I disputed the way an unpaid C/O is being reported on my TU report. I got the results today, and it said "New Information." I've copied below what it looks like now.
My main question is this: how is it possible that it could show "Last Payment Made" on 3/6/2008, but then show as OK for the next two years (during which no payments were made)? Given the noted removal date of 12/2016, it also looks like they're saying the DOFD is sometime in 2009, which also makes no sense given the last payment date.
It just seems like I should be able to send this exact document back to TU as the basis for a re-investigation, right? I mean, if the creditor acknowledges that the last payment was made 03/2008, then DOFD should be at latest 04/2008 and the exclusion date should be no later than 10/2015, right? If anyone can think of something I'm not seeing here, I'd greatly appreciate it.
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Estimated month and year that this item will be removed: 12/2016 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Starting score 3/30/13: 570s across the board
Claiming payments were made when they were not is not kosher, if you can prove the final payment was when you say then I would escalate this to the CFPB, it looks like there is reaging going on here and thats a no no. If you have prior reports from that time frame that should help you prove the case,
Thanks gdale and Robert for weighing in.
gdale: at this point re-aging is what I think is happening, I just don't see how it's possible that my account could have gone unpaid after 03/2008 and wind up with an exclusion date of 12/2016. That math just doesn't work.
Robert: I have pulled my bank statements from 2008 and am confident that no payment was made on this account after March of 2008. From what I've reviewed, it actually looks like I did not pay in either January 2008 or February of 2008, then made the Jan & Feb payments during the first two weeks of March, but did not make the March 2008 payment, and then ceased making payments altogether. So, I think that the absolute latest the DOFD could be would be April 2008, and in fact could be as far back as January, 2008.
My question is: would it be sufficient to send my March, April, May, and June 2008 bank statements, which show payment in March but not thereafter, as my evidence for a DOFD dispute? Unfortunately I don't have billing statements from the creditor in my possession anymore.
gdale, I also did as you suggested and looked at the one old TU report I have. It's a report from a couple years ago, and it has two interesting differences from this one. First, that report showed a "Date of Last Payment" of 05/2010 (which they have now revised). Second, that report also showed a 30-day late in February and a 30-day late in March, followed by a 60-day late in April, leading up to the 60-day late that then gets reported in May. Like the report above, it then switches to "OK" for about 2 years before showing C/O in May & June 2010.
Overall, I do feel like something fishy is going on with the reporting here and it seems like this TL should just be deleted at this point.
For a next step, would you all recommend:
A) Re-disputing with TU
B) 623 dispute with the creditor
C) Going straight to the CFPB
@RobertEG wrote:I would advise sending your documentation as a direct dispute to the creditor.
They have the records necessary to determine their own DOFD.
Your argument appears logical, and I would suspect the creditor will simply update the reported DOFD.
I agree this is the course of action to pursue.
Thanks again, Robert, really appreciate it.
I'll work on getting a dispute to the OC this weekend. I do think ultimately that's the way to go because my dispute with EX resulted in a similar outcome, and I want this fixed consistently across all 3 bureaus. My dispute with EQ is still pending, though as I mentioned on another thread it seems to be gone from my report. I'm not counting on anything with them, though, till the actual dispute results come back.
I imagine that the OC won't be particularly happy about the change to the DOFD that I'll be requesting, since it would result in the account being excluded from my CR either immediately or within a couple months, but I also think I'm on solid ground since I do have some documentation and I'm well beyond the SOL. I'll keep you all posted with how it plays out.
As long as you guys are checking out this thread, would you mind reading my draft 623 letter and sharing any feedback? You've both been so helpful on this issue so far and I'd really appreciate it
Note: the reason the letter only refers to EX and TU is because, as of now, the disputed TL is not showing on EQ. They have till 2/27 to conclude my dispute with them. I'm assuming I should wait till after that date to send this, and revise it to include EQ if they for some reason bring it back onto my report - does that sound right?
GMAC
P.O. Box 105677
Atlanta, GA 30348
RE: Account XXXXXXXXXXXXX
To Whom it May Concern:
I recently disputed the above-referenced account with Experian and TransUnion the accuracy of reporting on this account, and the results came back either “verified” or “updated”. There remain significant inaccuracies with regard to this account at both Experian and TransUnion.
This is a Notice of Direct Dispute with you, under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(D), of the accuracy of information you have reported to my credit file. In compliance with FCRA §623(a)(8)(D), and enacting regulations published at 16 CFR § 660.4, this Notice of Direct dispute includes:
Identification of the specific information being disputed:
- GMAC as shown on my Credit Reports (attached) is showing incorrect payment history information
Basis for dispute:
- The Date of First Delinquency is not accurate. This date should be no later than 03/2008.
Supporting evidence:
- Credit Report from Experian dated _____, relevant information highlighted
- Credit Report from Equifax dated ____, relevant information highlighted
- Credit Report from TransUnion dated ____, relevant information highlighted
- Credit Report from TransUnion dated 07/10/2013, relevant information highlighted
- Statements from my checking account, dated ___, demonstrating that no payment was made on this account after 03/2008
- Nelson v Chase Manhattan, 2002 provides a cause of action for individuals against furnishers of information.
Under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(E) and 16 CFR §660.4, you have the duty to review all of the information I have provided to you, to complete your investigation of this Direct Dispute within 30 days of my Notice of Direct Dispute, and report directly back to me the results of your investigation within 5 days of your completion of your investigation.
Should you find the disputed information to be inaccurate or incomplete, or if you cannot verify the accuracy or completeness of the disputed information, you are additionally required, under FCRA 623((1)(E), to also promptly notify the credit reporting agencies of deletion of this information from my credit file.
Thank you in advance for a written response within 30 days of receipt. If you verify the current reporting as accurate, please share specific details regarding the method of verification, including employee(s) contacted, documents furnished, and any other relevant information.
Respectfully,
NAME
ADDRESS
ENC:
Copies of the aforementioned Credit Reports with relevant information highlighted
Copies of checking account statements