Jump to content

Transunion one of three I hate (help)


puck
 Share

Recommended Posts

I disputed late pays on my visa cards. Hoping that the late pays would come off my report. Transunion completely deleted all three accounts. The drawback is that I had just paid all three cards down so my report would show that I had alot of unused credit. Now I am wondering if it is better to just shut up and leave them off or should I dispute them about deleting them entirely off my account. I have other late pays on my reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TU A holes did the same thing to me! I just wanted the credit limit reported right and they deleted the TL! Morons...

I figured asking the CC Company to re-report it would restore the TL, but it's been 3 months and it still doesn't show up on TU :evil:.

The CC Company tells me they have been reporting it every month, so TU must have it "blocked" or something. I have told TU on the phone to restore the TL and they said "tell the CC Co to report it..." Imbeciles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you dispute an item on your cr, it's a request for electronic transfer of data between the CRA and the Data Furnsiher. The rules, and procedures, are that if the DF doesn't reply in time, the entire account/tradeline gets suppressed, not deleted. This is what happens. It's the chance you take when you dispute and it IS a possiblity. It's unfortunate that you didn't understand the implication. But that doesn't make the CRA's A-holes, morons or imbeciles. Your TL wouldn't have gotten suppressed if you hadn't sent in a dispute. Now you know. In the future you can use this as a basis for making the decision to dispute or not to dispute, based on this risk. Once suppressed, it's difficult to get a TL unsuppressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ahntara,

I appreciate your input. Your points are good ones. Especially since some posts in this form tell people to start out by "disputing everything" and your point about the possible consequences is an important one.

I may have let my frustrations get a bit out of line with the name calling, but I believe my descriptions were accurate in my case. The reason: I never disputed the deleted TL! I merely requested they accurately display the correct credit limit. It had been being accurately reported by the CC Co for over 3 months before I made my request, but I never acutally disputed anything with the CRA, it was during a telcon w/ a CRA rep about something else that I "mentioned" the inaccurate credit limit on that TL. Next thing I know: TL gone.

Even as of the date of this post and after several phone calls to CC Co and CRA, it still is not re-reporting, so your point about the difficulty in restoring a deleted TL is also accurate and should be heeded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the chance you take when you dispute and it IS a possiblity. It's unfortunate that you didn't understand the implication. But that doesn't make the CRA's A-holes, morons or imbeciles. Your TL wouldn't have gotten suppressed if you hadn't sent in a dispute. Now you know.

That is absolutely correct!!!

TU deleted a few of my positive trade lines for that very same reason and it wasn't because of any lates. It was simply a few pieces of incorrect information. One bank and a credit union argued with TU till they were blue in the face but TU refused to reinsert the trade lines even though both of them told TU that they NEVER got the dispute.

The correct way to dispute this is with the OC and if you choose to dispute it with the CRAs, you then take your chances.

So in other words, don't do it again; not with a positive trade line...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say, send the CRA a stern letter explaining the situation since it is their error and your CC is reporting the way it should be. By suppressing the information being sent by the CC they are guility of innaccurate reporting and you want it corrected IMMEDIATELY. I would send them a copy of an old report showing the TL and what incorrect information you had disputed and what they did which is obviously NOT what you wanted for the dispute outcome.

I had a similar problem with them on several accounts and sent an evil, yelling letter at them with exactly what I wanted them to enter for notations on every single account or be sued in Federal Court for their blatant disregard of Federal law and my disputes. I got my results back and they changed EVERYTHING to what I told them to. Sometimes you need to be a Super xshakeitx with them because by correctly reporting on your CR is only taking money out of their pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say, send the CRA a stern letter explaining the situation since it is their error and your CC is reporting the way it should be. By suppressing the information being sent by the CC they are guility of innaccurate reporting and you want it corrected IMMEDIATELY. I would send them a copy of an old report showing the TL and what incorrect information you had disputed and what they did which is obviously NOT what you wanted for the dispute outcome.

I had a similar problem with them on several accounts and sent an evil, yelling letter at them with exactly what I wanted them to enter for notations on every single account or be sued in Federal Court for their blatant disregard of Federal law and my disputes. I got my results back and they changed EVERYTHING to what I told them to. Sometimes you need to be a Super xshakeitx with them because by correctly reporting on your CR is only taking money out of their pockets.

But they're not inaccurately reporting. There's no law requiring a tradeline be reported, but that any tradeline that is reported must be reported accurately.

You also need to pick and choose your battles. The OP disputed late pays on this tradeline, and the tradeline is now missing from the report as a result. The late pays were likely accurate, so it was a gamble disputing them. They are now gone, which was the goal of the dispute. Yes, so is the tradeline, but that's a risk you have to be willing to take when disputing factual information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not so, I have 3 accounts that are almost 2 years old that came off on accident, (I never disputed those good line items when i first got started) but they came off, and I use those accounts on purpose cause they dont effect my utilization. I bet if the accounts went bad they would show back up though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houdino, your right. When you start the process of cleaning up your reports the first thing this site tells you to do is to dispute everything with the CRA's.

Now I know to pick and choose my battles.

Puck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The correct way to dispute this is with the OC and if you choose to dispute it with the CRAs, you then take your chances.

So in other words, don't do it again; not with a positive trade line...

This is true. There is one situation where although its bad to loose a good tradeline, it will still help you get a mortgage.

I am trying to get an FHA mortgage, but I have 1 30 day late in the past 12 months. I disputed it with Experian, and they actually corrected it in my favor. Now I am disputing it with the other 2 CRAs.

If it gets deleted, that is not good, but it will allow me to get my mortgage, because bye-bye late in the last 12 months.

So it just depends on what you are trying to accomplish. I will take a deleted good TL if it means I can get the mortgage I want...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say, send the CRA a stern letter explaining the situation since it is their error and your CC is reporting the way it should be.

I have to say that you were very fortunate on how that happened. My credit union and one bank argued with TU for a very long time. TU's position was that the account was deleted so there was nothing to change because it wasn't there anymore.

I did the nasty letter and spoke to their managers but got nowhere.

The best way to dispute something very minor on a positive trade line is to take it to the OC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is absolutely correct!!!

TU deleted a few of my positive trade lines for that very same reason and it wasn't because of any lates. It was simply a few pieces of incorrect information. One bank and a credit union argued with TU till they were blue in the face but TU refused to reinsert the trade lines even though both of them told TU that they NEVER got the dispute.

The correct way to dispute this is with the OC and if you choose to dispute it with the CRAs, you then take your chances.

So in other words, don't do it again; not with a positive trade line...

What part is correct!?!?!?

W A I T a second here guys and gals!!! If some of the points made here were to be "condoned", you would have to "put up" with INACCURATE info on your CR OTHERWISE risk a perfectly good TL being DELETED! B U L L S H * T!!!! That is nothing more than accepting Extortion from the CRA's. No frigin way! If they refuse to restore a TL that THEY choose to delete for their own reasons rather than CORRECTING the inaccurate info and it is re-reported, THEY have to allow it back on a CR. Not to do so would mean the CRA's can choose which TLs they "allow" on anybodys CR for any reason (or NO reason). That would mean the CRA's could make your score just about whatever they wanted by manipulating what TL's they "allow" on your CR. Like I said, NO FRIGG'N WAY!

But they're not inaccurately reporting. There's no law requiring a tradeline be reported, but that any tradeline that is reported must be reported accurately.

You also need to pick and choose your battles. The OP disputed late pays on this tradeline, and the tradeline is now missing from the report as a result. The late pays were likely accurate, so it was a gamble disputing them. They are now gone, which was the goal of the dispute. Yes, so is the tradeline, but that's a risk you have to be willing to take when disputing factual information.

Although I agree with your point that the late pays were probably accurate (I apologize if I'm incorrect, puck) and that there is no law that requires a TL TO be reported, you are dead wrong in supporting the idea that the CRA's should be allowed the type of discretion you would give them in allowing the type of behavior we were discussing, IMHO of course.

I would think it wouldn't be to hard to prove damages by the CRA for "artificially" lowering your score if they refuse to list a TL because they deleted it rather then correcting it as required by law. I'm with isislc on this one. Nasty letter to CRA...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to pick on Houdino... but you are ascribing 'discretion' to the CRA's that they just don't have. And yeah, I will allow that your post may not be 100% perfected in the way you described it, but for clarity...

The CRA's function in the manner they function. It's not extortion. If a consumer disputes, the CRA exchanges data with the DF electronically. If the data they have been provided by the DF is verified in time during this process, the TL gets updated. If the DF fails to verify, or fails in time, the TL gets suppressed. That's how the process goes. A consumer needs to know this and understand that if a good TL gets suppressed due to following these standard steps that it's gonna be close to impossible to get it restored.

"...CRA's can choose which TL's they 'allow' on anybody's CR..."

No, they don't choose; the DF's collectively choose. They choose by submitting the data initially and verifying it later on, or failing to verify. The CRA's parrot what their client/subscriber tells them and what their internal business policies tell them, per legal counsel (in their skewed way of following the law). They are only repositories of data provided by the DF's and of some Public Records.

Another point is though this is a hot topic when it happens, the main focus of the CRA's is preserving file integrity. That is, keeping every friggin thing that a DF provides to them. This is their mission and main focus. It's strange we are now discussing them suppressing data, as if that's a bigger problem.

"...CRA's...discretion..."

They have no discretion. Either the TL is verified and updated or suppressed. They have no discretion as to which one happens. It's all based on whether and when the DF responds to the request for verification.

"...CRA for 'artifically' lowering your score..."

And, just for clarification, CRA's are not scoring companies. They are only a repository used by scoring companies, even the separate one(s) they own, to supply the data used to calculate scores.

And lasty, I agree, nasty letter to the CRA. But also understand as you write it that it may not work for the above reasons. Consumer be aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahntara,

Thank you for your level headed post. Maybe my anger hid my (what I thought were pretty clear) points. Let me see if I can cear things up...

"...but you are ascribing 'discretion' to the CRA's that they just don't have."

Perhaps my point wasn't clear here. My point was exactly the same as yours.

To be clear, it's my belief that to give the CRA's the type of discretion that would be implied by allowing them to delete a TL INSTEAD OF correcting it with info obtained from the DF (as the CRA did in my case of TL being deleted because the CRA had the incorrect credit limit), would be to give them exactly the kind of "discretion" I believe they absolutely should not have, for the reason I stated in my last post. You say the CRA is bound by whatever data they receive from the DF, I agree. But this is not what I was referring to.

My point was: I believe the CRAs are trying to scare people into NOT filing disputes about info that they (the CRA's) consider "trivial". They do this by deleting a TL rather than correcting it. Once word gets around, like was the direction things were seeming to go in our discussion, people would know that they were "taking a risk" of a TL being deleted by asking the CRA to do it's job and correct incorrect info in their file. I believe the CRAs hope this will reduce their workloads. I think people can make their own determinations as to whether the CRA's would have reasons ($) to engage in this type of behavior. Some are obvious to me. I agree in advance this is speculative on my part, and I may have "issues with authority" ;), but I base this conjecture on observed behavior of the CRAs.

"...CRA's can choose which TL's they 'allow' on anybody's CR..."

Again, I think you missed my point here. My point was precisely that I don't think the CRAs are allowed or should be allowed to choose whether they delete or update a TL.

BUT (and it's a bigxshakeitx) IF they were allowed to DELETE a TL rather than actually spend the $ and do what is required (i.e.: update the TL with the correct info) we would be conceding them "discretion" that they are not legally entitled to. Obviously if the CRAs just delete a TL as soon as they see a dispute rather than process the dispute the way they are supposed to, it would save them lots O $. A simple programming instruction is all that would be needed. (Again I concede to simplification and speculation in areas I'm not an expert or have any experience in.)

It's my belief that a rise in consumer awareness, caused by increased consumer access to their CR data via the internet, in conjunction with new or updated consumer protection laws, has caused a corresponding dramatic increase in workload on the CRAs. This fact(?) (if you buy into my arguments) MAY be causing them to look for ways to cut costs (and corners) in the way they choose to deal with some consumer disputes.

"...CRA for 'artifically' lowering your score..."

I know that the CRAs use "secret" algorithms owned by others (sort of...) to generate the actual number for a credit score, but they are plugging in the data that THEY control, at least to the degree that I've discussed here. So in that way the CRAs COULD manipulate someone's score, IF they were so inclined.

I have posted on this specific point before, if anybody wishes to read any more of my blubbering's.

If isislc's approached worked for her, I think I might try that, then get over it...;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I bet if the accounts went bad they would show back up though.

This is a somewhat cynical but great point. And I agree. It sometimes seems that a "bad" TL is almost impossible to get off your CR. But question even a minor inaccuracy in your CR and the "good" TL gets deleted!

(picture isislc's Avatar here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did. And I'll tell you that it's not easy to get a job there. There are pretty strict requirements.

Why? Do you have to be an...

Just kidding!

Really, sorry if I offened you. My discriptive terms for some of the CRA reps I have encountered mearly reflect my impression of their IQ's. I'm sure they just were having bad days or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houdino, we can't fault your passion. But this discussion seems to be going nowhere. We may all have to agree to disagree on these fine points.

The attitudes you attribute to the CRA's may have been true in the 1970's. But in 2008, it's simply not applicable. The CRA's have reduced their workforce, automating the process as much as possible (like most American businesses) in an effort to reduce personnel costs. They instituted E-Oscar, have out-sourced to India, Jamaica and god-knows-where and reduce all disputes into a 2-digit code. They keep their hands 'clean' by parroting what the DF tells them. The law, and their own internal business procedures mean that if the DF doesn't respond to a consumer-generated dispute within the legally allowable time frame, that the entire TL gets deleted. There is nothing nefarious about it, and you can't hold them accountable for following the law and doing what they are supposed to do. The process may not be to our exacting standards, but it's specific: If a consumer disputes, data is transferred electronically (in a 2-digit code via E-Oscar) to the DF. If the DF fails to verify, or doesn't verify within the legal time frame, the CRA's have no choice whether to suppress or not. They must suppress or be in violation. How often do you see posts here complaining about them NOT doing just that?

So, it's not the CRA's choice. The choice lies with the consumer, to dispute or not and with the DF, to verify (in time) or not. At that point, the CRA's hands are pretty much tied.

CRA's only provide the raw data used by separate scoring companies/programs. Until recently they had no connection to scores and therefore can't be accused of manipulating them. They recently attempted to enter the scoring market, offering their Vantage Score product. It's not going over very well. So, it's safe to say that they are only a respository of data supplied and gathered elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, for the most part.

But you are willing to give WAY more benefit of the doubt to the CRA's than I.

"The CRA's have reduced their workforce, automating the process as much as possible "

I think this is where much of the problem lies. I don't think they have people sitting around waiting to screw with "trouble makers" that file disputes. But it could sure be in the programming they use.

If we follow your well written thoughts for a moment, it would seem the only way a "good" TL would get deleted or suppressed after a dispute, would be if the OC failed to respond in time to the data request (or, as I suggest, if the CRA never made the request in the 1st place and instead, just deleted the TL). Either way, once the consumer points out the mistaken deletion, it should be no problem getting the TL restored AND with complete and accurate data. After all, that should be the law; unless we are willing to allow the CRA's the kind of discretion that I believe neither of us wants them to have. If a OC sends the data to a CRA and it is accurate, they should be required to allow it on a CR.

To allow the CRAs the right to delete positive TLs when a consumer merely requests that the credit limit or name spelling is corrected is absurd. It's even more absurd to allow them to refuse to restore the deleted TL.

"They recently attempted to enter the scoring market, offering their Vantage Score product"

I believe this reinforces my point that the CRAs have a vested interest in controlling or manipulating scores. But then again, I might just be paranoid...:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.