Told 3X creditor would remove lates; hasn't happened...

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Can't you also submit the letter with a dispute to ex and tu?

---

That's not a good idea since it's is against CRA's policy not to change accurate information and possibly inflame the creditor to change their mind.

I would give it up to 90 days and then go the BBB route.

---

Two lates were removed from an account on my reports and technically those payments were late. My mortgage lender got a letter on letterhead from the creditor saying they were removing the late payment remarks from my account and gave it to the credit bureaus for a rapid rescore. I *highly* doubt that my lender would do something shady with my credit.

Change their mind? The point of getting the agreement in writing is so that it is a legally binding agreement.

---

I didn't say anything was shady.

It's simply against CRA policy that accurate information should not be changed or deleted. Robert can chime in with more specific information.

IMO disputing what a creditor promises for a courtesy GW adjustment or deletion could make it more difficult for consumers to get GW adjustments in the future if the CRA's agencies are getting disputes because creditors promised a GW gesture and it wasn't done fast enough. 

The creditor or CA is doing the consumer a HUGE favor to begin with, why tell on them because we need rapid scoring increases. The BBB is the best route to take and it will work.

---

I'm guess I'm a bit unclear how the CRA would know it was a courtesy adjustment and not a correction of error.

---

What is the basis of the dispute? The information is correct, right?

---

If the creditor has supposedly updated your account to be clear of late remarks, then the information on when you were late is incorrect. You're saying disputing the information would cause the creditor to 'change their mind', but with the letter, the CRA changes it themselves. Like I said, my late remarks were removed literally instantly by the CRA with the letter. I don't think the creditor was even contacted, because I backdoored after the lender told me it was done and it was already changed.

I've also disputed a balance amount that was wrong because of Equifax, not the creditor, but they had to investigate with the creditor because I didn't include a letter with the current balance... are you saying that damaged my relationship with the creditor? That sounds absurd.

If you file a complaint with the BBB, how would that not be worse to the creditor? 

I guess I'm just very, very unclear with the logic here.

---

I agree you are.

Brutal- I gave sound advice, your call. Good luck either way.

---

I am asking you to clear up the logic that the creditor would be more upset over a dispute that may or may not ever reach their office over a Better Business Bureau complaint that they 100% will see and will negatively affect their business.

I'm unclear on the logic because with the information provided it is not logical.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Can't you also submit the letter with a dispute to ex and tu?

---

That's not a good idea since it's is against CRA's policy not to change accurate information and possibly inflame the creditor to change their mind.

I would give it up to 90 days and then go the BBB route.

---

Two lates were removed from an account on my reports and technically those payments were late. My mortgage lender got a letter on letterhead from the creditor saying they were removing the late payment remarks from my account and gave it to the credit bureaus for a rapid rescore. I *highly* doubt that my lender would do something shady with my credit.

Change their mind? The point of getting the agreement in writing is so that it is a legally binding agreement.

---

I didn't say anything was shady.

It's simply against CRA policy that accurate information should not be changed or deleted. Robert can chime in with more specific information.

IMO disputing what a creditor promises for a courtesy GW adjustment or deletion could make it more difficult for consumers to get GW adjustments in the future if the CRA's agencies are getting disputes because creditors promised a GW gesture and it wasn't done fast enough. 

The creditor or CA is doing the consumer a HUGE favor to begin with, why tell on them because we need rapid scoring increases. The BBB is the best route to take and it will work.

---

I'm guess I'm a bit unclear how the CRA would know it was a courtesy adjustment and not a correction of error.

---

What is the basis of the dispute? The information is correct, right?

---

If the creditor has supposedly updated your account to be clear of late remarks, then the information on when you were late is incorrect. You're saying disputing the information would cause the creditor to 'change their mind', but with the letter, the CRA changes it themselves. Like I said, my late remarks were removed literally instantly by the CRA with the letter. I don't think the creditor was even contacted, because I backdoored after the lender told me it was done and it was already changed.

I've also disputed a balance amount that was wrong because of Equifax, not the creditor, but they had to investigate with the creditor because I didn't include a letter with the current balance... are you saying that damaged my relationship with the creditor? That sounds absurd.

If you file a complaint with the BBB, how would that not be worse to the creditor? 

I guess I'm just very, very unclear with the logic here.

---

I agree you are.

Brutal- I gave sound advice, your call. Good luck either way.

---

I am asking you to clear up the logic that the creditor would be more upset over a dispute that may or may not ever reach their office over a Better Business Bureau complaint that they 100% will see and will negatively affect their business.

I'm unclear on the logic because with the information provided it is not logical.

---

With no disrespect, I will give my opinion this last time because the horse has been beaten.

Disputing this with the CRA's COULD result in coming back as verified. If the OP calls the CRA's they COULD say we have not been notified by the creditor therefore we can't make any changes until we do(even with proof in hand). Not everyone will have the luck YOU had doing this. Just like not everyone has luck with an EE of an item either. If your lucky enough to get the right person on the phone at the CRA you may get the EE. Using this only as an example.

The creditor knows the policy of the CRA's. They are breaking that policy by changing accurate information.

In most cases the dispute will reach their offices. Especially if it's electronic and risk that it can come back as verified and no changes will be made.

IMO businesses that respond favorable to a consumer regarding a BBB complaint would look good for the business. Wells Fargo has already done a good job on their own when it comes to negativity about their business. This could in fact be in the OP's favor right now.

That's it.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Can't you also submit the letter with a dispute to ex and tu?

---

That's not a good idea since it's is against CRA's policy not to change accurate information and possibly inflame the creditor to change their mind.

I would give it up to 90 days and then go the BBB route.

---

Two lates were removed from an account on my reports and technically those payments were late. My mortgage lender got a letter on letterhead from the creditor saying they were removing the late payment remarks from my account and gave it to the credit bureaus for a rapid rescore. I *highly* doubt that my lender would do something shady with my credit.

Change their mind? The point of getting the agreement in writing is so that it is a legally binding agreement.

---

I didn't say anything was shady.

It's simply against CRA policy that accurate information should not be changed or deleted. Robert can chime in with more specific information.

IMO disputing what a creditor promises for a courtesy GW adjustment or deletion could make it more difficult for consumers to get GW adjustments in the future if the CRA's agencies are getting disputes because creditors promised a GW gesture and it wasn't done fast enough. 

The creditor or CA is doing the consumer a HUGE favor to begin with, why tell on them because we need rapid scoring increases. The BBB is the best route to take and it will work.

---

I'm guess I'm a bit unclear how the CRA would know it was a courtesy adjustment and not a correction of error.

---

What is the basis of the dispute? The information is correct, right?

---

If the creditor has supposedly updated your account to be clear of late remarks, then the information on when you were late is incorrect. You're saying disputing the information would cause the creditor to 'change their mind', but with the letter, the CRA changes it themselves. Like I said, my late remarks were removed literally instantly by the CRA with the letter. I don't think the creditor was even contacted, because I backdoored after the lender told me it was done and it was already changed.

I've also disputed a balance amount that was wrong because of Equifax, not the creditor, but they had to investigate with the creditor because I didn't include a letter with the current balance... are you saying that damaged my relationship with the creditor? That sounds absurd.

If you file a complaint with the BBB, how would that not be worse to the creditor? 

I guess I'm just very, very unclear with the logic here.

---

I agree you are.

Brutal- I gave sound advice, your call. Good luck either way.

---

I am asking you to clear up the logic that the creditor would be more upset over a dispute that may or may not ever reach their office over a Better Business Bureau complaint that they 100% will see and will negatively affect their business.

I'm unclear on the logic because with the information provided it is not logical.

---

With no disrespect, I will give my opinion this last time because the horse has been beaten.

Disputing this with the CRA's COULD result in coming back as verified. If the OP calls the CRA's they COULD say we have not been notified by the creditor therefore we can't make any changes until we do. Not everyone will have the luck YOU had doing this. Just like not everyone has luck with an EE of an item either. If your lucky enough to get the right person on the phone at the CRA you may get the EE. Using this only as an example.

The creditor knows the policy of the CRA's. They are breaking that policy by changing accurate information.

In most cases the dispute will reach their offices. Especially if it's electronic and risk that it can come back as verified and no changes will be made.

IMO business that respond favorable to a consumer regarding a BBB complaint would look good for the business. Wells Fargo has already done a good job on their own when it comes to negativity about their business. This could in fact be in the OP's favor right now.

That's it.

---

With no disrespect, the horse was not beaten. I didn't ask for your opinion again, I asked for support for that opinion that was definitely missing from your statements other than asserting that you felt strongly about it. You provided new information about your position that completely changes the perspective of an outsider. I appreciate that.

I don't believe my experience with the bureaus is unique, though; anytime I've sent in documentation with a letter stating that the information was wrong (both by mail and fax), it's been altered manually without even entering a dispute status. The same was true for when my lender did it.

Interesting that a favorable response to a complaint via BBB is seen as a positive, though. That is good information to have.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Can't you also submit the letter with a dispute to ex and tu?

---

That's not a good idea since it's is against CRA's policy not to change accurate information and possibly inflame the creditor to change their mind.

I would give it up to 90 days and then go the BBB route.

---

Two lates were removed from an account on my reports and technically those payments were late. My mortgage lender got a letter on letterhead from the creditor saying they were removing the late payment remarks from my account and gave it to the credit bureaus for a rapid rescore. I *highly* doubt that my lender would do something shady with my credit.

Change their mind? The point of getting the agreement in writing is so that it is a legally binding agreement.

---

I didn't say anything was shady.

It's simply against CRA policy that accurate information should not be changed or deleted. Robert can chime in with more specific information.

IMO disputing what a creditor promises for a courtesy GW adjustment or deletion could make it more difficult for consumers to get GW adjustments in the future if the CRA's agencies are getting disputes because creditors promised a GW gesture and it wasn't done fast enough. 

The creditor or CA is doing the consumer a HUGE favor to begin with, why tell on them because we need rapid scoring increases. The BBB is the best route to take and it will work.

---

I'm guess I'm a bit unclear how the CRA would know it was a courtesy adjustment and not a correction of error.

---

What is the basis of the dispute? The information is correct, right?

---

If the creditor has supposedly updated your account to be clear of late remarks, then the information on when you were late is incorrect. You're saying disputing the information would cause the creditor to 'change their mind', but with the letter, the CRA changes it themselves. Like I said, my late remarks were removed literally instantly by the CRA with the letter. I don't think the creditor was even contacted, because I backdoored after the lender told me it was done and it was already changed.

I've also disputed a balance amount that was wrong because of Equifax, not the creditor, but they had to investigate with the creditor because I didn't include a letter with the current balance... are you saying that damaged my relationship with the creditor? That sounds absurd.

If you file a complaint with the BBB, how would that not be worse to the creditor? 

I guess I'm just very, very unclear with the logic here.

---

I agree you are.

Brutal- I gave sound advice, your call. Good luck either way.

---

I am asking you to clear up the logic that the creditor would be more upset over a dispute that may or may not ever reach their office over a Better Business Bureau complaint that they 100% will see and will negatively affect their business.

I'm unclear on the logic because with the information provided it is not logical.

---

With no disrespect, I will give my opinion this last time because the horse has been beaten.

Disputing this with the CRA's COULD result in coming back as verified. If the OP calls the CRA's they COULD say we have not been notified by the creditor therefore we can't make any changes until we do. Not everyone will have the luck YOU had doing this. Just like not everyone has luck with an EE of an item either. If your lucky enough to get the right person on the phone at the CRA you may get the EE. Using this only as an example.

The creditor knows the policy of the CRA's. They are breaking that policy by changing accurate information.

In most cases the dispute will reach their offices. Especially if it's electronic and risk that it can come back as verified and no changes will be made.

IMO business that respond favorable to a consumer regarding a BBB complaint would look good for the business. Wells Fargo has already done a good job on their own when it comes to negativity about their business. This could in fact be in the OP's favor right now.

That's it.

---

With no disrespect, the horse was not beaten. I didn't ask for your opinion again, I asked for support for that opinion that was definitely missing from your statements other than asserting that you felt strongly about it. You provided new information about your position that completely changes the perspective of an outsider. I appreciate that.

I don't believe my experience with the bureaus is unique, though; anytime I've sent in documentation with a letter stating that the information was wrong The OP's information is not wrong, it's accurate (both by mail and fax), it's been altered manually without even entering a dispute status. The same was true for when my lender did it.

Interesting that a favorable response to a complaint via BBB is seen as a positive, though. That is good information to have.

---

[Anonymous]

We disagree on that point, Donny. 

[Anonymous]

The information reported (the late payments) was accurate.  Wells Fargo agreeing to the GW adjustment means that they requested that the accurate information (late) be changed to inaccurate information (paid as agreed).

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The information reported (the late payments) was accurate.  Wells Fargo agreeing to the GW adjustment means that they requested that the accurate information (late) be changed to inaccurate information (paid as agreed).

---

I don't agree with the way you are describing what is accurate. It isn't  precisely what is historically factual, as it rarely is. In this case, it is merely what is found in a database of the furnisher. 

The CRAs do not determine your relationship with your creditors, nor the terms of any agreement you make with them. Just like you can vacate a judgement legally, and then it will disappear from your public record as it never was (even though it happened, historically speaking), your creditor can decide that you paid as agreed, and it is well within their rights to do so. They can also just remove information from a particular period of time, as they are not required to report every month, let alone report at all.

Not going to argue this point anymore, as I said I disagree on that point, and that perspective won't be changing.

[Anonymous]

Wow, lots of 'my way' is THE way

The truth is (my way😊) either way the OC is changing their original version of events, as a 'favor' so running to the BBB 'can' be seen as a death nail vs a fire under their butts if they want to stand by the actual FACTS

Sure, if there were ambitiouty in whether or not payments were late, that'd be ONE but the company did nothing WRONG in reporting late payments as late because they were....So running to the BBB over them nor granting a 'favor' seems a bit dishonest and sort of a punk move, all due respect.

One also has to assume that the continual letters confirming they will inform the CRAs of the change would all have to be LIES, lies they have no reason to tell they are under no obligation to correct anything, again they did nothing wrong and are offering to GRANT the OP a 'solid' just being cool

Perhaps the issue is the CRA being slow, the OP says one CRA did intact report the change that the OC says they sent in

One might be better off say sending a letter clarifying with the OC that the referenced account indeed should NOT show any late payments during said period...

If such a letter were sent as a memorial of the 'facts' as they should be reported , then a copy of such a letter could then be notarized and sent with a dispute as to how the CRA would be reporting something other than what the actual data furnisher has agreed as should be the record

Case over, next file

Doing it this way let's the CRA know that no 'investigation' will come back as verified because the OC has already agreed that the current reporting is incorrect, as supported by the enclosed copy of the document sent directly to you from the OC agreeing with the 'new' facts

Again, not a letter stating why the change just a meeting of the minds of what the record should SHOW or what it shouldn't show, period....The how and why isn't important, just that they agree NO LATE should be reporting, end of discussion.

That's how it's done 😎

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Wow, lots of 'my way' is THE way

The truth is (my way😊) either way the OC is changing their original version of events, as a 'favor' so running to the BBB 'can' be seen as a death nail vs a fire under their butts if they want to stand by the actual FACTS

Sure, if there were ambitiouty in whether or not payments were late, that'd be ONE but the company did nothing WRONG in reporting late payments as late because they were....So running to the BBB over them nor granting a 'favor' seems a bit dishonest and sort of a punk move, all due respect.

One also has to assume that the continual letters confirming they will inform the CRAs of the change would all have to be LIES, lies they have no reason to tell they are under no obligation to correct anything, again they did nothing wrong and are offering to GRANT the OP a 'solid' just being cool

Perhaps the issue is the CRA being slow, the OP says one CRA did intact report the change that the OC says they sent in

One might be better off say sending a letter clarifying with the OC that the referenced account indeed should NOT show any late payments during said period...

If such a letter were sent as a memorial of the 'facts' as they should be reported , then a copy of such a letter could then be notarized and sent with a dispute as to how the CRA would be reporting something other than what the actual data furnisher has agreed as should be the record

Case over, next file

Doing it this way let's the CRA know that no 'investigation' will come back as verified because the OC has already agreed that the current reporting is incorrect, as supported by the enclosed copy of the document sent directly to you from the OC agreeing with the 'new' facts

Again, not a letter stating why the change just a meeting of the minds of what the record should SHOW or what it shouldn't show, period....The how and why isn't important, just that they agree NO LATE should be reporting, end of discussion.

That's how it's done 😎

Welcome to the "Wow, lots of "my way" is THE way.

Thanks for sharing "your way".

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

One also has to assume that the continual letters confirming they will inform the CRAs of the change would all have to be LIES, lies they have no reason to tell they are under no obligation to correct anything, again they did nothing wrong and are offering to GRANT the OP a 'solid' just being cool

Perhaps the issue is the CRA being slow, the OP says one CRA did intact report the change that the OC says they sent in

---

I don't think they are being "slow" as it's been about 140 days since I received the first letter.  Every letter I've received says to please allow up to 45-60 days to see the change. But, this is a different creditor, so whatever... but my point is that the 45-60 days passed once, then another 45-60 days passed again after their SECOND letter, and I'm now in between the 45-60 days for letters #3 and #4.  I will say that when I received the FIRST letter, it was less than a week before I saw the adjustment made on EQ.  I figured EX and TU would shortly follow, but they never did.  I've sent follow up letters to Wells Fargo every time the 60 day mark passes with an enclosed copy of their previous letter(s) stating that the account information would be updated along with another kind request to ensure the adjustment takes place, but no such luck yet.