PUBLIC RECORD POINTS

[rom828]

Anyone had a Public Record (tax lien) come off lately?

How much of a point increase did you see?!?!

Trying to get one deleted that's reporting incorrectly, and just curious as to how much change I might expect.

[Anonymous]

Well I hate to be the bearer of (short term) bad tidings, but I had my tax lien fall off a few days ago, the only PR I had. I went down about 16 points.

The theory here is that I was 're-bucketed', i.e. I am now in the 'No Public Record' group who generally have better credit-use, less collections, CO's, etc., so that those impact my score greatly. What I am hoping is that if one or more of my three baddies (6 1/2 year old CO, 2 4 year old collections) drop off with my recent DV and OC letters (fingers crossed!), and another few months of paying old and new cards on time, my scores will shoot up (as my profile mirrors more closely other non-PR users).

[rom828]

Sort of what I'm afraid of, although on other posts I've seen PR's referred to as "the kiss of death" on a CR.  One thing I've learned, though, is to expect the unexpected!! LOL

The tax lien is my only PR also.  I have a paid CO scheduled to delete 10/09 and an unpaid CO to drop off 06/10.  I just had my one collection drop off today, and coupled with the note that I'd not applied for a lot of new credit  and my utilization had improved), I gained 13 points.  So how much was just for the collection.......only the FICO shadow knows!!!!  

I'm now learning from this forum how to handle settlement on  unpaid CO since now past SOL.

May look worse after I pay it, though, as the one I paid off  did!  Was showing just as 'paying as agreed"  CO, but after I paid it off (from 11-3 to 11-05), I was hit with 25  90 day lates!! 

 And I also learned on this forum that some members are having problems with their accts being 'updated' after a dispute,  so that the 'infraction' appears and is scored as recent (doesnt affect drop off date).  Myfico advised a member who questioned it that this was a 'glitch".  But I need to get this unpaid CO paid so I guess I'll be taking a chance. And I'm not disputing the 90s on the other one so as not to risk it too being scored as recent.

I'm not sure what bucket I'll be in if the PR comes off!  These paid and unpaid COs are 2 baddies, but they are the only ones other than the PR.   Everything else is paid on time, although I have to work on utilization on 2 of my cards, but this unpaid CO is almost  50% of my utilization!!  CO is now at $1934 for a CC with $200 CL that I never exceeded....didnt know then what I know now from this forum about how to close accts, etc, so I just ignored that one and concentrated on the ones that would work with me.  The $1934 is figured in my utilization, which would only be 43% w/o it, which I could get paid down very quickly.

I really want my report clean, though, and all these old things behind me, so if I take a short term hit, so be it.  Years ago as a novice insurance agent, I questioned one of the senior underwriters on the fairness (or my perceived 'lack thereof') of a certain underwriting rule.  His response has stuck with and has (unfortunately) fit many circumstances in my life when the ability to change a situation was beyond my control.  Seems to fit FICO scoring:

His response:  "You don't have to like it.  You just have to accept it".

Thanks for your prompt response to my query!!!

[Anonymous]

After PIF a collection in August, and later disputing the item, they updated (twice) that;

a) The account is open (which is impossible since the OC closed it in 2002 and I PIF months prior

b) that my 90+Days Late included December and September 07 both of which are AFTER I PIF so no way it can be 90+ Days late (those hurt!)

c) that as of 9/07 and 12/07 the status is "In Collections" which is untrue as well since it is OUT of Collections. Perhaps it is a Paid Collection account but it is not an "In Collections" account.

I sent a very terse letter to Experian demanding that they remove it since they had been given the opportunity to investigate and somehow managed to let such ridiculous information be updated anyway. I also disputed the fact that 'Past Due' and 'Balance' both have 'Not Reported' since if an account is PIF those #s HAVE to be $0.

So even though I have a Paid Collection I also have a RECENT 90+ Days Late and a RECENT Collection and an account with UNKNOWN Balance and Past Due.

[rom828]

Let me know how the Experion turns out!

Isn't it ridiculous and frustrating to say the least!!??

I was flabbergasted when I saw that the paid CO  acct was showing  2 yrs worth of 90 days lates (which I'm sure don't help my score 1 iota!!) after I paid the stupid thing, but showed me with 'OK' pyts from 11/03 to 11/05 (on the little payment bar) while I was paying it (have copies showing this from 11/03 to 08/05....didnt run another report til 06).   After it was paid, showed 'RF" for all those months, with Dec 05 as OK (which it was paid off 11-05) and then by '90 days' shows  28 times, 25 of which are the for the dates I was paying it off!!!

Until I got involved in this forum, I didn't think about or know how to dispute, or I would have tried to do something about it before now.  After reading about the updating, I'm really hesitant to dispute.  Not sure which is worse,  all those 90 lates with the last being 11-05, or risking having it show and be scored like a new CO if I get those 90 days removed.  Based on what I read, and what I see in my situation, it is definitely a bureau thing to show this way on a report.  TU just shows as paid CO, but EX and EQ both show now as paid CO but with all those 90 days.  AAAAGGGGGGHHHHH!!

[Anonymous]

---

@rom828 wrote:

Let me know how the Experion turns out!

Isn't it ridiculous and frustrating to say the least!!??

I was flabbergasted when I saw that the paid CO acct was showing 2 yrs worth of 90 days lates (which I'm sure don't help my score 1 iota!!) after I paid the stupid thing, but showed me with 'OK' pyts from 11/03 to 11/05 (on the little payment bar) while I was paying it (have copies showing this from 11/03 to 08/05....didnt run another report til 06). After it was paid, showed 'RF" for all those months, with Dec 05 as OK (which it was paid off 11-05) and then by '90 days' shows 28 times, 25 of which are the for the dates I was paying it off!!!

Until I got involved in this forum, I didn't think about or know how to dispute, or I would have tried to do something about it before now. After reading about the updating, I'm really hesitant to dispute. Not sure which is worse, all those 90 lates with the last being 11-05, or risking having it show and be scored like a new CO if I get those 90 days removed. Based on what I read, and what I see in my situation, it is definitely a bureau thing to show this way on a report. TU just shows as paid CO, but EX and EQ both show now as paid CO but with all those 90 days. AAAAGGGGGGHHHHH!!

---

From my understanding, the recent CO is a lot better then 25 90+ Days Late. They actually count the # of lates in your report/scoring and that looks bad. The recent CO will drop off as it ages, the 25 Lates might have less and less impact but it is still 25 90+ Lates.

AND. I am not sure how a CA can give you a 90+ Day Late on a closed account they have purchased. MAYBE if you made a payment arrangement with THEM and then were late, but if they BOUGHT a debt, and you didn't sign and payment arrangement with them, then as far as I know (which might not be far at all), the OC can list your 30/60/90s and a zero balance, and the CA can list your balance and Collections but NOT 30/60/90s. Seems pretty basic to me.

Personally, I'd dispute and write a letter to the CRA that the information was not updated correctly.

I actually copied my reports, put them in a word doc, highlighted the inconsistences, and quoted the following based on advise here:

"More to the point, please provide what method, you, the Credit Reporting Agency, used to verify this information as it is quite obviously inaccurate. Please do not send me another pointless letter claiming I need to contact the creditor to obtain this information, when in fact it is YOUR responsibility to provide this information to me under the FACTA. If that happens, then I will have no other option than to extend this matter in a court of law, and obtain legal representation in order to seek a judgment against Experian for willful noncompliance, which is a violation of FACTA and FCRA as you would be in violation of Section § 611(a)(6) and (7). 15 USC 1681i of FCRA."

As the CRA should have INVESTIGATED the info.

[rom828]

Thanks so much for this great info!!  I'd been trying to find out for over a week (w/no response) from other forum members about the scoring of recent CO vs. 90 days.  Thanks again!!

And I';ve already got a letter written to EQ with copies of the old reports where it was repoted as paid as agreed, so I;ll send it on, after rewriting letter to include your 'verbage'!!  I'll also be writing Experian.  (BTW, what address did you use for Experian?)

I actually paid to a CA but Providian was the only one reporting....the CA appears no where on my report.  But I didnt know then, either, about getting things in writing.  This wasnt even supposed to be a charge off...I'd asked them to close the acct when I became unable to keep up with pyts.  Providian agreed to that by phone, then the next thing I got was a phone call from the CA!!  Stupidly, after I broke down in tears..hearing from a CA was intimidating....I arranged to make pyts to them beginning 11-03, and I never missed a pyt and after the first yr actually doubled my pyts to pay it off faster, all the while naively thinking this was helping my credit.  I didnt know til I ran the report in 04-05 it was showing as a charge off..I did try to dispute but it just came back verified, correct as reported, but at least it did show my monthly pyts as OK.

As I've said, I wasn't very credit savvy at that point...and obviously I'm still learning!!

In light of what you've advised, I think it well worth my while to dispute this erroneous reporting.

And I think I'll pursue the reporting on the unpaid CO also, as EQ and EX are showing 90 days for each month after the 05-05 charge off....doesnt that seem incorrect also!!??

Thanks again!!