Re: Re: Re: getting rid of lates legally II I think the issue becomes the task of you raising some "reasonable doubt" about the "late payment".. You are correct, the "furnisher" MUST report ACCURATELY, but....WHAT IS ACCURATE??....If there is a "doubt" about the late payment, then aren't they at "legal risk" for incorrect reporting? I think you can take the OC "off the legal hook" by substantiaitng somehow a "reasonable doubt" regarding the late payment...I don't know all the details but there must be some "loophole, or reasonable justification" for the late. Keep looking, there must be a "win-win" answer for you both!!
Re: Re: getting rid of lates legally II i can't beleive i am agreeing w/lbrown on this. a late that old isn't hurting your score. in some states its illegal to lie in regards to CRAs reporting. at this point youve acknowledged that it is a valid late payment, and the OC - for whatever reason - is honest enough to where i could see them telling the CRA about your goodwill letter if you were to dispute as never late.
Re: Re: getting rid of lates legally II 1*I think the issue becomes the task of you raising some "reasonable doubt" about the "late payment".. 2*You are correct, the "furnisher" MUST report ACCURATELY, but....WHAT IS ACCURATE??.... 3*I think you can take the OC "off the legal hook" by substantiating somehow a "reasonable doubt" regarding the late payment... bizwiz==================== 1*First Question Who Determines when payments were made. That in and of itself creates reasonable doubt to me. 2*Let me explain it to you. What it means is if Something neg. is reported it darn well better be true. Example if a payment is reported late then it had better have been late. There is nothing illegal or wrong with deleting a late payment simply because there was no legal obligation to report it in the first place. Not reporting the late payment is not inaccurate reporting because nothing is reporting. The accurate requirement is to protect consumers against false bogus negs. on their reports It's not to require reporting of any item be it a neg. or pos. 3*Off the hook with who? The only person a creditor would be on the hook with is me the customer and I'm sure I wouldn't be taking action against an OC for removing a neg. or changing a neg. to a pos. LOL """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Makes sense vghost: COME TO THINK OF IT In all the years I have been reading this board I have seen several people sue for inaccurate Neg. reporting but I haven't yet read a post where a consumer ever sued someone over the inaccuracy of a pos. item on their report. LB 59 ======================== PS I have seen a few donkeys around occasionally
wouldn't this be considered suing over a accurate late payment on an positive tradeline? they gave her the option of deleting the complete tradeline. take your pick - remove the whole positive tradeline or have a 5-year-old late pay that isn't even affecting their score. we can't have everything our way.
Re: Re: getting rid of lates legally II Yep, and you will never see. As I said - you have to prove damages and there are no damages made by a positive tradeline ...
MY POINT WAS...who is going to go after a CA or an OC for changing a credit report??? "WE CAN'T CHANGE IT---IT IS ILLEGAL--WE CAN'T REMOVE IT"
Re: Re: getting rid of lates legally II jenz, they are afraid of the law, because they don't understand the law. As lbrown pointed, there is no legal obligation to report a late payment, therefore there will be nothing illegal removing the late payment. Besides, the only one who can complain is the consumer, who benefits from the positive tradeline. Removing a perfectly paid off $11,000 loan - baaaad move, verry bad move ... BTW, how did you came up with the idea that a 5 year old negative does not affect your score?
Re: Re: getting rid of lates legally II just a theory discussed on the thread. i just had a collection removed (4 yrs old) and my fico jumped a whole whopping 3 points. as a lender, we don't even count lates if they aren't w/in the last 12 months. it isn't worth the risk of losing the whole line if they don't want to remove the late. i agree, the lender isn't losing anything by removing it, but i certainly wouldn't press the issue. since she verified the late w/the goodwill letter, i wouldn't advise lying by disputing it as never late. just my opinion.
Re: Re: Re: getting rid of lates legally II jenz, you might've missed something from her first post - they have no problems removing the late, so she doesn't have to dispute it, but they are afraid of potentional legal problems if they remove it ...
Re: Re: Re: getting rid of lates legally II no but there was discussion on the thread about questioning the validity of the late.
Re: Re: Re: getting rid of lates legally II I think I know what I'm going to do. I will fax the letter in my original post, but i'll just stick this sentence in: "I believe the late notations may have been submitted in error, and I will be disputing them with the bureaus soon." I don't really care that i pretty much admitted the late payments were my fault in my original goodwill letter. They probably threw the letter away by now anyway. This lady was so nice and so willing to work with me (I've had 5 other loans and a CC account w this company over the past several years, all paid perfectly) that I think if I send the fax and call her and explain things, she will make sure I get what I want. I'll let you guys know what happens. Thanks so much for all the replies. this was my first post that had a little green arrow indicating it was a 'lively' thread, lol. I feel like I belong now. *sniff*
Re: Re: Re: Re: getting rid of lates legally II The reason I DO have to dispute it is so they can (hopefully) NOT verify, thereby allowing the lates to drop off. That way they wont feel so 'afraid' (lol). here's what i want to know: (and I've searched here, but havent found anything specific yet--i know its gotta be here somewhere tho) What did other people's creditors do to get lates removed? ~Get them removed by initiating contact w CRAs and saying "hey, remove these lates because we say so." ~initiating contact w CRAs and saying "these were submitted in error." ~saying "these were possibly submitted in error." (taking the 'blame' off themselves in case of legal probs later--as if there'd be any, lol) I doubt anyone even really knows what their creditors have done/said to get lates removed, but if you do, please post what was done. thanks.
Re: Re: Re: Re: getting rid of late Here's a thought of a "legality" loophole. Inform them that you and they agree that your one payment was 20 days late (or approximatly whatever it was) Now point out to them that the CRA's system shows that you were 30 days late (nowhere in the system does it indicate that this is up to 30 days late) Now that statement of 30 days late is in fact incorrect information so the bank should feel free to request the CRA delete the incorrect notation of 30 days late "The consumer was not 30 days late in making a payment to us ever during the 60 months of the loan" That way you win, and there is no legalities for the bank. ChrisB
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: getting rid of late *The law doesn't require reporting of lates to start with so there are no legalities for the bank in the first place. Oh if only they were so concerned about the real violations they commit on a regular ongoing basis. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
getting rid of lates legally Well, she called me and wanted to know exactly what i meant in my fax. This lady is so nice, but sorta dense. My letters are VERY clear. I told her everything about the laws, the fact that no one is going to 'get in trouble' and i even told her that i thought the payment could have been only 20 days late instead of 30. She said she would investigate that, but she would hate to find out the pmt was really 30 days late, because then she would DEFINITELY have to make sure its reported correctly. ARGH!! She just wouldnt buy any of it. She was stuck on 'the law' and how the govt 'comes down hard' on creditors who dont report accurately, etc. I tried in vain to explain that the govt only 'comes down' on creditors who report inaccurately TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE CONSUMER. DUH. she kept insisting that if she were to simply remove the ENTIRE TL "wouldn't that be just as good?" ACKKK!! She kept telling me she really wanted to help me, and her #1 concern was making me happy because I'm such a good customer. I give up.
its almost exactly 3 years old. so, the late pmt isnt really affecting my score, but the fact that its listed under 'negative accounts' on my reports really irks me. do you guys think the pmts that WERE on time, & the fact that its a 5 yr old TL is helping my score enough that i should just leave it alone? or should i go ahead and have the whole thing deleted?
the credit report lenders see isn't divided by positive and negative tradelines, but rather open and closed accounts. yes, we lenders do get in trouble for reporting inaccurate information - whether or not it is detrimental to the consumer. inaccurate is inaccurate. how often do some here sue over inaccurate information? its ok when it helps you but not ok when it doesn't? how much do you thing this late payment is affecting your score? rather than asking her to remove the late, see if she can report it as "no data" and just not have that month be reported. this way she doesn't have to lie and you can have your perfect tradeline.
and i'm not bitching at you crowmom. just in general. not trying to come off that way to you so i apologize if my post sounded harsh.
