don't really know where to put this?

[Anonymous]

for now i would say time and waiting for those negatives to vanish. you have a decent start though so don't worry too much.

[Anonymous]

Thank you

[Anonymous]

Hello Netta.  Sounds like you have gotten some feedback.

I wasn't able to figure out for sure what you lied to us about.  So it's hard for me to know exactly what your profile looks like.

But for a moment I am going to assume that the following is true.  You have 7 open credit cards, 4 installment loans, and 18 accounts total; and your oldest open account was Feb 2010.  You have at least one collection and perhaps some lates (you didn't mention for sure whether your only negative data was the collection or collections).

So your issue isn't thinness.  A very thin profile is one where it's hard for FICO to make a sound risk assessment, because it doesn't have fully enough information to go on.  An example would be a profile that was very new (first account was opened a few months ago) or one where there was only one or two accounts.  In that sense your profile is not thin!  You have many accounts, both revolving and installment, all with payment histories. of many months.  The payment histories may not all be positive, but that too is giving FICO (from its perspective) more information to make its assessment.  FICO is not uncertain at all what your credit score should be.

The further a profile is away from being extremely young and having very few accounts with payment histories, the "thicker" it is.  But from FICO's perspective, it stops viewing the thinness of an account as a problem once a certain amount of age and account # is achieved.  For example, suppose Bob has 3 open accounts, at least two of which are cards, six accounts total, and his oldest account is two years old.  Fred has 20 accounts and an age of 15 years.  Fred's is thicker than Bob's but all that matters is being thick enough, which Bob's certainly is.

So as the other people explained, you need to focus on taking care of your negative data (either by waiting it out or trying to get it removed).  You don't need to work at making your profile thicker.  Other techniques for improving your score include continuing to always pay your bills on time and keep the amounts you owe on your cards low.  If your main driver is getting your score to go up, you could also stop adding any more cards, or do that very selectively and rarely.

[Anonymous]

Thank you credit guy!

Not necessarily lied I thought I had one collection on each bureau but eq is clean. TU-has 1 from a towing company(I've never been towed& I'll wait for it to fall off) & EX has a medical collection that is paid the company just won't delete. So waiting is my only option with my two collections, they are three years old.
I had one missed payment on a cc last year & before that one in 2011.
Thank you very much for filling me in on this profile thing you helped me understand a lot better.

[Anonymous]

Ahhh!  OK.  I see now that hen you told us you lied, you meant that you made a mistake, 

Yeah, the big problem you have is a number of derogatory items (lates, collections, etc.).  Negative items like that (or the absence of negatives) account for a huge part of anyone's score.  Each one will fall off your report seven years after it happened, so you may have a bad score for a while. 

Some things to work on while you are waiting is doing your best to make sure you never have another derog.  That should include setting up autopay so that you never ever miss a payment or make one late again.  But it may involve considering whether in the future you want to fight creditors like the towing company if the amount is comparatively small.  If you get in early in a process of negotiation with them, you can typically stop it going to collection.  Obviously it's wrong to have to pay something you feel like you shouldn't, but you have to weigh that against your willingness to have your credit hurt over.

Best of luck....

[Anonymous]

Thank you very much maybe once I learn more I'll learn how to fight it the right way, it's a very high amount for a car I've never heard of so I gave up. But auto pay is getting set up right now, thank you for all your advice!

[Anonymous]

Best of Luck!

[UncleB]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Thank you very much maybe once I learn more I'll learn how to fight it the right way, it's a very high amount for a car I've never heard of so I gave up. But auto pay is getting set up right now, thank you for all your advice!

---

I'm not one to beat my head against a wall, and I generally "own" the mistakes I've made as well, so when something appears that's not genuinely mine I have a hard time letting it go.

I would dispute this again, and have the credit bureau ask the creditor for documentation this time (assuming you didn't before).  I've had 'garbage' appear on my own report (once for ISP fees I knew nothing about) and it took a few letters, but it was eventually removed since they had no paperwork.  Over the last year or so it's gotten even easier for us to dispute things that genuinely shouldn't be there. 

You've taken responsibility for your mistakes; there's no need to take 'credit' for one you didn't make. 

[Anonymous]

Hey UncleB!  Yup, I totally feel the same way.

I'm curious about something, though, which maybe you can shed some light on.  I think the way the dispute process works (in practice) is this.  Our OP disputes the towing charge.  The CRA contacts the towing company.  The towing company says "Yes, it's real and it happened on this day."  Then the CRA comes back to our OP and says that the debt has been verified.  In other words, in practice, the towing company doesn't have to produce documentation that really proves anything, or if they do,  it might in practice simply be a printout of what is in their database (which of course might be an error).

My guess is that, if the OP decides he really wants to try again for removal, there's a lot to be said for him working with the towing company or CA first in a very polite way.  Find out if they have any records at all connected with the (alleged) incident.  If not, that's encouraging, since a dispute will force the CRA to remove the record.  If they do, then they need to have adequate records: for example, the date and time the towing happened, the make and model of the car that was towed, the license number and state, and probably the VIN number; and certainly the exact location of the vehicle when it was towed and why it was towed.  Furthermore they should have records on who it was that paid to have the vehicle released and when they did that and perhaps what credit card or other means of payment was used. 

If our OP can get all that from them, he can do some detective work: look up the VIN # and license number, find out who it belonged to, etc.  It may be that this towing incident was mistakenly attributed to our OP because he has the same first and last name as the real owner and possibly lives in the same state.

If they do not have that level of information, our OP can argue that (in his case to the CRA) that they do not have the documentation that a real incident would have involved.

At any rate, I am thinking that this kind of legwork might be helpful to our OP, since his goal is to actually get the thing removed.

[UncleB]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hey UncleB!  Yup, I totally feel the same way.

I'm curious about something, though, which maybe you can shed some light on.  I think the way the dispute process works (in practice) is this.  Our OP disputes the towing charge.  The CRA contacts the towing company.  The towing company says "Yes, it's real and it happened on this day."  Then the CRA comes back to our OP and says that the debt has been verified.  In other words, in practice, the towing company doesn't have to produce documentation that really proves anything, or if they do,  it might in practice simply be a printout of what is in their database (which of course might be an error).

My guess is that, if the OP decides he really wants to try again for removal, there's a lot to be said for him working with the towing company or CA first in a very polite way.  Find out if they have any records at all connected with the (alleged) incident.  If not, that's encouraging, since a dispute will force the CRA to remove the record.  If they do, then they need to have adequate records: for example, the date and time the towing happened, the make and model of the car that was towed, the license number and state, and probably the VIN number; and certainly the exact location of the vehicle when it was towed and why it was towed.  Furthermore they should have records on who it was that paid to have the vehicle released and when they did that and perhaps what credit card or other means of payment was used. 

If our OP can get all that from them, he can do some detective work: look up the VIN # and license number, find out who it belonged to, etc.  It may be that this towing incident was mistakenly attributed to our OP because he has the same first and last name as the real owner and possibly lives in the same state.

If they do not have that level of information, our OP can argue that (in his case to the CRA) that they do not have the documentation that a real incident would have involved.

At any rate, I am thinking that this kind of legwork might be helpful to our OP, since his goal is to actually get the thing removed.

---

Great minds think alike! 

I mentioned going the dispute route (again) since the rules have been 'tightened' a bit as of a year or so ago.  The old way dealt mostly in 'reason codes', now there's a little more accountability required between the parties.

Also, before the rules changed, any information sent to the credit bureaus had to be sent snail-mail; now it can be scanned and uploaded, which generally speeds things up a good deal. 

In the case of the OP, the onus is strictly on the towing company (or their collection agency) to prove they have correct data.  In my own experience, my luck in dealing directly with parties who placed erroneous information on my reports was very mixed.  They either promptly corrected it with great apology, or they really dug-in, insisting I was trying to "get out" of my obligation.  It was very YMMV.

The OP could also use a two-pronged approach by opening a dispute with the credit bureaus while simultaneously reaching out to the tow company/CA directly... which is likely what I'd do in this case, since it seems to be 'lingering' on a bit.

Whatever method the OP decides to go with, good luck, and please keep us posted!