I busted out laughing when I read #4.
I don't know what to do with that either... that CEO is a pro.
Sorry, I got nothin'... I mean... he's technically right on every one of those points (except maybe #4) when looking from a business perspective..
@Anonymous wrote:
Yeah so time to go with plan B and dispute for deletion and hope they don't respond since the reporting is inaccurate anyway. It's reporting into 2018 but was paid off in August 2017.
You think they wont respond?
I am going to direct you to your original post 
@Remedios wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
Yeah so time to go with plan B and dispute for deletion and hope they don't respond since the reporting is inaccurate anyway. It's reporting into 2018 but was paid off in August 2017.You think they wont respond?
I am going to direct you to your original post
Hahaha well I am hoping it will go to some obscure department there 
As for the timeline, I redeemed the repossession and made all the remaining payments on time. The account closed in good standing when I traded the car in. What I meant to say is that it is showing payments being made up to January on one CRA, and December on the others when the last check was cut to pay it off in August. I have proof of payment from the dealship I traded the car in to. One of them even shows a late for November.
The negatives on it are literally only the 30-60 day late that led to repo and the repo comment. The comment got me denied a CC with Wells Fargo and I have banked with them for 12 years.
Lol @XtraCredit
Might even get the goodwill removal after that, if the guy has a good enough sense of humor.
@Kantide
Plan B's typically work out best, from my experience.
Might even get the goodwill removal after that, if the guy has a good enough sense of humor.
@Kantide
Plan B's typically work out best, from my experience.
@Anonymous wrote:Hahaha well I am hoping it will go to some obscure department there
As for the timeline, I redeemed the repossession and made all the remaining payments on time. The account closed in good standing when I traded the car in. What I meant to say is that it is showing payments being made up to January on one CRA, and December on the others when the last check was cut to pay it off in August. I have proof of payment from the dealship I traded the car in to. One of them even shows a late for November.
The negatives on it are literally only the 30-60 day late that led to repo and the repo comment. The comment got me denied a CC with Wells Fargo and I have banked with them for 12 years.
You can try disputing with the bureaus, but you know, if this is the case, I think you should file a Direct Dispute, (Notice of Direct Dispute under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(D) and 16 CFR 660.4). This type of dispute would be filed directly with the OC - not through the credit bureaus - by mail, and would detail any and all discrepencies in their reporting across the bureaus (such as one month reported as late on one bureau but not another, different first month of delinquency notated, etc.) along with a demand that they remove the tradeline. (I've had success with this).
FYI: You need to file a Direct Dispute before you dispute with the bureaus because if dispute with the bureaus first and they conclude without removing or correcting the tradeline, then the creditor can dismiss any subsequent Direct Dispute regarding the same information without any requirement to investigate. Furnishers are only required to conduct one investigation of asserted inaccuracy. You can still go ahead and file a Direct Dispute, but at that point they can dismiss it if they choose, deeming it frivolous.
It's best that you obtain hard (paper) copies of all three credit reports so you provide copies of how the tradeline is reporting to each bureau. Don't use printed copies from your online reports because the fluff front-end software sometimes obscures the data being reported - besides, hard-copy reports show the tradeline exactly the way it's being reported and includes more information that what is shown via online CMS portals. Call the bureaus and request they send you paper copies of your reports.
You can start your dispute with something like:
This is a Notice of Direct Dispute under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(D) and 16 CFR 660.4, of the accuracy of information [Finance Co. Name] has reported to my credit file. This correspondence further serves as notice that [Finance Co. Name] is in direct violation of FCRA regulations.
And include:
1. Identification of the specific information being disputed: specify the account number, and the specific information that is disputed under that account.
2. Basis for the dispute: how the reporting was inaccurate including any statutory, regulatory provision violations, violation of CRA reporting guidelines, etc.
3. Supporting documentation: ie. old payment / bill statements, copies of the portion only of your recent credit report showing the innaccurate reporting of the tradeline on your credit file.
They have to respond and investigate a valid Direct Dispute. This will also allow you to provide as much detailed info and supporting documentation as you want = just take your time and make sure your dispute is as clear and concise as possible. Note: They do not have to remove the tradeline, they can simply opt to correct the errors - but you can demand they remove it altogether. If they correct the errors instead of removing them, check the udpated data for any new errors and file a new Direct Dispute, if warranted.
