Greetings everyone, I'm a relatively longtime reader but first time poster. Thanks to everyone who contributes by posting problems, answering questions and sharing experiences, it really does help a lot! Basically what I'm looking for is verification that what I plan to do is the correct after reading all of the advice from this forum. In another year or so I would like to be able to apply for a mortgage. I will do my best to describe the complete situation (brace yourself!): ** Acct # 1: Montgomery Ward's store card. I eventually stopped paying until it went to collections (around 1997 I think). After it went to collections, I decided to "do the right thing" and paid it off in its entirety in April 2000. Now, Montgomery Ward's appears on my credit reports multiple times: Twice as the OC (EQ has one entry as "Bad Debt", EX's has two entries: once as closed with a balance of 670 and once as transferred), and once on all three credit reports by the CA (Sherman Acquisition). Am I correct in stating that the action I should take to try and get this removed is: Action: Tell Sherman Acquisition to validate the account. This might be difficult to do since Montgomery Ward's is out of business. Action: Dispute the Montgomery Ward entries with each CRA. This might be difficult for the CRA's to verify because Montgomery Ward's is out of business. However, since I've paid this account through the CA, under what reason should I dispute the validity? Incorrect status? Note: Do I do both simultaneously since they are listed separately on my CR? Or is there a good reason to do one before the other? ** Acct # 2: Capital One credit card. Around the same time period (1997), I let this credit card get out of hand, and it was eventually "closed by credit grantor", but I did pay the entire balance directly to them in April 2000. Consequently, on EX, there is a "Paid, was past due 120 days" and on TU the account is still open with a 0 balance, status of "60 days past due". Actions: Action: Since it is paid and closed and the status is correct (presumably, I didn't keep that good of records during that time), should I send a goodwill letter to Capital One and ask to remove negative status? Action: Dispute the account with TU since the status is not correct. Note: The strange thing is that this account actually shows up as a positive even though it seems like it should be a negative. I was thinking I may not want to mess with it, since it is the oldest card in my history (Dec 1994). ** Acct # 3: Auto Loan. In 1998 I had my car repossessed due to repeated late payments (mostly 30's, but some 60's). I paid the total amount due the day after it was repossessed, then paid off the car within the next 6 months (early 1999). TU reports as "Repossession". Action: I realize that repo's are very severe and would love to see it removed. I have no idea how to proceed with this one. Should I dispute with TU as "Status Incorrect"? Note: EQ and EX both report as positives. Will trying to get TU to change possibly cause a status change on EQ and EX? ** Acct # 4: Harvard Collections (CA). I honestly don't remember what this account was for, but my credit report says "Date Open: August 1999" with a balance of $0. It is listed twice on EQ (both as paid), once on EX (Paid Collection), and once on TU (Open Collection account). Action: Use "Debt Validation" letter sequence with them, even though its paid? ** Acct # 5: Superior Recovery (CA). It was a balance due on an apartment I rented which ended March 1999. When I found out about this, I went and paid immediately (May 1999). This account is listed as "Paid" on EQ, "Closed, Collection Account" with TU, but listed twice with EX: once as an open account with status "cannot locate consumer", terms of 1 month, $0 balance; then once more with status of closed and a $701 balance even though it was paid (directly to the apartment complex). Action: Do I validate with Superior Recovery first, then dispute with CRA's if that does not produce results? Or do I call the apartment complex and ask them to investigate and remove TL? ** Acct # 6: Armor Systems Company (CA). Two accounts with them, one opened Aug 2000, one opened Aug 2001, both accounts reported only to EX. I have no idea what these accounts are for, but they are both closed with a balance of $50 each, status of "Seriously past due date/assigned to attorney, collection agency, or credit grantor's internal collection department". Action: Validate debt with Armor Systems Company. ** Acct # 7: Gas bill. Was from an old apartment where I did not leave a forwarding address in April 1997. Paid when I found out, but TU reports as $0 balance, account type "Open account" (weird), but account status closed, payment status "30 days past due". Action: Dispute with CRA. Is disputing really necessary, or is this so old that it is not adversely affecting me? Thanks in advance for any and all input/advice you can give, it is much appreciated. I've gained so much knowledge from everyone here, I hope that soon I will be experienced enough to be able to answer questions in the same fashion - AND have a credit score to be proud of like I've seen so many here achieve!!
Re: Re: Seeking advice please Yes, shown as a paid collection. Sounds logical! I originally got a 3in1 report (before I read more into credit reports, sigh), and those reports don't tell you if its negative or positive.. I was only guessing from the totals of "Current" versus "Delinquent" accounts. TU shows a balance of $0, but status is still open. Thanks for your response, its really appreciated. I think I scared most people away with the amount that I originally wrote. *grins* I do have one final question before I start disputing/typing validation letters: Does it make more sense to use DV letters to CA's who I've already paid in full, or simply dispute directly with the CRA's? On one hand, the CA's shouldn't care about the accounts anymore since they're paid (and therefore less chance of validation), but on the other hand the CRA's see the accounts as paid and would wonder "How could he dispute them as not mine if he already paid them?". Or am I just going about this with too much logic? Thanks again for any replies.
