Repost from http://creditforum.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1771

"HOWEVER, for my wife's TU FICO, simulator said recent paydowns to move her from 58% B/L to 5% B/L would only raise her score from 608 TU FICO to 638-678 TU FICO ! Boy, are we steamed !

After scouring her score info. and report, I realized that just one of her IIB accounts (Fleet CC) has the "Date Closed" field as "Not on Record". This TL also says "Last Report on February, 2003". It looks to me like since FICO doesn't get a closure date, it's using the last report date (when we disputed to correct to IIB) as the age date. 2nd most important factor lowering her score is "There is evidence of a late payment on your file as recent as 3 months ago....". This is BS ! Our payments pattern is SPOTLESS since BK7 discharge in 7/97 !

Senseless BS !"


There MUST be an incorrect derogatory entry. Have you looked at the account details in the score section?

How is Fleet reported? Included in bankruptcy?

What is the DLA?

Yes, incorrect derog. info. is what I think is going on. Here's a comparison with details you asked for, first MINE, followed by my wife's:

My TU FICO report:

• Score 670
• Score range on paydown from 77% B/L to 5% BL = 730-770
• Top Positive Factors: - You demonstrate a relatively long credit history (22yrs), - The time since your most recent past due payment is old or unknown
• Top Negative Factors: - Serious delinquency or derogatory indicators/remarks, etc. (BK7, filed 1/97), - The proportion of balances to credit limits on your revolving/charge accounts is too high (77%)
• Number of accounts that are negative = 7. These 7 accounts ALL show: "Description: Chapter 7 bankruptcy", "Last Report on February, 2003", "Current Status: Unrated or bankruptcy", all late classifications (30,60,90+) = 0

These 7 accounts show DLAs and "Date Closed" as follows:

1. Bank United (Individual): DLA = 11/96; Date Closed = 1/97
2. Bank United(Participant): DLA = 11/96; Date Closed = 1/97
3. FNB Omaha (Joint): DLA = 11/96; Date Closed = 3/01 (this is not correct, IMHO, but I assume neglible impact at > 2 yrs. ago)
4. Fleet CC (Joint): DLA = 11/96; Date Closed = 6/97
5. MBNA America (Individual): DLA = 11/96; Date Closed = 2/97
6. Elan Fin (Individual): DLA = 11/96; Date Closed = 1/97
7. BankAmerica (Joint): DLA = 12/96; Date Closed = 5/97

WIFE's TU FICO report:

• Score 608
• Score range on paydown from 58% B/L to 5% BL = 638-678
• Top Positive Factors: - You demonstrate a relatively long credit history (22yrs)
• Top Negative Factors: - Serious delinquency or derogatory indicators/remarks, etc. (BK7, filed 1/97), - The time since your most recent past due payment is too recent or unknown (detail on this says "There is evidence of a late payment on your file as recent as 3 months ago...), - The proportion of balances to credit limits on your revolving/charge accounts is too high (58%)
• Number of accounts that are negative = 7. These 7 accounts ALL show: "Description: Chapter 7 bankruptcy", "Last Report on February, 2003", "Current Status: Unrated or bankruptcy", all late classifications (30,60,90+) = 0(Yes, even the Fleet CC account below shows all 0's !)

These 7 accounts show DLAs and "Date Closed" as follows:

1. Chase NA (Individual): DLA = 12/96; Date Closed = 1/97
2. FNB Omaha (Joint): DLA = 11/96; Date Closed = 3/01( Again, this is not correct, IMHO, but I assume neglible impact at > 2 yrs. ago)
3. BankAmerica (Joint): DLA = 12/96; Date Closed = 5/97
4. Bank United(Participant): DLA = 11/96; Date Closed = 1/97
5. MBNA America (Authorized): DLA = 11/96; Date Closed = 2/97
6. Fleet CC (Joint): DLA = 11/96; Date Closed = "Not on Record"
7. Chase NA (Authorized): DLA = 11/96; Date Closed = 1/97

It must have taken me a whole hour to find and conclude that the "Not on Record" closure date on my wife's Fleet CC account is the only reason her TU FICO can't improve much on paydown from 58% to 5% B/L. I think that one wrong data point is telling the FICO algorithm that my wife has a late pay as recent as 2/03.

Would you agree with this reasoning ?

My point in posting this in your other thread was that it doesn't seem the FICO algorithm is as "robust" as it should be. Why doesn't it seem like it looked at DLA ? Why should just a Date Closed of "Not on Record" make it look (apparently) at the Last Report Date to age it ? It just seems ridiculous to me !

Anyways, if you agree this is the problem, then I'm uncertain how to proceed. We already disputed my wife's Fleet TL with TU as "this account is closed as a result of BK7 filed 1/97". TU reported back that they "verified" this account as being reported correctly ! Should we try another approach to disputing with TU or try disputing with Fleet ?

I honestly think TU just made a simple coding mistake on this TL. I tried talking to them by phone, pointing out how all of the other BK7 TLs were closed properly, but my explanation just seemed to fall on deaf or incapable ears !

Would appreciate your input as time permits !

Christine:

Too late to edit my post above. I just wanted to add here that I have been rereading and refreshing my memory of your advice on credit scoring. I don't want to give the impression of undue obsession with these scores !

It just seems like, with me and wife's positive TLs so similar and shared, except she hasn't had reported mortgage yet (That will change once our re-fi surfaces on CRs), that it's crazy that her scores are so much worse than mine.

My hope is that the post above, at the least, provides a cautionary example for people who need to learn more about scores and an illustration of how irrational FICO can be when one very small detail is out of place. Of course, this judgment is only mine at this point and I am interested to know how you interpret the above data.

If you'd rather I take the "how to dispute" question elsewhere, I understand perfectly.

Thanks.

I wondered whether to put this in the "bankruptcy" section, but this *could* apply to other derogatory accounts.

You really did a NICE job formatting! And this is the kind of stuff I'm looking for: specifics instead of rants

What I don't understand is why YOUR score factors don't include the

"There is evidence of a late payment on your file as recent as 25 months ago...) for FNB Omaha (Joint): DLA = 11/96; Date Closed = 3/01

It also is REALLY strange that Fair Isaac is ignoring the DLA for Fleet.

I know that for TU the "Date closed" is an important date as it's used to age many accounts off the reports - at least that's what their lawyer told me.

"We already disputed my wife's Fleet TL with TU as "this account is closed as a result of BK7 filed 1/97". TU reported back that they "verified" this account as being reported correctly ! Should we try another approach to disputing with TU or try disputing with Fleet ?"

You can probably guess what my approach would be. If you haven't disputed the FNB Omaha account yet, I'd say dispute that too. While it's not one of your score factors, it SHOULD be rated the same as Fleet, just has a lesser impact since it's over 2 years. But it definitely needs to be fixed because otherwise it *might* remain on your credit till 2008. And if there's any consistency to Fair Isaac's rating these accounts, it costs you at least a few points.

I don't know about disputing with Fleet and Omaha FNB directly. It's more work, and it all depends on if you just want to get it fixed or if you'd rather sue TU and get some more deletions and a couple checks. Your wife certainly has damages due to the low score.

When I sued them last year, they did verifications of all discharged accounts and deleted several (I had not done any spam disputes) and once they found the published suit they deleted the remaining discharged accounts.

As far as YOUR score goes, I'd be extremely surprised if it went to 770 with a 5% B/L ratio.

Forgot to mention:

If you REALLY want to know what Fair Isaac is doing, contact them directly and ask. You can attach your wife's TU with the scoring info to an e-mail to Barry Paperno at BarryPaperno@FairIsaac.com.

Oh, but it does ! I left that detail out since my focus was on wife's negative detail. The irony is that this is a positive on mine ! The detail for the second of these:Detail from my report is: "There is evidence of a late payment on your file as recent as 26 months ago...."

This seems consistent with things I've read that give me the impression the effect of a derog. on FICO significantly falls off at the 24 month mark, i.e., I assume that at an age of 26 mos. this late switches from a score negative to a "positive".Yes, aging off correctly (1/04) will become a higher priority for us as 1/04 approaches. For now, though, the incorrect coding of the Fleet TL on my wife's TU is at the top of our queue.Well, unfortunately, our kids and business travel requirements (mine) make actually suing a daunting prospect for us.
I wonder how TU would respond if I just sent copied and highlighted pages of my TU report and hers from:

1. before the earlier BK disputes (2/03), showing both our Fleet TLs with closure date of 6/97 (or 8/97, I forget, don't have older report right now) and
2. both of our current TU direct mailed reports

showing how, even though this is a joint account, mine is now shown more nearly correct (closed 6/97 versus 1/97) while hers is shown without a closure date. Furthermore, they would have to see that this account is shown differently from all her (and my) other BK accounts.

She would then point out how this is damaging her score and tell them to fix or delete or she will pursue legal action to have this account shown accurately and completely.

I know this is weak compared to what you would do but do you think it's possibly enough to get the dolts at TU to fix this ?Me too, I even find if hard to believe I could have a 730 after all the paydowns update into my TU file. We'll see !

Thanks for your time, Christine.

"Oh, but it does ! I left that detail out since my focus was on wife's negative detail. The irony is that this is a positive on mine !"

"Detail from my report is: "There is evidence of a late payment on your file as recent as 26 months ago....""

Ok, good, that had me worried - consistency is important. So we know that the scores rate a discharged account as LATE as of the closing date - on TU reports.

This is by NO means a POSITIVE factor like the long account history, and you really should get that fixed.

"Yes, aging off correctly (1/04) will become a higher priority for us as 1/04 approaches. For now, though, the incorrect coding of the Fleet TL on my wife's TU is at the top of our queue."

Well, that's a choice you make, it sure wouldn't be mine. You can say that you'll cure a disease or that you'll take some pain killers and live with it and suffer for a long time. I'm one to like to get things DONE.

"She would then point out how this is damaging her score and tell them to fix or delete or she will pursue legal action to have this account shown accurately and completely."

You do that AFTER you sued and didn't SETTLE. Where does it say that you have to prove anything to get a correct credit report?

And why would you do SOOOO much work without getting paid?

You know as well as I what your chances of getting things fixed are. You can try more disputes, buy more reports, scores, waste a lot of time, and maybe eventually they'll fix everything. What's the point of that?

Or you can spend $150 for a federal suit, it costs about $4 to send out the Waivers of Service per defendant, and then you wait. You can mail the complaint to the court with your check.

You already have the sample complaint.

Compared to the work it takes to dispute and dispute and dispute and dispute, the money, the aggravation ....

And just because you sue doesn't mean that thing will remain correct after you settled. But it's SO easy to file a new complaint when all you have to do is change the date and the specifics.

I know that it's hard the first time, it took me forever to get it together for my federal suit. I never would have filed if it hadn't been for Whyspers. Now I can't figure out what the hell took me so long!

I think you might be onto something on the account which is labeled unable to verify. I would contact the creditor with your proof and challenge several times with the CRA. Do your other reports such as Experian show the details that it was closed?

After you have tried to get them to correct it and they have not, file your small claims or federal suit and attach your documentation that they have failed to correct the error. They now know that you're not playing around.

!!!

Well, either TU or Sears has taken their revenge on me !

I'll try not to rant. Just some credit scoring "data" to supplement the thread. I appreciate both Christine's and Senator's input. I will need a little time to decide what to do on DW's Fleet TL.

If you remember, above my TU FICO score was 670. I believe this is my 5/23/03 report.

Well, effective 6/6/03, someone has decided to report my Sears account on TU as "- Chapter 7 Bankruptcy" ! This account is one that we purposely maintained spotless since opening in 12/95 and through the 1/97 BK7 by means of a reaffirmation agreement. As of 5/23/03, this TL had been corrected (from "charge-off, back in 2/03) to "Pays as agreed" with a balance due of $834.

I paid this account down by $694 on 5/15/03 (Bank posting date) and received my latest Sears statement reflecting the payment in the 6/2-6/5 range.

Now my TU FICO score has fallen to 636. The Sears account now has no dates except reporting date 5/03.

The 2nd of my top positive factors (shown above) has disappeared and now I have a 2nd top negative factor of "The time since your most recent past due payment is too recent or unknown (detail on this says "There is evidence of a late payment on your file as recent as 1 month ago...).

Well, I guess someone has been reading my posts and decided to get me in addition to my wife. My reasoning ability has been supplanted by paranoia for now.

I am working with Sears on this. In a well logged telephone call, I was promised that Sears would write to TU to have this corrected and would send me a letter confirming this within 1-2 weeks.

One step forward, 2 steps back.

That's exactly how it is and that was my point earlier. This stuff goes on ALL the time.

The only people who don't seem to have these problems are the ones who don't watch their credit or don't know what to look for. Ignorance can be a blessing.

You've probably seen the UDF from Nelnet and the subsequent lates on Experian

HOW can it happen that a creditor reports NO lates and the CRA promptly ADDS ** 8 ** late payments?

And that Nelnet attitude, I had to send a mean fax to get that UDF and their cooperation.

The creditors and CRAs can't understand why I won't settle for "correction" and/or a few hundred bucks. I want to know HOW this happens ALL the time.

if it is any consolation, i declared ch7 in 5/99 and have had off and on heart attacks when I thought that everything had been corrected and then discover i'd been pimped. Christine is right, it goes on all the time. Most recently, for me, in a refinancing of a mortgage where I was stupid enough not to run the report prior to talking to the refi guy.

i can do the credit stuff sometimes for three months and then i'll have to have a break and zone. it can get really stressful and talking to them, writing to them, can only get YOU crazy.

i'll never forget the idiot at TU telling me i was not reading the report correctly when everytime the Bank updated. the tradeline reflected i'd been late the date of updating. Down 50 points. This happened 3 times over 4 years before I FINALLY figured out what they were doing. (I am, as I have stated before, not the sharpest tool in the shed). At least now I have proof with almost 4 years of saved credit reports and scores. I also saved the letter from the Bank saying they couldn't do anything because it was valid.

My other favorite was EQ telling me I was reading the law incorrectly on the time limits for reporting (I was reading the law right to her from my printout I keep handy for reference)

hang in there. it does get better and you can help a lot of people

"i can do the credit stuff sometimes for three months and then i'll have to have a break and zone. it can get really stressful and talking to them, writing to them, can only get YOU crazy."

Senator, I know exactly what you mean. I got so irritated and aggravated even just doing my limit disputes.

But the worst part is dealing with my suit and realizing that they have NOTHING but contempt for me. They belittle my damages and file their Motions to Dismiss.

I think it was T-Mobile who had the nerve to ask for their attorney fees in their Answer. Except for Professional Recovery, NOBODY apologized and nobody offered one penny.

The attorneys for ConsumerInfo.com and Experian claimed in a court filing that my 8/9/03 reports are proof that my 6/23/01 ConsimerInfo.com inquiry was not hard, i.e. the inquiry doesn't show on all those reports, so it wasn't a hard inquiry. Do they really not know that inquiries are deleted after 2 years?

They have nothing but contempt for the court too. It's all about mergers and acquisitions and record profits for direct-to-consumer sales.

All I can do is put the CEOs on notice, and maybe some big law firm will go after the PEOPLE in charge.

My Responsive Memorandum for my Objection to the Motion to Dismiss Craig Smith

Experian just validated a 180 day late on my student loan as of 9-2002. I didn't even graduate until 5-2002 and would've had a 6 month grace period before my loans went into repayment. Equifax and Trans Union corrected. Experian has 5 of the 6 student loans showing payment in deferrment (as I am still in school now working on an MBA) but they won't update the 6th.

Also they validated a JC Penny credit card that was opened in 1983. I was 4 years old in 1983.

I sent them some follow-up letters from some examples that I found on the Internet. Hopefully it won't turn out to be too much of a horror like some of the other stories I have heard.