Citibank notified me in writing on August 1st, 2001 that they would remove the 1996 I5 status from my Equifax report. They said it could take up to six weeks to be updated. I have an updated report dated August 24, 2001 which still shows the item. Does this mean they are using the UDF system to update my account? I am thinking about sending a fax to Equifax with the letter to make sure this gets taken care of but also don't want to screw anything up. Should I wait until after the first and then pull my report before I submit the letter to Equifax? I really don't want to waste my money if its not updated. I am anxoious the see the increase in my score. I did have another item (from 1998) removed so I guess the money would not be a complete waste. Any opinions?
Molly, I have a similar situation currently with Equifax. A creditor sent me a letter along with a copy of the UDF they sent to Equifax on August 7. They requested that the repo listing be changed to paid as agreed, never late, or deleted. As of today it is still on my report. I called Equifax and they told me it could take up to 90 days to be corrected. She said I should redispute it as that would be quicker. I asked her why negative listings can be verified so quickly but when it comes to changing a neg. to a pos. it takes forever. I of course got no answer. I then asked if I faxed the UDF to them would that help and I was told they could not accept a UDF from me as valid proof. I guess we just have to wait.
I disputed it on August 15. You know what? I'd really love for Equifax to come back and say it was verified. I could really nail them. Also, their refusal to accept my written proof is also a violation. The FCRA clearly states: § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (4) Consideration of consumer information. In conducting any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) with respect to disputed information in the file of any consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer in the period described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such disputed information.
Well, the CRA can "review and consider" your written proof and decide it is not good enough. This is just like how they can determine if your disputes are "frivolous or irrelevant". It's a load of BS.
You are exactly right, however, in this case I offered to send Equifax a copy of the UDF and a copy of the letter from the creditor, and they told me no. They said it would do no good as they have to get the info directly from the creditor.
All it should take to remove Neg. Info.is for the consumer to say it's wrong.And it's deleted instantly, no if ands or buts. =====There is absolutely no excuse for putting us through such hassles with all the rigmarole to get things corrected! ========================== ==================================== It's a big load of bull shit--enough to fill the barn clear up to the rafters--Especially when it could be prevented if the party reporting the Neg. Info. and the Credit Bureaus were required to contact the consumer first! !
Boy, I've been around the barn (around the barn??) on this one..I've had this situation a lot...and I have found that it takes longer (up to six weeks) when this situaiton occurs. One CA CEO (on one of my desperate to get this off days, I got the CEO) told me that unless he called, it would take 6 weeks but if he called, it would be removed immediately so he called for us! (It was a good DESPERATION IS THE ANSWER day!) My point is that I have found it always takes longer..and I have gotten verified reports after I know the letter was sent by the CA. I used PFB and Experian's HQ took over on it and has been in contact with hubby and it is now fixed. Hang in there!
Exactly right lb!! If you fax info to CRA, also fax a copy of the envelope it came in. That way they know it is not a document you manufactured (although it could still be "doctored") but, hey, it works. Its what I always do.
