[Felonious Monkey]

EQ deleted 5 positive accounts dating back to 1998 from my CR within a span of a few weeks. I have CR's from before and after to prove it.

Although I have been disputing negs, I did not ever dispute these 5 positives.

My FICO has dropped nearly 50 points as a result of these deletions.

I sent them a letter requesting that they reinsert these 5 positive accounts and they told me to pound sand in the following 2 ways:

1) Sent a letter saying they couldn't ID me and asked that I send SS Card, DL, utility bills, etc. with my current mailing address & SSN on it/them.

2) Said to contact the OC's of the 5 accounts because maybe the reason why the accounts aren't reporting are because the OCs might not have a reporting relationship with EQ.

Ok, so here are my WTF's for each letter:

1) Funny that they can't ID me all of a sudden considering that I am in possesion of numerous CR's that EQ sent me at my current address over the past few years.

2) Funny that the OC's might not have a reporting relationship w/EQ considering that I have CR's from EQ dating back to 2002 showing the 5 positive accounts, some of which have been reporting since 1998.

So there you go, I have spun this around different ways and can see possible avenues of attack, but the fact is I have not suffered any actual damages nor has there been any adverse action taken against me as a result of my EQ CR, so my avenues of attack feel pretty weak to me.

Since we are 'thinking out of the box' lately, what, if anything, could I do to get these 5 positive accounts back on my report?

[jlynn]

I know why this used to happen. Are you using one of those services that you pull daily?

Have those 5 accounts updated at all recently?

[Felonious Monkey]

Originally Posted by jlynn

I know why this used to happen. Are you using one of those services that you pull daily?

No. I have never used those services.

Originally Posted by jlynn

Have those 5 accounts updated at all recently?

The DOLAs on these accounts are from 8/2000 - 11/2001 and the info has not changed at all since then, however, I do notice that on two of the accounts, they say "Item as of date reported" 4/2005 & 2/2006 indicating that they've been verified or *something* recently. I do not recall disputing either of these accounts.

[jlynn]

It used to be that those trying to achieve bumpage years ago, would find themselves victim to old accounts being chopped off to make room for the inquiries...hadn't heard of it in a while, but it was worth an ask.

Someone said that the new reporting rules (Metro or something like that), might require a minimum number of accounts to be reported - are these small TL's (like Mom and Pop credit operations small?)

[Felonious Monkey]

Originally Posted by jlynn

are these small TL's (like Mom and Pop credit operations small?)

Definitely not. One is a national bank, 2 are relatively large national auto lenders, one is a national dept. store and the other is a relatively large national mortgage lender.

[rikers1]

I had this happen to me a year ago. Thier answer was that when you dispute any item they investigate all trade lines, and if they do not get a response they delete those items also.

[Felonious Monkey]

Originally Posted by rikers1

I had this happen to me a year ago. Thier answer was that when you dispute any item they investigate all trade lines, and if they do not get a response they delete those items also.

That just doesn't seem right to me... I mean, if that's the case then why do they require us to dispute specific info? Why not have a general 'I dispute' function, which would trigger verification of all info in the entire report?

This explanation doesn't sit well w/ me. I belive that they told you this, just that I think it stinks as an answer from them. Rikers, what was the outcome of your situation? Any luck getting them to see it your way?

Edit to add:
Their explanation also seems to me to violate FCRA §611(1)(A):
In general. Subject to subsection (f), if the completeness or accuracy of any
item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting
agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency
directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall,
free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether
the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the
disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with
paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on
which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or
reseller.

[centex]

Originally Posted by Felonious Monkey

Definitely not. One is a national bank,

still doing business by that name or merged with another entity?

2 are relatively large national auto lenders,

see the above question

one is a national dept. store

do they handle their own stuff or are the accounts serviced by another party? And if another party, does the same party handle servicing as handled your account at the time of last activity? As an example, I used to have a Palais Royal account- they had their own little bank (GNB which stood for something like Granite National Bank). They sold the portfolio to WFFNB and since I had not used the account for a number of years, I was not retained as a customer. The PR-GNB reporting fell off of EQ a few years ago and will fall off of EX and TU in the near future.

and the other is a relatively large national mortgage lender.

How long since they sold your serving off?

Remember, there is no requirement that items continue to be reported. Anything over seven years is ripe for falling off on its own, and much of what you reference is in that age bracket. Throw in the other variables, and it becomes easier for them to disappear. But I do not believe that you could claim retaliatory deletions.

The other question is how many entries you have on your report. It is not unheard of for the oldest items to become their own report on a multiple (ie. split) report...

[Qtip]

Split report usually happen a s a result of bumpage "If I remmebre correctly" You cannot tell split by getting the report online, you must order a paper report.

[roybean]

That's correct; you need the hard copy of your reports.

[rikers1]

Originally Posted by Felonious Monkey

That just doesn't seem right to me... I mean, if that's the case then why do they require us to dispute specific info? Why not have a general 'I dispute' function, which would trigger verification of all info in the entire report?

This explanation doesn't sit well w/ me. I belive that they told you this, just that I think it stinks as an answer from them. Rikers, what was the outcome of your situation? Any luck getting them to see it your way?

Edit to add:
Their explanation also seems to me to violate FCRA §611(1)(A):
In general. Subject to subsection (f), if the completeness or accuracy of any
item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting
agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency
directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall,
free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether
the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the
disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with
paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on
which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or
reseller.

The outcome was that they told me to contact the OC's which I did. The OC;s no longer had any information on my accounts since tgey gad been paid and closed years before. They would not reincert the tradelines.

[Felonious Monkey]

Originally Posted by centex

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felonious Monkey
Definitely not. One is a national bank,


still doing business by that name or merged with another entity?

Still doing business by that name. One of the biggies.

Originally Posted by centex

Quote:
2 are relatively large national auto lenders,


see the above question

Probably swallowed up by national lenders at this point; not sure.

Quote:
one is a national dept. store

Originally Posted by centex

do they handle their own stuff or are the accounts serviced by another party? And if another party, does the same party handle servicing as handled your account at the time of last activity? As an example, I used to have a Palais Royal account- they had their own little bank (GNB which stood for something like Granite National Bank). They sold the portfolio to WFFNB and since I had not used the account for a number of years, I was not retained as a customer. The PR-GNB reporting fell off of EQ a few years ago and will fall off of EX and TU in the near future.

I am pretty sure they handle their own stuff, they are also one of the biggest national dept. stores. This one was the most painful to lose, as I had opened it in 92 and closed it in 01. Never late.

Quote:
and the other is a relatively large national mortgage lender.

Originally Posted by centex

How long since they sold your serving off?

They sold off in 2000 and I still have THAT very positive mortgage TL on my report.

Originally Posted by centex

Remember, there is no requirement that items continue to be reported. Anything over seven years is ripe for falling off on its own, and much of what you reference is in that age bracket. Throw in the other variables, and it becomes easier for them to disappear. But I do not believe that you could claim retaliatory deletions.

Though I cannot find the FCRA statute that says this, I was under the impression that POSITIVE Tl's remained indefinitely. Maybe I read that on the CRA's websites... not sure, no proof, so I won't lean on that assumption too much for the time being.

Originally Posted by centex

The other question is how many entries you have on your report. It is not unheard of for the oldest items to become their own report on a multiple (ie. split) report...

I had 11, now I have 6.

Originally Posted by Qtip

Split report usually happen a s a result of bumpage "If I remmebre correctly" You cannot tell split by getting the report online, you must order a paper report.

I have never engaged in bumpage and I have never relied on an online report. All reporrts I refer to are hard copies (and I have hard copies dating back to 2000).

[Felonious Monkey]

Originally Posted by centex

But I do not believe that you could claim retaliatory deletions.

Seeing as how 'retaliatory deleteions' is not a crime/violation, per se, and is not written as such in any statute that I am aware of, how would you suggest I go about wording this claim and/or where would I look for more info? I don't expect you to write my complaint for me, but I have to admit I'm a little stumped here and that's why I asked to begin with... can you at least point me in the right direction?

Pretty please?

Oh, and I am not asking for your advice or counsel as an attorney; I am asking for your opinion as a poster who appears very knowledgeable in this subject matter.

[Felonious Monkey]

EQ just sent me a copy of my CR--out of the blue--claiming that some long deleted negative "disputed" accounts are "currently not reporting on my credit file." Well, no shit, huh? Funny, I didn't dispute them since, well, THEY ARE NO LONGER ON MY CREDIT REPORT.

Oh yeah, I though EQ couldn't verify my identity... WTF are they doing sending out my credit report then?