@Slabenstein wrote:The short answer is that the creditor stopped reporting, either due to a glitch or deliberately. but since they will update the bureaus when it's paid, that will have to at least update the DoLA, right? DoLA will update whenever there's reported activity, which a payment would be. DoLA isn't a scored metric and it doesn't have any bearing on the reporting timeframe; I wouldn't worry about it.
Ok, yes DoLA isn't a scorable metric is a good reminder, I thought it played a role in the 7 years on your report rule.. but that's only DoFD, as you said earlier. Thanks again for such quick responses and detail- it's very much appreciated.
@Slabenstein wrote:
Ah, okay, I had been operating under the assumption that this was student loan debt. From what you say here, it sounds like this is a collection tradeline for charges you incurred at the school that were never paid in any way, either with a student loan or out-of-pocket. Is that correct? To your last line, that partly depends on whether this agent (head of the office) was accurate in their statement that "we never sell the debt," which would make who services/holds it a constant. What I was saying about servicers and holders really only applies to student loans. I can't speak to what this particular instituion might or might not do, but, since it sounds like you're dealing with an unpaid bill rather than a delinquent loan, I'd expect the debt would stay with them.
Right, that's the forum category I have it under on here, not sure how else to classify it..it is student debt, but not officially a loan. Odd situation. I think a collection tradeline is a fair description. Yes, the agent's accuracy is a big deal, which is why some of their other statements on credit being clearly not accurate are of concern, to me. Those were more general statements on "credit knowledge," though, so whether I should hold that as a concern against their credibility on their claims regarding their internal institutional policies, I'm unsure. Seems like you agree the type of bill makes it likely to remain with the school- does this categorization factor into any other previous details here? Less/more likely the reporting inconsistencies are a glitch/error, lower/higher odds of goodwill approval, etc?
@Slabenstein wrote:
When you have large differences among bureaus like this, looking for lenders that are more likely to pull your favorable bureau can be a good strategy. Just keep in mind that, anymore, a lot of lenders are going to look at more than one of your reports, whether via SP or HP, even if they favor EX. Moving limits around with Chase is very easy. If you're approved for a new card but have hit the limits they feel comfortable offering you, they'll usually pull some limit from an existing card to open the new one. I'd like to get a cli on my other card first to possibly encourage a higher limit (ymmv), but that increase won't show until the next report is out, which.. may be differentIn your shoes, I would focus on getting this collection from the school taken care of first, and then move forward from there. Kind of a personal priorities thing, which I know will be different for different people, but I tend to look at credit from sort of a "put down your foundation before you raise the walls" point of view.
Yes, I've heard this with Chase... it may be a ymmv topic, but what I'm trying to figure out is whether I should first app for a new card with them (dp's on here seem to suggest that with chase, your next account gets better SL's than cli's on current accounts in good standing with them), or request a cli and then app for a new card. Since both cards say I'm preapproved, in app, and are double my current limit with them, I think some cli is very likely. What I do NOT want to do is lower the starting point of my next card with them, by raising the ceiling of my current card. It sounds like they might just pull from the smaller card, to then issue more on the larger one.
Some issuers tend to "match" sl's than others, so having cli's might encourage better sl's from a new issuer.. but that can't be considered as much given how much could change month to month in my billing changes 
I definitely have some reading to do on latest feedback re: which issuers most often use primary which bureaus in which states. My BoA card uses TU, so it does have those bad marks (where I assume the debt looks sold, on their end).. but is sitting at 705, so it's possible they would issue me a cli. I see them as an unlikely app right now, since they're already looking at one of my worst scores though. There's some rolling of the dice regardless on how many bureaus each issuers will look at though, agreed.
Perhaps I should've said this first, but I agree with your last sentence, definitely. The reason I'm approaching it this way is (according to the agent), they will only consider a single payment, for the loan. Writing a check would be somewhat taxing and not a good use of the money upfront vs a cc that's managed correctly. They said they wouldn't even consider multiple cc payments, as mentioned earlier, due to concerns of a chargeback (weird imo, would think repeated charges authorized on a recorded line are as secure as a single time).
Since I've been in the garden and hoped to app before this turned into a CO, I do have some hp's to give, none in a few years. If I can add to my total credit available (which is needed/will help as this goes from installment to revolving and 10x's my average util rate), get 15 billing cycles at 0%, and take another step toward thickening my file, all at once, it seems like a good idea.
Another big reason being that now this glitch exists on at least 1 of the bureaus, and even TU is at least 700.. I was originally coming to ask whether this could all lead to a point boost that I could turn into a strong approval for a BT card within just 2 billing cycles and make the payment.. so part of the problem has temporarily been delayed from full impact.
@lowspender wrote:
@Slabenstein wrote:The short answer is that the creditor stopped reporting, either due to a glitch or deliberately. but since they will update the bureaus when it's paid, that will have to at least update the DoLA, right? DoLA will update whenever there's reported activity, which a payment would be. DoLA isn't a scored metric and it doesn't have any bearing on the reporting timeframe; I wouldn't worry about it.Ok, yes DoLA isn't a scorable metric is a good reminder, I thought it played a role in the 7 years on your report rule.. but that's only DoFD, as you said earlier. Thanks again for such quick responses and detail- it's very much appreciated.
@Slabenstein wrote:
I don't want to deal with it coming and going for 7 years, although some of those consequences (e.g. garnishment) are pretty unlikely since the loan isn't federal. Again technically, it's not even private. There aren't terms or interest, it's simply a LONG overdue invoice. Ah, okay, I had been operating under the assumption that this was student loan debt. From what you say here, it sounds like this is a collection tradeline for charges you incurred at the school that were never paid in any way, either with a student loan or out-of-pocket. Is that correct? To your last line, that partly depends on whether this agent (head of the office) was accurate in their statement that "we never sell the debt," which would make who services/holds it a constant. What I was saying about servicers and holders really only applies to student loans. I can't speak to what this particular instituion might or might not do, but, since it sounds like you're dealing with an unpaid bill rather than a delinquent loan, I'd expect the debt would stay with them.Right, that's the forum category I have it under on here, not sure how else to classify it..it is student debt, but not officially a loan. Odd situation. I think a collection tradeline is a fair description. Yes, the agent's accuracy is a big deal, which is why some of their other statements on credit being clearly not accurate are of concern, to me. Those were more general statements on "credit knowledge," though, so whether I should hold that as a concern against their credibility on their claims regarding their internal institutional policies, I'm unsure. I would expect them to be on much surer ground w/ knowledge of their institutions policies than credit in general. I don't know what the background of the people they have collecting on debts like this is, but even among people that work in lending and deal with credit reports and credit scores every day general credit knowledge is, in my experience, pretty poor. Seems like you agree the type of bill makes it likely to remain with the school- does this categorization factor into any other previous details here? Less/more likely the reporting inconsistencies are a glitch/error, lower/higher odds of goodwill approval, etc? With the kind of debt that it is, yeah, I'd expect it to stay with the school (but ofc expectations can always be surprised). I would say that it's probably pretty likely that the reporting inconsistencies are not intended. I think the odds of goodwill removal of the tradeline are probably zero, but before paying I would ask them if they do or can do pay-for-delete and remove the collection tradeline from all three bureaus if you pay.
@Slabenstein wrote:
When you have large differences among bureaus like this, looking for lenders that are more likely to pull your favorable bureau can be a good strategy. Just keep in mind that, anymore, a lot of lenders are going to look at more than one of your reports, whether via SP or HP, even if they favor EX. Moving limits around with Chase is very easy. If you're approved for a new card but have hit the limits they feel comfortable offering you, they'll usually pull some limit from an existing card to open the new one. I'd like to get a cli on my other card first to possibly encourage a higher limit (ymmv), but that increase won't show until the next report is out, which.. may be differentYes, I've heard this with Chase... it may be a ymmv topic, but what I'm trying to figure out is whether I should first app for a new card with them (dp's on here seem to suggest that with chase, your next account gets better SL's than cli's on current accounts in good standing with them), or request a cli and then app for a new card. Since both cards say I'm preapproved, in app, and are double my current limit with them, I think some cli is very likely. What I do NOT want to do is lower the starting point of my next card with them, by raising the ceiling of my current card. Maybe I could just move that around between cards (from old to newer)? As long as it's personal to personal, you should be able to move from old card to new card or vice versa. I don't know whether the order of CLI-request-then-app or app-then-CLI-request would be better, or if it matters one way or the other; someone with more knowledge of Chase would have to answer that question.
I definitely have some reading to do on latest feedback re: which issuers most often use primary which bureaus in which states. My BoA card uses TU, so it does have those bad marks (where I assume the debt looks sold, on their end).. but is sitting at 705, so it's possible they would issue me a cli. I see them as an unlikely app right now, since they're already looking at one of my worst scores though. There's some rolling of the dice regardless on how many bureaus each issuers will look at though, agreed. There is a thread here that lists what bureaus which issuers are known to pull, but it's no longer maintained. (Changes to the forum rules for editing posts meant that it couldn't be updated anymore.) I know that Amex at least used to be a pretty consistent EX single-puller, but I don't know if that's still the case. For your BoA card, if their CLI reqeusts are SP, there's not really any reason not to request one occassionally, since there's no cost to you if it's denied.
Perhaps I should've said this first, but I agree with your last sentence, definitely. The reason I'm approaching it this way is (according to the agent), they will only consider a single payment, for the loan. Writing a check would be somewhat taxing and not a good use of the money upfront vs a cc that's managed correctly. They said they wouldn't even consider multiple cc payments, as mentioned earlier, due to concerns of a chargeback (weird imo, would think repeated charges authorized on a recorded line are as secure as a single time).
Since I've been in the garden and hoped to app before this turned into a CO, I do have some hp's to give, none in a few years. If I can add to my total credit available (which is needed/will help as this goes from installment to revolving and 10x's my average util rate), get 15 billing cycles at 0%, and take another step toward thickening my file, all at once, it seems like a good idea. If you have the credit to support an app for a card w/ enough SL for the payoff and if you know you can pay off the balance in full before the 0% promo ends, then, yeah, this sounds like a pretty good plan to me. With the delinquency still on some of your reports, I wouldn't do anything on any of your other cards that might spook lenders until you get the balance paid off.
Another big reason being that now this glitch exists on at least 1 of the bureaus, and even TU is at least 700.. I was originally coming to ask whether this could all lead to a point boost that I could turn into a strong approval for a BT card within just 2 billing cycles and make the payment.. so part of the problem has temporarily been delayed from full impact. At what point were you thinking you would see the point boost? I want to make sure I'm thinking about the same scenario you're envisioning.
Forgot to post a link to the old thread: https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/General-Credit-Topics/The-quot-Which-Banks-Pull-Which-Report-For-Ap...
@lowspender wrote:
@Slabenstein wrote:
@lowspender wrote:I would expect them to be on much surer ground w/ knowledge of their institutions policies than credit in general. I don't know what the background of the people they have collecting on debts like this is, but even among people that work in lending and deal with credit reports and credit scores every day general credit knowledge is, in my experience, pretty poor. Seems like you agree the type of bill makes it likely to remain with the school- does this categorization factor into any other previous details here? Less/more likely the reporting inconsistencies are a glitch/error, lower/higher odds of goodwill approval, etc? With the kind of debt that it is, yeah, I'd expect it to stay with the school (but ofc expectations can always be surprised). I would say that it's probably pretty likely that the reporting inconsistencies are not intended. I think the odds of goodwill removal of the tradeline are probably zero, but before paying I would ask them if they do or can do pay-for-delete and remove the collection tradeline from all three bureaus if you pay.Agreed on people in the industry also having lots of gaps in their credit knowledge. I wanted to just excuse this as that, here.. but it affects me more than a "tip" from the average rep that's only partially correct, does. If they aren't willing to remove the tradeline, is there any other offer I can make that might make them consider that? That's completely up to them. Either they will, or they won't. I haven't read enough to know the significance, but I've heard that the reporting changes like that, are a modest cost to the creditor. Not sure if that's a constant.. would you estimate that offering to pay that cost, is likely to make any difference? I think it's too marginal, but don't know it well enough. The short answer is: no, it doesn't work that way. If a creditor is set up to report, then they're set up to report. It's not imposing a burden on them to do so in any particular case. I did find it interesting that they stated that they only accept the full amount, as payment. If they were to sell the debt, it's almost a guarantee that some level of settlement would happen. What about offering less in exchange for leaving the tradeline there? Doubt that would entice them to offer to remove it for the full amount, but since the situation really can't be worse, seems like all options are worth exploring.. You can ask them whatever you want, but I wouldn't expect this to be a productive line of negotiation. If they're not interested in settling, then they're not interested in settling. Offering them something of no value to them in exchange for settlement wouldn't move the needle, in any case.
@Slabenstein wrote:
As long as it's personal to personal, you should be able to move from old card to new card or vice versa. I don't know whether the order of CLI-request-then-app or app-then-CLI-request would be better, or if it matters one way or the other; someone with more knowledge of Chase would have to answer that question.
I know that Amex at least used to be a pretty consistent EX single-puller, but I don't know if that's still the case. For your BoA card, if their CLI reqeusts are SP, there's not really any reason not to request one occassionally, since there's no cost to you if it's denied.
If you have the credit to support an app for a card w/ enough SL for the payoff and if you know you can pay off the balance in full before the 0% promo ends, then, yeah, this sounds like a pretty good plan to me. With the delinquency still on some of your reports, I wouldn't do anything on any of your other cards that might spook lenders until you get the balance paid off.
At what point were you thinking you would see the point boost? I want to make sure I'm thinking about the same scenario you're envisioning.
I'm familiar with that thread, yes and thanks for posting it. Amex does seem to pull heavy Ex, but they also often double pull with TU. I'd prefer Amex for long term, but since my profile needs rehab right now, I'd rather get the most generous 0% terms and SL than benefits, for the time being. I'll have to look more into chase. My main concern there is having smaller SL's for new apps, based on relatively modest limits on old cards. Having larger limits from those same cards may bring me that exact result, among issuers who see low UR's as proof that too much credit has been issued, and subsequently make low SL offers, themeslves. Guessing ymmv based on issuer.. If you're asking whether current CL's can affect SL on a new app, then I would say, yes, it's YMMV. I've had issuers start me at exactly the limit of my highest existing card, and I've had issures start me out higher. It depends on their underwriting and your particular profile. Some credit unions are very DTI-focused and might approve you, if you qualify, for whatever limit your income will support. Other issuers will take the highest revolving limit your credit history has shown you can manage responsibly into consideration, and that might cap your SL lower than you would qualify for from the rest of your profile. and yes, both Chase and BoA in this situation are sp cli's, so that minor penalty is gone.
The scenario I was picturing is outdated now- all bad scores, pay with daily non 0% card, assume reporting is done when billing cycle reports (bad assumption, it sounds like), scores go up (how much, not sure, but profile looks better with it marked as paid) get BT card, transfer balance before end of following cycle when lump amount is due. If part of this is timing apps to the collection tradeline reporting paid, then, yes, I don't think that's something you can count on since you don't know how soon or far out that would happen after payment.
It's simpler now, I think most of these cards would give enough SL to pay this.. the problem becomes my current limits are all an issuer can see.. and if they only match my current limits (that it seems current lenders are willing to raise by a lot), it could be very close. So, get sp's, let new limits report, and then app? That's one way you could do it. Since they're SP, I'd say might as well if you can wait for the new limit to report. If I knew EX would still be clean next month, sure.. maybe still a necessary risk to take, to demonstrate a higher floor. If the debt is staying with them, I'd expect the reporting to remain the way it is for a while, or until you pay it off (if it updates when you pay it off; since this one is gone from your reports already, it might not). If they've sold or sent it on to a collection agency, it could reappear under that agency some time in the near term.
How much change can I expect in scores? You said TU was reporting like an unpaid charge off that was sold off- is that score likely to increase, when marked as paid? Reporting 100% paid as if it was sold, but still overall better looking than EQ. How much are the missed months in the delinquency likely to ding my score, when that catches up? All the 30, 60 90 etc lates are there and not falling off, so how much more damage does that really do? I can't give you an exact answer here, but I would expect a score drop after the payment posts, because, if the reporting is correctly updated, you'd have CA or CO months right up to the month before payment, which would bring your score down some as delinquencies that are more recent than what you have reporting now. I don't know what the exact amount would be, but CA and CO pull your score down significantly the whole time they report, so I wouldn't expect it to be as drastic a change as a fresh delinquency on an otherwise clean report. Do you have EX scores to go along with the snips of your Dec & Feb EX reports you posted above? That might give you a good idea of what kind of score shift could happen, since the delinqency is up-to-date on those.
EQ is ~40 points lower than TU. Is this more likely to look like a better version of TU, when it updates as paid? If it updates to accurate reporting when paid, then, no, I wouldn't expect that. TU would gain 20+ months of delinquency and EQ would gain 5+ months; both would have delinquencies that are that much more recent and be scored accordingly. Sounds like it's possible EQ jumps up to TU range, but could easily be less responsive. If they were all in the low 700 range and gradually went up, that would be enough, for me.
@Slabenstein wrote:If a creditor is set up to report, then they're set up to report. It's not imposing a burden on them to do so in any particular case. You can ask them whatever you want, but I wouldn't expect this to be a productive line of negotiation. If they're not interested in settling, then they're not interested in settling. Offering them something of no value to them in exchange for settlement wouldn't move the needle, in any case.
Does you mean they either have the capability to do this, or they don't? There's no cost associated with it that they want to avoid? The agent said deletion is something they consider before it reaches this stage, so it sounds like they do have the capability.. it's the misinformation they gave me prior that lead, in part, to the current situation. Whether or not they accept that is unknown, but I want to be clear that you're saying it causes them no financial burden, with either decision..
@Slabenstein wrote: That's one way you could do it. Since they're SP, I'd say might as well if you can wait for the new limit to report. If I knew EX would still be clean next month, sure.. maybe still a necessary risk to take, to demonstrate a higher floor. If the debt is staying with them, I'd expect the reporting to remain the way it is for a while, or until you pay it off (if it updates when you pay it off; since this one is gone from your reports already, it might not). If they've sold or sent it on to a collection agency, it could reappear under that agency some time in the near term.
Ok, this would be a big deal. You would expect the reporting to stay the way it is for some time- until it's sold (which they supposedly won't do, or it's paid, which I will be forewarned of 
). You don't think it's simply a glitch for this billing cycle and will re-report on my next billing cycle? If there is good reason to believe that, I would definitely sp for cli's on both cards, and that would report in the next 2 weeks, or just over..
@Slabenstein wrote: I can't give you an exact answer here, but I would expect a score drop after the payment posts, because, if the reporting is correctly updated, you'd have CA or CO months right up to the month before payment, which would bring your score down some as delinquencies that are more recent than what you have reporting now. I don't know what the exact amount would be, but CA and CO pull your score down significantly the whole time they report, so I wouldn't expect it to be as drastic a change as a fresh delinquency on an otherwise clean report. Do you have EX scores to go along with the snips of your Dec & Feb EX reports you posted above? That might give you a good idea of what kind of score shift could happen, since the delinqency is up-to-date on those.
If it updates to accurate reporting when paid, then, no, I wouldn't expect that. TU would gain 20+ months of delinquency and EQ would gain 5+ months; both would have delinquencies that are that much more recent and be scored accordingly.
I have snippets of all the bureaus in the original post. ~40 point drop from TU to EQ, 100 point drop from EX to TU. So even though the reports already have lates showing in all the categories, the additional delinquent months make it that much worse, overall? To the point about TU showing 100% paid bc it looks like it was sold- you think that 100% part is less a factor/non factor in its current score vs the 20 additional months of delinquency it is missing vs EQ?
@lowspender wrote:
@Slabenstein wrote:If a creditor is set up to report, then they're set up to report. It's not imposing a burden on them to do so in any particular case. You can ask them whatever you want, but I wouldn't expect this to be a productive line of negotiation. If they're not interested in settling, then they're not interested in settling. Offering them something of no value to them in exchange for settlement wouldn't move the needle, in any case.Does you mean they either have the capability to do this, or they don't? There's no cost associated with it that they want to avoid? The agent said deletion is something they consider before it reaches this stage, so it sounds like they do have the capability.. it's the misinformation they gave me prior that lead, in part, to the current situation. Whether or not they accept that is unknown, but I want to be clear that you're saying it causes them no financial burden, with either decision.. I'm not completely sure what you're asking, but if it's whether reporting an update on a single tradeline to the bureaus imposes a financial cost on a creditor that a delinquent debtor can use as leverage in negotiation: no, not even remotely.
@Slabenstein wrote: That's one way you could do it. Since they're SP, I'd say might as well if you can wait for the new limit to report. If I knew EX would still be clean next month, sure.. maybe still a necessary risk to take, to demonstrate a higher floor. If the debt is staying with them, I'd expect the reporting to remain the way it is for a while, or until you pay it off (if it updates when you pay it off; since this one is gone from your reports already, it might not). If they've sold or sent it on to a collection agency, it could reappear under that agency some time in the near term.
Ok, this would be a big deal. You would expect the reporting to stay the way it is for some time- until it's sold (which they supposedly won't do, or it's paid, which I will be forewarned of
@Slabenstein wrote: I can't give you an exact answer here, but I would expect a score drop after the payment posts, because, if the reporting is correctly updated, you'd have CA or CO months right up to the month before payment, which would bring your score down some as delinquencies that are more recent than what you have reporting now. I don't know what the exact amount would be, but CA and CO pull your score down significantly the whole time they report, so I wouldn't expect it to be as drastic a change as a fresh delinquency on an otherwise clean report. Do you have EX scores to go along with the snips of your Dec & Feb EX reports you posted above? That might give you a good idea of what kind of score shift could happen, since the delinqency is up-to-date on those.
If it updates to accurate reporting when paid, then, no, I wouldn't expect that. TU would gain 20+ months of delinquency and EQ would gain 5+ months; both would have delinquencies that are that much more recent and be scored accordingly.
I have snippets of all the bureaus in the original post. I'd check what your EX scores were before this derogatory tradeline fell off of that bureau, if you have access to those historical scores. Those scores aren't in your original posts, and they might shed light on what EQ and TU would do if the tradeline updated on those bureaus. ~40 point drop from TU to EQ, 100 point drop from EX to TU. So even though the reports already have lates showing in all the categories, the additional delinquent months make it that much worse, overall? Most of the 114 difference between your TU8 on March 14 and your EX8 on March 14 should be due to TU having the delinquent tradeline and EX not. The 35 point difference between TU8 and EQ8 on two different dates would be harder to pin down; I've seen FICO8 point differences in that range between two bureaus with no reporting discrepancies. The difference in recency of delinquency, the difference in reporting installment balances, and aging differences could all be factors. What were the negative reason statements for TU on March 14 and EQ on Jan 12, and what were their respective orders? To the point about TU showing 100% paid bc it looks like it was sold- you think that 100% part is less a factor/non factor in its current score vs the 20 additional months of delinquency it is missing vs EQ? I would guess that the more recent delinquency is having a greater impact on your EQ score than the higher installment balance, since installment balance-to-starting-principal isn't a big factor in FICO8 scores and recency of delinquency is, but that's just a guess. The orders of the negative reason statements on TU and EQ could shed light on the question.
@lowspender wrote:Did a sp cli with boa- increased by just over 50%. Got me to the same total that chase is offering pre approved as a Chase Sapphire reserve card- question is, would they approve me for more, if they knew boa's new total?
from the messages I have sent here, and what I've read, chase tends to follow more than lead, with SL's and cli's. I think, waiting for the new amount to report in the next 10 days probably would only encourage Chase.
unless the odds of this reappearing on my EX report by my next statement is really high.
Congrats on your CLI! I don't know how much Chase does or doesn't care about limits of non-Chase cards when reviewing CLI requests, but having the higher BoA limit at least wouldn't hurt. Like I said above, there's no way to know what will happen in future months with lapsed reporting, but given how long the other two bureaus have gone without an update I think you'll be okay on EX in that respect.