Bizarre TU report

neil5623 · 06-26-2007, 01:15 PM

Received DW's latest TU report yesterday. It had everything I am used to seeing, plus some new LVNV TLs. 17 pages worth. PLUS there was an extra 6 pages in the back (page numbering restarted) with a title page stating "The following is an additional credit report for this consumer." Never seen anything like this before. It had some of the info from the first 17 pages, plus some different negative TLs. I don't know what to make of this. I don't see anything to indicate how it is shown for an inquiry.

Now, the LVNV entry. This is for a charged-off Citibank, listed as collateral here.

The date opened is listed as 3/2007 (WRONG) but the estimated removal date appears to be correct. I know the opening date will come back from TU as verified. What is the approach that one should take toward LVNV to get them to change/delete? And of course they are listing as a factoring company. May need to file on them again...

centex · 06-26-2007, 01:19 PM

Sounds like a split file.

As to the date opened issue...is the 3/2007 date consistent with when LVNV acquired the account? If so, then you don't have any sort of a reaging issue, particularly in light of your comment that the removal date "appears to be correct." Focus on the real issues...

neil5623 · 06-26-2007, 11:26 PM

What is the significance of a split file? What is it?

On my EX file it shows this entry as opened 12/06, date of status 3/07, but that TL is another story for another thread. So what is the significance of Section 623(a)(5) of the FCRA? Seems like that would come into play in this situation.

jlynn · 06-26-2007, 11:34 PM

One of the significant things about a split file, is you never know what report a creditor is going to get. As you stated, there are duplicate TL's. You will need to get to the higher ups at TU to get this fixed.

A split file, is simply where the credit report is too large for a single file so it is "split" into two separate reports.

Are you pulling your reports daily?

neil5623 · 06-27-2007, 12:51 AM

no, not pulling daily. Wouldn't have the time to look at them anyway.

How does Section 623 work here?

Pale Rider · 06-27-2007, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neil5623

The date opened is listed as 3/2007 (WRONG) but the estimated removal date appears to be correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neil5623

So what is the significance of Section 623(a)(5) of the FCRA? Seems like that would come into play in this situation.

If the removal date is correct, then that section is nothing to worry about. That part of the tradeline would apparently be correct.

If you want the open date to show correctly, you can dispute with the furnisher, but collectors almost always report the date they received the account as the "open date" as directed by the CRA's.

neil5623 · 06-27-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

If you want the open date to show correctly, you can dispute with the furnisher, but collectors almost always report the date they received the account as the "open date" as directed by the CRA's.

Then I suppose the thing to do is dispute each item with both at least 3 times, then seriously consider taking the next step. Again.

neil5623 · 10-07-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neil5623

Received DW's latest TU report yesterday. It had everything I am used to seeing, plus some new LVNV TLs. 17 pages worth. PLUS there was an extra 6 pages in the back (page numbering restarted) with a title page stating "The following is an additional credit report for this consumer."

Suppose this could be considered supplying false and misleading information? I asked them to explain or combine, they did neither.

neil5623 · 10-18-2007, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neil5623

Suppose this could be considered supplying false and misleading information? I asked them to explain or combine, they did neither.

Couple O weeks ago I send another letter CMRRR stating specifically and only, "explain why my report is split in two parts. If you do not have a valid reason, please recombine my report. This could be viewed as False and Misleading Information." Today I received another copy, NO CHANGE.