Dispute with 1 report leads to comments on all 3?

So I recently disputed an account of mine that hasn't been updating on 1 of my credit reports, TU. The account on EX/EQ shows current/accurate information, where my TU report does not since the account does not update regularly there. I initiated a dispute with the lender and in my dispute very clearly stated that I'm only disputing the account on my TU report and that EX/EQ are fine. Today I saw that the account on EQ now contains dispute language. Is this something that should piss me off (it kind of does) or does it not matter? Should I reach out to the lender and tell them they didn't listen / lay off my EX/EQ reports which are fine already?

What does the comment say?

Who was the lender? Citi?

TU seems to be really slow these days.

I had one account not update for almost a month. Then TU finally updated it.

Another account was updated correctly. Then a couple weeks later showed $0 when there should have a non zero. Then, a couple days later reported it accurately.

EX and EQ seems to be okay.

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:54 pm So I recently disputed an account of mine that hasn't been updating on 1 of my credit reports, TU. The account on EX/EQ shows current/accurate information, where my TU report does not since the account does not update regularly there. I initiated a dispute with the lender and in my dispute very clearly stated that I'm only disputing the account on my TU report and that EX/EQ are fine. Today I saw that the account on EQ now contains dispute language. Is this something that should piss me off (it kind of does) or does it not matter? Should I reach out to the lender and tell them they didn't listen / lay off my EX/EQ reports which are fine already?

This is my exact reason for hesitating to ever dispute anything only on 1 or 2 Bs (like my incorrectly reporting SL lates on TU), because they can and often do update all 3Bs. I found if the CB makes the decision themsleves, only the 1B is impacted, but if they reach out to the bank (or whoever you are disputing), they tend to then update all 3Bs.... Since you disputed directly through the lender, they must have took it upon themselves tonupdate all 3Bs. That will be tough to unravel, but dispute remarks are placed for a variety of reasons, like, even for requesting GW late removals or disputing a transaction. It does seem like they make these dispute remarks, sometimes, when they make an update to your reporting, really for any reason.

AllZero wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:14 pm What does the comment say? Who was the lender? Citi?

Yup, Citi. The comment just says that the consumer disputes account information or something similar. True for TU yes, not true for EX/EQ. But, since TU doesn't update from them, no dispute [remarks] are actually seen on the one report that it would make sense to have them on.

My feelings and experiences line up well with @LaHossBoss’s. I dabbled in GW requests a couple years ago but got nothing from it other than a bunch of dispute remarks. The fact that I specifically said in every letter that I was not disputing the accuracy of the information didn’t matter at all. I’ve had some other misleading dispute remarks related to other issues. For example, an auto lessor agreed to extend my lease for a few months, but then when I later bought the car, they added comments everywhere that I had terminated the lease early. I can’t tell if these remarks will ever matter, but they bugged me so I wrote letters to the lenders asking to have them removed. Results were spotty. Sometimes an incorrect remark would go away for a cycle or two but then reappear. Other times, it would be replaced by a new remark, seemingly about my latest letter. The whole thing is super frustrating. It’s a chaotic process, and once started, it’s near-impossible to clean up properly. The three-for-one overreaction you’re seeing, BBS, is a typical example. I’ve pretty much decided to stop sending letters except when absolutely necessary.

I shared the same problem as you above @Justaguy when I was putting together the GW Saturation Technique and firing off 20 letters per month. I constantly saw those comments appear even though my letters like yours very clearly stated that I was not disputing any reported information, that I fully understood that what was on there was accurate. I did send follow up Rounds of letters that asked to have those comments removed, which usually worked, but then when my next Round of 20 GW letters landed the following month the comments would return. The difference then was that my GW letters were of course targeting all 3B, where in this situation it's of course just 1B. It's frustrating because I know for sure that they (Citi) can send an electronic reporting to just 1B, as over the course of a 10 month period they did off-cycle get my account to update 2 times on TU. At the times the account updated at TU, there was no off-cycle reporting / update to the account on my EX/EQ reports. I figured then when I started this TU specific report that they would only address TU, so it irritates me that dispute language is now visible elsewhere.

No Citibank is correct I hate to say. Whenever you do a direct dispute with the lender they are required by the fair credit reporting act to add a note saying that you are disputing under the FCRA. Since its the account that’s being disputed, they have to note it everywhere that they normally report that account. They are required to add that comment at all three bureaus.

Once they resolve it they are supposed to make it say Dispute finished, & sometimes whether or not you agree. Many times these don’t get removed and are left behind. Frequently contact with the lender can get them removed, which is advised prior to any mortgage applications. There was actually a thread on it at the other place and I’ve actually read the provisions of the FCRA.

And yes frequently any communication may be interpreted as a Dispute, unfortunately.

That's a bit annoying, I must say.

Yes it really is because there’s many of them that get left open on many profiles, that’s why many lenders won’t consider a mortgage application with any of those on there, because it could exclude the tradeline and give an inaccurate score.

Did you see any score change? It probably excluded the tradelines from consideration.

Birdman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 8:00 pm Did you see any score change? It probably excluded the tradelines from consideration.

No score changes. I'm just about at AZEO currently (should be doing a 28 score pull tomorrow or the next day) so the dropping of a $0 account doesn't mean much at this point.