Do disputed accounts count towards score?

[Anonymous]

Are accounts under dispute considered while computing the credit score? Based on my experience, I am inclined to think that the score does not depend on whether or not some information in an account is under dispute. But I saw at least one other post on this site suggesting that disputed accounts are treated like they didn't exist for purposes of computing the score. What is the right answer?

[haulingthescoreup]

The lender can code the dispute in a way that makes it count or not count for scoring. How they choose which to do, I have no clue, but that's the explanation I received from a FICO admin.

When I look at my reports, it's obvious that it's being ignored, because it says that my most recent late is 5-something years ago, when in fact, it's this account, with a late in March or April 2007. And on TU, where all my lates have mysteriously vanished (I seriously have no idea why, but hey, I'm not complaining), it says that I have no lates, despite the fact that it's still there, with the date listed and its little flag.

[Anonymous]

Interesting. All of my TU lates mysteriously disappeared as well. Disappeared completely, not just for computing the score, that is.

In the first case you describe (EQ?), is the 2007 late under dispute? Your TU case seems odd. Maybe for some reason, the 2+ years old lates are not impacting your score in TU unlike the other report, which is possible if there are minor differences in the two reports. Are both reports from the same site (eg, myFICO)?

Interesting that "the lender can code the dispute" when they can just remove the disputed info. Seems like this would be relevant only for the duration when the lender has received notifiication of the dispute but hasn't verified it back (and wants to be nice to you temporarily). In any case, I assume your answer means that simply having an account marked as under dispute does not guarantee its exclusion from the score, right?

[haulingthescoreup]

All that's left on my TU report, both the myFICO version and the full report from TU, is the 2007 late. The older ones quietly went away a year or so ago. They simply don't show up any more, including on the full report, which is what is used for scoring.

On my second screen of the myFICO TU report, it says I have no lates, zero. On the EQ report, it says my most recent late is 5+ years ago, two years older than the 2007 late.

Yet both reports display the late, with the little flag, and they have the date that it occurred.

My guess is that this is how Citi/ Sears chose to do goodwill --they didn't remove it, because they're not supposed to per their agreement with the CRA's, but they coded it in such a way that it mostly doesn't impact my scores. Go figure.

And right, many people here have found that disputed accounts are still being scored, while others aren't scored.

[llecs]

---

@haulingthescoreup wrote:

The lender can code the dispute in a way that makes it count or not count for scoring. How they choose which to do, I have no clue, but that's the explanation I received from a FICO admin.

When I look at my reports, it's obvious that it's being ignored, because it says that my most recent late is 5-something years ago, when in fact, it's this account, with a late in March or April 2007. And on TU, where all my lates have mysteriously vanished (I seriously have no idea why, but hey, I'm not complaining), it says that I have no lates, despite the fact that it's still there, with the date listed and its little flag.

---

+1. And a dispute isn't always the only source to get the TL to be marked as "disputed". I have a 6 yo redeemed repo with 6 lates remaining. This is my only baddie (well, until recently...stupid AFNI). Anyway, everytime I send a GW, they mark it in dispute. My payment hisotry jumps to "Great" and in the Glance page, it says I have 0 lates. The pos/neg factors also change to show I have no lates, despite it clearly there within the TL itself, and the red flag is still there on the Accounts page. I figured that if I keep sending GWs, then I'm golden. And YMMV based on the OC. It certainly wasn't like that for all the GWs I sent to others.

[haulingthescoreup]

Yep, that's where my non-dispute came from. I asked for GW, and wound up with this.