Nutcase vs Goodwill

There's no rule of course, but typically:

-- Goodwill letters work best with fully-paid, still-open accounts with isolated and relatively minor late-pay notations. Now, of course, we've seen people have success using this technique with seriously-late and paid/closed accounts as well (hence, the "no rule" caveat, lol). Regardless, if you've had a Sears account for 7 years, and you were late twice three years ago, I certainly wouldn't send the "nutcase" for that because: 1) you currently have a relationship with the creditor, and 2) an isolated example within the context of a valued customer's otherwise excellent account history really beckons for a "courtesy adjustment" rather than the implied threat of a lawsuit.

-- Nutcase letters work best with paid/closed accounts for which there was serious delinquency one or more times. So, for example, with my PHEAA student loans, I was 150 days late several different times over a period of several years. (Basically, I wouldn't pay for 4 or 5 months and then I would make a big lump payment to bring it current. I was destroying my credit and didn't even know enough about CRAs to know it at the time.) In that case, asking for a "courtesy adjustment" seems like a pretty huge stretch even for the most kind-hearted customer service employee. So I went with the Nutcase letter and they folded quickly.

If there is a heuristic in here somewhere, maybe it goes like this: There's lots of overlap, and only you can be the judge, but typically a "courtesy adjustment request" (Goodwill letter) stands a better chance if the delinquency occurred within the context of a properly-maintained account. For everything else, there's Nutcase.

Doc

 

Hockeymom, just my opinion, but I wouldn't send the nutcase series to the CA who's already agreed to remove the tradeline. (Hopefully I didn't misunderstand the question, but it's been a long day, lol.) If they've already agreed to delete the tradeline, hold them to that. I would follow-up with the CA who made the promise, friendly at first, then less so, then finally send an intent-to-sue for breach of contract. My guess is that you probably won't even get to the unfriendly stuff if they were serious about the deletion -- they just need to be nudged to get that UDF ("universal delete form") to the CRAs. Unfortunately, the CA has to be the one to contact the CRAs, and the UDF has to come directly from them because it has their confidential subscriber number, etc. Keep us posted!

Doc

 

Unfortunately they'll have to send the UDF form... on the other hand, you can ask them for a copy of the form with their subscriber number blacked out. That might come in handy if you wanted to get nasty with the CRAs about it later, but that should be a last resort because CRAs do NOT want creditors to negotiate away the tradeline notations ever. In fact, they sometimes send notices to them (one was posted here on Creditnet, but I can't find it now) warning them against trading deletions for payment. They think it impedes the integrity of their system. (Integrity, lol?)

Doc

 

Yup, unfortunatly, in the end, it does have to come from CA. What I have done when it doesn't show up for 2 months is send a copy of whatever information the CA gave me saying they would delete and then faxing it to the CRA. I then give the CRA the contact name and phone number of the person who helped me and have them call that person. The CA then gets off their buns and moves the process along, and gets that entry off your report.

Gosh, why does this crap have to be so difficult and time consuming? lol

 

I see the suggestions above for which letter to use for Closed Accounts with Serious lateness and Open Accounts with minor lateness.

What about a Closed Account with a Minor Lateness. I have a Discover and a Universal Card that are closed with a 30 days past due. Which would be the best approach to get these taken off?

 

I'd try the Goodwill letter.

Doc

 

Hockymom, I don't think you will get much satisfaction from them. I had to sue them to get them to delete a tradeline. The good news is, they deleted almost immediately upon being served and settled *very* quickly as well. They would not respond to any of the letters I wrote to them.



L