First off, thanks to everyone on this board. I have been able to have over a half dozen collections and incorrect accounts deleted from my report thanks to the advice on this board. It is much appreciated. My Problem: Nelnet (student loan) is reporting my accounts as 60-90 days past due, even though these accounts were in defferment for 90 days and are currently paid in full. When I contacted Nelnet, they state that they are not reporting the accounts as delinquent. I requested a CR in December, found the information to be incorrect, and disputed it. I recently received a notice from Equifax that Nelnet validated the 60-90 as correct. I spoke with Cust. Svc. at Nelnet who claims they are not reporting it as late. However, I have two Credit Reports that show otherwise. What is my next step? I have never encountered a creditor that validated incorrect info before. Please give me solid, real-world advice, not "sue them for $1000" or some renegade vengeance tactic. If I'm entitled to that, then I'd pursue it, but I really want to get this handled correctly in the way that I am legally entitled to. Thanks again for reading this, and I look forward to any advice. Matt
First, I take exception to your assertion that "sue them for $1000" is a renegade vengeance tactic - but you are new here and you will have to find out for yourself (and probably will with this issue) taht sometimes SUING them is the ONLY way to even get their attention. Here are the facts you present: You have a student loan taht is on deferment and was never delinquent that is being reported to the CRA's as delinquent and teh OC is denying they are reporting it as delinquent. Obviously, someone is not telling 100% of the truth. IF the OC is telling the absolute truth, that they are NOT reporting it as delinquent and that the cRA is making the delinquency up, then dispute the TL with the CRA under FCRA as "never delinquent". IF the CRA comes back and says "verified" (and I believe they will, since a CRA could verify the Earth is flat) then sorry to say it you have a choice: Either sue the CRA for fraudulent investigation or sue the OC for posting false information in your CRA file or sue them both and let them argue it out in Court or don't sue anyone and it sits on your CRA file for 7 years. IF the CRA is telling the absolute truth - that the OC is reporting you as delinquent and the OC refuses to admit it, then follow the advice above. Same scenario, same results. Of course, if YOU are not telling the 100% truth, that the account was at some time delinquent, then I have no further advice. There are no other logical possibilities.
Re: Re: Creditor Validating False Info I did not realize that. I guess what I should have said is that my intention is not to get rich off their errors, but just to have this issue corrected. If it involves suing them to get it done, so be it. Agreed, and it's not me. How does one go about informing the CA and OC of the intent to sue. I cannot dispute as "never delinquent", because I was delinquent up until 12/2000. However, all reports of delinquency past that date are fraudlent. Obviously, I'm clueless as to the proper procedure to take at this point. Should I dispute again in writing, explaining my details, or should I just go the legal route? See above. I was late, but not in the past three years. So how do I proceed? I promise, I'll only need it spelled out for me this one time. I'm a fast learner once I do it! Thanks for your very informative post. Keep it coming! Matt
Re: Re: Re: Creditor Validating False Info I believe it's backed by the government. Federal Stafford Loan or something like that. I obtained them about 8 years ago, so I don't quite remember the terms, but I believe they are. Does it matter one way or the other? Would it affect the process I'd use?
Re: Re: Creditor Validating False Info Can you get them to put into writing that they are not reporting that your account was not late within the past three years? I will give you the situation that I had personally. When I was first forced out of school on medical reasons, I was in the hospital when the first bill came, when I got out, I called told them that I was not working for medical reasons, and I was told to put that into writing. So I did, apparently the person didn't tell me to include one other sentence (which would seem a little bit OBVIOUS given the other sentence) "and I have no INCOME." They processed my letter as a request for the deferment/forebearance form, instead of an actual deferment/forebearance request letter. Because of them processing it as just requesting the form, when I actually submitted the form when I finally got it, the accounts went between 60-90 days late, because they didn't process the request as of the time that I had sent the letter. Anyhow, when I get my TU report about a year and a half ago, I notice that at least on TU some of their accounts were reporting 60 days late, and some of the accounts were reporting 90 days late. So, I called, and finally spoke with a supervisor who said that she would pull up the archived copy of the letter on microfiche and if they would have been able to process that based on that, they would update it. After a few weeks, I get a letter from them stating that they updated. All the other CRAs shown that the accounts were not late. TU still had as the comment that the account had went late one time 60 (or 90) days. TU's answer was that the update, updated the payment history, but didn't give them permission to update the comment associated with it, which CHARACTERIZED the payment history. So I asked that they send TU another update for the account, and it still showed the comment. So when I called TU again, I was told the only way to get them to update to remove the comment was to dispute the comment, so I finally let TU dispute the comment, and I called the state up to let them know that TU claims that the only way for them to have permission to remove the comments that the accounts were late, was for the comments to be disputed, so that they would know that I really wasn't disputing it, I was disputing that TU's system wouldn't allow removing the comments. The comments now reads "For the past 48 months from date reported, never paid late.", and it moved from the adverse side of TU to the non-adverse side of TU.
Re: Re: Creditor Validating False Info Well, I just checked and they're not reporting as currently late on Experian. I haven't checked TU yet, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it's just going to be an Equifax issue. Comments?
Re: Re: Creditor Validating False Info Ok... TU shows up clear. Both TU and EXP are reporting the accounts as current all the way back at least two years, which is corect. EQF is reporting it as 60-90 days late. It SEEMS to be an Equifax problem. What do I do?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Creditor Validating False Info Does it matter one way or the other? Makes a big difference.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creditor Validating False Info First of all, welcome to the boards Matt. Next, I am fighting this issue as well on my DW account with.......you guessed it NelNet. I've fought this for almost a year and a half and have accumulated lots of documentation from them. Her situation differs from yours just slightly. She is still paying and has always been current. However, about 5 years ago she filed a Ch 7 BK when she and her ex divorced. Now Nel Net reports every month that the GSL was included in the BK.......which sounds and is in fact impossible since GSL's can't be included in BK's. Nel Net swears they are reporting correctly but the CRA's (2 of 3) still show it as included in BK but pays as agreed. I have countless e-mails and letters from them stating they are reporting it correctly and it must be the CRA's screwing up. Now it's time to sue......in small claims. I think I read recently of one or two other people having this same problem with Nel Net accounts......you do the math. I know what I will be doing....enjoying at least 1K or maybe more depending on how it goes. Good Luck!
: Creditor Validating False Info Does it matter one way or the other? Makes a big difference. lb And that difference would be.....? =) justify73 ~~~~********* ---**************** ---- a private issuer Can be included in BK There is a SOL on them. a gov't backed loan, Can't be included in BK There is no SOL on them So with the Gov. loan you loose the protection of both BK and the SOL.
Re: : Creditor Validating False Info This loan was never included in a BK, because I have never filed for BK. The only issue with this loan is that Nelnet is reporting and validating incorrect information to Equifiax. BK or SOL is irrelevant to my problem. It wasn't what I was asking.
Re: Re: : Creditor Validating False Info It wasn't what I was asking. justify73 ============ *Where did I say it was? *But you did ask the diff. between the 2 and that's what i explained in my post.
Re: Re: : Creditor Validating False Info Regardless, the S/L is being incorrectly reported. This remains the issue. Others have had this problem......check out the lawsuit on bayhouse.com. christine has sued these guys already for exactly what they're doing to you and beautiful Mrs. TallSmith. I don't know about you, but I have just about completed her ITS letter and once she approves, we'll be sending and hopfully get the situation corrected and earn 1K or more for the efforts.
