Finally got proof.

When I analyzed the Empirica score, I noticed that the score factors mentioned TWO derogs and the number of months since the last late payment didn't match the ONE derog we had.

You all know how TU reports:

"In prior 48 months from last update, never late."

Well, that's EXACTLY what it means, no lates in prior 48 months, and older lates may be reported to FAIR ISAAC resulting in:

Worst Delinquency: 120 days past due for an INCORRECT late over 4 years ago.

This is another student loan, screwed up as usually.

How many millions have lower scores because of TU's INCOMPLETE consumer disclosures?

TU has the nerve to CHARGE for the crap they call "credit report."

Don't just buy that Empirica score to fix YOUR credit, get off you butts and SUE!

This is clearly another one of the many FCRA violations by TU.

SUE, people SUE!

there is nothing like a lawsuit to work wonders.

You are right (as usual) Christine. TU's outmoded (either by design/lack of correct programming) computers can destroy your illogical FICO scores.

I finally (yes finally) got off my lazy butt and filed in small claims to get the removal of an entry that was costing me 50 points every time they updated. The fools were saying that it was recently written off (as in current status 5/03) rather than saying it was written off in 1997, updated 5/03. Not to mention that the first date of delinquency was in 1996 and they were screwing me by keeping it on the report.

Ignoring all the documented evidence I supplied them and the tradeline representatives, I included the evidence again along with the paperwork serving them. Voila, the tradeline suddenly gets corrected after years of my trying to figure out why my score goes down 50 points every time the tradeline gets updated ( I am dense, sorry).

If I wait until court date, the judge isn't going to award me the money since they corrected it (trust me, this is how the real world works in my hick state) prior to judgement. However, if I could explain to the judge how FICO works and get the judge to understand that their mistake cost me 50 points and I wasn't getting it back after they've corrected their error---I just don't think the judge will have any sympathy for someone like me with old bad credit. Most judges are rich, arrogant, little sympathy for someone who loses two jobs in 18 months,etc and goes under. Law school doesn't encourage empathy.

Still thinking how i should proceed.

P.S. Can you explain your situation in a little more detail. I've had only two cups of coffee so something isn't clicking in my brain.

Hah ! Don't want to tread on this thread too heavily but this sounds alot like TU's stupidy in my wife's case, documented at:
http://creditforum.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1772

Due to time constraints (kids, business travel), I wonder if TU would delete/correct if I use the right approach with paper evidence but not necessarily serving them ?

Anyways, I just wanted to relate my wife's similar problem in this thread. I will be responding to Christine over in the thread on my wife.

Senator, when is your court date?

"P.S. Can you explain your situation in a little more detail. I've had only two cups of coffee so something isn't clicking in my brain."

Unfortunately, this is NOT on my own credit, it's a client, and he needs to get an equity line and the 643 TU Empirica is the middle score that will determine his rate.

Instead of updating the balance for his ONLY revolving account, TU DELETED it. He has ** 11 ** inquiries as per the Empirica, but they're not one of the listed factors, although certainly costing him serious points. It's a very thin and new file.

I don't know yet what he's going to do.

C, I do wanna make sure I got you on this.

Since TU shows ONLY the last 48 months, we could conceivably have a late pay in the 49th month, which is reported to FICO but is NOT visable to us.

Is that it?


How can we get evidence that TU is in fact reporting the 49th month to FICO? Or are you assuming they are?

Just tryin to understand.

Yes, Butch, you got it right. It'll only show on Fair Isaac's score explanation, nowhere else.

I'll put up the screenshots at CreditCourt as soon as I get to it.

WHAT CRAP !!!!

You're right, that IS screwed up.

((

I didn't realize this.

Before everybody pays for those Fair Isaac scores, I want to make clear that this most likely only benefits people with a FEW OLD or NO derogs.

This is NOT the *incomplete* TU reporting of late payments frequently discussed here for several years.

My Planetfeedback.com letter to TU and the complaint to the FTC

I'll have to add this to the "Evidence" thread and I think the example there is particularly interesting.

I can't see how one could show DAMAGES when TU fails to list *additional* and *OLDER* lates - so it is irrelevant.

Nobody cares about those, no lender, no score, and while TU is clearly violating the FCRA, I don't see how you could have a successful suit due to the lack of damages - nor is it worth your while working on deletion of those lates.

However, it doesn't mean that the FTC had the right to ignore my complaint, and that's one of the reasons why I'm suing the FTC.

While I don't know if this applies to me as I've never seen my Empirica score, I COULD have had lates and never knew about it. I've got a file box full of TU credit reports, and NO way of telling whether I had any lates over 48 months old - they're all the incomplete snail mailed reports.

In this new scenario, people certainly DO have damages if they don't have many other and especially no newer derogs.

People with student loans are most likely to find these undisclosed lates even if they were never late - student loans frequently report INCORRECT lates during deferment.

They also often report as 90 or 120 days late, and that's of course particularly damaging - so they SHOULD be removed.

Also, it's unlikely that you'll find any undisclosed lates if you've been monitoring your reports for years - you would have seen the late before it become over 48 months old.

It was well worth the time it takes to look at those details.

TU deleted that undisclosed late payment today, FICO Empirica went from 657 to 672 -- the goal was 660 for the mortgage.

Of course it took a number of hours of calling and faxing TU, and my client bought 5 reports - it really bothers me that TU gets paid for screwing up.

I got a lot of info, great documentation.

On the snail mailed version TU reported the delinquency as

"Maximum Delinquency of 90+ days occurred in 4/1998."

Apparently TU has a bug in their ONLINE reports that won't list those lates. It still is INCOMPLETE or INCORRECT reporting on the snail mailed report, it should say 120 days late.

The million dollar question is whether/when TU will fix this bug, and how many people can get their lates deleted due to non disclosure on the online reports - and of course whether anyone will sue.

So was this an isolated "bug?"

Nobody else has this problem?

I am almost certain that this is happening to me. For some reason my TU/Emperica score is 75-85 points (550!!) lower than both my others (629/645.)

They are still reporting two Citibank student loans for $4000 (wrong - only ONE loan, with TWO $2000 disbursements) with max of 90 day late in 1998. My other reports had contained both this error, PLUS a 180 day late due to an unrecorded medical deferment. Both were eventually corrected at the other bureaus. TU has never corrected the duplication of the loans, but also doesn't show the 180 day late from the 1996/1997 timeframe.

This makes me wonder, however, if it is still there, but not shown - - hidden in their calculations, but not on the report, thus making it impossible for me to KNOW I need to dispute it!!

Otherwise, credit reports are pretty equal. What would would cause such a HUGE discrepany otherwise?

It can't be the problem for your LOW score. An over 4 year old late would not have that kind of impact.

"TU deleted that undisclosed late payment today, FICO Empirica went from 657 to 672"

Depending on the report, you're looking at 10 to 20 points if you don't have any other and newer lates.

AND, since you HAVE the FICO report, those lates are reported on it, they are (or were, if they fixed it) missing from the "consumer disclosure" $9 online report.

So, you need REVIEW your TU FICO report SCORE FACTORS, and that WILL tell you why your score is so low. It's most likely a RECENT charge-off or collection, or the student loan shows as CURRENTLY delinquent.

Post the score factors if you need any help with that.