Trans Union, PAYPAT, MOP, 24-month

I just had this very same discussion with TU yesterday. They have no status of lates written on my TU report under and old paid settled cc. When I pulled my eloan report which is based on TU it said within the last 2 years I have been 90+ days late 12 times. However, the ONLY negative I have is the cc and it was settled in 1997. She insisted they do not do a status for a settled cc yet it shows up on eloan and has driven my eloan score into the pits.

 

Picantel,

I am having the exact same problem with my TU. I have a chargeoff from 5 years back, yet eloan says that I was late 22 times in last two years. No true.

 

Your eloan score only is based on the info in your TU report. If you read everything on eloan when pulling your report, it clearly states that the credit report will be from Equifax.


Please note: Your credit score was based on a TransUnion credit report, whereas this free report is from Equifax. Although these reports are usually similar, there are often differences. Therefore, you may not see items described in your credit score analysis on this report. To order a TransUnion report for a fee, contact them directly.

 

Greg,
Nice job, keep up the good work

These jokers have a 12 year old pd chgoff recently re-inserted and re-aged (no notification) on my file and when I called the dimwit admits to me that there is no date of delinquency in the tradeline. So how is it a derogatory? And who cares its well over 10 years old so even if it was a good tradeline it should be gone!

By the way I downloaded your "proof". Let me know if you need a witness.

 

That explains it then. Thanks..

 

I just pulled a TU report via freecreditprofile.com. It looks to be a lender version, and it has a 24 month history. I know, I know, we already knew this, but I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.

So Greg, have you had any luck yet with TU? You have a link into this thread from your site calling it a discussion, but the thread has been dead for over two weeks.

I guess not much to discuss really. TU is breaking the law, but finding damages in order to sue is problematic, IMO. Does ANYONE have an idea on this? Even the lawyers won't get anything if you can't take some damages...

 

Oh, right, forgot about that bit.

(1)(A) has it:

"any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or"

So you get $100, plus your filing fees, plus whatever the lawyer wants to get out of it. TU gets to bend over a bit.


What are you basing your thirty days on? Couldn't it still be negligence?

Do you think it would be best to try a class action, or go after them individually? (I think individual suits be more effective and quicker.)

We should all be sending letters and then sueing. Talk about a slam-dunk case...

 

Boy Greg, I've been watching the show from the sidelines, not wanting to get involved, but for all your complaining about people not answering your questions you sure didn't answer any of mine.

I'm sure you have your reasons though, and you certainly didn't post in here screaming for help. If it's a personal crusade with TU I can understand, but I should think it would be better to get more people involved. Certainly if you have a strategy we would all like to hear it.

Anyway, I was just trying to actually get a discussion going. I guess that wasn't really the intent of this thread...

 

So Greg, have you had any luck yet with TU?

No, their 30 days to reply is up August 24. They are entitled to use that entire 30 days just as much as the consumer is entitled to a resolution in 30 days, as required by law. I know the suspense (a literary device-- proving that reality is stranger than fiction) is killing you, but what do you suggest that I do in the meantime? Pester them?

I didn't realize you were basically treating your letter as a dispute, thus the thirty days. Makes sense now. (If that's not it then I'm still in the dark.)


You have a link into this thread from your site calling it a discussion, but the thread has been dead for over two weeks.

I try to not be presumptuous, but I'll take that as a question asking why few have commented.

I don't know. I'll go out on a limb (presume) and say that some have learned to like this game they play with the credit reporting agencies. This case, however, could put an end to an illegal practice-- and stop the game to some extent, ending all the fun. They don't want to encourage fully-documented cases that could actually resove an issue.

Sure, that could be true.

On the other hand, it could be that they know the law-- 30 days is 30 days-- they're waiting for the outcome, and figure no comment is necessary.

Equally plausible.

It is good drama isn't it? You're too impatient.

It's not very dramatic to me, but I am indeed way too impatient.


To be sure, there are other reasons, but I can't tell what they are because I'm not clairvoyant. However, this isn't a popularity contest. The CRA is either right or wrong, and the number of postings by message board participants won't change that.

I wasn't suggesting that it was a popularity contest. Not a whole lot to talk about really, I'm just impatient.


I guess not much to discuss really.

I tacitly agreed, but you failed to see the irony.

That I did.


TU is breaking the law, but finding damages in order to sue is problematic, IMO.

Again, I'll try to glean a question.

One does not need damages in order to sue. The law states, "An action to enforce any liability created under this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy... "

But why do you presume a private lawsuit is imminent? This is more a job for the regulators. Why do you presume any legal action, at all, is imminent? We're holding court, right here, right now, and the evidence is on a big world-wide screen.

I didn't presume a lawsuit, I was thinking out loud.


Even the lawyers won't get anything if you can't take some damages...

More presumption. No lawyers are needed because the truth is so stark. Perhaps that is its flaw, though: The violation is so fundamental, it is hard to believe they're getting away with it (even harder to believe no legal practitioners have found it). Then, again, it was a clever deception. Consumers didn't always have the mere possibility of seeing lenders' reports.

I think you are right. Most people miss the obvious.


What are you basing your thirty days on?

The law.

You _are_ considering this a dispute, right?


Couldn't it still be negligence?

No. As we have seen, these are not brilliant public relations minds. If they know about the problem (now they do, for sure), then it is willful. And if they will claim they are so negligent that they didn't open the letter or notice the public lambasting on the Internet, that would be even worse. Asleep at the wheel: Not a good demonstration of stewardship of this crucial data with which we have entrusted them.

Certainly the more people that notify them, the more willful they become if they don't change.


Do you think it would be best to try a class action, or go after them individually?

Those aren't the only two choices (see above).

I think I get it now. It still seems they will have to face losing large amounts of money before they will change. Though public outcry can probably accomplish this just as well as legal action.


We should all be sending letters and then sueing.

If you're asking if I think others should take action immediately, the answer is yes.

I think I was more stating the obvious.


Boy Greg, I've been watching the show from the sidelines, not wanting to get involved, but for all your complaining about people not answering your questions you sure didn't answer any of mine.

Another translation: "Why didn't you answer any of my questions?"

You should consider a job in the press corps. Try saying this: "Senator, how long have you been beating you dog?"

No, I just didn't read in the irony and wit you intended in your reply. (That _was_ the intention, right?) Leave the dog out of this.


Certainly if you have a strategy we would all like to hear it.

I said that it depends on their repsonse and remorse. It's high drama: What will they do next?

I just don't get the high drama part.


Anyway, I was just trying to actually get a discussion going. I guess that wasn't really the intent of this thread...

Meaning: "Why don't you care?"

I started a web site for $25 a month and documented everything I could about credit scoring. I ended up being quoted by the national media. You decide whether one person can influence the industry and consumers-- or can only keep complaining with no resolution to their complaints. Did you send your letter?

I love your sites. Not always easy to navigate, but loads of interesting information. Yes, one persan can make a huge difference, and sitting on my ass isn't going to solve anyone's problems, least of all my own.

I'll send my letter today, and will even fax it to both call centers, as a bonus. I'll get the tracking number in here as soon as I get the date stamped, probably over lunch.


Is that verbose enough?

Absolutely!

Thanks for taking the time to answer them.

 

Greg, I just realized something in drafting my letter. In my case, the only thing left on my TU report has only a single 60 day late. Since they seem to only show the past two, I can hardly say they are leaving out information.

I have older reports with accounts where there would have been more than the two they normally will show, but no lender report with the same info to back it up.

One thing I can say is that the 24 month history is not complete. There are eight months with no status shown, presumably when the lender failed to update.

It is still not a complete disclosure to the consumer, because there is a payment pattern storede but not shown, I just have to work out the wording. I just wish there was at least something being hidden as a result of no disclosure.

Maybe I should just grill them about the whole refusing to investigate inquiries thing?

I think I'll just be a bit more generic than your letter and force the point. While I don't currently have an account where this is an issue, it quite conceivably could become a problem in the future. In any event, they have still not made a full disclosure of ALL the information in my file. Who is to say really WHAT they DO keep in their file for me. That may become my mission, to get the file exactly as it appears in the TU database. This is, after all, what a literal reading of the FCRA requires.

Wow, the more I look at § 609. Disclosures to consumers [15 U.S.C. § 1681g], the more I see things the CRA's routinely violate. I'm thinking one mistake that we may be making is in asking for a consumer report, as opposed to a full copy of our file. Maybe I'll just attack it that way.

It's very interesting how the CRA's want you to believe inquiries must remain in your file for two years, given that the only FCRA requirement of two years is for reports used to determine employment eligibility. In fact, when kept for the purpose of compliance with 609.(3)(A), it doesn't seem as though an inquiry would need to be considered part of the consumer's file, it's just an accounting of who got to see it. But then ALL still means ALL. Not sure here.

Of course, once you start using it as a predictor of credit risk it then becomes part of the file. In that case, I don't see why they couldn't keep the inquiries for seven years, or ten if they somehow consider it not adverse information.

Damn, have I rambled or what?! Just thinking out-loud...

 

Well, obviously they don't match. The simple question one begs of TransUnion is WHY?

Why does the report TransUnion gives to me have less information than the one TransUnion gives to lenders?

Isn't the report to me supposed to contain ALL information in my file?

I'm begining to see a simple letter that anyone at TransUnion should be able to read. Thanks Greg )

 

Well, what do you think? I hope I made it with enough of my own thoughts.

Greg, is that letter on your site exactly how you sent it, or did you leave the account numbers clear? I'm thinking there is enough info not to need the account numbers.

I'd love to get feedback from anyone and everyone on my letter before I send it tomorrow. This is fresh new ground for me...

 

With many apologies to Greg Fisher, I have changed the wording a bit more, but won't be able to upload the changes until tomorrow. It still sounded too much like his original letter.

I'll post the update.