Bear with me folks, this one is more complicated than it appears.
I pulled my FICO TU report. I have a PAID first mortgage.The mortgage was paid and satisfied in AUG 2014 as part of the home sale.
When I look at my Accounts list on the TU report, the account in question is listed like this:
Company Account number Date opened Balance Status Negative Indicator?
| Big ol' Mortgage Company | XXXXXXXXXXYZ | 5/2008 | $0 | 120 days past due |  | Details |
Is the fact that the Status says "120 days past due" a disputable item? Shouldn't status say "Paid,closed"
Two interesting items:
1) These are the lates listed on TU. Clearly the account had been 120 days late. More actually but this is what TU has and is fairly "accurate", ie not disputable.
Recent payment history
8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 72012 2013 2014
 |  |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  |  | | | | | |
:
2) I will probably buy EQ or EX. I have reason to believe this account is reported differently on TU vs EQ and EX. In fact, there is a small chance that recent GW efforts changed the reporting on EQ and or EX. Either that did not happen on TU, or it happened differently, OR it happened on none of them and my guesses are wrong.
@BallBounces wrote:Bear with me folks, this one is more complicated than it appears.
I pulled my FICO TU report. I have a PAID first mortgage.The mortgage was paid and satisfied in AUG 2014 as part of the home sale.
When I look at my Accounts list on the TU report, the account in question is listed like this:
Company Account number Date opened Balance Status Negative Indicator?
Big ol' Mortgage Company XXXXXXXXXXYZ 5/2008 $0 120 days past due Details
Is the fact that the Status says "120 days past due" a disputable item? Shouldn't status say "Paid,closed"
Two interesting items:
1) These are the lates listed on TU. Clearly the account had been 120 days late. More actually but this is what TU has and is fairly "accurate", ie not disputable.
Recent payment history
8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 72012 2013 2014
:
2) I will probably buy EQ or EX. I have reason to believe this account is reported differently on TU vs EQ and EX. In fact, there is a small chance that recent GW efforts changed the reporting on EQ and or EX. Either that did not happen on TU, or it happened differently, OR it happened on none of them and my guesses are wrong.
Clearly the account cant be currently past due and have a 0 balance. Anyone can see that is been paid off. It could say Paid, closed was 120. Personally I would not dispute this and just leave it alone. I would keep up your GW letter campaign asking that the lates be commuted. Sometimes things can change that were not expected (I.e. more actual lates being added, etc.).
I would like more feedback and input. This is messy.
Take a look at the data below. Each of these is taken directly from Fico, today. One from TU and One from EQ.
The first is TU. It appears to be reporting as would be expected (except the status still says 120 past due instead of closed.) Note the "Status as of Aug 2014".
The second is EQ. Note all the "no data" items. Note the "Status as of May 2015". This was pretty clearly "goodwilled". Still, the status says "at least 120 days past due" even though those were deleted, and the "worst delinquency" verbiage talks about only 60 days.
It is pretty clear that:
1) TU has not updated based on goodwill. Either they never received it from the mortgage co, or they have just not updated it yet. I think EQ updated May 26th.
2) My request to at least show "no data" in my goodwill letter was granted and sent to at least EQ.
3) The "Current Status" for both items is bogus, but "what to do about that?"
4) a shocker: Would you believe my TU score is 25 points higher than EQ? Of course there are other differences between the reports, but still .......
TU:
EQ:
@BallBounces wrote:I would like more feedback and input. This is messy.
Take a look at the data below. Each of these is taken directly from Fico, today. One from TU and One from EQ.
The first is TU. It appears to be reporting as would be expected (except the status still says 120 past due instead of closed.) Note the "Status as of Aug 2014".
The second is EQ. Note all the "no data" items. Note the "Status as of May 2015". This was pretty clearly "goodwilled". Still, the status says "at least 120 days past due" even though those were deleted, and the "worst delinquency" verbiage talks about only 60 days.
It is pretty clear that:
1) TU has not updated based on goodwill. Either they never received it from the mortgage co, or they have just not updated it yet. I think EQ updated May 26th. It can take up to 2 weeks for updates to appear on all the CRAs.
2) My request to at least show "no data" in my goodwill letter was granted and sent to at least EQ.
3) The "Current Status" for both items is bogus, but "what to do about that?" You can dispute this as there are multiple contradictions. Im just going to say that disputing can sometimes put a creditor in a mood that is not conducive to them granting any further goodwill or in some cases I have seen previously granted goodwill canceled. Its a calculated risk that you are going to have to evaluate.
4) a shocker: Would you believe my TU score is 25 points higher than EQ? Of course there are other differences between the reports, but still ....... Its rare score would be the same on all CRAs the way they store date is different between them they are not mirror images of each other as you already know .
TU:
EQ:
@RobertEG wrote:Current staus is a Kodak moment, reflecting only the status of the account as of their last reporting.
It does not represent any historical information related to any prior status. Yep, I understand. And my "Current status" as clearly displayed above says 120 days or more past due despite the account being Paid (IN FULL FWIW).
When an account is delinquent, it will of course have a current status that reports the type and level of delinquency.
Howver, when paid, the current status must be updated to paid if the account is closed, or pays as agreed if the account remains open. I underlined your "must be". Then I should dispute this, at least on EQ, and likely TU and EX when they change the history. It says right in the report, Worst Delinquency, 60 days. PLUS IT WAS PAID IN FULL and is closed.
The prior level of delinquency is not erased when the current status is updated. The level of delinquency prior to the current status is moved to and retained under a spearate code called your "Payment Rating." And, of course, all prior reported delinquencies are shown under your payment histoyr profile. Makes sense. Except we are still referring to the "Current Status" field. And according to the payment history it should no longer be 120 days, it should be 60.
The update of an account balance to $0 does not imply satisfaction of the debt. It simply reflects that you no longer own a debt to the creditor.
If the creditor, for example, has sold the delinquent debt, it would also show $0.
Thus,, one reading your CR would not be able to tell, without some additonal reporting of paid, whether the $0 balance also reflects satisfaciton of the debt. Understand. this account was in fact paid.
In the CR summary provided in the post, if the ""Status" being referenced is the current status, it would be inaccurate, and would indicate that the $0 balance debt was thus unapid. Worht disputing. Since the field is literally called "Current Status" I think I will dispute ........
However, if the "status" being references is the Payment Rating (which is unlikely, but possible), then it would not be inaccurate.
I would assume **bleep** referernces the current status, and is thus inaccurate. Not following you here.
Thanks RobertEG, as always, very helpful. See my replies in red above.
I am going to assume that TU will update in some time in a similar manner as EQ: in other words, showing "No Data" for the last 12 or so months of the loan. I assume also the "current status" field will remain as "more than 120 days past due". I will be checking Experian in a few days to see where that one stands. As of a feww days ago it had NOT updated and was shpowing lates like TU does.
So .....
I want to dispute that "Currnet Status" field. And ONLY that current status field. Is there a way to dispute only that item? In other words, would a call to the CRA and discussion on how the field data does nto make sense be possible? As we both no, I do not want a dispute to go back to the OC and have them revalidate/populate the months that were removed.
Thanks again.
@gdale6 wrote:
@BallBounces wrote:4) a shocker: Would you believe my TU score is 25 points higher than EQ? Of course there are other differences between the reports, but still ....... Its rare score would be the same on all CRAs the way they store date is different between them they are not mirror images of each other as you already know .
Right, not shocking that scores are off by a good margin. The files are different, etc. What IS suprising to me is that the HIGHER score is the one with all the 60, 90, 120 day lates on it. THAT is really strange to me. The files are 'similar' other than that very distinct difference. Not important really, just strange.