Disputing something i co-signed on?

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by Mr.G, Dec 27, 2011.

  1. Mr.G

    Mr.G Member

    I co-signed on a friends car 5 years ago. That person had some late pays on the car but eventually paid the car off in full. is there a way for me to fix this on my credit report seeing as i didnt find out about the late pays until they had already occured years later and the car is now paid off?

    If so what is the best method to get this done? Honda financial was the servicer of the loan.

    Thanks,
     
  2. JoshuaHeckathorn

    JoshuaHeckathorn Administrator

    I know it wasn't your fault, but the late pays are technically a legitimate negative mark since you were a cosigner on the loan. This is exactly why cosigning on any loan is a risky practice and one I would never recommend.

    It may be a longshot, but the best thing you can try to do is dispute something inaccurate regarding the late pays through the CRAs and hope for the best. You might get lucky and they'll be deleted.
     
  3. Mr.G

    Mr.G Member

    Thanks Josh.
     
  4. JoshuaHeckathorn

    JoshuaHeckathorn Administrator

    You're welcome!
     
  5. LalaPed

    LalaPed New Member

    I am currently facing the same issue! I co-signed for a friends car 4 years ago and she has been late more often than not! :( I have now graduated from college and would love to buy a house but my credit is now considered poor because of her and the car! Any new advice to help me??
     
  6. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    The same advice that Josh gave. You can try disputing it, but don't be surprised if it is verified.
     
  7. LalaPed

    LalaPed New Member

    What happens if it's verified? Thank you!
     
  8. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    If it's verified, it's verified. As Josh said in the original post.

    The best is to challenge a factual defect of the trade line.

    If they verify the erroneous information, then you would have to let them know that you intend to sue them, and provide them with a copy of the suit.

    File the suit in Federal Court.

    Hope they want to settle by deletion.
     
  9. LalaPed

    LalaPed New Member

    Thank you jam237!
     
  10. jshimmer

    jshimmer Well-Known Member

    What's erroneous about the tradeline, jam237? What's the factual defect in the creditor reporting that an account was not paid on and the borrower was a co-signor?
     
  11. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    jshimmer:

    I didn't say that there WAS a factual error. Just that if it is verified after their original dispute, the ONLY option would to dispute SOME factual error.

    Since the OP posted no tradeline information, there is nothing to be able to guess what a factual error may be.

    Things that I would look at might include.

    Number of payments * payment amount = total balance (within a few dollars to account for last payment amount variance)

    But again, the OP didn't provide anything to guess what factual errors could be at play; so the only answer to their question of "What next?" was find a factual error.
     
  12. jshimmer

    jshimmer Well-Known Member

    Yes you did. You said "The best is to challenge a factual defect of the trade line." This specifically implies that the OP should challenge it on the basis of a factual error. Why suggest it if there isn't one?

    Unless there IS a factual error, then the OP should not challenge it as such. Doing so is actually fraudulent, and fraudulent challenges do nothing but delay LEGITIMATE challenges from other people getting addressed.

    Perhaps you routinely recommend that people challenge things without actual basis, just to see if they can get negative, accurate information removed. If so, again, that kind of suggestion only delays legitimate challenges from other people.
     
  13. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    jshimmer: Considering that most entries have at least one factual error, the odds that the poster could find a factual error, if they know to look. I did not say that there was a definate factual error, just that the best approach would be to dispute a factual error.

    Challenges will take just as long to process depending on how many millions of challenges they have at any given moment. The time line is set by the statute, and how long each and every data furnisher takes to process their dispute, and whether the data furnisher actually chooses to do the requisite research into the data, instead of just rubber stamping the dispute.
     
  14. jshimmer

    jshimmer Well-Known Member

    Out of curiosity, on what credible source or citation do you base this claim on? I've got more trade lines than you can shake a stick at, and none have "factual errors" that could be used to have them removed (if they were negative).

    Sound to me like your MO is to just tell people to start throwing stuff at the wall, just to see if something sticks.
     
  15. mindcrime

    mindcrime Well-Known Member

    So,

    Is there some history here John? You're chasing jam across the board.
     
  16. jshimmer

    jshimmer Well-Known Member

    Nope. I'm chasing accuracy. When I see things posted that are not accurate or, in some cases, completely wrong, I speak up. Otherwise, people come along seeking information or help will get BAD information.

    Is there something wrong with asking for the source of a person's claim that they have presented as fact?
     
  17. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Is the 2013 report from the Federal Trade Commission a good enough source for you, it was reported on 60 Minutes, in depth as well?

    21% of a representative sample that the FTC surveyed had errrors.
    5.2% of people who experience errors have errors so severe that they could be erroneously denied credit.

    The FTC extrapolated that at least 40 million Americans will have at least some error on their credit report; and at least 10 million are overpaying as a result of that erroneous credit information.

    However, other studies have shown those amounts are significantly higher, especially when data being reported to all three CRAs have been compared together side-by-side. But I am sure if I would quote a source other than the FTC, you would be skeptical.
     
  18. jshimmer

    jshimmer Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the cite. It proves I was right.

    You said "MOST entries have at least one factual error".

    However, the 2013 FTC report clearly states that 21% of a representative sample contained factual errors.

    I had to break this "math" thing to you, but 21% (one-fifth) does NOT constitute 'most'.

    Not even close.

    And THAT is what I mean by "chasing ACCURACY".

    Feel free to cite anything that supports your claim that "MOST entries have at least one factual error".
     
  19. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Nolo, "It’s not unusual for credit reports to contain errors. In fact, it’s quite common. You should carefully review your credit reports at least once a year. As you do so, it’s helpful to keep in mind some of the most common errors found in credit reports."

    Confused names - (one which I face often because my name(s) even when combined form a very common name pattern, especially in this area)
    Identity theft
    Ex-Spouse Information
    Outdated Information
    Incorrect Payment Status
    Multiple Incorrect Delinquent Dates
    Incorrect Notations
    Remedied Delinqunecies Not Reporting Correctly
    Account Balance Errors
    Data Processing Errors
    And last but not least, the one which affects nearly everyone; the refusal to notate a dispute as required by the FCRA.

    The FTC report, also only considers what would be referred to as an MATERIAL error, not implied errors.

    IMPLIED ERRORS are things which are harder to spot, and could actually end up making a 26k total student loan debt look like .9 MILLION in student loan debt. (Multiple payments of the total balance = multiple times the balance that they are reporting as being the total balance.) Hint: I am using a specific example that took 2 years, 1 1/2 years of which was in Federal Court to resolve; and the States Attorney never actually addressed the inaccuracies of their reporting in any of their volumous briefs, instead just resting exclusively on the claim of immunity (which only exempted them from financial liability, not a duty to correct the inaccurate information); there is a reason for that, the dispute that the government repeatedly rubberstamped LITERALLY admitted that they were reporting UNVERIFIABLE information explicitly stating in the verifications that the data was not available.
     
  20. JoshuaHeckathorn

    JoshuaHeckathorn Administrator

    I found the FTC's follow-up report in 2015 very interesting too. They basically interviewed a bunch of people that had incorrect information on their reports from the original 2012 study and found that 70% still believed at least one piece of previously disputed information was inaccurate. 70%!

    I think the bottom line is that we should all review our credit reports regularly and expect that they may have errors in them somewhere. 21% (and it's probably much higher) is unacceptable in my mind for companies that are in the business of reporting accurate information. It may not be "most" credit reports, but it's too many.
     

Share This Page