Robin Holland never responded to my email. This is the second time I've emailed her with no reponse. Guess its just me. I don't see where we have a lawsuit here as they are not required to report anything...nothing says they aren't allowed to delete closed positive tradelines prior to the ten year mark. Unfortunately this plays havoc with our scores <grrrrrrr!> I am at a loss on how to proceed. My EQ score is at 668 right now...up from the 645 it dropped to after they deleted my two tradelines. Its up because I paid debt down to about 40%. If they would put those two tradelines back, I'd have a decent score! L
I disputed a credit limit with TU for my hubby and they deleted it, the whole account and it was a good TL. Then a creditor that I paid of earlier this year (before I discovered CN!!) updated his report to state"settled for less than full amount" Just from those 2 things no other derogs or anything his score dropped 100 points???
This is very weird. I am missing a paid as agreed associates tradeline. It had 1 time 30days late and I disputed the late. It had been under investigation for 4 months and I just never dealt with it because other baddies needed my attention. Something is definitely up...
...nothing says they aren't allowed to delete closed positive tradelines prior to the ten year mark. whyspers ========================= This was ok prior to scoring -it needs to change with the times. LB 59
Just a thought. Do they Have to keep files on us? Are they under contract? Seems like the most vindictive thing they could do would be to completely wipe out your file and refuse to keep any records on you. Can you imagine?
Believe me, I'M RACKING MY BRAIN TRYING TO HELP US. Many have brought up great points. Especially Whyspers. When I wrote this thread I neglected to draw a distinction between closed positive accounts and OPEN positive accounts. Closed accounts simply are not reported anymore, and there is no law that requires that those TL's be reported. My delimna has to do with an open, active, ongoing account that I KNOW is reported regularly on a monthly basis, via magnetic tape. I also have letters from the OC (albeit inadequate for now) that states they've reported it. I'm on my way to proving they suppressed the TL to "teach me a lesson". I can hear it now; "We'll teach these consumer terrorists not to dispute TL's." Here's one point; There is a mechanism in law that allows one to sue based upon the assertion that, although something may not be illegal, it SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. This is what I'm now trying to find. LB states it best; With scoring the way it is today, even though there may be no law that requires that a TL be reported, it reduces your score when they delete it. That's WHY they delete it. This is the main reason you do NOT want to tip your hand that you know anything about law and that you're anything but a compliant, doormat of a consumer, too stupid to know what you're doing. This is the best way to begin. After time they will catch on to the idea that you are anything but, but in the meantime keep it simple and stupid to start. Maybe we could get DavidSzwak to step in here and provide a few short sentences to help clarify.
Great post (and thread) Butch. I've spent way too much time thinking about these creatures and their motives. There needs to be a lot more law, and case law to regulate this. What I posted above is one of my fears. What they are doing to you and others (myself included) is the same thing, just a little at a time. EQ has removed several pos TLs. I firmly believe, since the FICO is arguably more important than the CR's, there should be more regulation, access and understanding of it. AND it should be cheap or occasionally free to the consumer who is lynched by it regularly. Why should we be blindsided at the bankerâ??s desk or embarrassed by the kid at Home Depot who tells us our app. is declined. Knowledge is power. I also believe it should be legislated that proper validation of all entries into the CR must occur BEFORE information is added, with severe penalty to both the CR and info provider if violated. Regular audits ought to be conducted. We should never be put in this position. They run their business like a cheap tabloid. Nostridomis prophecied it a thousand years ago ;-) I started out with the keep it simple, make it plain technique and had great luck at first. Now it doesn't work and the CRRR letters are 50/50 at best. Ultimately I suppose litigation is the only answer. Again, thought provoking thread. I am a Republican and Iâ??m talking â??big governmentâ?! I must be toooo tired.
I believe in stealth and coming in under their radar when possible. Ignorant consumers don't use CRRR. That's why I've advocated, to a chorus of boo's it seems, disputing via online means. I've yet to send a CRRR to a CRA (letters to CA's are a different matter.) I've sent a couple of verifiable faxes for more complicated things like tradeline reinsertion. And with those I keep the language simple and don't go spouting all sorts of legal jargon... there's always a chance to escalate your level of correspondence. Once you start at the top it's hard to go back down. 0
Okay, two issues here. First, you are right that the CRAs are not required to report data about you, generally. That is what the FCRA and cases thereunder say. However, via Rapid Recheck, Rapid Rescore, etc., if they alter your positive data to harm your score and cause you to get a worse rate, that could give rise to a RICO claim. The CRAs started allowing the mortgage reporting co's and reseller to rescore online and conduct reinvestigations [if you can imagine that havoc] without the CRA involvement [ask Richard LeFerbve about this at AAA Credit Bureau; richard@aaacredit.com; he will respond; tell him I sent you to ask; he is a rescoring critic and an expert at credit issues too]. The CRAs are allowing MRCs to jack up rates by rescoring you and tampering with your report contents to alter the scores they receive. Again, ask Richard for details. Second issue. Can the CRA refuse to give you your report by claiming that it is "unavailable." Does it violate 1681e if they do not give it to a requesting subscriber? Does it violate 1681g if they refuse to give it to you? Yes, it does. They must provide all info to you on request. They cannot claim they do not have your data. That is silly if they claim it. They violate e if they do not give it to the subscriber. In sum, if they compile it for sale, then they must disclose it. If they do not compile it, then they need not report it. They may remove it earlier than the data retention period permits but cannot leave it on longer. Arguably, if they remove the POSITIVE data early to harm you then it might be RICO-style fraud claim or a simple intentional tort type claim. See discussion above. David A. Szwak
Associates went down and Citibank bought some of their stuff and is wishing it had not. Likely, due to many credit reporting problems involving Associates, the CRAs may have just scrubbed their whole subscriber numbers. I know Associates was pounded by fraud accounts and disputes. David A. Szwak
Sometimes in settlements I require them to vault my clients and take them offline so their reports go into the VIP database along with other VIP's, like Congress members, Federal Judges, actors and generally others who could really wallop the CRAs. These offline files must be manually generated which prevents "instant credit" [which never offends a theft of ID victim]. My clients prefer the offline status. Plus other pecuniary and non-pecuniary consideration! David A. Szwak
I forgot to mention the unreported ruling we received in L.A. Thompson v. Equifax, MD, Ala, federal court, where the court found it to violate the FCRA if the CRA posts a message to a subscriber that plaintiff's credit file is unavailable and under review, etc., simply because they took it offline to spite plaintiff since he filed suit. Equifax still does this despite the ruling so I add it as a Count/claim. They would rather take you offline if you sue them than to fix the errors and reasonably believe that they can fix it. David A. Szwak
I know this thread is about EQU and, Butch I apologize a head of time for hijacking (only momentarily). Has anyone who has changed their name had TU split their file and only show one file online? I have a folder 3 inches thick of them putting previously deleted negatives onto my maiden name, but when I view the report online I can only view my married name with all the good stuff. BUT when I dispute and get the results via US Mail, there are 2 reports with completely different info, different scores, etc. In fact my file was mixed with someone else back in Aug./Sept. Albeit they had perfect credit, imagine if they didn't. To boot, when I called TU they said they only saw MY file not this other person's, thank goodness I printed out that file Butch, I apologize again, please forgive me?
OOoohhh, i've been searching for this case for a long time, could you post your contact info. again? I have some things I might need to discuss with you
Thanks David. Perhaps I was unclear. This account is 10 years old and currently open. It's an ongoing account that is currently open and supposed to be reported as paid/never late. The problem began because it was reported with lates, so I disputed. It's a Credit Card and I know they report monthly on tape. The CRA has "suppressed" the account because it would be reported positively if made correct. In other words rather than correct it they suppressed it. I'm now left with a short/skinny file. I also have letters from the CC that they have since reported it 3 more times and are currently reporting monthly but the CRA has suppressed in an effort to punish. ???
The one that they deleted on my hubby's report was an OPEN TL. The only thing that was disputed was " Credit limit listed as $XXX.XX should be $XXX.XX" and they deleted the entire OPEN TL!!
I LOST AMEX BLUE BECAUSE IT SAID $0 CREDIT LIMIT or N/A CREDIT LIMIT~~"I WANT IT TO SAY THE TRUTH---->$15,500"...EXPERIAN DELETED IT!!!
Just a thought. Do they Have to keep files on us? Are they under contract? Seems like the most vindictive thing they could do would be to completely wipe out your file and refuse to keep any records on you. Can you imagine? Nineflies ===================== If they did that with too many files what would they have to offer their clients? What creditor would be willing to pay out money for reports with blank pages?
