TU score jump after baddie removed - THREE days after online dispute

[android01]

I had one lone 30 day past due on an credit card account I've had for 20 years that was reported in January of 2008.  This late showed on EQ, and TU, but not EX.  I honestly can't say whether or not it actually happened, but being that there is a reporting discrepancy between the three CRA's, I decided to dispute it first with TU online.  I did this THREE DAYS ago, and low and behold the baddie has changed from "30" to "OK".  I wasn't expecting any kind of answer much less action for at least thirty days.    

Although I'm glad this happened, I am skeptical, and have a few questions:

1) Does TU take action before verification?

2) Do the CRA's pull reports from each other to look for discrepancies between them?

3) If TU removed something before verifying its validity, will it reappear at a later date?  

4) Could TU have verified and made changes in the space of three days?

[AndySoCal]

The answers to your questions

1. No

2. No

3. The only way that late can reappear is if the creditor starts reporting it again.

4. Yes

[woozy]

But...a dispute and removal from one CRA evolves into a removal from all. Right?

[MarineVietVet]

---

@woozy wrote:

But...a dispute and removal from one CRA evolves into a removal from all. Right?

---

Unfortunately this is not the case. The CRA's don't talk to one another about disputes. Each CRA will have to be contacted individually.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 9/09 pulled by lender 802, EQ - 10/10-813, TU - 10/10-774

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".

[android01]

---

@MarineVietVet wrote:

---

@woozy wrote:

But...a dispute and removal from one CRA evolves into a removal from all. Right?

---

Unfortunately this is not the case. The CRA's don't talk to one another about disputes. Each CRA will have to be contacted individually.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 9/09 pulled by lender 802, EQ - 10/10-813, TU - 10/10-774

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".

---

It looks like I have one (EQ) to go.  I'm in CSC land so I'll have to try it through them.  

[android01]

On a related note, when disputing anything with one CRA, is it wise to mention (or document) that the other CRA's have changed their reporting as evidence?  

[MarineVietVet]

---

@android01 wrote:

On a related note, when disputing anything with one CRA, is it wise to mention (or document) that the other CRA's have changed their reporting as evidence?  

---

I am not sure about this and don't want to give you a wrong answer so I will leave that to others.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 9/09 pulled by lender 802, EQ - 10/10-813, TU - 10/10-774

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".

[haulingthescoreup]

It's completely useless to mention this. CRA's don't give a rat's patootie what the others have done.

[RobertEG]

If you disputed through a CRA under the arcane provisions of FCRA 611(a), then the CRA is granted a "reinvestigation" procedure.

So, YES, they CAN interject their determantilon, as stupid as it seems, if  you dispute through them.

They can exercise their "reinvestigation" discretion under FCRA 611(a) at any point, and interject their own decision, which kinda makes it a farce. They are NOT the parry who independent.y knows the accuracy of anything reported to them.  Thye are just a depositlry.

Normaly, unless they choose to interject their "reinvestigatilon" perogative at such an early stage, which is highly unusual, they must, under FCRA 611(a)(2)(A), forward all relevant information you poivided to the party who posted the disputed informatiln, within 5-days of your notice of dispute.

That then triggers, under FCRA 623(b)(2),the obligatiln of that party who posted the disputed informatilon to then report back to the CRA the results of their "invstigatilon," within suffiencint time for the CRA to then receivve and consider the "investiagatilon" results reported to them, and then complete their independent "reinvestigation," all withing the 30-day period set forth under FCRA 611(a).  The absudity its that the "reporrting back to the consumer" of the resulsts of the "reinvestigatilon" are only imposed on the CRA.  If the creditor who was asked to "investigate" the reporting they made dd not respond, the CRA is nonetheless compelled, under FCRA 611(a)(1)(A), to issue a report of theeir "reinvestigatilon" back to you within 30 plus five days of your noltice of dispute.

I dont know of any way to say this, other than the dispute process thrrough the CRA is simply stupid.

Congress recognized this absurdity more than a decade ago, when they enacted FCRA 623(a)(8), which corrected this stupid process by permitting the consumer to directly dispute wiith the creditor/debt collector who posted this ifolrmation to their credit file, and thus cut the CRA out of the stupid dispute "reinvestigatin" processs through the CRA.

But final enactment of the direct dispute process was fought by the creditlrs, and was only fully implemented, over their protests, by the final publication of the implemennting rules for the direct dispute process on 7/1/2010.  Those implementing rules, which have the full impact of law, are now set forth in 16 CFR 660.4.

I would now never, ever, involve the CRA in any dispute process.