Can I Dispute?

[Quarterchips]

Hi all--

On my Experian report, one of my closed/PIF OC credit card trade lines reads (in the "Status" section of the report):

"Paid, was past due 30 days two or three times" 

I've only been 30 days late twice on my Experian report (all months have a green dot, except for two that read "30"). 

Mentioning "or three times" could be misleading to anyone that does a manual review of my profile.   It's also just lazy of the OC to not actually count how many times I was late and report accurately.   

Do I have a case to dispute this? 

Thanks!

[Quarterchips]

Note-- This account was only open for about 2 years, so if I do dispute (and win) would the entire tradeline be removed (which is fine by me since it was a new account anyways) --- or would they just be required to update the "Status" note? 

[dragontears]

---

@Quarterchips wrote:

Note-- This account was only open for about 2 years, so if I do dispute (and win) would the entire tradeline be removed (which is fine by me since it was a new account anyways) --- or would they just be required to update the "Status" note? 

---

First I don't think that is a disputable comment, I may be wrong but it looks like a standard reporting type of language. 

Second, if it was the OC just needs to update  (or delete) the comment, it will not cause the entire tradeline to be removed 

Third, anyone doing a "manual" review can look at the payment history to see that it is 2 so it is not going to mislead anyone 

[Azuieldrago]

Your report does read 2 30 day lates and it is listed as 2-3 30 days lates. That is a factual statement unless you have never been late which then you can dispute. 

[Quarterchips]

True--common sense says it's accurate by being late 2 times & it says I was late 2-3 times.   But would it change anything if it read has "been late 2 to 200 times"?    Or late "2 to 1 million times"

In my thoughts, this is similar to reporting an open balance of between $1000 to $10,000--it's just not precise

Ultimately, I'm trying to get them on a technicality of misleading reporting (which IMO it is--because credit reporting should be very specific/precise...it should indicate exactly how the history is/was)

[vntrsc]

You wrote that it is reported that you were late "2 OR 3 times".  That is quite different from "2 TO 200 times".  

[Anonymous]

I’ve got to agree with the above, however if you did dispute it, it is probably just gonna be denied, but I guess you could try if you feel that you need to. It is your right.

[RobertEG]

That comment is not a reporting made by the creditor.

There is no reporting code for a creditor to specifically report the number of times the consumer has been late.

That comment was produced by the vendor/creator of the commercial credit report that you purchased, and is something that was created by them, and not a reported element of your credit file with the CRA.

FCRA 611 permits a consumer to dispute any information of record in their credit file.  It does not permit the dispute of comments created by a vendor of a commercial credit report that was created by their interpretation of information they received from a CRA.

Stated differently, a CRA is not required to investigate comments made by those who acquire credit reports provided to them, as that is not information of record in the consumer's credit file with the CRA.

Remedy would be to contact the vendor of the credit report and request their correction,  If they refuse to do so, you would then have the right to bring civil action against them, and not the CRA, if you feel that there are any damages.

[Azuieldrago]

Problem is the comment is factual and within a reasonable tolerance. 2 to 3 times. it is an uptick of one. Not very broad in its scope. Within legality as it leave no room for further interpation. Their system could possibly read as 1 late, 2-3 lates, 4-7 lates and such. It is a comment that does reflect accuracy and disputing it would probably be worthless. That goes with reporting it to anywhere else as it causes no damage as it does read the lates properly. The lates are the damaging part, not the comment.