 wrote:
@OmarGB9 wrote:Not really. As long as it's not reporting inaccurately, such as a late payment when it was actually on time. NR just means for whatever reason they decided to not report the data for that month.
But doesnt' having that "OK" being reported increase the total number of on time payments being made thus increasing my percentage of late payments vs on time payments, if just by a miniscule amount? I'm trying to squeeze every bit of juice here.
There is nothing to dispute, NR is common and as pointed out happens when they just don't report a particular month. The CRA has incomplete information but this does not impact you in a negative way. If you don't have any lates you will still have perfect payment history.
Does the CRA have an obligation under FCRA to report an accurate payment for the month? If so, wouldn't NR be a violation? Is "NR" accurate versus "okay" or "on time"? Does "NR" have a different impact on scoring than "ok"?? I have a few of these on my files and its perplexing.
Well first, it wouldn't be the CRA, as they only report the info given to them by the creditors. So in this case it's the creditor you'd need to address it with.
Secondly, NR simply is excluded from your payment history calculation. It's what GW removals strive for, because when one requests GW removal, the creditors always come back with, "By law, we must report accurately." But then, by law, they're also not required to report anything at all. So when one requests GW, it's not that they're asking the creditor to lie and say a payment was on time when it actually wasn't (though often this is what they do, but then that's no longer on the consumer), but rather, the consumer is asking the creditor to simply not report any payment data at all for a particular month. It's at the creditor's discretion whether to report a monthly payment or not. If you want to be real technical, it's at their discretion whether they report an entire TL or not!
@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.
@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.
For first bolded part, I wasn't the one that said that, but I doubt that would work. That would most likely just come back verified and ding you.
For the second bolded part, that is correct, the CO is the worst delinquency it can get to besides BK, so any lates leading up to it are irrelevant once the account is COd. So getting a few isolated lates or the string of lates leading up to it removed wouldn't help anyway.