Are there any rules against penalizing consumers for requesting accurate credit reporting?
I think you're off base here.  The bureaus only remove information if the creditor cannot verify any dispute within 30 days, or if the information's super old.  If the creditor can provide corrected information, then the credit bureau is required to apply it to its own database.  A dispute can be about the entire account, or it can be about payment status within a given span (or spans) of time. Of course, it's the consumer who has to initiate the dispute. "To answer the heart of your question, it would be illegal for any credit bureau or creditor to somehow ""penalize"" you just for trying to make sure that what's being reported about you is accurate.  That's why the Fair Credit Reporting Act exists -- that's where the rights (and mechanisms) come from for letting you learn about and request accurate reporting of your credit history. Every creditor is responsible for reporting its own data to the bureaus, using the format provided by those bureaus for doing so. A creditor may not provide all of the information that can be reported, and it may not report information in as timely a manner as it could or should (e.g., payments made may not show up for weeks or even months after they were made, etc.). The bottom line is that the credit bureaus are not arbiters of the data they report.  They simply report.  They don't draw conclusions, they don't make decisions on what data to report.  If a creditor provides data that is within the parameters of what the bureaus ask to be provided, then the bureaus report precisely that -- nothing more, nothing less. If there is an inaccuracy or mistake on your report, it is the fault (and responsibility) of the creditor, and it is therefore up to the creditor to correct it once it has been brought to their attention.  Federal laws spell out the process that the bureau has to comply with when you file a dispute, and there are strict standards requiring the creditor to promptly verify valid information or remove anything which is not correct. The credit bureaus are simply automated clearinghouses for the information provided by the creditors who choose to subscribe to each bureau's system.  A creditor can choose which (or none) of the bureaus they wish to report to, which is why some accounts show on one bureau's report on you but not another's. What I caution is, just because a credit bureaus reports on your credit doesn't mean they have anything to do with the accuracy or detail of what is being reported.  That's up to the creditors." "The Fair Credit Reporting Act specifies in some detail on pages 50-54 (as labeled in the footer, 55-59 as pages in pdf) the process that occurs when a consumer initiates a dispute.  The safe outcome for the reporting agency is to remove the information in dispute  from reports within 30 days if the reporting party does not certify the information is complete and accurate (with other statutory timelines for communication to the customer and the reporter).   If you initiate a dispute, then the agency is following the law by deleting the reported information, outside new input from the furnisher.  If this is unsatisfactory, you have the following statutory right within § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i (d) Notification of deletion of disputed information. Following any deletion of   information which is found to be inaccurate or whose accuracy can no longer   be verified or any notation as to disputed information, the consumer   reporting agency shall, at the request of the consumer, furnish notification   that the item has been deleted or the statement, codification or summary   pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of this section to any person specifically   designated by the consumer who has within two years prior thereto received   a consumer report for employment purposes, or within six months   prior thereto received a consumer report for any other purpose, which   contained the deleted or disputed information.  The section that binds furnishers of information (§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2], starting on page 78 in the footer) places on them the following specific duties: (B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors.   A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to   any consumer reporting agency if   (i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address   specified by the person for such notices, that specific   information is inaccurate; and   (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. ... (2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who   (A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information   to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the   person’s transactions or experiences with any consumer; and   (B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information   that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall   promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination   and provide to the agency any corrections to that information,   or any additional information, that is necessary to make   the information provided by the person to the agency complete   and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any   of the information that remains not complete or accurate. So there you have it: they have to stop reporting inaccurate information, and ""promptly"" notify the credit agency once they've determined what is incomplete or inaccurate. I note no specific statutory timeline for this investigation."
Note that this kind of entry on your credit record may also affect your ability to get a job. Basically, you're going on record as not honoring your commitments... and unless you have a darned good reason for having gotten into that situation and being completely unable to get back out, it's going to reflect on your general trustworthiness. "According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act: any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report [...] to a person which it has reason to believe [...] intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and   involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer See p12 (section 604). The usual interpretation of this that I've heard is that a debt collection agency that owns or has been assigned a debt can make hard pulls on your credit report without your consent. This link seems to support that (and references the same part of the act, among others): According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, [...], any business can access your credit history without your permission provided the business has a valid ""permissible purpose."" The FCRA notes that one such permissible purpose is to review your credit information in connection with the collection of a debt. Thus, if you owe money to a debt collector, the debt collector has the legal right to pull and review your credit report. If they haven't been assigned the debt or own it outright, I believe you have a legal right to dispute it. Consult a lawyer if this is actually a situation you face.  Once use for this is if the debt collection agency has trouble locating you; since your credit report normally contains current and past addresses, this is one way to locate you." Generally speaking, when you are asked whether you consent to a credit check, what is implied is that your identifying information is shared to enable that check.  Most credit nowadays (credit, mortgage, car lease, even cell phone accounts etc.) is simply unavailable without a credit check. To answer the specific question of whether you can get the bill reduced without hurting your credit, yes, as long as the bill never goes to collections, there's no reason it should ever show up on your credit report. Will they reduce your bill without sending it to collections first? Maybe. All you can do is ask. If the bad credit items are accurate, disputing the accuracy of the items seems at best, unethical.   If the bad credit items are inaccurate, the resolution process provided by each of the 3 credit bureaus, while time consuming, seems the way to go. Oh yes, it is absolutely the problem of the consumers. After all how is the bank to know how it should be doing business unless the customer explains it to them?  Please read the other comments about how the customer has verified receipt of some critical document and then they claim that they don't have it. Sure they are very nice on the phone, but that doesn't help when I have to take time out of my work day to call them repeatedly. Wrong sub. You're looking for /r/personalfinance   &gt;will freezing just that credit report hurt them in any way?  No, but it will help prevent an identity thief from wrecking your credit.   &gt;Can I still get a loan with only one of the three frozen?  Depends, but yes. You should freeze your credit at all 5 credit bureaus for personal financial protections. A landlord or any creditor can still put negative information in your credit report without your social security number - it just takes a bit more sleuthing on their part. If you want perfect credit, either   1. don't break your lease;   2. break it with the written permission of the landlord (by paying some compensation, for example); or   3. break it with legal permission by asking a court to vacate the terms of the lease. Specific to the inquiries, from my Impact of Credit Inquiries article -    8 is at the high end pulling your score down until some time passes. As MB stated, long term expanding your credit will help, but short term, it's a bit of a hit. "Assuming I don't need any other new lines of credit, can I get pre-qualified repeatedly (and with different banks) with impunity? Yes, but only for a limited period. FICO says: Hard inquiries are inquiries where a potential lender is reviewing your credit because you've applied for credit with them. These include credit checks when you've applied for an auto loan, mortgage or credit card. Each of these types of credit checks count as a single inquiry. One exception occurs when you are ""rate shopping"". That's a smart thing to do, and your FICO score considers all inquiries within a 45 period for a mortgage, an auto loan or a student loan as a single inquiry. However for your situation, since you won't be getting a loan for several months, getting inquiries more than 45 days apart will each count as a separate inquiry." This discussion indicates that the accounts are not reported to credit agencies, but the post is also over a year old, and who knows how reliable the information is (it's fairly well-traveled, though).  It's based on one person calling up Trans Union and E-Trade and asking people directly. No credit bureau wants incorrect data, for obvious reasons, but it happens. That's one reason why they let you get access to your credit score, to check it the data is correct and make the 'product' (data about you) better.   Nope, that's not why you can get free access to your credit report.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is why.  FCRA requires any credit reporting agency to provide you a free report upon request every 12 months.  Prior to this law, credit agencies made you pay to see your report including if you wanted it to dispute errors.  They only care about the dollars they get from having this data. FCRA removed one of their revenue streams.  If free locking moves forward, that will remove another. So expect them to fight it. The two things are materially different. Point number 1.  With a credit card, the bank (and card network) earn a fee every time you spend on your card.  You swipe a $100 dinner, the credit card company makes about $3.  You pay it back, they may not make any interest but they've made their $3.  Additionally, if you have a $1,000,000 credit limit, you've only actually borrowed $100; which brings me to point number 2.   Point number 2.  A credit limit of $X is not in any way the same as a loan for $X.  When you seek a personal loan, the lender hands you money in equal amount to your loan, less any origination fees that may apply.  Your loan for $8,000 results in $8,000 being wired to your account.  Your credit limit is only a loan when you actually charge something.  Until then its a simple (adjustable) risk limit set by the bank's underwriters. Point number 3.  Your credit report contains no income information.  It's up to the lender to determine what sort of risk they're willing to take.  Some personal lenders are just fine with stated income and employer contact information.  Some lenders want to see some pay-stubs.  Some lenders will lend $X on stated income but won't lend $X+1 without income verification.  Some will lend the money at a lower interest rate if you do prove your income and employment.  It's all lender specific.  Credit card issuers are clearly lax on the income verification piece of the equation because of points number 1 and 2. Point number 4.  If you're getting a loan for your required mortgage down-payment you are a much bigger repayment risk than you realize. It may be tempting to be financially lenient with your customers as you start to build business relationships, but doing so may ultimately jeopardize your profitability. Establish clear payment terms on all invoices and documents, including a reasonable penalty (start with eight percent) over the invoice amount if the total is not paid within the standard payment terms. "you can relate everything on a credit report, and how things are calculated, to life scenarios. thats a 100% fact, and thats what people need to go by when designing their credit dicipline/diet. utilization: any kind of resource in life. water, food, energy, and etc. who would you want to live with more, the guy that just eats way too much, uses way too much energy than they need, and wastes way more water than they need? assuming there was no water cycle. payment history: speaks for itself derogatory remarks: s*** happens. thats what makes life life, but when given chances to fix your mistakes and own up to them, like i and every other responsible adult have done, and you dont, thats living up to the exact definition of derogatory. disrespecting and not caring. who wants to lend to someone who doesnt care? so if youre not gonna care, we will just put this special little remark in the derogatory section and show that you dont care about when you make mistakes. f*** it right? lol. well, thats what that section is for. showing you wont try to fix things when they go sour. if i had a guy who was fixing my roof, and did a bad job, but did everything he could to fix it, i wouldnt give him a bad rep at all. if a guy messed up my roof, and just said cya thanks for your money, hes getting a derogatory remark. credit age: just like life. showing the ability to maintain EVERY other aspect of a report for X amount of time. its like getting old as a person. after X amount of years, a lot of people will be able to say more about you as a person. whether youre a real male reproductive organ or an amazing guy. total accounts: is like taking on jobs as a self employed person or any business. if you have a lot of jobs, people must want you to do their work. it shows how people ""like you."" hard inquiries: this is the one category of them all i dont fully agree on, can go either way, and i hate it. i really cant think of a life scenario to relate it to, so i kind of think its a prevention mechanism/keep a person in check kind of thing. like to save them from themself and save the lenders. for example, if a guy has great utilization, and just goes insane applying for credit cards, hell get everyone of them because hes showing almost no utilization. then said guy goes and looses his job, but since he racked up 50 cards at 1k each, now he can destroy 50k in credit. thats just my take, but thats EXACTLY how i look at it from TU/EX/EQs point of view."