point difference

[Anonymous]

There is a 59 point difference between one of my scores and the other. They both have the same info on them. Two reports are with 6 points of each other, the last one is 59 points different. All reports list the same info as far as I can tell

How do I correct this, or why is that?

[haulingthescoreup]

Hi, camille, welcome to the forums!

First of all, where did you pull your scores? (myFICO, TrueCredit, freecreditreport.com, etc.) Secondly, which report has which score? They always vary some, because each credit bureau commissions its own formula that rewards some behavior and punishes others, but 59 points is quite a gap.

[Anonymous]

Sorry it took me so long to see the reply. But yes, I got all three scores from myfico.com. The one that is reporting the lowest score is equifax. Transunion and Experian are within 6 points of each other. I am frustrated because I feel like my score was higher years ago when I owed everyone and their mother. Now that I have paid many of my creditors off, my score is not any higher, in fact it is lower.

Where is the incentive to continue to pay bills on time, if it really wont matter in raising your score. If you are still being punished for your past, then paying bills on time does not seem to matter because the timely payments that you make are only overshadowed by the late payments of your past.

Who came up with the scoring system that they use?

Just venting I guess

[RobertEG]

Camille, dont get frustrated!  Even though you get your scores from myFICO, that does not mean that all will be the same.  Each of the three CRAs purchase different scoring algorithms from Fair Isaac, so the scores can differ, usually by up to 20 points.

But your 59 point spread at one CRA clearly indicates that there is definately something really different in the CR at that CRA that is different from the other CRAs, if all three are FICO scores retrieved from myFICO.

You need to carefuly review the CR from that CRA for signif differences.  Look first for accounts reported with different reported balances or CLs.  Then for differing derogs (report of history of late payments).  Any accounts under dispute?  Any old accounts dropped?  Any new inqs. or new collections?

There must be a signif, diff.

[Junejer]

Camille, as Robert suggested, look at the CRs side by side by side to compare what is reported and how. It could be something as simple as EQ hasn't reported the updated balance on a CC yet, thus making your uti look artificially high. There is a logical explanation for it, you just have to search to find the differences.

GL

[haulingthescoreup]

EQ will really penalize you for lates, so if that's a problem on your reports, and especially if there's a recent one, that might be what's happening. Although again, that's a pretty big difference in scores.

Also check the opening dates on your oldest cards, and if TU and EQ mention your account ages on screen 2 (with the positives and negatives), make sure they match.

[Anonymous]

Check the status descriptions on your EQ report against the status report on your other reports. For example I have an account in dispute with EQ because it is a paid collection, yet current status says 120+ days past due. If it is paid, how can the current status be 120+ days past due? This was the only discrepancy between my reports and it cost me 48 points. Also the account is coded to say inactive when it is really closed.

Just an FYI. I am hoping this gives you something to look for.

[smallfry]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Check the status descriptions on your EQ report against the status report on your other reports. For example I have an account in dispute with EQ because it is a paid collection, yet current status says 120+ days past due. If it is paid, how can the current status be 120+ days past due? This was the only discrepancy between my reports and it cost me 48 points. Also the account is coded to say inactive when it is really closed.

Just an FYI. I am hoping this gives you something to look for.

---

My May EQ FICO was strange as well. They had the accounts coded incorrectly. None of the closed accounts were coded as closed just inactive. TU and EX were correct.