I know that they will see different scores, for whatever reason... I just mananged to get a couple of ilegitimate derogatory items removed from my credit report. I've verified this through TransUnions TrueCredit monitoring deal. (I hate their system, but they are the only ones that offer unlimited three agency reports.) So I started a month ago. And I've actually seen the items cleared off my report and I've seen respective jumps in my reported credit score. Now, timing as it is, I had to apply for a mortgage somewhere in the middle of all this. Evevn with the derogatories, my credit scores were useable, but I'm not getting the rates I should be. I told my lender that I've managed to clean up the reports. He says it doesn't matter. When they pull the report, they see items that I don't. He said that even though the items are removed from my report, they are still "in the history" and lenders will see scores affected by these items. If this is true, then what's the use of cleaning the report? The whole system seems so frustratingly arbitrary I don't get why anyone relies on it anyway... Any thoughts are appreciated. J
If you apply for a mortgage over a certain amount (I think it's $150K but not sure) or a job with a certain salary, or a few other situations, they can pull what is called a full report. It does contain history that has been deleted from the credit file, including bankruptcies and public records.
I appreciate your quick response, but I still don't quite get it... So if a derogatory item has been removed... Not just satisfied or old, but theoretically removed because it was inaccurately reported. (Someone else's debt, for instance.) That will still show in the "Full Report" and it will still affect my score? Again I ask... What's the point, then? The entire industry of self monitoring is charging for a service that's pretty much useless. And a credit report becomes meaningless if it continues to show items that have been proven inaccurate. The more I learn the less I understand... J
The "full factual" or RMCR has never been mandatory, and it's more expensive. Prior to the mortgage meltdown, IMHO it was used mainly in B/C situations as a tool to actually help the borrower, since a report where lots of things had aged off could leave a quandary as to what JDB acccounts related to which OCs (because some OCs were gone [aged off] if you looked at the regular consumer report), etc. Also I believe the full factuals were always needed post-BK. Now ... lenders may be taking advantage of their availability under the law for mortgages over $150k in order to better predict creditworthiness. This is why I usually recommended engagement with creditors ... whether to resolution in the courts or settlement ... the loose ends come back to bite. The only folks who should not engage are those who foresee that there will never be a need to withstand the scrutiny of a full factual...
There are other report "types" out there, and they are mentioned in the FCRA. The "full", and "investigative" reports can contain everything, including historical information, and deleted items. As stated, these are both expensive, and can only be pulled under certain conditions and for certain transactions.
