The way each CRA interprets data can have a huge impact?

[IWOL]

Just wanted to post this for informational purposes.

All the data across the 3 bereaus is basically identical on my reports except for one extra closed positice account from 17 years ago that is only on Experian.p

i have one baddie, a charge off from First Premier from 9/2008.  They recently updated the charge off due to disputes and for some reason EQ and EX are interpreting that reporting as sort of a brand new delinquency. Where it once said "you have not missed a payment in over 5 and a half years" it now says you have a recent "delinquency"

The update by FP caused my EX to drop from 660 to 635 and EQ went from 694 to 636. EQ is back at 694 now because the tradlines now shows it in dispute again.

for whatever strange reason TU is not interpreting the update the same way and my score went up recently to 703.

This demonstrates the possible unintended consequences of disputing an old charge off that stopped updating years ago.

I believe that FP has inaccuracies in their reporting and I have now hired an attorney to take them to court.

[Crisis]

---

@IWOL wrote:

Just wanted to post this for informational purposes.

All the data across the 3 bereaus is basically identical on my reports except for one extra closed positice account from 17 years ago that is only on Experian.p

i have one baddie, a charge off from First Premier from 9/2008.  They recently updated the charge off due to disputes and for some reason EQ and EX are interpreting that reporting as sort of a brand new delinquency. Where it once said "you have not missed a payment in over 5 and a half years" it now says you have a recent "delinquency"

The update by FP caused my EX to drop from 660 to 635 and EQ went from 694 to 636. EQ is back at 694 now because the tradlines now shows it in dispute again.

for whatever strange reason TU is not interpreting the update the same way and my score went up recently to 703.

This demonstrates the possible unintended consequences of disputing an old charge off that stopped updating years ago.

I believe that FP has inaccuracies in their reporting and I have now hired an attorney to take them to court.

---

I'm having a similar issue, and I actually posted a question about ways to bring Ex up, and to monitor it specifically.  Good luck!

[RobertEG]

From the facts presented, I am having difficulty understanding a violation of the FCRA.

How did the OC "update the charge-off"?

If you disputed some aspect of their reporting, they were obligated to either verify its accuracy as currently reported, or correct so as to overcome any inaccuracy.

Filing a dispute is a request for update/correction of their reporting.

Having previously reported inaccurate info is not per se a violation unless shown to have been intentional. 

Additionally, if subsequent reporting merely repeats the info from prior reporting, that is not a change, but simply affirmation of prior reporting.

How the FICO algorithm handles the impact of any changes or updated reporting is not the responsibility of the furnisher of the information.

The emphasis varies between the different licenesed FICO algorithm used by each CRA, so impacts normally vary between FICO scores provided by each CRA.

If the scoring variation between CRAs is the issue, then it would appear that any legal action would be against Fair Isaac or the CRAs.

The trade secret protection of their algorithms would most likely make any disclousre on their part a non-starter.

What specifically is the asserted violation of statute that would give rise to legal action?