No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
So I had a bunch of lates on 5 student loans that I became current on as of 16 months ago, but the bureaus are reporting them differently.
TU - each account no more than 120 days late; account #5 reports 9 total lates
EQ - each account no more than 120 days late; account #5 reports 5 total lates
EX - each account reports having reached 180 days late; account #5 reports 6 total lates.
The loans did all reach 180 days late, and #5 had 9 total lates, so I'm not sure why they're all being inconsistently lenient on different aspects. Is this normal?
@ibebarrett wrote:So I had a bunch of lates on 5 student loans that I became current on as of 16 months ago, but the bureaus are reporting them differently.
TU - each account no more than 120 days late; account #5 reports 9 total lates
EQ - each account no more than 120 days late; account #5 reports 5 total lates
EX - each account reports having reached 180 days late; account #5 reports 6 total lates.
The loans did all reach 180 days late, and #5 had 9 total lates, so I'm not sure why they're all being inconsistently lenient on different aspects. Is this normal?
Quite normal...not all creditors report to all 3 CRA's every month, and the CRA's do not always get all data entered. If it is inaccurate you can dispute it, but it sounds as if some are just incomplete which is different, and shouldn't be disputed even if you can, unless the lack of inclusion is for something that would increase your scores. If a creditor that would help in scoring is not reporting you can request that they do, but they are not required to do so. They cannot falsely report negative information, but they are not legally reqired to report at all.
This is pretty common with student loans. Usually caused by change in servicer. The dates for my DOFD is off by 2 years from bureau to bureau, for the same loan.
It is common for there to be some variation in reported payment history profiles between the CRAs.
That does not mean that it is proper, but for various reasons, consumers will often refrain from disputing any payment history profile that is incomplete, as correction will usually result in additon of derogs, and consumers usually dont want to file a dispute that will likely result in the addition of derogatory information.
Consumers thus will often reserve disputes only for profile entries that individually are clearly inaccurate by overstating a specific level of delinquency for a specific month, such as reporting of a 90-late when the account was actually only 60-late.
More specifically, the CRA dispute process, as set forth under FCRA 611(a), clearly and explicitly permits a consumer to dispute "the completeness or accuracy" of any information in their credit file.
That permits a consumer to dispute reporting of the completeness of a reported payment history profile with CRA1 based on a factual showing of reporting made to CRA2.
Additionally, while not an express requirement onder the FCRA, the CRA reporting manual does specifically provide that reporting of payment history profile is mandatory, and not discretionary. Thus, creditors do have an obligation to provide a payment history profile as a procedural policy of the CRAs.
Just be careful if you do file such a dispute, as the results may be a complete prfile update that shows each and every derog, and thus the net addition of monthly delinquecies. In order to prevent further such disputes, the creditor is likely to revise the prfile by including all possible sequential delinquencies.
First, plot out what you consider to be the actual accurate and complete profile using you own records, and then decide if that is what you really want your updated profile to show......
@sarge12 wrote:
@ibebarrett wrote:So I had a bunch of lates on 5 student loans that I became current on as of 16 months ago, but the bureaus are reporting them differently.
TU - each account no more than 120 days late; account #5 reports 9 total lates
EQ - each account no more than 120 days late; account #5 reports 5 total lates
EX - each account reports having reached 180 days late; account #5 reports 6 total lates.
The loans did all reach 180 days late, and #5 had 9 total lates, so I'm not sure why they're all being inconsistently lenient on different aspects. Is this normal?
Quite normal...not all creditors report to all 3 CRA's every month, and the CRA's do not always get all data entered. If it is inaccurate you can dispute it, but it sounds as if some are just incomplete which is different, and shouldn't be disputed even if you can, unless the lack of inclusion is for something that would increase your scores. If a creditor that would help in scoring is not reporting you can request that they do, but they are not required to do so. They cannot falsely report negative information, but they are not legally reqired to report at all.
@RobertEG
Definitely don't plan to dispute it, there's nothing wrong that would benefit me by getting changed, and the last thing I want to do is alert them of the fact that they missed some late payments lol. At this point I doubt it would make it any worse, but definitly wouldn't make my score better. Thanks yall!
@Anonymous wrote:This is pretty common with student loans. Usually caused by change in servicer. The dates for my DOFD is off by 2 years from bureau to bureau, for the same loan.
Funny thing is it has never changed servicers, just inconsistent reporting.
I just got an update that TU dropped two more SL lates off my report! Weird but I'll take it!
@ibebarrett wrote:I just got an update that TU dropped two more SL lates off my report! Weird but I'll take it!
Heh, take the money and run so to speak. I had an account with JCB which oddly reported EQ/EX deliquencies a month behind TU deliquencies. Never figured that out but it's how I wound up with a 30D on EQ and a 60D on TU for the exact same account.
Also for some reason the account up and wandered away on Experian, which was super strange because I did nothing that would've triggered that. Like you, definitely took it haha.