Authorized Users

[smallfry]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

I would also agree with that. If a derog was legitimate, it should not be removed from ones CR. In fact I have had BOA tell me that directly in response to a GW letter, stating that they consider it to be improper and possibly even illegal for them to remove a legit derog.

The FCRA only mandates removal of a disputed item "which is found to be inaccurate or whose accuracy can no longer be verified." Removal for other purposes is not justified.

Gaming is gaming.

Message Edited by RobertEG on 05-27-2008 05:22 PM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 05-27-2008 05:34 PM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 05-27-2008 05:34 PM

---

Tough call though isn't it? I really believe someone who missed a payment or two over the course of a few years due to extenuating circumstances deserves a break.

[Anonymous]

---

RobertEG wrote:

I would also agree with that.  If a derog was legitimate, it should not be removed from ones CR.  In fact I have had BOA tell me that directly in response to a GW letter, stating that they consider it to be improper and possibly even illegal for them to remove a legit derog. 

The FCRA only mandates removal of a disputed item "which is found to be inaccurate or whose accuracy can no longer be verified." Removal for other purposes is not justified.

Gaming is gaming.

---

I agree that removal of derogs skews the scoring system, however BofA's assertion that the removal of a derog would be illegal doesn't hold water, in the opinion of this layman.

Sure, the FCRA mandates removal under certain circumstances, but that does not preclude removal under other circumstances if the creditor is willing.

[RobertEG]

I totally agree, Cheddar.  The FCRA clearly does not prohibit removal for other "GW" reasons, and while BOA told me that it considered any such action to be illegal, it  was simply a convenient blow-off by them.  I laughed when I read it. 

I am not impling that any grant of a GW is illegal.  Creditors do it to keep their selected customers happy for their own future business retention considerations, and not because it is proper. 

I would submit that a 700+ FICO dude or dudess has a much better chance of getting a favorable response to a GW than a 600+ consumer, regardless of the horror story behind the single late derog, should they fear loss of a low risk customer.  Business is rarely ethics in its basis.

When you begin to go down the slippery slope of deciding who does or does not "deserve a break," it is very subjective and discriminatory as to who "deserves a break."

Message Edited by RobertEG on 05-27-2008 06:42 PM