"The comments are neg. "Paid in settlement", "Collection as of dec. 05, and "legally paid in full for less than full balance", but the account is in the positive section. So when it is deleted, it may lower my score for taking more positive history away. " FICO doesn't look at whether a CRA puts it in some "negative" or "positive" section. That is purely the CRA making a poor attempt at generating a "consumer friendly" credit report. FICO just scores the information in each TL. The TL itself sounds like a recent paid settled collection account, which is negative to FICO no matter how the CRA spins it to you. What it does do, however, is to deceive you into thinking it is not hurting you, so you don't dispute it. Just another example of not giving the dumb consumer an accurate or complete picture. You're just supposed to trust them, and not dispute their errors. You're not supposed to understand this stuff, anyway. If it is not your account, get it off.
My 3 items are paid, so I will just keep after them, be a squeaky wheel. Theyw ill invest time (and time=money) dealing my my constant nagging, or they will remove and be done with me. So my NEW plan (thanks owe2much) is: DV, file FTC, re-dispute, goodwill, re-dispute, DV again, re-dispute, etc... (I'll throw BBB/AG in there along the way, if needed.) I know to wait 30 days before disputing again, so this could take some time, but it's game ON! But EX had better buckle up cause my scorpio stinger is out on them! I will make 1 attempt to dispute once more to clean up a couple loose ends, but I will also talk to FTC about those missing accounts first, then wait about 2 weeks, then dispute with EX about my loose ends, and see where things land from there. If things are not dramatically improved after that, I will talk to a lawyer, and if I have to do that, I will not be happy, and it will not be pretty. (cause I really, really don't want to have to do that)
Because they wont do their job, they must be the worst run company in history. At $7.00 an hour, it cost $1.17 to send me a letter (10 min.) I'm including the cost of paper and postage. I have gotten 10 letters in 2 months. Every one I get I write back, causing them to have to send another. That is now up to $11.17... If lets say 100,000 people dispute anually, that is $1,117,000 loss of revenue annually. It's gotta be killin them. Hasnt cost me nothing but time, and stamps.
I'm becoming angrier every minute. Then EX KNEW what they were doing when they moved that account to where the positives were listed, they hid it there on purpose, made it look like a good thing, knowing that the negative words would score low with Fico. There has got to be some punishment for intentionally doing that. Ontrack, what you said in your last post is something I never knew before. Since the CR is broken up into sections, and each section has a heading, the consumer is lead to believe that TL's listed under a heading called "Accounts in Good Standing" are in fact good, but you just showed me how that is not true. I really did think accounts listed as good were good. I thought that the CRA was letting me know that's how others saw me, including the scoring people. I am just finding out that things listed under positive sections may not be positve, which blows my mind. Because then it becomes the idea that the people at EX know this stuff and know exactly what they are doing, and CHOSE to do this. I can't for life of me figure out why though. What benefit is it to them to do this? If there is no benefit, why do it at all? That's how I missed dipsuting one account in the first place - it was not listed in a negative section. I knew to look at the section where negative collections are, and I knew that the section called "Deliquencies and Dreogatories" were negative things to address. But EX hid one negative account - it wasn't in either of those sections, so i missed when I looked to dispute. i didn't realize that until reviewing my dispute results in the last couple weeks, especially since I couldn't figure out why my EX score was so low. In my review I saw that same item deleted on the other 2 CRA's but not on EX and wondered why. I found it wasn't an item I disputed, and I thought maybe it wasn't on my CR before but was added after. When I checked I found that it was on my CR, but hidden in another section, looked like a good account, so i didn't dispute it (and didn't realize it was the same account I did dispute in 2 other CRA's). I disputed about 8-9 things on each of the 3 CRA's, so with that many, it was easy to miss that one, especially hidden like it was. Now I'm furious that they did this. It is a new bad discovery that fueled my fire just now. It seems I keep discovering how EX is f#*king with me, and I get madder by the minute. Maybe I do need to see a lawyer before I do anything else. They can catch everything that I may miss.
Now you will start getting the letters: "We didnt understand your dispute, the account is already verified, contact the OC.. send more evidence, etc etc" I responded to each letter and now have 3 different disputes going somehow.(3 report numbers) Each letter I write added more time to their 30 days. Now I am ignoring all new letters and waitng my 30 days. (actally 45 I think?) I think the type of punishment they deserve is let the FTC hold them while the FCRA punches them in the stomach.
Data furnishers (CAs, OCs, etc.) just send tapes with coded information on their reported accounts. Those records contain identifying information, and coded info on the account status, balances, whether it is charged off, in collection, paid as agreed, etc. FICO is probably better at reading coded fields than it is in reading English notes. It probably doesn't even process text fields at all. The CRAs own software, when it does process text fields, such as name, address, and SSN identifying information, matches "approximately", allowing close matches with possible errors to be considered to be the same "person". Usually this merges information that may contain minor typing errors, but sometimes this links physically distinct people with similar but different identification. (What do you think some computer program would make of some note such as "We have verified that there is no charge-off or collection in connection with this account." Do you really believe you could trust a computer program to NOT score it as a "verified charged-off collection account"?)
ok, so FICO receives coded stuff. If EX is listing neg. info in text, then most likely they are sending FICO that same info in code. And as Ontrack pointed out, I wouldn't trust any "system" to translate words that say "We have verified that there is no charge-off or collection in connection with this account." to mean a positive thing with so many negative words. Bottom line for me is that TU and EQ have the same accounts in the same ststus with the same CA's or OC's reporting the same thing to all 3 CRA's, but only EX is spinning it to worth more than 100 pts less. So I think the buck stops there.
