Dispuite Late Payments?

Since an existing long-term account with a good payment history is far better for your credit rating than no account at all, and since payment histories are usually a smidgin' bit harder to verify that the simple existence of an account, I would dispute as "never late" rather than "not mine." That's just my two cents. Of course, people who share Greg Fisher's admirable sense of honesty would avoid disputing anything that's accurate in the first place. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, my integrity isn't as developed as his.

Randy

 

Padwar:

As you are well aware, good credit repair methods do not worry about what is accurate, what is late, what is owed or what is not owed. Those concerns are for those who run around with a guilty conscience about their debts allowing that to focus their efforts, those who would rather eternally argue about every little item on their report. and those who think that spamming credit bureaus to death is the only way that credit repair can be accomplished.

Again, as you are well aware, there is a better way to go.
That better way to go relies upon the fact that we live in a nation of laws. Everyone must obey the law. The government must obey the law and that includes IRS. The companies must all obey the law, and that includes creditors, collection agencies and credit bureaus alike. And of course, if we expect others to obey the law, so should we.

As good citizens, however, it is our never ending duty to help those who fail to obey the law to understand their duties and obligations to the consumer under the law, to help them understand that if they break the law, there are consequences to pay, such as having to delete items from one's credit history, having to sometimes totally and completely forgive the debtor his obligation rather than being forced to pay the consequences of their failure to obey the law.

And sometimes we even have to find innovative ways to insure that creditors, collection agencies and credit bureaus maintain their status as good citizens.

Hey man! It's all about justice, which is not always so equal for all as it is supposed to be.

It's who gets there fustus with the mostus that counts.

(LOL)

 

Randy,

That's not an accurate listing as it is impossible to be late more times at 90 days than at 60 days. I'd dispute it as "never late" and point out the impossiblility of the listing. I'd also threaten them with lawsuit if they change the 60 day to match the 90 day.

This is one dispute you can say "change it or suffer the consequences" with some gusto.

 

Because 60 comes before 90. There would have to be at least as many 60's as 90's if not more.

 

Umm, this goes by occurrences i think. For instance, if I was 60 days late and then paid the account up to date and then was 60 days late again and then paid it up to date and was then 90 days late, I would have 60 days, 60 days, 90 days late on the record.

If on the other hand I was 90 days late and paid a payment to make it only 60 days late, then you would still only have one 90 day late, not a 90 and a 60.

If you didn't pay on the account for 4 months, you would only have the 120 late, not a 30, 60, 90, and 120.

Correct me if this is wrong.

 

The cra's are going to report the 60 days lates first. If it goes to 90 I believe it would show as 30, 60 and then as 90. If I am correct, in your first example you would have three 60's and 1 90 showing. I may be wrong, but I'm not going to test it find out either.

 

I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE SOME 30 DAY LATES ALSO...JUST GUESSING...

 

There is one instance when you could have 5-60 days late and 6-90 day lates.

Suppose you had 6-60 day lates and 6-90 day lates.
If one of the 60 day lates hit 7 years it would be deleted because of the 7 year rule,still leaving the 6-90 day lates,but only 5 -60 day lates.

VJ

 

if you make 12 payments a year -one in in each mo.
for Jan - dec there should not be any late payments or charges!

 

As far as Experian goes, each 90 day late also counts as a 60 and a 30 day late. Each 60 day late also counts as a 30 day late.

 

If a person is 120 days late, and the creditor reports monthly, the report will read 30, 60, 90 and 120.

For monthly updates there is no way to have more 90's than 60's unless some of the 60 day lates have fallen off due to age (as one person noted), but by then the 90 day lates would be about to fall off as well.

I still think it is a valid reason for dispute and one that any thinking person at a CRA would understand and delete.

 

You actually can have a 90-day late notation on a tradeline without having a 30 or 60 preceding it in one particular (admittedly rare) circumstance. If you had slow payments some 7 years ago,the SOL at which notations fall off the record, then at 6 years 10 months (dated back from the 90-day late) the 30-day notation would auto-delete, then the next month at 6 years 11 months the 60-day notation would auto-delete, then finally at year 7 the 90-day notation would fall off last.

This seems like one of those brain-teasers where you have to go call Marilyn Vos Savant for the answer.

Randy