No 81-Month Payment Data available for display??

[kal9988]

I have a collection that used to list a bunch of late marks -- after I disputed it, it now shows:

Date of First Delinquency: 11/2006

Balance: $0

Date Major Delinquency First Reported: 04/2007

But underneath, where it used to show all the late payments, it now shows:

No 81-Month Payment Data available for display.

What does this mean? Does it count less harshly with the late payments no longer being listed?

Thanks!

[MarineVietVet]

---

@kal9988 wrote:

I have a collection that used to list a bunch of late marks -- after I disputed it, it now shows:

Date of First Delinquency: 11/2006

Balance: $0

Date Major Delinquency First Reported: 04/2007

But underneath, where it used to show all the late payments, it now shows:

No 81-Month Payment Data available for display.

What does this mean? Does it count less harshly with the late payments no longer being listed?

Thanks!

---

Where did you get the report you are looking at? Reports from third party sites often don't have the most complete information. If you pull your free reports from annualcreditreport.com it should have that 81 month display.

Unless you already have a full CR in which case I'm not sure what to tell you. 

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 9/09 pulled by lender 802, EQ - 10/10-813, TU - 10/10-774

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".

[kal9988]

I got it from Equifax itself. It lists the 81 month display for other accounts, just not this one.

[llecs]

It sounds like the CA was reporting in the creditor section w/ late(s). After the dispute, those were removed. Per FICO scoring, FICO looks at how recent and how severe the worst late was. In this case, the collection itself would have trumped any lates. Assuming this TL hadn't updated from a long time ago until now, you wouldn't see any score change.

[kal9988]

Well the collection was messed up. When I disputed it, it listed the date of the dispute as a  90-day late mark!!!! When I disputed that, it did it again. Finally they just removed all the history, so I don't know if those late marks are still counted.

[llecs]

They weren't counted because the worst delinquency is the collection.

[kal9988]

it only counts the worst delinquency?

[llecs]

In this case, yes. At the time the late reported, there is a reported date associated with the CA's listing. Thowing out any date as an example, let's say the CA updated 5/1990 with a 90 day late. On that day going forward, assuming it doesn't update again, the worst delinquency isn't the 90, it's the collection itself. If in 6/1990 the 90 day late is removed, the worst delinquency is still the CA. There's no change in the status of the TL. It's still a collection. This is one reason why paying a CA will never improve your FICO score. The collection itself is still dinging your score; it doesn't change with a payment.

BTW, there is some danger in disputing a CA. If it hadn't updated in a while, let's say 7/2004 w/ a DOFD of approx that time, as an example, and reported with that 90 day late. If you dispute it and the late disappears, the CRA automatically updates the reported date because the TL usually changed. If you dispute an old CA now, that reported date shifts from 7/2004 to 11/2010 and it makes the CA appear newer and that can drop your FICO score, even though the CA is set to drop soon. This is an example obviously. The only way to improve your score is to get it removed.

Edited to remove a chunk. Partially true, but with conditions. Studying this. It seems it has much to do with the CRA + how  and where that TL reports.