I pulled my credit score from E-Loan, a 582, not very good. Which bureau do they pull, earlier posts mention TU. If that is so the reason for the factors do not make sense. It says missed payments for at leaset 3 consecutive months on 13 accounts. There are 8 accounts showing a balance. 6 are CA, one was disputed online with TU on 6/2. How in the world do they come up with this info. I have paid charge offs from 95-96, that show bal $0 and one charged off as a bad debt (settled with CA) from 96 that show bal $0. Do these charge-offs somehow report as late??
I don't believe that they pull transunion. Transunion has their own score. Eloan is not the most reliable scoring, simply because if applying for credit, no one will be consulting Eloan. I believe that they have their scoring system. Probably a little of all the big three. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
E-Loan does go through TU, if you get a copy of your reports you'll notice that the other two won't show an inquiry from E-loan, but TU does. I would have to agree that this is the more accurate score over what TU gives us. When I applied for a mortgage the score they had matched E-loan. Just my opinion...
LK, So are some items somehow masked to us, and show up to someone pulling our report. I do not have 13 accounts that are 3 months past due. How do I figure out what in the world they are talking about?
They most likely are including all collection and charge off accounts in the total lates. The only way I know to figure it out would be to get an online TU report and see if that makes sense.
I would pony up the money for a credit report from Equifax Experian and TU. See what the items are and dispite those items that are not yours or reported incorrectly. Just a start, but those lates will hurt you!
KC Paul, I have ordered all the reports. E-Loans deals only with TU, per their site, I just looked it up. There are not 13 late accounts on the TU report. Most of the collections are medical and have ins. claims pending, as soon as they post to the OC I will pay any difference to the CA with the condition that they delete any reporting to all three agencys in writing. I am learning. My question is does the three charge offs, which were paid for reduced rates, from 95-96, show up somehow.
I believe they can continue to post the charge off or reduced rate acceptance for 7yrs. Depending on the amount you may be able to pay the diff and have them delete collection. If it is a large medical bill (aren't they all) there may be no reasonable way for you to pay. I am sure some of the more experienced board members can give you insight on how to dispute the items. Good luck.
The 3 charge offs, whether paid or not, will appear on your reports for 7 years from the date of last activity. If they are from95-96, then they should be dropping off your reports this year and next.
Wow. Thanks for correcting me when I was wrong. So what is accurate then? Is it even worth pulling the transunion score then. I know that you would want to see the report, if you want to dispute things. Do you really think the eloan is accurate to go by?
LkH, I am confused is it seven years from the last time I sent a payment or from when it was late? Two of the charge offs do not show up on my EX report, both are from Citibank. But show up on TU, which I disputed as outdated on 6/6 and on both appear on EQ.
The 7 years starts in the month of the first missed payment that led to the charge off, as long as no other payments were made. Here is an FTC opinion letter that hopefully will better explain it. August 31, 1998 Mr. Clifford A. Johnson 1917 Surrey Trail Bellbrook, Ohio 45305 Re: FCRA §§ 605(c) and 623(a)(5) - "Commencement of the delinquency" Dear Mr. Johnson: This responds to your request for our views concerning the calculation of the period for which a consumer reporting agency ("CRA") is permitted to report accounts that have been charged off, placed for collection, or subject to similar action, under the amended Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). You report that the following series of events occurred with respect to one of your credit accounts: "My last payment was received by the creditor 12/96. My payments were due monthly and I missed the 1/97 payment and all subsequent payments culminating in a charge off. This creditor does not report to the credit bureau until the account is 90 days delinquent. . . . The creditor contends that the delinquency did not occur until 3/97 because that is when they first reported it." Section 623(a)(5) requires a creditor that reports a chargeoff to a CRA to notify the agency (within 90 days of reporting the account) of "the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded" the chargeoff. Section 605(a)(4) provides that the credit bureau may report the chargeoff for seven years. Section 605(c)(1) provides that seven year period begins 180 days from that date. In the scenario your reported, it is our view that the delinquency that led to the charge-off "commenced" in January 1997, the month the first payment was missed. Thus, that is the month and year that the creditor must report to the CRA, and that the CRA must use to calculate the time period dictated by Section 605. We are not in accord with the contention that the date "when (the creditor) first reported" the chargeoff to the CRA constituted the start of the delinquency. Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) were recently added to the FCRA to correct the ineffectiveness of the previous FCRA, under which the date that started the seven-year period was uncertain or under the control of the creditor.(1) The legislative history of these provisions makes it clear that they were designed to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from delayed creditor action: Current law generally prohibits consumer reporting agencies from including in a consumer report accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years. The Committee is concerned that this seven year limitation is ineffective. In some cases, the ... action occurs months or even years after the commencement of the preceding delinquency. ... Consequently, the consumer report may contain such information even if the delinquency commences more than seven years before the date on which the report is provided to a user. The Committee bill specifies that the seven-year period with respect to information concerning a delinquent account charged to profit and loss . . . may begin no more than 180 days after the commencement of the delinquency immediately preceding the ... action. S. Rept. 104-185, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 39-40 (emphasis added). Thus, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- the start of the delinquency -- to begin the obsolescence period (now seven years, plus 180 days).(2) The alternate view stated to you (that the date of reporting controls) is at variance with both the plain language of these amendments, and the intent of Congress in enacting them. In sum, we believe that the phrase "commencement of the delinquency that led to the action" in Sections 605(c)(1) and 623(a)(5) of the FCRA should be construed according to its normal meaning. If a consumer falls behind on an account and never catches up, the delinquency has its "commencement" when the first payment is missed. From that point on, the account is past due and thus delinquent. The opinions set forth in this informal staff letter are not binding on the Commission. Sincerely yours, Clarke W. Brinckerhoff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 (Title II, Subchapter D, of Public Law 104-280, signed into law on September 30, 1996), made many other changes to the FCRA. 2. The additional 180 day period accords a measure of flexibility to credit bureaus whose furnishers may provide them with the wrong date. However, the expansion of the time period that Section 605 allows chargeoffs and similar actions to be reported accents the desirability of treating the "commencement" of the delinquency as the first missed payment -- not some later date that would further extend the period.
LKH, My records show thaton one Citibank account I made my last pymt on 4/1997 before charge off, the amount past due was 332.00 and I made a pymt of 100. On 10/8/1997 I setteled for 70%. And I have a letter showing paid in full, and that my account would be reported to a CRA as 0 balance. On the other Citibank account I have a settlement for 60%, dated 6/1997, will show as paid in full. I show the last payment of that account was 4/1997 for 100, with a balance due of 223. Both of the payments in 4/1997 were not for the full amount due. So, which date do I go by. I do have their statments and letters.
If 1/96 is the first time you were 30 days late and never got current again, then that would be the start of 7 years for that account. Same goes for the other acct, except that one would be 7/96. I made a slight error. It would be those dates plus 180 days to determine when they should be deleted.
Thank you. I appreciate all the help you have been. I want to clean everything up to fast, I know it just takes time. It has been a month, since I was turned down for a car loan, and when I pulled my credit report I about died. Some things were true, all though, they were few and far between. Most things had many mistakes. No wonder I paid so much for my car loan a few years ago, by the way never late, since I got it! Wish I would have looked into my credit then. Still leary of the internet at that time I guess. As we age we grow. Too bad it takes so long for me to figure it out. In somethings I am really quick, but with credit....
Can we only get one e-loan score or do they update on a certain schedule? When I pull mine up, it is still from June 1. Or does it change only if my score changes?
