This approach apparently is working for some of you. I thought we should investigate the effectiveness of this tactic. Please post your results positive or negative if you have tried this method of sending corrected information from one or more of the CRA's to aid in deleting the same incorrect information previously verified by another CRA. -Peace, Dave
Might want to check out this bayhouse thread. http://bayhouse.com/credit-forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=342
Didn't work here on ONE of my attempts, still waiting for others. TU is reporting a C/O and EQU reports it as an R5, they sent the 'we are investigating" letter, and it came back "verified" however it WAS deleted from EXP so I'm waiting for the mail results and try it that way.
Good info...same as has been posted here as well...they are discussing the issue of "whether the CRA's are required to delete information based on another CRA's findings"...I wish to find out simply "if there is a success rate or failure rate from those who have tried." After all the CRA's do not obey the "HAVE TO" laws anyway...I doubt that vaguely worded section of the FCRA being discussed there, would force them to do anything they do not wish to. -Peace, Dave
There is nothing in the FCRA that mandates one CRA to accept another CRA's deletion as verification of accuracy of a tradeline. The success rate is going to be rather low (based on my past experiences).
the only obligation the FCRA outlines for automatic updates to another bureau is one aimed directly at the creditor. If a creditor realizes there are inaccuracies in a trade line reported to one bureau and sends a universal data form to correct it, then they also must send correction forms to the other 2 without being asked. Eg: You inform Citi that the tradeline is reporting late when it wasn't to TU. Citi agrees and sends a UDF to TU correcting the problem. They are also, on their own valition, supposed to send the UDF to Equifax and Experian as well to make sure the trade line is reporting correctly to all 3 bureaus. They tend to do it to all 3 for ease anyway. After all, a screwup on 1 bureau is likely repeated to all 3. But that is not just a courtesy, it's a FCRA requirement. the only way I can see this helping is if they were just going to fake the reinvestigation anyway and "verify"... it might cut that out of the picture. and the other possibility is that if they were going to do an automated verification (computer) which is more likely to "verify" incorrect information... then they would be more likely not to do a computer verification but a paper or phone verification. that way they would be more likely to get a real change to occur on the trade line during that reinvestigation. those are my only thoughts. That you would have ammo against them if they did the verification shoddy so maybe they'd be diligent. I think what you're really counting on is laziness. Person sees other bueaus have deleted and uses that as evidence that it's in error... and that might be likely certainly worth a try. can't hurt.
By the 17th I can let you know how it worked for me (I'm expecting dispute results around that date).
I sent Experian a copy of an update from CSC and they changed the info listed on my report. Now I am not sure if they revalidated or just took CSC's word for it but it was corrected for me.
Looking for example letters I need a good "CRA#1 took it off, why can't you, CRA#2?" letter. Any suggestions?
Re: Looking for example letters Love, Maybe it would be a good idea to send a gracious letter to CRA#1 thanking them for for their efforts that led to deletion and then the process by which they attempted to verify the account with the creditor. Then, when you get that letter back, send a copy of it to CRA#2. Just a thought...
