Well thanks to all you nice and knowledgeable folks here, I have undertaken my credit repair journey. I just got the results back from my first dispute with TU, and it was pretty succesful except for one thing. I disputed 3 of 5 dergogs on my TU report, and two were deleted. The third item, which was for a rental mgmt company, came back saying New Information Below. However, there is no new information about this account anywhere on the report. I compared the account listing with the report I received last month, and it is listed with the exact same info. I'm gonna call TU about this, but they are closed now. So I figured I'd see if anyone here has had this happen first. Incidentally, the account is listed for $2123 for a returned check. And my report specifically notes returned check. I disputed this by saying I have never written a check to this company that was returned, which is 100% true. My old roommate wrote the check off of his own personal checking account. So while I could possibly still be considered liable, don't they at least have to remove the remark about a returned check? Or do they even have to verify this notation? The good news, my score jumped from 613 to 642 with the two deletions.
LK, your theory makes sense to me. Thank you. But my question was more about this "new information below" statement, and whether or not they have to verify details (returned check) or just that the account exists?
The point is this... you got the same odd response I just got. "New Information Added" but the tradeline is EXACTLY the same. How dumb do they think we are????? (Don't answer). It's a new low of lows. then the next thing they'll do is likely not reinvestigate b/c the next request would be frivolous... "BUT we just investigated it" and all. I think... and you guys can jump in.. that this is prima facie (sp?) evidence of WILLFUL and/or negligent noncompliance. Clearly it's evidence that the reinvestigation wasn't done properly... and they've documented it for you. I'm using it as a big part of a suit against TU. it's such good evidence of their lack of results that it's amazing. If you have the guts... you may wish to either call a supervisor on the issue and have a correction /deletion done on the phone or you can sue. Your choice.
I think I might just ahead and call them. I'll see if they can point out this "new" information to me. Perhaps it was printed in invisible ink? I'll let you know how it goes...
I have had this happen. The only difference you will see is where it used to say "Updated" and a date, they "Updated" will be changed to "Verified", but the date will not have changed. If you compare the "Updated" date on the old report to the updated report, the dates will match. That leads me to believe that TU never physically reinvestigated the account. My question is, is this legal by them to use the updated date as the verified date? How can TU say they verified something that has an old updated date. It seems to me this is deceptive. Isn't an "Updated" date the last time the creditor actually reported the account? TU didn't just investigate and verify an account back when the account was last updated, so how can they say they verified it back then? None of the other CRA's do this. Experian for example will indicate in the "Status Detail" section that an account was verified on XX/XXXX. I think that TU should be called in on this one.
I just got off the phone with TU. I explained the situation with the rep, here is the jist (sp?) of what transpired. TU- Yes sir, we disputed ownership with the collection agency and they verified that you owe them this money. Me- That's great, but I didn't dispute ownership. I disputed the fact that the loan type says returned check. TU- Oh, well if you like I can re-dispute using that criteria. Me- No thank you, I already asked you to do this. TU- Well I have no way of knowing that sir, the text of your dispute is filed away and will take 48 hours to pull up. I can give you the name of the CA if you like? Me- No...I already know who the CA is. I want to know why you didn't verify this the way I asked. Do you realize that it is a felony in MA to bounce a check for $2123? (I'm not sure if this is really a felony, but who cares) As far as I am concerned this is slander. TU- Perhaps you should get in touch with the CA directly? Me- I already said no, not to mention that TU is the one who is telling potential creditors that I am a felon, not the CA. I'll tell you what, you go ahead and find that file with the text of the dispute. TU- OK, call us back in 48 hrs. Me- Do you have a direct number to a supervisor that I can call when that happens, because you are obviously limited in what information you can access. TU- nope. So they are giving me the runaround here. They are so incredibly inept it makes me sick. I still haven't decided if I should wait 48hrs and call back or just call back sometime today and just ask for a supervisor. Like it could possibly take 48hrs to pull a file from somewhere on a computer network. I'm a network admin, and if it took 2 days to find or get anything on my network, I'd be practicing my "would you like fries with that?" pitch...
