Here's another question about the PG reports, do they have EXACTLY the same info as the CRA reports? I ask, because I pulled individual reports from each of the 3 major CRA's about 2 months ago. I just signed up for PG 2 days ago. The Tradelines read differently on the PG 3n1 report. For those that remember, I've got a problematic Paid Collection I need to get off my CR, for several reasons - mostly cause it should not have ever been there, but on the actual Equifax report I got 2 months ago, the Tradeline shows that $129 was the amount reported and it's now a $0 balance. The PG report shows $0 was the reported amount with a $0 balance. There is less information on the PG report and it's more ambigous or general in nature. Is this one of the problems with PG, or is this how the TL is actually being carried by Equifax now? If so, then it should be a lot easier to dispute this TL because it really is showing a lot of incorrect info, or info that is so general or ambigous in nature that I should be able to say "Not Mine" and the CRA should not be able to verify it at all - or at least with the info on the PG report. Any thoughts/experience with this stuff? FedUp2003
Please see this: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=363331#post363331
So I guess the only real way to know is to pull not only the PG reports, but also a current report from the actual CRA. The thread you posted, it seems to indicate that if you find a discrepancy between the CRA and PG report, or if consumer disputes the accuracy of the PG report, then we can dispute it with the Reseller (PG) and either they have to fix it, delete, or notify the CRA where they got the info from that it is in dispute. This sounds good, but then it also seems to diminish the actual usefulness of these 3rd party resellers, then. If I'm not sure about the total accuracy of the PG reports, and I have to pull from the CRA anyhow, why even bother buying the reseller's service? If I see something on the PG report that is inaccurate enough that I would be able to dispute the item and get it deleted cause it is so wrong, and then later find out that the actuall info in the CRA's report is more detailed and that it is against this more detailed/accurate info that is used for verification,... .well then I may have well wasted a dispute.... or have been lead to believe that I would be able to dispute it away ... when in fact another method would be better employed. Again, this seems to make the services of PG and others a lot less useful. FedUp2003
What I (and others I know of) use PG for is SOLELY to monitor for changes and track the progress of disputes. I'm fortunate enough myself that I have no matching problems. The scores PG gives are nearly useless as they are FAKO CreditXpert scores. The only use , IMO, for the score is that if you see a change it alerts you that something must has changed in the EQ column. At $1 for 3 months, it's worthwhile to me. I will be disputing and monitoring long enough and I find it worthwhile enough, in fact, that I decided to pay the $90 for a year. Others have simply used a different credit card to get a second 90 day trial for $1. I cast no aspersions on them. I just feel $7.50 per month is a fair price for what I get.
I completely agree. If you use the free or $1 trial and like the product enough to attempt to get another 3 month trial, IMO, you should just pay for the product. If everyone kept getting free trial over and over, the provider of the reports wouldn't be in business very long and then we'd have no reports.
