On a few of my TLs, I have information similiar to the following. 2 30 days late 1 60 days late 4 90 days late Logically (not that all this always follows logic), it doesn't make sense that you could have only 2 30 days late and 4 90 days late or 1 60 day late and 4 90 days late. Am I right? Any illumination, as always, is appreciated
Your right, they don't add up. BUT, if you dispute them on the grounds that your missing lates, the OC is just likely to ADD the other late payments onto the account.
When I dispute these with the CRAs, would you recommend (continuing the example set forth above) disputing as (for example) "Never 4 times 90 days late" rather than "Never Late" or something to the affect of not adding up?
A pattern like this can make sense because of how late payments are reported. Use an example where you are expected to make monthly payments. Month One - miss a payment and are 30 days late. Month Two - you owe two payments but only make one payment and are still 30 days past due. (past due 30 days twice) Month Three - miss the payment and become 60 days past due. You now owe two payments. (past due 60 days once) Month Four - miss the payment and become 90 days past due. You now owe three payments. Month Five - make one payment and remain 90 days past due. You still owe three payments. Month Six - make one payment and remain 90 days past due. Month Seven - make one payment and remain 90 days past due. (past due 90 days 4 times.) Month Eight - make all past due payments and bring the account current. Does this make sense?
Thanks prafces, it does make sense now. To answer your quesiton, dixidriftr, I have not tried any dispute yet. Would you all recommend rolling with a "Not Mine" or something like "Never 60 days late 3 times"?
Dispute them as inaccurate and incomplete; inaccurate pay history -- the way it is reported isn't accurate and complete; updated or verifiable, there are NO dates attached, and without the dates, they've side-stepped your rights as well as the accuracy and completeness requirement. They need to include the dates or delete. Sassy See these 2 threads: http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...e=20&highlight=sassy and kbanger&pagenumber=2 http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...s=&threadid=33346&highlight=sassy+and+kbanger
Thanks Sassy! You and your threads were helpful. If you don't mind, I'd like some clarification and confirmation. Here is a sample TL, the late notices of which I would like to get removed. "DISCOVER FINANCIAL PREVIOUS PAYMENT HISTORY: 2 Times 30 days late; 1 time 60 days late; 4 times 90 + days late. PREVIOUS STATUS: 09/02- R2; 12/01- R5; 11/01- R5" There are no references on this TL (or any of the others to which I am concerned) to "Unknown Dates." I read your two threads and they're respective other links (at least the ones that were still valid). Do you suggest I dispute the above TL (and others similiar) as "Inaccurate and incomplete?"
