cleaning up the last few issues

[Anonymous]

Had a BK Ch.7 discharged Feb. 06.

I'm well on my way to recovery and all that...however...

On my EFX, there is an account that was IIB that shows TWICE with the same account number but a slightly different name when it was in fact a single loan.  One says "ABC Bank" and the other ABCBK NA" or something akin to that.  This is on ONE bureau so EFX reports it twice.  Also there are three old accounts that report as IIB that were in fact paid off well before and paid as agreed.

Question:

Do the NUMBER of accounts included in bankruptcy or showing a delinquency hurt the FICO?  Would correcting the above issues and reducing the number of accounts with derogs (basically all the IIB accounts) from 18 to 15 make a difference at all?  If it's not going to really make a difference I won't mess with it.  Also - fixing the three old accounts might help a little by adding account aging and good pay history wouldn't it?  They're from 2002 and fall off next year anyway...

[granny031350]

I was just successful in getting experian and wells fargo to delete a duplicated IIB account.  NO POINT CHANGE.  I was so disappointed 

[Anonymous]

Interesting.  Anyone else got input?

[Junejer]

Joe, everybody's reports are different. I think that it is worth the effort. Right now, you are being "double jeopardized", if you will. It may or may not make a difference, but who knows.

Bottom line is that it should be reporting correctly.

[Anonymous]

Well I did dispute with TU about a month ago to take care of the accounts incorrectly marked IIB and they got back to me.  The EFX shows it too and I haven't done the disputes there yet as mentioned above.

They asked for "proof" of it...and I think it's ridiculous...I'm tempted to say:

"Don't be stupid.  Look at the date that this account was closed, and look at the date I filed my bankruptcy.  This was an installment loan, so once it was paid off it was done and over with, there's no "proof" needed aside from common sense!"

The accounts incorrectly marked IIB were opened 12/01 and closed and paid off in 12/02...the Ch 7 was filed in 10/05...any idiot can see that they obviously weren't included.  It even says "paid in full" next to "included in Bankruptcy Chapter 7."

Morons.

I don't have proof really - the lender in question no longer has the accounts in their system, and I sure as heck don't have records from something from 6 years ago...

Message Edited by Joe77 on 06-03-2008 07:20 AM

[Junejer]

Do you have your BK schedules? That would clearly show the numbskulls what was IIB and what was not.

[Anonymous]

---

ByrdMan wrote:
Do you have your BK schedules? That would clearly show the numbskulls what was IIB and what was not.

---

That's how they f'ed it up in the first place.

See, the accounts in question were with Citifinancial.  I had ONE Citifinancial account IIB, and two that were not and paid off well beforehand.  I think they just lazily assumed all three were IIB.

Furthermore TWO bureaus made the same mistake.

[Junejer]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Junejer wrote:
Do you have your BK schedules? That would clearly show the numbskulls what was IIB and what was not.

---

That's how they f'ed it up in the first place.

See, the accounts in question were with Citifinancial.  I had ONE Citifinancial account IIB, and two that were not and paid off well beforehand.  I think they just lazily assumed all three were IIB.

Furthermore TWO bureaus made the same mistake.

---

Have highlighter will travel. It's a pretty easy fix for them. If not, an ITS letter should get their attention. Account numbers are listed on the schedule, right?

[Anonymous]

---

@Junejer wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Junejer wrote:
Do you have your BK schedules? That would clearly show the numbskulls what was IIB and what was not.

---

That's how they f'ed it up in the first place.

See, the accounts in question were with Citifinancial.  I had ONE Citifinancial account IIB, and two that were not and paid off well beforehand.  I think they just lazily assumed all three were IIB.

Furthermore TWO bureaus made the same mistake.

---

Have highlighter will travel. It's a pretty easy fix for them. If not, an ITS letter should get their attention. Account numbers are listed on the schedule, right?

---

Well, yes, but either way, COMMON SENSE should rule here - these accounts were paid and closed three years before I ever filed BK.

[Junejer]

Joe, here is an oxymoron alert. You did mention common sense and TU in the same context. Of course, common sense should prevail, but it doesn't. Yes, it's frustrating, but you have to do what you have to do, in order to clear the inaccuracies. In this instance, it is send the schedules with the items highlighted that clearly show that the items weren't included. Escalate this up the ladder.

If that doesn't work, there is the ITS letter.