SIMULATOR INFO ERROR?

[rom828]

Didn't notice this before, but was just using simulator and found a difference between TU and EQ info....

Both show revolving credit amount that includes an unpaid charge off amount, but only the EQ simulator shows this unpaid c/o as a delinquent amount (in the 'pay off delinq. accounts first' section).

Both show the C/O under acct info.

Why the difference?!

BTW, posted earlier about another issue also...

FICO TU credit at a glance info is wrong....shows unpaid c/o amt as "past due on 14 accounts" when in reality it is the only 'past due' account
of the 14 total accts I have. Contacting TU didnt help as they say they dont show me with 14 delinquent accts....just the one.

MY FICO TU is 654 and FICO EQ is 633.

[haulingthescoreup]

I think that I've read that there is a known bug with how things display on the TU FICO score report. Check on this forum (Using myFICO Products) for earlier threads. Seems like Barry posted on one or two.

Sorry, I don't know about the other.

[Barry]

---

rom828 wrote:

FICO TU credit at a glance info is wrong....shows unpaid c/o amt as "past due on 14 accounts" when in reality it is the only 'past due' account
of the 14 total accts I have. Contacting TU didnt help as they say they dont show me with 14 delinquent accts....just the one.

---

Yes, you're right, Hauling.  I've been told a fix is in the works for this.  Don't have a date, but I'll see what I can find out.

[rom828]

Hi, Barry!  Then I guess no need for me to call FICO re: the TU C-A-A-G  am't showing  unpaid on 14 accounts?!

But is this also a glitch w/the simulator as far as one agency showing an amount as delinquent when another doesn't......or is that actually the way the 2 bureaus reported it to FICO?!

Sorry to be so persistant but I'm a little confused, and because of some other errors* I can't get corrected, I'm working with any attorney and just want to make sure this isnt something else I need him to address. 

Thanks for any advices!!

*FICO EQ and EX are showing a paid C/O with (25)  90 day lates that were not shown during the time it was being paid--and are completely in error. They didnt start reporting this way  til the acct was paid off.  They did this on another C/O (unpaid) also....started showing 90 day lates for each month after the C/O date. Both bureaus have advised me this is a "fico" thing, but I spoke w/Fico customer service and was advised both  EX aand EQ are reporting these accounts this way to Fico (prev. reports '05 and '06 did not  have  these 90 days lates.  TU is reporting correctly.  Because I've been unable to correct on my own with them, I have enlisted the aid of an attorney.

Message Edited by rom828 on 04-06-2008 06:39 PM

[Barry]

I'm not aware of any such simulator issues but feel free to contact customer service and describe it to them if you feel there is an error.

Just so you and your attorney are clear, nothing having to do with your myFICO credit report display or the score simulator has any direct bearing on either the accuracy of your credit report at the credit bureaus or your FICO scores.

---

rom828 wrote:

Hi, Barry!  Then I guess no need for me to call FICO re: the TU C-A-A-G  am't showing  unpaid on 14 accounts?!

But is this also a glitch w/the simulator as far as one agency showing an amount as delinquent when another doesn't......or is that actually the way the 2 bureaus reported it to FICO?!

Sorry to be so persistant but I'm a little confused, and because of some other errors* I can't get corrected, I'm working with any attorney and just want to make sure this isnt something else I need him to address. 

Thanks for any advices!!

*FICO EQ and EX are showing a paid C/O with (25)  90 day lates that were not shown during the time it was being paid--and are completely in error. They didnt start reporting this way  til the acct was paid off.  They did this on another C/O (unpaid) also....started showing 90 day lates for each month after the C/O date. Both bureaus have advised me this is a "fico" thing, but I spoke w/Fico customer service and was advised both  EX aand EQ are reporting these accounts this way to Fico (prev. reports '05 and '06 did not  have  these 90 days lates.  TU is reporting correctly.  Because I've been unable to correct on my own with them, I have enlisted the aid of an attorney.

Message Edited by rom828 on 04-06-2008 06:39 PM

---

[rom828]

Thanks, Barry.  I'l call and ask about the simulator issue. 

By 'display', I assume you are referring to the credit-at a-glance and red flags, etc, and not the actual payment information shown under each acct? 

What I'm trying to get corrected as far as  mis-reporting is  the 'lates' are actually shown under each account on my Fico reports. 

These accounts were not reported with all these lates on previous reports.   One acct was showing "OK" for each month I was paying off the C/O.   These 90 days lates did not appear until after the account was paid off, and they are for the 25 months I was paying off the C/O per agreement.   And the other just showed as a C/O with unpaid balance and the correct lates before the charge off. The 90 days lates are all for the months since the C/O til current.

The 'display' part of the Fico report, ie:  the 56 and 66 lates respectively  shown on the CAAG come from what is shown erroneously on the actual reports.  And as advised, when I talked to Fico, I was advised that all those lates were what was being reported to Fico by the two agencies,  even though they are not shown on the reports I ran direct (thru annualreport)  from EX and EQ.

I have tried to get this corrected with the 2 agencies and the info continues to come back 'verified', even though the information is incorrect and I   have previous reports that substantiate that the lates are incorrect.   That is why I felt it necessary to get an atty's help to get the reports corrected. 

BTW, the problem is just with EX and EQ;  FICO TU is not reporting all those 90 day lates. The only problem with the FICO TU is the notation of $XXXpast due on 14 accts when it's actually just one acct, which again I think is determined to be just a glitch and does not have any bearing on scoring or what lenders see.

Thank you in advance for any further advices.