Updated - as an option for a dispute?

[Orrickc]

If a CA can "update" your TL whats the point of disputing? I have been disputing inaccurate items and they are not being deleted but simply updated. What am I doing wrong? Mainly, this is happening with experian.

[Lian]

If a CA can "update" your TL whats the point of disputing? I have been disputing inaccurate items and they are not being deleted but simply updated. What am I doing wrong? Mainly, this is happening with Experian.

First, can you provide a little explanation? What do you mean by "updating a trade line? What items have you disputed, and who reported them?

When you dispute, it is directed at the reporting of an item of information that you consider to have been inaccurately reported, and the dispute is investigated by the party who reported that item of information to the CRA.

Debt collectors report their assignment of collection authority, and the amount of the debt assigned to them for collection. They don't report the occurrence of the delinquencies on the OC account that led to the account being referred to them for collection. A debt collector has no authority to investigate and delete information that they did not report.

Maybe you are disputing with the wrong party. Perhaps your disputes are directed at information that was not reported by the party identified in the dispute.

More information, please?

[Orrickc]

Ok, I will start from the very beginning to give as much info as possible.

I disputed a TL on Experian. The dispute was never deleted... instead when I checked the status for the TL it shows "Updated" as status of the outcome of the dispute. I disputed it with the CRA as inaccurate thinking it would have to be deleted because it is inaccurate. Instead... the modified the TL's inaccuracies to be correct.

I am so lost in a wealth of information. At times I am not sure how to tackle each TL. We only have about 4 left on my husbands CR. They are biggies that will require some work! Including a judgement (a tackle for another day!!!)

[Orrickc]

One of the TL that I was in fear of being updated was the Repo. It went back to the bank a few years ago. For two years it was being reported to the CRA (EQ) as missed payment. Not REPO. SO, the acct. was considered "open" with month after month of missed payments. I disputed, because it was inaccurate, It was not deleted... it was updated to show the correct amount and "account closed" and that we owe 10K. (I am sick to my stomache thinking about this!)

Perhaps, I am under the wrong impression. I thought it had to be deleted if it was incorrect. Now, it is reporting as "correct."

What is my next route of tackle? Negoiate a settlement? What should I offer? 30%??? Should I send a check with a statement on the check PFD, pymt in full etc., Along with the same type of letter?

Or do I jump off a bridge (JUST KIDDING!!!!!)

[Lian]

Deletion is not the only result. Updating to make the information correct is all that the statute requires.

The relevant statute is FCRA 623(b)(1)(E), which describes the duties of the furnisher of the information upon completion of a dispute where the outcome of their investigation concurs that there is an inaccuracy:

FCRA 623(b)(1)(E):

"if an item of information disputed by the consumer is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1), for purposes of reporting to a consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate, based on the results of the investigation promptly-

(i) modify that item of information;
(ii) delete that item of information; or
(iii) permanently block the reporting of that item of information."

All of this assumes that the information was not knowingly reported inaccurately. No party is going to concede that they knowingly reported inaccurate information, which is a serious violation of FCRA 623(a)(1)(A). If not knowingly inaccurate when reported, then FCRA 623(b)(1)(E) provides them the opportunity to correct their "error."

[Orrickc]

Thanks Lian! I appreciate your advice and references to the laws that I was missing. I, one day, will be a self-made credit genius... Until then... I will make lots of mistakes. HA!

So what is my next step in getting this bad boy fixed? Should I offer a 30% PFD? In sept I could cut the check for the full amount and send it to them as a payment in full.

Any ideas?

[Lian]

The "repo" status indicates that they probably recouped a portion of the debt by sale of the property. Is the current balance asserted as owed the amount of the debt at time of repossession, or does it reflect the difference between your debt at that time and the debt remaining after their disposal of the property? I would first make sure of your indebtedness.

Then I would then check out your state statute of limitations (SOL) to determine how long you will still legally owe the debt, and thus are subject to possible legal action.

With those two items in front of you, you can then assess your options.

In any option you take, the underlying fact is that FICO does not care about payment status in its scoring. Unpaid, paid in full, or settled for less than the full amount are all the same to FICO. To get credit score improvement, you must obtain deletion of their reported derogs and delinquencies.

Options:

1. Just pay-in-full (PIF). This will immediately terminate the debt, and thus the chances of any further action on their part, such as a charge-off, collection, or suit. However, it wont result in any deletion of their prior, negative reportings on the account, including the repo or any reported delinquencies that preceded it. So no credit score improvement.

2. Offer a settlement for less than the full amount. This is a conditional offer on your part, so it wont terminate anything, but if accepted, would have the advantage of costing you less money if accepted.

3. Offer a pay-for-delete (PFD). Again, this is a conditional offer that they may or may not accept, and if they dont accept, the clock keeps ticking for any other action they might take. A 30% PFD offer is asking them for two concessions... credit report deletion, and acceptance of less than the full debt. A PFD offering settlement is probably less likely to be accepted than a PFD offering to PIF. It is a gamble, but the only way to get deletion of the derogs/delinquencies from your credit report. Regardless, don't offer any PFD that you cannot immediately pay should they accept.

Which option to take is up to you, dependent upon whether you are willing to hold out for possible credit report deletion, and thus FICO score improvement. Since the debt is apparently fairly significant, I would guess that they will probably continue to pursue it, either through a debt collector or by way of legal action. It is difficult to predict what a creditor will do.

[Orrickc]

Thank you to the both of you for your helpful replys.

So here is my game plane. Verify with the orginal creditor that all charges are infact correct. I just realized TransUnion says I only owe 2,500 on the Repo. After proper documents proving my debt I will send them a settlement check.

On the check I will write "payment in full for deletion of CRA" (along those lines of that statemt" and include a letter stating that if they cash this check they are -setteling for full payment and deleting off the CRA. I am hoping that holding the check in thier hands will be temptation enough to just cash it.

Sound like a workable plan?

Thanks again for helping sort through this overwhelming task!

[MikeO]

I would be careful of the plan. Not the pay for delete part, but using the check as a way of binding the agreement. I'm not sure that would be legally enforceable.

If I were doing it myself, I would first try giving them a call to get them to agree to it. Then, they would need to send something in writing outlining the terms (permanently removing reporting to all CRAs, etc). Also, that this completely settles the account as paid in full.

That being said, this is your only remaining leverage to improving that tradeline, so I would probably be persistent in my attempts to get the deletion or at least some improved reporting. Once they have your money, your leverage is pretty much gone.

[Lian]

I agree with Mike.

Conditional endorsements vary under your state civil code as to their effect. Most are not binding. Your endorsement is binding, and authority to negotiate the check.

Don't assume that cashing a check with a conditional endorsement binds the party to what you have stipulated without first being sure of your state statute on the matter. It may be inviting a lengthy and expensive litigation.

My advice is to first get an up-front, written acceptance of any PFD offer, and not try to back-door it.

A basic of contract law is a showing of a "meeting of the minds" by both parties to the contract.

A PFD negotiation is a contract negotiation. Lack of expression of clear intent by the creditor will probably kill you in court as to its enforceability. Make it clear.

And just keep in the back of your mind, as you pursue PFD negotiations, that those negotiations may not be their "plan" for resolving the issue. They, rather, may be planning to escalate. PFD negotiations, until concluded with agreement on both sides, don't prevent any legitimate action still available to them. PFDs offering to pay the full amount are hard enough to secure. PFDs for less than the full amount are even harder.