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."
Since your credit score is much better than hers, you should apply for the credit card yourself alone to get the best chance of approval for your card of choice. Once you have the card, you can add her as an authorized user, which will get her a card of her own, tied to your account.  Most banks will begin reporting to both of your credit reports, which should help her credit score over time. Keep in mind that you are solely legally responsible for the debt; your girlfriend will be able to make charges and will have no legal responsibility for the debt.  Make sure you are comfortable with that. For what it is worth, in general, I recommend against combining your finances with someone who you are not married to, but it seems that you have already done that, so adding a shared credit card to your finances shouldn't be any worse than what you are already doing. "The first thing you should do is write a letter to the collection company telling them that you dispute all charges and demand, per section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that they immediately validate and confirm any and all debts they allege you owe. You should further request that that they only communicate with you by mail. Section 809 requires them to examine the legal documents showing you allegedly owe a debt and they are required to send this to you. This all creates a useful paper trail. When you send the letter, be sure to send it as certified mail with a return receipt. From your description, it doesn't sound like this will do anything, but it's important you do it within 30 days of them contacting you. This is because the law allows them to assume the debt is valid if you don't do it within 30 days of their initial contact. I recommend you speak with an attorney. Most states have a statute of limitation on debt of about 4 or 5 years. I don't know if that applies to courts though. Whatever you do, be very careful of the language you use when speaking with them. Always refer to it as ""the alleged debt,"" or ""the debt you allege I owe."" You don't want them misconstruing your words later on. As far as proving you paid it, I would look through every scrap of paper I'd ever touched looking for it. If that proves fruitless, try going to the courthouse and looking through their records. If they're saying you didn't pay, that's a long shot, but still worth a try. You could also try bank records from that time, like if you have a Visa statement showing $276.17 paid to the Nevada Court or something like that. If all else fails, the law allows you to send the collector a letter saying that you refuse to pay the debt. The collection company then legally must stop contacting you unless it's to tell you they are suing you or to tell you they won't contact you again. I strongly advise against this though. Your best bet is going to be speaking with a qualified attorney. Edit: You should also pull your credit reports to make sure this isn't being reported there. Federal law gives you the right to have a free copy of each of your credit reports once every year. If it is being reported, send a certified letter with return receipt to each bureau which is reporting it telling them you dispute the information. They then are required to confirm the information. If they can't confirm it, they must remove it. If they do confirm it, you are legally entitled to put a statement disputing the information next to it on your credit report. I am not an attorney. This is not legal advise. You should consult an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your particular jurisdiction." 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. Freezing your credit should be the default configuration.    EDIT:  More info on Why.  Basically you're adding a password to your credit report access.  https://www.privacyrights.org/consumer-guides/identity-theft-monitoring-services  4. Is there a low-cost alternative to monitoring services?  The best low-cost alternative to credit monitoring services is a security freeze. A security freeze locks your credit files at the three credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) until you unlock your file with a password or PIN. The freeze stops new accounts from being established by imposters because potential creditors are not able to check your credit report or credit score, the standard procedure when financial accounts are opened. Any potential creditors’ requests for access to your credit files will be denied.  However, a security freeze cannot stop misuse of your existing bank or credit accounts. You still must check the monthly statements on your current accounts for any erroneous charges or debits.  Generally, you will pay no more than $30 for a lifetime of security freeze protection. In some circumstances (identity theft victims and senior citizens in some states), this protection may be free.  With a security freeze, your credit reports cannot be seen by prospective creditors, insurance companies, landlords, utilities, or for employment screening. However, you may lift the freeze when necessary to allow a company to check your credit report. This is easily done by means of a password. It is important to realize that a security freeze does not prevent existing creditors from seeing your credit report.   While a security freeze may be the best available deterrent to new account fraud, it may not be the best solution for everyone. It can be cumbersome for individuals who frequently apply for credit, are contemplating a new mortgage, or who plan to change jobs. On the other hand, a security freeze is particularly well-suited for seniors who are no longer in the market for new credit. And a freeze provides protection for individuals affected by data breaches involving Social Security numbers, as well as victims of identity theft or mail theft. For a more complete discussion of the pros and cons of security freezes, read this report in Consumer Reports.  Brian Krebs' post How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace the Security Freeze is a primer on what you can do to avoid becoming a victim of identity theft.  Fees, supporting documentation, and procedures for placing a security freeze vary from state to state and among the three credit reporting agencies. The web sites of each of the credit reporting agencies provide state-specific instructions for placing a security freeze. The websites of each of the credit reporting agencies provide state-specific instructions for placing a security freeze.  Equifax Experian TransUnion "Dan's link (he deleted his answer, BTW) is fine, it showed the components of the score FICO offers.  Each input has data behind it, a bell curve of the behaviors and risk of the person behind it. For example, we've discussed utilization many time here. The ideal utilization is not 0%, but 1-19%. This does not mean paying interest, or carrying charges from month to month.  Say I had just one card with a $10K limit. I'd want to be sure I never ran a bill above $2000. If I did, I'd see a slight drop in my score, and next month, it would go back to normal. In my case, I have enough available credit that going over 20% is rare, and if it happened, I'd pay the bill down before the bill was issued, just make a mid-cycle payment.  FICO decided that those who go over 20% have a higher risk of default. And it gets higher as it goes up. Same with every aspect of the score's components.  You are comparing US to non US use. In the US, it seems far more common to use our cards. In my family's case, we use very little cash, and run most of our spending through our cards.  As far as The David is concerned, one should separate those who carry a balance from those who pay in full. The pay in full users are better off for their habits and responsible card use. In the US, it's not easy to rent a car or book a hotel with no card. Cards offer a cash rebate that adds up fast, and purchase protection from fraudulent vendors. They also offer extended warranty coverage.  The David, and others, claim that ""studies prove those using cards spend 10-15% more than cash buyers."" This is a proven fact from scientific studies. Only they don't exist. The best I've seen proves that college kids given a $20 bill spend more carefully than those given a $20 credit card. This doesn't extrapolate to a family budget, and never will. But that quote has a way of being repeated as fact. Yes, it's non-sense, thank you for reading and quoting my blog, I recognize the quote.  The report also shows accounts that have gone to collection. An electric bill isn't a regularly reported item, it's assumed your lights are on. But if you stop paying the bill and they send your account to a collection agency, you'll see it hit your report.  In response to the comment below - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied article titled Monopoly Money: The Effect of Payment Coupling and Form on Spending Behavior runs 13 pages but on the first page offers ""Do consumers spend differently when using one payment mode relative to another mode? For example, do consumers spend more when they receive $50 in the form of a gift card than in the form of cash? If indeed they do, then why? This research addresses these issues.""  $50? A $50 gift card is a nuisance, I try to use it up within hours of getting one. As I stated above, the behavior of a person with such a card doesn't scale to a many-thousand-per-month budget. Such articles, in my opinion, are nonsense, proving nothing.  Unfortunately, this is a bit of a tangent to the original question, and if I put up a stand-alone ""Is it a fact that people spend more if using a card than cash?"" the question would result in being closed as one that's seeking opinions, not facts." "Generally it is not recommended that you do anything potentially short-term deleterious to your credit during the process of seeking a mortgage loan - such as opening a new account, closing old accounts, running up balances, or otherwise applying for any kind of loan (people often get carried away and apply for loans to cover furniture and appliances for the new home they haven't bought yet). You are usually OK to do things that have at least a short-term positive effect, like paying down debt. But refinancing - which would require applying for a non-home loan - is exactly the sort of hard-pull that can drop your credit rating. It is not generally advised. The exception to this is would be if you have an especially unusual situation with an existing loan (like your car), that is causing a deal-breaking situation with your home loan. This would for example be having a car payment so high that it violates maximum Debt-to-Income ratios (DTI). If your monthly debt payments are more than 43% of your monthly income, for instance, you will generally be unable to obtain a ""qualified mortgage"", and over 28-36% will disqualify you from some lenders and low-cost mortgage options. The reason this is unusual is that you would have to have a bizarrely terrible existing loan, which could somehow be refinanced without increasing your debt while simultaneously providing a monthly savings so dramatic that it would shift your DTI from ""unacceptable"" to ""acceptable"". It's possible, but most simple consumer loan refis just don't give that kind of savings. In most cases you should just ""sit tight"" and avoid any new loans or refinances while you seek a home purchase. If you want to be sure, you'll need to figure out your DTI ratio (which I recommend anyway) and see where you would be before and after a car refinance. If this would produce a big swing, maybe talk with some mortgage loan professionals who are familiar with lending criteria and ask for their opinion as to whether the change would be worth it. 9 times out of 10, you should wait until after your loan is closed and the home is yours before you try to refinance your car. However I would only warn you that if you think your house + car payment is too much for you to comfortably afford, I'd strongly recommend you seriously reconsider your budget, current car ownership, and house purchasing plans. You might find that after the house purchase the car refi isn't available either, or fine print means it wouldn't provide the savings you thought it would. Don't buy now hoping an uncertain cost-saving measure will work out later." "Go ahead, switch banks (and checking accounts) as often as you like. It won't affect your credit score since any credit check will be a ""soft pull"" (unless you're establishing a credit card or loan -- or overdraft protection, then it could be a ""hard pull"" that could affect your credit score). Bad karma? Hardly. Unethical? Absolutely not. You don't owe them anything. Practically speaking, it'd be easier just to switch once to a bank that has a fee structure you can live with -- as long as they don't change the rules on you." Absolutely nothing will happen. These credit history companies have no scruples and no reason to give a damn about consumers. Every recourse you have to fix inaccuracies in your credit history were won with legislation or litigation.  They don't care about you.