Removal of Old Addresses really makes difference?

[torero34]

Hello everyone,

Does removing the previous addresses from the CR really make a difference when disputing old or new collection accounts?

I've read the previous comments on this subject within the forum,in general people are under the impression that it makes it difficult for CRAs to verify info.

But I have talked to a couple of credit repair attorney,they all told me that removing them gives us absolutely no leverage as the bureaus go to the creditors and your addresses have nothing to do with it.

Thanks

[torero34]

Here is the logic behind the ineffectiveness of the removal of previous addresses:

it does not make it more difficult for the CRA’s verify the information if the address is not reporting. It had no bearing on the dispute either and does not make it more difficult because the system is now electronic and the bureaus communicate with the previous creditors through those means.

[Hal Jordan]

Honestly, I think that's one of the things that maybe used to matter before all 3 went electronic but anymore I don't think makes much of a differece. Personally I don't think it makes a bit of difference.

[torero34]

Originally Posted by Hal Jordan

Honestly, I think that's one of the things that maybe used to matter before all 3 went electronic but anymore I don't think makes much of a differece. Personally I don't think it makes a bit of difference.

Thanks for the reply. Actually,I was under the same impression. Although in the forum it is suggested to remove all the old previous addresses,I think doing it will not help with the credit repair process due to new electronic system.

I can't help wondering how opting-out of promotional listings would be helpful under the new electronic verification system..


Thanks

[Hal Jordan]

Opting out is still good in that it helps prevent identity theft and it keeps the bastards at the FRA from profiting off of you by selling your info to "interested third parties". You don't need pre-approved offers in the mail if you're looking for cards. Google will end up serving your needs if that's what you want.

Why let the people who set up the unfair FICO system make money off of you?

[torero34]

Originally Posted by Hal Jordan

Opting out is still good in that it helps prevent identity theft and it keeps the bastards at the FRA from profiting off of you by selling your info to "interested third parties".

You are right.However,do you think opting-out would make the CRAs job more difficult in terms of verifying the old collection accounts ? Is there a connection?

[Hal Jordan]

Personally.. No. I don't think so. I've never understood the logic behind opting out to help repair negative credit items on your report. (could just be I'm not smart enough to understand it too)

For me, opting out was just to keep those dirty sons a @#$% from profiting off of selling my information.

So I guess in short what I'm saying is I have yet to read or see anything that tells me opting out will improve my chances of repairing negative tradelines from my reports.

[chane]

The system has been electronic for many years.

Tradelines on your credit report are connected to addresses. We dispute the address, get it removed and then dispute the account it was tied to. Why?

Because the CRA has no record of you living at the address the creditor is reporting that you lived at. Therefore, it looks like the account is not yours. Does it work every time? No. Is it a must that you do it to get items removed? Maybe not. But, does it make it more difficult to verify? Absolutely.

Opting out and removing old addresses can also make it a little more difficult for debtors (especially CAs) to find you and harass you.

One more thing...I am basically just repeating what has been taught to me by some of the best credit experts. If you can get credit lawyers to come here and shed some light on the topic and debate this or any other topic with us, that would be great. It would greatly help us all. I don't mind being proven wrong, especially if it helps everyone here.

[torero34]

Originally Posted by chane

But, does it make it more difficult to verify? Absolutely.

Thank you very much for your input.Do you also think that it would make it difficult for CRAs to verify paid judgments with county courts? I am guessing this is whole different story...

As far as credit lawyers that I am in touch with,they all firmly believe that this whole credit repair thing is not that complicated and there are no shortcuts nor tricks that can help with an accurate listing. This includes opting-out and removing all old addresses.

As long as the account on the CR is reported correctly, no one, including the president of the United States,can remove it until the reporting period expires. And I think this is how it should be.

Is this system efficient and fair? I do not think so.Hypothetically speaking,say you know you own a particular debt.But due to a small error in reporting, CRAs have to remove it.Well,I am off the hook in terms of CR! Is this fair and moral?Not at all.

But on the other hand,as long as there are errors within a report,they should not be there either.

It is a catch 22 situation with no moral values or ethics involved. Someone should destroy this fragile and ridiculous system and rebuild it somehow.

[chane]

Originally Posted by torero34

Thank you very much for your input.Do you also think that it would make it difficult for a CRAs to verify paid judgments with county courts? I am guessing this is whole different story...

It's hard to say. I would remove the old addresses unless you are in a hurry, then it might be worth it to try to skip that step.

As far as credit lawyers that I am in touch with,they all firmly believe that this whole credit repair thing is not that complicated and there are no shortcuts nor tricks that can help with an accurate listing. This includes opting-out and removing all old addresses.

The basics of credit repair are pretty simple, but it can get pretty complex. There are many more techniques used than just disputing.

As long as the account on the CR is reported correctly, no one, including the president of the United States,can remove it until the reporting period expires. And I think this is how it should be.

That's not true. I know many, many people who have gotten things removed that were reporting correctly. Unfortunately for the CRAs and the creditor, they couldn't prove it. They must be able prove that what they've placed on our credit reports belongs there.

The CRAs are for-profit multi-billion dollar companies. They are not run by the government. However, due to their horrible inaccurate reporting, the government had to make laws that they must abide by to protect the consumer and those laws state that they must be able to prove what they are reporting. Credit reports are not like police reports. They are not official records. CRAs are really just companies that decided to collect your information (without your permission and sell it.) Do you get a cut of their profit? No. As a matter of fact, you have to pay them to get a copy of the information they have on you. At least until the FTC stepped in and said they must allow you 1 free report per year.

Is this system efficient and fair? I do not think so.Hypothetically speaking,say you know you own a particular debt.But due to a small error in reporting, CRAs have to remove it.Well,I am off the hook in terms of CR! Is this fair and moral?Not at all.

Please read my blog post, The Credit Game to get a perspective on how moral the credit system is. I could go on for days about how lenders and collection agencies scam consumers. Once you really understand how things work, you might not think getting a few items removed from your credit report is immoral. In fact, you may just realize that credit repair is a small slice of justice for the consumers.