Fantastic info in the new Beacon score format

Follow ALL the links in your score explanations. There is DETAILED info, excellent documentation for court, and some downright NEW revelations.

Now I can prove that an account with a ZERO balance but a "past due" notation WILL lower the scores, the score page lists exactly that as the reason for the low score. I've been battling creditors/collectors who insist that all they need to do is show it paid. Well, the scores don't look at it that way.

You can also see WHICH inquiries were counted if that's one of your factors.

MANY collections are reported INCORRECTLY as "120+ days past due" --- people need to start suing over this. Collections are supposed to be AGED and are NOT "OPEN" accounts currently past due. That's a huge problem with Equifax.

SAVE or print your score reasons and the details as your report changes - the scores are NOT saved at the Equifax/MyFico sites (maybe up to 30 days, and I've had problems after just a week)

It's easy to establish the impact of just one account if you dispute all the other derogs.

To save the pages, select ".mht" format instead of ".htm" -- I save as "beacon-6-13-02--715-p1.mht" and "equifax-6-13-02--715.htm" for the report. So I have the date, the score, and the page # and it greatly helps finding what I'm looking for.

And I also have a separate directory for each bureau and different types of reports such as Consumerinfo.com.

Well Christine, my recent experiences would suggest that your case would be against Equifax rather than Fair Isaac. My personal score has been that same (708) for about a month but the reason 2 has changed 3 times !!!!!!!.
Reason 2 went from:

too many bankcard accounts to:

number of accounts to:

too many non mortgage accounts

Ok, I have too many accounts but what freakin kind! These are 3 seperate entities.

First one means too many credit cards specifically.

Second one means too many accounts of any kind whatsoever.

Third one means what it says - non mortgage accounts.

I think Eq. is still working on the software. I just hope we are still getting a real fico score.


If you notice, the old system showed reason codes identical to a denial letter from a bank which seemed totally legitimate.

The new system incorporates the " I don't understand my credit report so give me a reason code that makes me feel better" format.



Just Venting... BB

Big Beacon,

Equifax could not possibly be writing that software, that must be Fair Isaac. How could Equifax know what the scores mean and how they are derived?

And apparently Fair Isaac also does NOT know what their software is doing. It looks like they're back-engineering.

They are trying to translate the numbered score factors into words people can understand and they are trying to figure out what the scores and score factors mean. Looks to me like they're having a tough time, but they're working on it.

First they THOUGHT the reason was "Too many bankcard acocunts" and then they realized that people with NO bankcard accounts also got that. So, they figured they'd try "number of accounts" until they figured out this also didn't work.

Well, that's MY take on this. Thanks so much for posting this.

Also, I just looked and I didn't see a "number of accounts" factor, but there is the "number of bank cards" factor, this is really weird.

They seem to be confused. Apparently there isn't a lot of documentation from the programmers. And the people working on the consumer web site software don't know how scoring works. It's very likely that nobody knows how it works, as I'm sure many different people worked on the code.

And it's also very likely that we'll see many of these changes, and that much of what we're told is wrong and of course that the program itself is flawed. But I've said that for about 7 or 8 years now, it's nice to finally be able to prove it.

Today I looked at a 730+ and the balance/limit ratio was 30+%. Turns out that the scores utilized the $15K limit of a CLOSED credit card with a balance.

Just like accounts with a "PAID" notation AND reported as "past due" will show up as reasons for low scores due to CURRENT delinquencies.

The scoring software is so DUMB, it doesn't recognize the meaning of "PAID" and fails to ignore the "past due 120+ days."

Considering that Fair Isaac's software has been used to rate and decline creditcards for about 20 years, can you imagine how many BILLIONS in interest were charged to people who were NOT delinquent but got that low score?

I don't blame Equifax for the scores, but all bureaus don't have ANY prodecures for the most basic error checking, just like Fair Isaac. I learned in my first programming class how to write code with "if - then" statements. That's what computers are GREAT for, and it would take so little effort.

So I will definitely sue Equifax, as well as Experian and TU, Fair Isaac, the FTC, Pacific Bell, Capital One, and possibly Compass Bank and American Agencies, and maybe some others. I'm tired of being ignored, and their lame excuses and always blaming someone else ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Midland Credit Management CITIBANK -850136XXXX
INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT 06/1998 Open
120+ DAYS PAST DUE $1363 $1363 $1363 05/2002
Prior Paying History

COLLECTION ACCOUNT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this what your referring to Christine, as far as a collection account being reported incorrectly? This is clearly stated on my equifax report as a collection account, yet it's listing it as 120+ days past due. This account was charged off by Citibank in 1997, I disputed online and am awaiting their response. I also have a providian account that is in collections that is listed by providian this way.

Citibank in 1997

It sure looks like it. Go to your score, and if it says that you had late payments as recent as 2 months ago, click on the LINK with the lates and it will show you which accounts the scoring software is using to LOWER your scores. And then click on THOSE accounts and you'll see the gruesome details.

If the first dispute doesn't get the account deleted, you want to send a specific dispute.

EXAMPLE:

---------------------------------

Dear Mr. King:

I am hereby disputing the credit reporting of the following accounts:

1) XYZ Collection -- please delete.

a) My validation request for this account was received by (collector) on (date - at least 30 days ago.) They failed to validate this account and therefore it must immediately be deleted.

b) You verified this account on (date) and state: "Equifax has verified that this item has been reported correctly."

Apparently (collector) verified this account in spite of my dispute in violation of the FCRA and FDCPA. Please provide your verification procedure: WHO verified, HOW, and WHEN.

c) Your web site states: "There is evidence of a late payment on your file as recent as 2 months ago." As there are NO other late payments on my credit report, this statement must refer to (collector's) account.

From your web site regarding the (collector) account:

"Seven Year Payment History:

30 days late: 2 -- 2 unknown dates
60 days late: 1 -- 1 unknown date
90+ days late: 32 -- 4/2002, 3/2002, 2/2002, 29 unknown dates"

The balance is ZERO, and the DLA is (date.)

How did you arrive at the conclusion that this account is reported correctly?

d) (Collector) claims that they reported my dispute to you on (date). I subscribe to your credit monitoring service and checked my reports frequently.

Why do I NOT see any notation of this dispute on my credit reports?

------------------------------------------------

Do NOT just copy and paste this, EACH account is reported differently, you just have to look at the details for YOUR Beacon score and review EVERY account that shows up as negative for your SCORE. Forget the credit report, it doesn't have the important data - what's utilized for the score.

Here is a draft for an Experian dispute:

----------------------------------

2) Providian - please delete or

a) Please verify ALL data for this account, every date and
balance. Especially the account history looks really strange, how many times can an account be charged off?

As Fair Isaac credit scoring software deducts MORE points for more RECENT charge-offs, I don't think this is reported correctly.

b) You verified this account in 5/2002. Please provide your verification procedure: WHO verified, HOW, and WHEN?

c) Do you consider this account OPEN? It looks like it, as the "scheduled to continue on record until ..." is not there. How can you verify an account that's reported as charge-off and NOT age it off the report?

-----------------------------------------------

This Providian account was NOT aged off the report and reported as a charge-off every month.

It makes absolutely NO difference how valid the account is. The idea is to get the collectors to violate the law, and to get the CRAs to have to WORK to comply with the law, and even better, to find CRA violations.

And of course, notice all the QUESTIONS. Imagine yourself being able to hand that dispute to a judge. You never lied. Everything you say is true. And you've got some GREAT questions to ask the CRA in the courtroom. But the goal is NOT to sue, it's to get your deletions/corrections. See
Disputes - TU COMBO verif. data, failure to investigate, aging + late dates: SUCCESS (http://www.bayhouse.com/credit-forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=611)

I always include in my first snail mail dispute:

"If any of the above disputes should be verified by the furnishers, please provide your verification procedure: WHO verified, HOW, and WHEN."

Since they have never complied, I got a violation there. But this Beacon detail is just a GOLDMINE, makes it so easy to prove that the CRAs verified INCORRECT data. It does take a lot of time, but it's worth it.

Just an update on the Midland Credit Management tradeline, I disputed with the bureau's and just received notice that it was deleted off my report. Apparently, for whatever reason, midland couldn't verify it or simply didn't respond. They were reporting incorrectly and citibank had no record of me ever having an account with them. I had them on several violations and SOL is passed so if it pops up again, I"m ready to take action! Thanks for this website christine, I've had three accounts deleted within the last month due to validation letters and CRA disputes. I even got a letter of apology and a deletion from a collection agency that received one of my validation letters sent cert. w/ r.r! I should frame the letter, it was actually a contrite and thoughtful apology! My credit still has holes but I'm on my way back to credit "normalcy" thanks to being an informed consumer, thanks in large part to you and your site. Thanks again! I'll keep you updated on any further successes....

All right! Glad to see you got the deletion. Good luck on with the next one!

It doesn't work for me to save it like that, do you have another trick? Cause when I go to open the file it brings me to myfico.com and asks for password....

I ran my EQ report the other day and noticed the new format. You are right Christine. I had overlooked all the major new information that is being disclosed --I was rushing to look at my score not yet reflecting my new correction to my report. I can now trace how much I lost by virtue of a false Citibank entry and the latest issue that I have, off and on since January, trying to get removed. Once it is removed I can tell you what it's worth. However it has been my thesis that you lose 50 with a false entry and only gain back 25 for its deletion.

Now that I have EQ and TU almost all cleaned up--just the included in BK remain--I have to turn to the hardest, in my case, Experian. I have been so frustrated at trying to correct this, it's almost overwhelming and the examples you cited, Christine, give me fresh ideas on how to approach this outfit.
Your site continues to be awesome . Have you thought about consulting work for those who need your total help and those who want some fresh ideas? You deserve some remuneration--you are very, very sharp on how to get to this straightened out.

Swede, ".mht" format doesn't work for you?

And Senator, sorry for the late reply - hope you saw my announcement, been so busy.

I'm just as frustrated as you are, and the only thing more frustrating than working on my own credit is working on other peoples' credit who then don't sue when I finally get the deletion after umpteen hours of work. Or, even worse, they sue and settle for just deletion while they really have a good case.

My own credit finally made it back to the top on my list of things to do.

I actually just hired someone. :) That should put some pressure on me to look at my reports, but with all the web and Compass Bank hassles I haven't had time again.

I have made a little progress on my federal suit, and I'll be posting the code, screenshots and my complaints at the CreditCourt forum. Hopefully soon.

And hopefully many people will be inspired and take my ideas and sue for $$$, not just deletion.

Have you thought about consulting work for those who need your total help and those who want some fresh ideas?

Well, I have been trying some different things, I also address that in my announcement. Right now I just want some time to work on my own stuff and get that published. Several of my clients are suing and/or looking for attorneys, I'll see how that develops. It's very time consuming to look at the different scores and DOCUMENT (save, screenshots, print, file) what you see and then follow the changes and compare reports and scores and the factors.

There is SO much there, I'm just waiting for them to shut that service off again or remove some of the info. They already took the score factors away.

No but it's ok- I'll try to get my friend the programmer to figure it out for me. I know you're busy and I have way too many other questions for you then ones regarding technical issues ;)
Now, let me think of all of them...hmm

Swede, I also sometimes have problems saving, and recently found that SOMETIMES I think I saved it, but when I go to open the page I get an error page at the Fair Isaac site instead of what I thought I saved.

This is REALLY important because you can only access the scoring info for 30 days online - and sometimes files disappear after a few days. People are having all kinds of problems.

I'd like a way to save ALL the pages about the scores in one process. Even when it works it just takes forever to save the sometimes 50+ pages. I haven't tried any of the programs that can save entire sites to your drive - that might be a way to do it.

Any help with that will be GREATLY appreciated!