Five years ago I was 60 days late on a couple of payments but, have
never been late since.  My question is I have paid of and closed these
accounts how long until they do not show up on my credit report?  Is
there anyway I can request that they be removed?

Shad
<ss91@genext.net> wrote:

> Five years ago I was 60 days late on a couple of payments but, have
> never been late since.  My question is I have paid of and closed these
> accounts how long until they do not show up on my credit report?  Is
> there anyway I can request that they be removed?

Since you state that you were late, then these items belong on your
credit report, and there is no legitimate way to have them removed.
That is why they call it a credit history.  If it didn't include
your past credit history, then it would not be accurate.

Items like this rarely stay on longer than 7 years.  Having a few
late pays is not a disaster, but it does depend on who you paid
late.  For example, being late on a mortgage is far worse then
being late on your Columbia House record & tape club bill.  In
addition, when you apply for credit, the lending agent will often
review these types of things with you and make a personal
determination of its significance.  For example, if you had some
unusual medial bills or a period of forced unemployment, you will
get far more sympathy than if you were simply an airhead and forgot
to pay the bills.

-john-

 

> Five years ago I was 60 days late on a couple of payments but, have
> never been late since.  My question is I have paid of and closed these
> accounts how long until they do not show up on my credit report?  Is
> there anyway I can request that they be removed?

     Morality issues aside... maybe.  

(1) Get a copy of your credit report from each of the three main agencies 
(Equifax, Experian, Trans-Union).  In some states you're entitled to a 
free copy each year... even if you're not, they all charged only $8 the 
last time I paid for one.  It's well worth it, everyone should review 
their credit report annually even if you don't have blemishes (that 
you're aware of).

(2) You may find that the blemishes don't match up across all three 
credit reports once they arrive.  Some reports may have something the 
others are missing, or vice versa.  This is because it's a very sloppy 
and inaccurate industry, which is a main reason why EVERYONE needs to 
review their reports annually.

(3) At any rate, take the first of the three reports and look at the 
first blemish you see.  Write a quick letter stating basically, "I don't 
know what this is.  I think it's a mistake".  Even if you have 12 bad 
accounts on there, ONLY mention the first blemish.  All this stuff is 
utlimately handled by machine, and listing too many items in one letter 
can trigger a red-flag for marking your letter as frivilous and 
discarding it.  Send your letter to the agency for that particular 
report, and repeat this step for the other two agencies.

(4) Within a month or so, you'll get a response back from each agency.  
Regardless of whether your grievance is legit or B.S., there is a 50/50 
chance that they will have been unable to verify the information.  It's 
important to note that when you file a grievence, the "burden of proof" 
is on them... you don't have to prove that the blemish doesn't exist, 
they have to prove that it does (and do so within 30 days).  Like I said, 
it's a sloppy industry... and half the time they just can't get it done 
in time and end up pulling it off your record.  Court records (lawsuits, 
liens, etc) are notoriously easy to get removed... the government is just 
too inefficient and slow.

(5) If you're REALLY desperate, you can keep re-submitting a grievence 
for the same blemish over and over again if it gets verified and 
rejected.  I've never gone to that extreme.  Either way, once you get 
your response back you should repeat the process for the next grievence.  
Keep going down the line until your report is clean, or clean enough to 
satisfy you.

     
     Regardless of whether you have (known) credit problems or not, 
everyone should check their credit records annually.  I was a victim of 
identity theft two years ago, and it could have been catastrophic if I 
hadn't caught it within a month  (I should also mention that you can 
request free "identity protection" for your credit report, meaning that 
anytime there's a credit application in your name you are called first to 
verify it).  People are hit with legitimate mistakes all the time that 
they may not even be aware of... you're particularly vulnerable if you're 
a divorcee, or a Sr./Jr. with a son or father having the same name.

     The easiest way to get a copy of your report and FICO score all at 
once is at www.myfico.com (although it's a little cheaper to just contact 
the three agencies directly if you don't care about the FICO score part) 

George
<ofthejungle@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Five years ago I was 60 days late on a couple of payments but, have
> > never been late since.  My question is I have paid of and closed these
> > accounts how long until they do not show up on my credit report?  Is
> > there anyway I can request that they be removed? 
> (3) At any rate, take the first of the three reports and look at the 
> first blemish you see.  Write a quick letter stating basically, "I don't 
> know what this is.  I think it's a mistake".  Even if you have 12 bad 
> accounts on there, ONLY mention the first blemish.

Please note that the poster said that she did actually pay the account
late, so she did know what these were, and they were not mistakes.
If you try doing this, you are telling a lie.  That is going to make
it hard for you to get in heaven after you die, and back here on
planet earth, not only is this a scummy thing to try, it is outright
illegal (credit fraud).

This trick is OK if there are legitimate mistakes on your record,
or if you really do not know who a creditor is.  But doing it in
shotgun fashion and banking on mistakenly getting something taken
off or your record is a poor way to operate, and only a person of
very poor character would try such a thing.

Finally, so many people are doing this that the credit agencies
are on to this trick.  Not only is it unlikely to work, but if 
something does fall off, odds are that it will come right back
on the next time that the end creditor re-reports your credit
history.  That can be as quick as 25 days.

-john-
 

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote 
> Please note that the poster said that she did actually pay the account
> late, so she did know what these were, and they were not mistakes.
> If you try doing this, you are telling a lie.  That is going to make
> it hard for you to get in heaven after you die, and back here on
> planet earth, not only is this a scummy thing to try, it is outright
> illegal (credit fraud).

Incorrect. Not only is disputing items legal, law firms have departments
that specialize in this activity. The rules favor the lender, no matter what
your pols say, and as long as one practices within the rules, there is NO
violation of any law.

> This trick is OK if there are legitimate mistakes on your record,
> or if you really do not know who a creditor is.  But doing it in
> shotgun fashion and banking on mistakenly getting something taken
> off or your record is a poor way to operate, and only a person of
> very poor character would try such a thing.

Only a bitter person would condemn someone for trying to take advantage of
every rule that exists for their protection, especially when they fail to
blame the real offender -- the lender.

> Finally, so many people are doing this that the credit agencies
> are on to this trick.  Not only is it unlikely to work, but if
> something does fall off, odds are that it will come right back
> on the next time that the end creditor re-reports your credit
> history.  That can be as quick as 25 days.

Incorrect. Once a disputed item is not verified within time limits, it is
PERMANENTLY BARRED from reappearing.

The lesson here is that when one has questions about credit, credit history,
and how to clear it up, they need to talk to a professional. Amateurs just
don't know enough to be of any value, and often give poor advice.

I find it amusing when one questions the morality of the borrower, but never
the lender, when the lender is often the initiator of the problem in the
first place. Overextnesion of credit is the problem, at it's root. The banks
are the problem. A bank will not hesitate to exploit the rules to their FULL
ADVANTAGE to get every dime out of you they can. Why not exploit the rules
to YOUR FULL ADVANTAGE?

The best defense is a good offense.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
http://members.cox.net/brentdgardner1378/

"Be ever questioning. Ignorance is not bliss. It is oblivion. You don't go
to heaven if you die dumb. Become better informed. Learn from other's
mistakes. You could not live long enough to make them all yourself." - Hyman
George Rickover (1900-86), Admiral, US Navy, advocated development of
nuclear subs & ships

The Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Chartered Financial Consultant
(ChFC), designations owned and exclusively offered by The American College,
signify the highest standards of academic study and professional excellence
in the financial services industry.
 

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
<bgardner20@cox.net> wrote:

> "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote ...
> > Please note that the poster said that she did actually pay the account
> > late, so she did know what these were, and they were not mistakes.
> > If you try doing this, you are telling a lie.  That is going to make
> > it hard for you to get in heaven after you die, and back here on
> > planet earth, not only is this a scummy thing to try, it is outright
> > illegal (credit fraud).
> 
> Incorrect. Not only is disputing items legal, law firms have departments
> that specialize in this activity. The rules favor the lender, no matter what
> your pols say, and as long as one practices within the rules, there is NO
> violation of any law.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong.  If you give false information to a
credit agency like Experian, obtain an adjusted credit file, then
use that adjusted credit file to obtain credit, you have just committed
fraud.  It doesn't matter who the rules favor, it is still illegal.

> Only a bitter person would condemn someone for trying to take advantage of
> every rule that exists for their protection, especially when they fail to
> blame the real offender -- the lender.

I have yet to see a lender hold a shotgun to someone's head and force
them to take out a loan.  Lenders might be out there to make a buck,
and might have lending terms that are little to lax, but in the long
run, each person is responsible for their own borrowing habits and
credit history.

> The lesson here is that when one has questions about credit, credit history,
> and how to clear it up, they need to talk to a professional. Amateurs just
> don't know enough to be of any value, and often give poor advice.

You must have a different standard for being a professional in your
world if working for 8 years at the 3rd largest credit card company
in the world only qualifies me to be an amateur.  Keep in mind that
I was the person that those folks with all the fancy letters behind
their names called when they needed help.

> The best defense is a good offense.

At some point one has to be concerned with character.  You might be
able to trick credit agencies into cleaning up a credit record, but
the type of person who does that normally ends up doing it to themselves
in the long run.  Poor character is a normally a life long trait,
and eventually people with poor character will do something else
that gets them right back into trouble.  That is the same reason
that so many people who go to prison once end up going back again.

-john- 

John A. Weeks III wrote:
>>>Please note that the poster said that she did actually pay the account
>>>late, so she did know what these were, and they were not mistakes.
>>>If you try doing this, you are telling a lie.  That is going to make
>>>it hard for you to get in heaven after you die, and back here on
>>>planet earth, not only is this a scummy thing to try, it is outright
>>>illegal (credit fraud).
>>
>>Incorrect. Not only is disputing items legal, law firms have departments
>>that specialize in this activity. The rules favor the lender, no matter what
>>your pols say, and as long as one practices within the rules, there is NO
>>violation of any law.
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is wrong.  If you give false information to a
> credit agency like Experian, obtain an adjusted credit file, then
> use that adjusted credit file to obtain credit, you have just committed
> fraud.  It doesn't matter who the rules favor, it is still illegal.


John, Brent, I think you're both part-right. It's certainly fraud to 
tell a reporting agency that a missed payment is an erroneous entry (law 
101: fraud = false statement, knowingly made, with an intent to deceive, 
resulting in actual deception & some resulting damage). The harm might 
be minimal but hey, it's called "lying".

On the flip side, credit reporting companies are not benevolent and 
careful, and credit records are full of errors that cause real harm to 
individuals, if only in the lost time to clear them up. As an example, 
that credit card opened seven years BEFORE I WAS BORN, that for whatever 
reason sat on my Equifax report (are you listening Equifax? I still 
remember!) Worse, there's a real disparity in bargaining power - 
consumers are stuck with their reports unless they take the affirmative 
step of correcting the errors. And there's no real penalty for all those 
wrong entries, or the wasted time, or the fundamental flaws in the 
system that lets "identity fraud" persist (and be a consumer, rather 
than an industry, problem).

Still that doesn't justify lying so that your report is falsified, any 
more than disgust over the Iraq invasion justifies cheating on your 
taxes. If you play this game (applying for credit, giving a whit about 
what's on your credit report, being a US citizen) you need to play by 
the rules. And the rules say, if you haven't missed any payments, your 
credit looks better than if you have. No big problem there, as long as 
the reporting is accurate - which it isn't, if you lie and get a correct 
entry taken off.

And I agree w/John that once you pry open the door to minor ethical 
lapses, there's that slippery slope waiting. There should be some 
discomfort putting in writing facts that you know to be false, simply 
because you know it won't get caught. The same rationale applies to a 
tax return, so why not apply the same reasoning? Etc etc.


>>Only a bitter person would condemn someone for trying to take advantage of
>>every rule that exists for their protection, especially when they fail to
>>blame the real offender -- the lender.

That's an awfully Democratic argument! What about free markets?! ;-)

-Tad 

"Tad Borek" <borekfm@pacbell.net> wrote...
> That's an awfully Democratic argument! What about free markets?! ;-)

What we have are free-for-all markets, where the large corporations with
money can buy influence and purchase rules to their advantage.

John hasn't figure it out yet, because he's not in the trenches every day
with consumers, like I am. One need not lie to improve their credit. He
talks like a banker -- everyone with bad credit history must be a bad
person! That's horse manure.

If one can't remember the particulars, the default tactic is to throw the
ball back at the lender/reporter, and let them prove their case. More often
than not, they can't. They have all that money, and they can't keep
databases up to date. Where is all the money going?  Dividends???  Cough,
cough.  Uh huh.

Banks and lenders have a new problem looming on the horizon, and quickly
approaching -- NON bank sources of money. Private mortgages and private
lending is a booming business in certain parts of America. I know advisors
that arrange mortgages all day long for mutual clients, saving one money in
the form of lower interest rates, no points, and more favorable terms, and
increasing the IRR on liquid assets that are looking for a "home."

My contacts in the F&I world tell me that upwards of 60-70% of new car
buyers have negative credit, and I'm not talking about a handful of 30 day
lates. People can walk into a major auto franchise, and walk out with a new
car and 22% interest on their car loan (for 96 months!!!). The same people
can walk down the street, buy a one year old program car, and pay 12%
interest over 36-48 months, from a dealer that doesn't even bother with
normal credit applications. What does that tell you? I think something is
amiss. The average person is getting bamboozled, and the megacorps are
taking FULL advantage of the rules that benefit them.

One of the concierge services many advisors are getting in to is the art of
negotiation for large ticket items. If there ever was a time where emotion
destroys logic, it's at a car dealer or when looking for a new home. Most
professionals do not negotiate for big ticket items (salary, homes, boats,
cars, airplanes), but have a third party do it for them. This removes the
emotion aspect, often delivering a more equitable result without hard
feelings and ill will.

I know you're familiar with the adversarial system, and perhaps its missing
from other parts of our financial lives.  =)

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant 

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote...
> I'm sorry, but this is wrong.  If you give false information to a
> credit agency like Experian, obtain an adjusted credit file, then
> use that adjusted credit file to obtain credit, you have just committed
> fraud.  It doesn't matter who the rules favor, it is still illegal.

And the corollary -- if a firm black lists you for no reason, or due to evil
intent, and you are denied credit, who is to blame? There is little recourse
in these scenarios, which are more common than one might imagine.

> I have yet to see a lender hold a shotgun to someone's head and force
> them to take out a loan.  Lenders might be out there to make a buck,
> and might have lending terms that are little to lax, but in the long
> run, each person is responsible for their own borrowing habits and
> credit history.

Over lending is rampant. This fact is irrefutable. Anyone who knows history
knows that credit is much easier to obtain today than it was a generation
ago. And banks/lenders have taken FULL ADVANTAGE and EXPLOITED the lay
person. Overlending should be illegal.

> You must have a different standard for being a professional in your
> world if working for 8 years at the 3rd largest credit card company
> in the world only qualifies me to be an amateur.  Keep in mind that
> I was the person that those folks with all the fancy letters behind
> their names called when they needed help.

People that worked there, and defend what should be an illegal practice -- 
over lending -- are not excused from the due diligence test. An amateur is
an amateur is an amateur, and ONLY amateurs recommend one assume BOHICA and
perform the Ostrich manuever.

> At some point one has to be concerned with character.  You might be
> able to trick credit agencies into cleaning up a credit record, but
> the type of person who does that normally ends up doing it to themselves
> in the long run.  Poor character is a normally a life long trait,
> and eventually people with poor character will do something else
> that gets them right back into trouble.  That is the same reason
> that so many people who go to prison once end up going back again.

And the corollary -- lenders that over lend, and get screwed for THEIR
mistake will make attempts to combat the efforts of the public. For every
battle they win, prudent consumers, teamed with professional advocates, will
find a new tactic to defend their persons and property from over lending
banks. Corporations are often infamous bastions of amorality and exhibit an
utter lack of character. You suggest that a consumer assume BOHICA and let
an amoral, characterless entity take advantage of them. That's POOR advice.

Banks have billions, and spend milliions on lobbyists. Consumers have one
vote, and their wits. I take the side of the consumer, and anything I can do
to help them help theirselves is just and right.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant 

"Brent D. Gardner, ChFC" <bgardner20@cox.net> wrote in message...
> banks. Corporations are often infamous bastions of amorality and exhibit an
> utter lack of character. You suggest that a consumer assume BOHICA and let
> an amoral, characterless entity take advantage of them.

I trust you have no bankers as your clients, nor do you ever hope to have
any bankers as your clients. This blanket attitude to bankers industry seems
about as accurate as someone referring to insurance "weasels", and having
the intent you inferred.

Has there been overlending? No doubt there has been. It is just as true,
however, that no one is required to take out a loan against their will. One
should not indict only one side of this sort of contract.

Elizabeth Richardson 

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
> I trust you have no bankers as your clients, nor do you ever hope to have
> any bankers as your clients. This blanket attitude to bankers industry seems
> about as accurate as someone referring to insurance "weasels", and having
> the intent you inferred.

You'd be surprised -- I have a large book of BOLI, or Bank Owned Life
Insurance, issued on bank presidents, bank executives, and bank owners that
I solicited personally. They know how I feel, and most agree with me.
Afterall, they all own or work for small, privately owned banks, not
megabanks that don't give a rats patooty about the community. Where do you
think I find out all the dirty details? It isn't from the internet. If one
wants to find out what is realy going on, they need personal contacts where
trust is established.

Because I work with business owners who often have to use leverage, I've
become more than familiar with the differences in local banks versus the
megabanks. Many of my clients willingly and gladly pay more interest to keep
the business in the community, because many of them have experienced cash
crunches, and they've watched neighbors and familiy members go belly up
because some bean counter in Megabank City said a loan needed to be called.
I'm in the relationship business. Most of my clients prefer relationships
based on trust, and they tend to place a very high value on high touch -- 
the ability to walk in and have a sit down with a decision maker when they
need to.

An example that I remember from early in my career was a guy who needed to
borrow $1,000,000 to build a business, then he needed $1,000,000 of life
insurance to cover the loan. ALL the megabanks said no. Most said HELL NO.
On paper, the case wasn't clean. But a local bank had rented some office
space to him for a couple of years and they saw his work ethic and work
habits, and they took a calculated risk, because they knew him. He repaid
that loan ahead of schedule, by HALF. The only lender who would ever give
him the time of day is one that saw him on a regular basis. The mega banks
just looked at the numbers. Over the years, I've observed situations like
this numbering in the hundreds.

> Has there been overlending? No doubt there has been. It is just as true,
> however, that no one is required to take out a loan against their will. One
> should not indict only one side of this sort of contract.

I work in a business where suitability is subject to review. Bankers are
subject to review, but rarely does any flags get raised unless the default
rate is high. If a loan/line of credit was subject to third-party review for
suitability, that would be a good start. 

"Brent D. Gardner, ChFC" <bgardner20@cox.net> wrote...
>
> You'd be surprised -- I have a large book of BOLI, or Bank Owned Life
> Insurance, issued on bank presidents, bank executives, and bank owners that
> I solicited personally. They know how I feel, and most agree with me.
> Afterall, they all own or work for small, privately owned banks, not
> megabanks that don't give a rats patooty about the community.

Spare me all the personal history/anecdotes. Your posts indicted the entire
banking industry. It didn't differentiate between small, locally-owned banks
and nationally owned, multi-state banks. It seems unreasonable, therefore,
that any self-respecting banker would do business with someone with such
opinions. Either that or they just hold their noses and move ahead.

>
> > Has there been overlending? No doubt there has been. It is just as true,
> > however, that no one is required to take out a loan against their will. One
> > should not indict only one side of this sort of contract.
>
> I work in a business where suitability is subject to review. Bankers are
> subject to review, but rarely does any flags get raised unless the default
> rate is high. If a loan/line of credit was subject to third-party review for
> suitability, that would be a good start.

Do you think local banks fail to overlend? How about credit unions? There
are loan committees, you know. And yet there is still overlending because
cronyism is rampant in small communities, and it breeds overlending. Other
than those loan committees, I don't know what you mean by third parties. Do
you want the government to further regulate against your privacy?

>
> When the average consumer doesn't understand what NOW means on their bank
> accounts, and they can't articulate what the time value of money is, then it
> is asking too much to assume that borrowers are acting in a responsible
> manner, generally speaking.

I think you underestimate consumers. Just because there are many ignorant
consumers, doesn't mean that borrowers in general aren't able to act
responsibly. If they were this stupid, then everyone would have
multi-million-dollar life insurance policies.

Elizabeth Richardson 

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
> Spare me all the personal history/anecdotes. Your posts indicted the entire
> banking industry. It didn't differentiate between small, locally-owned banks
> and nationally owned, multi-state banks. It seems unreasonable, therefore,
> that any self-respecting banker would do business with someone with such
> opinions. Either that or they just hold their noses and move ahead.

If you can't stand the heat, you need to get out of the kitchen.

I've been saying this for years. The average entrepreneurial business owner
eats wiener types for lunch, then spits the out, and stomps on the remains.
This includes the weak, small minded, and puny. I'm not among that group. My
clients do business with like minded people -- those who believe in
self-starters, those with initiative, and with some wits about them -- even
when they disagree.

What you think is unreasonable is indicative of insignificant experience
with affluent business owners. On the other hand, I specialize in this area.
I'm comfortable working with people who can literally BUY the ENTIRE lives
of others, lock, stock, and barrel, and have many millions left over. They
have little patience for emasculated wussies who haven't the cajones to
stand up and say what thing think, and then stand tall and defend their
opinions with verifiable facts.

I'm a master in this arena.

So I write a few million a year of BOLI. 99.99% of my peers have never sold
the first contract. The commissions on this is more than most people earn in
a year, and its a tiny fraction of my business. It is also an area where I
receive regular unsolicited referrals and unqualified endorsements from my
existing banking clientele.

 > Do you think local banks fail to overlend? How about credit unions? There
> are loan committees, you know. And yet there is still overlending because
> cronyism is rampant in small communities, and it breeds overlending. Other
> than those loan committees, I don't know what you mean by third parties. Do
> you want the government to further regulate against your privacy?

Local banks work with their customers. Megabanks do not. This fact is
irrefutable.

Cronyism is the way of the world, in case you've been wearing those blinders
for your whole life. Local bankers observe work ethic, work habits,
character, and responsibility (or lack thereof) first-hand. Megabanks
haven't the first clue.

The correct word to label this way of business is RELATIONSHIP BASED
BUSINESS. You choose "cronyism" based on your own inexperience in this
arena, and compound this error with your exhibition of envy.

"Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to success." -- Joe Gandolfo, CLU,
Ph.D.

> I think you underestimate consumers. Just because there are many ignorant
> consumers, doesn't mean that borrowers in general aren't able to act
> responsibly. If they were this stupid, then everyone would have
> multi-million-dollar life insurance policies.

Your ignorance is manifest, writ large.

I have OVERestimated consumers. Doctors, as a group, have HORRIBLE credit
ratings, despite having above average intelligence and extensive education.
Among high income, highly educated professionals, this failing is a common
denominator. There are some things you're going to have to accept, because
you cannot change reality -- I have VASTLY more experience working with
people and their money than you ever will.

Your comment about insurance is irrelevant and indicative of absolute
ignorance of the product, its underwriting, suitability, and what it takes
to qualify for the coverage. Clearly, you do NOT qualify for a large policy,
otherwise, you would have not made such an ignorant comment. Financial
underwriting -- a subject I'm a recognized expert on -- has wafted past your
head like smoke on a summer breeze.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant 

Moderators: This looks like a flame war. Although my post included only
slightly veiled personal remarks (and it occurred to me I might have stepped
over your line), Brent's post is nothing but personal. Not that I mind,
because he made me laugh, but I don't think this is the standard to which
you usually rise.

Elizabeth Richardson