So, it's been a long process to get the state of California franchise tax board to file a "filled in error" on an erroneously filed tax lien but today it was removed from my TU report and my fico 8 went from 645 to 747 while I was napping.
Totally going back to napping now with the hopes that it encourages the same thing to happen with Equifax.
In other news, why does Experian have to suck so much?
Totally going back to napping now with the hopes that it encourages the same thing to happen with Equifax.
In other news, why does Experian have to suck so much?
Thanks eveyrone! I'm actually really excited abt it. Ima check into the cc forum and see what kinda card I might like for my third one now that it seems my FICO is going to be higher than anticipated!
As for Exp, I dunno they actually removed the lien but my numbers only went up like 30 pts because they list all these parking tickes, which they are now not supposed to do by out of court settlement with the DA of NYC, and I guess they just seem kinda sleazy to me. Hahahahahahah! I know it's weird to talk abt if one CRA is sleazier than another when they often all pretyy much publish stuff on ppl with no real proof upto and beyond what is legal as long as no one forces them to stop. But still, Exp has been doing this sort of thing to me personally more than the other two. I get the feeling it's just personal experience talking here and this is not a normal feeling to have abt Exp specificcally but based on dealing w them they just seem kinda more sleazy than the industry standard.
I don't think Experian publishes "stuff" on people with no real proof and beyond what is legally allowed.
If there is something appearing on yorr Experian report that should not be there, you have the right to dispute it.
They all three do. And will continue to do until you spend months protesting it. That's the process we go through challenging things. If they needed proof, there'd be hearings for it, but instead they just take creditros' words for it and once it goes up, then you have to prove it is illegal or wrong. And you're not proving it to a judge, but to the listing CRA. So I think yeah they do publish stuff on ppl that is inaccurate. And it stays there - there's no removal while the invesitgate. There's an assumption of guilt. For instance, I just spent over a yer trying to get something removed that the creditor agreed was inaccurate yet the CRAs would not invesitgate to make right. Essentially, they were slandering me for over a year because it was convenient for them to not investigate too deeply.
With experian, they agreed - as did all the CRAs - to not list things that are the result of debt where a contract was not signed - ie: library fines and parking tickets. This was part of a legally binding out of court settlement with the DA of NYC. Yet here it is 1 Sept already and they persist in listing these things. Now, illegally. And, in my mind therefore also unethically since they signed the legal settlement paper that they would not list such things. I am ony having this problem w Experian but it would not surprise me to find it was the case with TU and Eq. I just don't have that happening to me with them.
I don't mean any offense, I really thought everyone knew and acknowledged this. I dunno maybe you disagree w me but as the kid of a lawyer, I have an easily-offended sense of fairness and IMO this industry is shady. Hence the need for the DA of NYC to come to a settlement with them over listing things that weren't even financial agreements to begin with. And listing them under categories which are not an accurate description of the debt such as "revolving accounts" for parking tickets in order to be able to find a place on the report where they could get away w it.
It's cool if you feel differently abt this. But my mind is really being blown by this interaction cause I thought everyone here would agree that this industry is really shady - I thought it was a given. Not just the CRAs but the collection ppl and that's why we need so many laws about them. Maybe I'm alone in this view! Hahahahaha! My apologies if you disagree!
Um gee you're being rude! I refer to a binding legal agreement between the district airbags office of new York city and the cras. If you wish to say I'm a conspiracy theorist for that, I really think maybe you're occupying your own little realty. If you care to inform yourself, please do Google the agreement. If not, I'd prefer if you could respect the opinions of others without calling them conspuracy theorists. Not everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
Then you for the info that you can sue ppl. In my particular case, I have a legitimate thing on my report that is not supposed to be there and is inaccurate. Calling ppl names who have such things on their reports is rude and offensive.
Then you for the info that you can sue ppl. In my particular case, I have a legitimate thing on my report that is not supposed to be there and is inaccurate. Calling ppl names who have such things on their reports is rude and offensive.
Congrats! !!! !
