• Text Only
74ak said: 74ak said: Glitch99 said:
I've had ~55 CK pulls since those inquiries. So allowing for some soft pulls from creditors over the past 8 months, it seem that bumpage may still be working as always - requiring the estimated 60-70 pulls to fill up your file - but now excludes TU/TC-based services. My remaining 5 inquiries that had been re-added *should* drop off again after another week of CK updates, if this is in fact true.


to confirm: I was using TC ans CS to b* 3 months. Lately I am pulling CS (EX based)only. 2 days ago 2 inqs on TU were back, 1 of them is gone today. Also, I used CS only fo my GF, and none of TU inqs is back

Today my 2nd inq dropped. B* continues

Can you confirm that you're getting bumpage on your TU report through credit secure? How long were these inquiries been on your report before they got bumped? Is anyone else having similar success with credit secure?

Okay, for one thing, I'm glad I was never disciplined enough to actually do soft pulls daily so that hard pulls would be bumped off my report. TransUnion has caused me no angst with this change.

That said, I can't help but feel that TU's actions are less than responsible. If their software caused certain inquiries to stop appearing on credit reports, that is their problem. If an inquiry was previously not reported, but now is being reported, then that seems to me to be a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act -- see esp. §607(b), which states:

Accuracy of report. Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.

Also see §607(a), which says (Note: The reference to 610(a)(1) has to do with properly identifying consumers before providing credit info):

Information on file; sources; report recipients. Every consumer reporting agency shall,
upon request, and subject to 610(a)(1) [§ 1681h], clearly and accurately disclose to the
consumer:

...

(5) A record of all inquiries received by the agency during the 1-year period preceding the request that identified the consumer in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that was not initiated by the consumer.


If TU had the information in its databases, but did not provide that information on the report, then it's clear that they were providing an inaccurate report. While I doubt anyone would win a lawsuit against them for this, you might still be able to have the inquiries removed from your report. Here's one method that anyone affected by this change could try:

- Get a copy of a report you pulled recently (assuming you kept a copy...)
- Print out a current copy of your report and highlight the old inquiries that were added since the previous report
- Write a letter to TU dispute dept. that says something to the effect of the following:

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to inform you of several old inquiries now appearing on my credit report that did not appear on a recent version my report. Since the dates of these inquiries are earlier than both reports, they should have appeared on both reports. However, since they do not appear on my report dated [DD Mon., YYYY], I believe these inquiries may be inaccurate and as such they should be removed from my report. I have listed the inquiries in question below, and have highlighted them in the enclosed copy of my credit report dated [DD Mon., YYYY].

[List out the details of each inquiry that appears on the new report and not the previous one -- remember to list only those that are older than both reports]

If the inquiries are indeed accurate, I would like to have a full explanation as to why they did not appear on my previous report. Furthermore, as a subscriber to your [XXX] credit monitoring service, which purported to provide accurate access to my credit report on a daily basis, I would like a full refund of the fee I paid for this service, as it did not accurately describe my credit report. According to my records, I paid $[XX] between [YY-date] and [ZZ-date] for your service. You may mail a refund check to the return address listed above.

Also, if the inquiries are indeed accurate, please understand that I will be filing a complaint with Federal Trade Commission describing how your company has violated my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not accurately reporting the true status of my credit report.

I look forward to hearing a response from you forthwith.

Sincerely,

John Q. Fatwallet



DISLCAIMER: I am not a lawyer or TU associate.

cashonlyplease said: djspray said: PorStaker said: djspray said: From 0 -> 18 inq's overnight. 723 -> 678. Can't wait to ride this one out...

18?! Dear lord man, I hope you have something to show for all of those.

Two years of AOR's, and a few CLI's. Should lose ~10 by November. Planning mostly TU inq's used to be the best way to go, lol. Now to figure out what creditors do account reviews using TU...


Citi pulled EX on my application for credit but pulls TU for AR. The only one I see who does AR other than that is Juniper. I doubt you want to go in that direction.


Citi has always always (always!) pulled TU for me. I applied for a new credit card with them last week, but this time they pulled EX. I haven't moved and I have even applied for this same credit card before (with a TU inquiry). So, if you think you know what any creditor is going to pull, don't be too sure. They might be getting smarter.

FYI note: So far, I haven't had any bumped-off inquires come back on my TU report.

abracadabra1 said: 74ak said: 74akto confirm: I was using TC ans CS to b* 3 mont said: hs. Lately I am pulling CS (EX based)only. 2 days ago 2 inqs on TU were back, 1 of them is gone today. Also, I used CS only fo my GF, and none of TU inqs is back
Today my 2nd inq dropped. B* continues

Can you confirm that you're getting bumpage on your TU report through credit secure? How long were these inquiries been on your report before they got bumped? Is anyone else having similar success with credit secure?

I think tolamapS perfectly dissected TUA statement and it looks like TU can't "touch" non-TU based soft pulls for whatever reason, only TU-based softs are deleted; Credit Secure is EX based so...this is the sequence:
07/02/08 0 Inqs
07/03/08 2 Inqs (6-9 months old)
07/04/08 2 Inqs
07/05/08 1 Inq
07/06/08 1 Inq
07/07/08 0 Inq

I could probably take a look at actual soft pulls on my TU report, but I am too lazy, and anyway Glitch should report back this week if his inqs are b* off

dylan38 said: Okay, for one thing, I'm glad I was never disciplined enough to actually do soft pulls daily so that hard pulls would be bumped off my report. TransUnion has caused me no angst with this change.

That said, I can't help but feel that TU's actions are less than responsible. If their software caused certain inquiries to stop appearing on credit reports, that is their problem. If an inquiry was previously not reported, but now is being reported, then that seems to me to be a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act -- see esp. §607(b), which states:

Accuracy of report. Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.

Also see §607(a), which says (Note: The reference to 610(a)(1) has to do with properly identifying consumers before providing credit info):

Information on file; sources; report recipients. Every consumer reporting agency shall,
upon request, and subject to 610(a)(1) [§ 1681h], clearly and accurately disclose to the
consumer:

...

(5) A record of all inquiries received by the agency during the 1-year period preceding the request that identified the consumer in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that was not initiated by the consumer.


If TU had the information in its databases, but did not provide that information on the report, then it's clear that they were providing an inaccurate report. While I doubt anyone would win a lawsuit against them for this, you might still be able to have the inquiries removed from your report. Here's one method that anyone affected by this change could try:

- Get a copy of a report you pulled recently (assuming you kept a copy...)
- Print out a current copy of your report and highlight the old inquiries that were added since the previous report
- Write a letter to TU dispute dept. that says something to the effect of the following:

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to inform you of several old inquiries now appearing on my credit report that did not appear on a recent version my report. Since the dates of these inquiries are earlier than both reports, they should have appeared on both reports. However, since they do not appear on my report dated [DD Mon., YYYY], I believe these inquiries may be inaccurate and as such they should be removed from my report. I have listed the inquiries in question below, and have highlighted them in the enclosed copy of my credit report dated [DD Mon., YYYY].

[List out the details of each inquiry that appears on the new report and not the previous one -- remember to list only those that are older than both reports]

If the inquiries are indeed accurate, I would like to have a full explanation as to why they did not appear on my previous report. Furthermore, as a subscriber to your [XXX] credit monitoring service, which purported to provide accurate access to my credit report on a daily basis, I would like a full refund of the fee I paid for this service, as it did not accurately describe my credit report. According to my records, I paid $[XX] between [YY-date] and [ZZ-date] for your service. You may mail a refund check to the return address listed above.

Also, if the inquiries are indeed accurate, please understand that I will be filing a complaint with Federal Trade Commission describing how your company has violated my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not accurately reporting the true status of my credit report.

I look forward to hearing a response from you forthwith.

Sincerely,

John Q. Fatwallet



DISLCAIMER: I am not a lawyer or TU associate.
In response to the items I bolded, in order:

If the inquiry is accurate and permissable, then how is it a violation to display it on the report? The only time provision is that it CANNOT be included after two years. An inquiry can be suddenly added to your report 729 days after it was made, as long as it was for a permissable purpose and as long as it is then removed the following day as will have been 2 years.

There is no requirement that a credit report has to contain any particular data, just that all information that is included on the report must be accurate.

The inquiries being chopped are in fact ones that had been initiated by the consumer, which is clearly not covered by that clause.

toy4two said: companies like Privacy Matters are going to see their customer renewals fall through the floor next year.Time to sell!

74ak said: I could probably take a look at actual soft pulls on my TU report, but I am too lazy, and anyway Glitch should report back this week if his inqs are b* offThey are all now gone. 6 inquiries were added back, and after 4 CK and 3 PM123 updates, my inquiries are back to 0. Its worth re-noting that I had a healthy stack of CK updates AFTER the hard inquiries, so the hard inquiries were the oldest ones, both hard and soft, on my report.

Seems like TC/PM123 softs are still accumulating as well (as i didnt update enough times to get this result without including PM123), and they simply deleted what was on the report at the time they applied their 'fix'. Perhaps this will become a monthly or quarterly activity, chopping TC inquiries? Otherwise it was a pretty pointless exercise.

Glitch99 said:
If the inquiry is accurate and permissable, then how is it a violation to display it on the report? The only time provision is that it CANNOT be included after two years. An inquiry can be suddenly added to your report 729 days after it was made, as long as it was for a permissable purpose and as long as it is then removed the following day as will have been 2 years.

There is no requirement that a credit report has to contain any particular data, just that all information that is included on the report must be accurate.

The inquiries being chopped are in fact ones that had been initiated by the consumer, which is clearly not covered by that clause.


Glitch, this response of yours leads me to think that you view Dylan or myself as specifically going after making the inqs disappear. NO. Inqs do belong to the report, BUT TU has to be kept responsible for failing to "assure maximum possible accuracy of the information." We know it was possible to show the inqs, but TU did not bother to "assure ...", so they should be liable for that under FCRA (I'm no lawyer, but something tells me that there will lawyers making a bunch of $$ on this).

I needed to purchase a car last year (Sept. 07) and because of my bad credit, it was difficult to get financing. In 10 days, several dealships had pulled my credit and together in that period there was 23 inquires. I was told that multiple inquires in a 2 wk period for something like a car or house loan would be considered 1 inquiry and not to worry. I have bad credit due to a loss of job and Im trying to improve my scores and this was a major factor to me..my score. I belong to TransUnions credit monitoring service called TrueCredit, to keep track of my score as I tried to improve it.

All three credit bureaus did NOT clump these together, in fact it lowered my score by 27 points. I called all of them, wrote some letters about this issue (inquires) and none of them would address it. OR fix it. Sooooooooooooo in the past year, TransUnion and Experian slowly bumped them off, bring my inquires up, making my score higher. (I'm feeling unjustly pentalized, because these inquires where made together for one purpose with these agencies resisting to correct) and so when they dropped off in the last couple months I felt somehow things were equal.

Well..guess what..July 3, 2008, checking my account, 25 inquires were again reinserted into the TransUnion report, dropping my score down to 27 points. I called and address this with someone from India, or Turkey with a thick accent (this REALLY UPSETS ME when I cant understand whats being said to me). And they went on to explain how those should have never been taken off.

Im not sure about the 'less than 1 yr rule' because it DID impact my score so much. And yes Im aware that these arent the 'true' scores that lenders use, but they are close. SO..my friends..the bumping is over sorry to say.

llh703 said: ... I called and address this with someone from India, or Turkey with a thick accent (this REALLY UPSETS ME when I cant understand whats being said to me). And they went on to explain how those should have never been taken off.


First rule of FW is "DO NOT CALL!!!"

llh703 said:

Well..guess what..July 3, 2008, checking my account, 25 inquires were again reinserted into the TransUnion report, dropping my score down to 27 points. I called and address this with someone from India, or Turkey with a thick accent (this REALLY UPSETS ME when I cant understand whats being said to me). And they went on to explain how those should have never been taken off.


So all your car dealership pulled your TU only? I think you should consider yourself lucky. If they pulled EXP... uh-oh...

Crap. Went from 4 to 26. Booo on TU.

cyberkost said: Glitch, this response of yours leads me to think that you view Dylan or myself as specifically going after making the inqs disappear. NO. Inqs do belong to the report, BUT TU has to be kept responsible for failing to "assure maximum possible accuracy of the information." We know it was possible to show the inqs, but TU did not bother to "assure ...", so they should be liable for that under FCRA (I'm no lawyer, but something tells me that there will lawyers making a bunch of $$ on this).Not really towards you or anyone specific - I was just trying to make the point that "assuring maximum accuracy of the information" is assuring the accuracy of the information provided on the report, not assuring that the report contains any specific individual piece of data. The FCRA (and any other relevant law) only covers the information actually PROVIDED ON THE REPORT. The FCRA (nor any other law that I know of) does not apply to information that COULD have been provided but was not. If TU provided you a copy of your report today that is completely blank, there would be no violations as long as that is what they would provide to anyone else requesting it as well.

I too am not a lawyer (so take my statements for whatever value you want), but I find the distinction to be rather clear.

llh703 said: Well..guess what..July 3, 2008, checking my account, 25 inquires were again reinserted into the TransUnion report, dropping my score down to 27 points. Well, it seems they are giving consideration for 'bunching', as inquiries typically cost you 2-4 point each - which would've caused you a 50-80 point drop had they been treated individually.

llh703 said: Well..guess what..July 3, 2008, checking my account, 25 inquires were again reinserted into the TransUnion report, dropping my score down to 27 points.

Worst score ever.

Glitch99 said: cyberkost said: Glitch, this response of yours leads me to think that you view Dylan or myself as specifically going after making the inqs disappear. NO. Inqs do belong to the report, BUT TU has to be kept responsible for failing to "assure maximum possible accuracy of the information." We know it was possible to show the inqs, but TU did not bother to "assure ...", so they should be liable for that under FCRA (I'm no lawyer, but something tells me that there will lawyers making a bunch of $$ on this).Not really towards you or anyone specific - I was just trying to make the point that "assuring maximum accuracy of the information" is assuring the accuracy of the information provided on the report, not assuring that the report contains any specific individual piece of data. The FCRA (and any other relevant law) only covers the information actually PROVIDED ON THE REPORT. The FCRA (nor any other law that I know of) does not apply to information that COULD have been provided but was not. If TU provided you a copy of your report today that is completely blank, there would be no violations as long as that is what they would provide to anyone else requesting it as well.

I too am not a lawyer (so take my statements for whatever value you want), but I find the distinction to be rather clear.


um-m ... what you are essentially saying is that TU is absolutely free to withhold any information they want from one's credit report for a period of time as long as do it consistently, i.e., regardless of who's requesting the report ... I find it hard to believe.

cyberkost said: um-m ... what you are essentially saying is that TU is absolutely free to withhold any information they want from one's credit report for a period of time as long as do it consistently, i.e., regardless of who's requesting the report ... I find it hard to believe.I'd say the only thing 'requiring' them to report anything is the integrity of the reports and their ability to sell them to lenders, etc.

Glitch99, I have read many of your post and have found them to be right on. The help you give to the newbies is great. Your position that if something is omitted from a report makes it just incomplete but still accurate is beyond me. You’re basically saying they can pick and choose what they want to report and the report is still accurate. What about one of the most important things they provide, my score. Is this accurate or just incomplete?

Rorer714 said: Your position that if something is omitted from a report makes it just incomplete but still accurate is beyond me.
Well, there's a similar vein. A lender doesn't have to report your loan information to any credit bureau. But if they do, then it has to be accurate.

markkundinger said: Rorer714 said: Your position that if something is omitted from a report makes it just incomplete but still accurate is beyond me.
Well, there's a similar vein. A lender doesn't have to report your loan information to any credit bureau. But if they do, then it has to be accurate.
Just to clarify, I am referring to items that have been reported to the CRA. For whatever reason they omitted them from your report. That makes your report incomplete and inaccurate. More important it makes your score inaccurate.

Rorer714 said: Glitch99, I have read many of your post and have found them to be right on. The help you give to the newbies is great. Your position that if something is omitted from a report makes it just incomplete but still accurate is beyond me. You’re basically saying they can pick and choose what they want to report and the report is still accurate. What about one of the most important things they provide, my score. Is this accurate or just incomplete?I guess I cant really put it any other way - the FCRA (and any other laws I'm aware of) apply specifically to your report and the accuracy of the information ON THAT REPORT. Any information not actually included on the report is not considered 'information' under the law.

You are correct in a broad sense, that missing info can make a report as inaccurate as wrong info does. But as Mark said as well, there are no requirements for lenders to report, even though them not doing so may make your credit report just are inaccurate. All aspects of reporting is voluntary. Heck, I believe TU restricts what lenders they will even accept information from - if my customer owes me $50,000 and is 90 days past due, I cant report the debt no matter how much I want to, unless I turn it over to a collection agency who does have that ability. How is that making their report any less 'inaccurate', by your definition?

I think we are wandering (if that is the right word) a little bit here. We are talking (I am) about items that are reported to the CRA, that CRA included in our report, that the CRA then took off our report and finally put back on the report. At some point the report is not accurate, which in turn makes are score not accurate. I guess we interpret this passage differently:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy of report. Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.

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

If I have 3 CC with Chase and all 3 are reported to the CRA, they are required to include all 3 on my report. That is the way I interpret it.

Just for fun:
You make a deposit for 100.00 on 1/1.
Your balance shows 500.00 on 2/1 (includes deposit from 1/1)
3/1, 4/1 and 5/1 still show 500.00
6/1 shows 400.00 because deposit from 1/1 got bumped (couldn’t resist) from the system
Would you call your balance accurate?

downhillskier said: Citi has always always (always!) pulled TU for me. I applied for a new credit card with them last week, but this time they pulled EX. I haven't moved and I have even applied for this same credit card before (with a TU inquiry). So, if you think you know what any creditor is going to pull, don't be too sure. They might be getting smarter.Like I said in the Citi AA thread, it'll be intersting to see where they pull in the future. Looks to me like they went with a non-bump source. Maybe their switch even prompted TU to fix their problem. I think losing an account like Citi got someone's attention.

Still not showing any TU pulls as of today. Probably have three or four over the past year that had been bumped off.

This via American Express's service (Credit Secure?).

If my hunch is correct, you can bet TU will provide Citi with a list of reinsertions (is that going to feel like it sounds?) and some free softs in order to restore confidence. Better hope non-TU b* works...

Here's a data point I don't think anyone had before:
18 inq's don't affect your FAKO anymore than 17.

(One of my exposed inq's fell off today, and my score stayed the same, lol)

markkundinger said: Rorer714 said: Your position that if something is omitted from a report makes it just incomplete but still accurate is beyond me.
Well, there's a similar vein. A lender doesn't have to report your loan information to any credit bureau. But if they do, then it has to be accurate.


I think there are a couple of other laws too:

(a) if a creditor reports negative information, then they have to report positive information too,
(b) if a credit reports information about some customers, then they have to report information about other customers too.

Statistically speaking, if they don't do a and b above, then the data is subject to selective bias.

There were some utilities that used to report severe delinquency (not a collection, btw). But then they must have gotten into trouble, and then were required to report info about all their customers.

Looking at the thread of conversation between glitch, rorer and cyberkost, I am thinking that by allowing B* TU was already in violation of FCRA.

1. FCRA requires hard inquiries to stay at least 12 months,
2. TU allowed inquiries less than 1 year old to be bumped.

Therefor, TU was in violation of FCRA.

I don't know if you can pull a codename47-style lawsuit based on this, but technically, TU would be in violation of FCRA.

How would you prove it? Very easy:

- apply for credit,
- wait until inquiry shows up,
- pay to get a paper report,
- pull credit until bumped,
- pay to get a paper report again.
- sue.

Glitch99 said: If the inquiry is accurate and permissable, then how is it a violation to display it on the report? The only time provision is that it CANNOT be included after two years. An inquiry can be suddenly added to your report 729 days after it was made, as long as it was for a permissable purpose and as long as it is then removed the following day as will have been 2 years.

The violation isn't that the report currently shows legitimate inquiries. The violation is that the report previously did NOT display legitimate inquiries, and thus it was previously inaccurate. The language of the FCRA is that the report (not just individual items on the report) must be as accurate as possible. Assuming that TU had the information (which I think is a reasonable assumption) and simply did not display it on the report because of a software glitch, then they violated the FCRA by not providing a report that was as accurate as possible.

Note that the draft I provided in no way implies that any items ARE inaccurate. I drafted the letter in such a way as to say that some inquiries MAY be in accurate. The request, then, is that if the items are inaccurate, the CRA should remove them; if they items are accurate, the CRA should provide a refund of the credit monitoring service (since the monitoring service did not live up to its end of the contract to provide an accurate report) and provide an explanation as to why those legitimate items didn't show up before.

For me, it's more of a thought experiment than anything. Unlike others, I am not affected by this change because I was too lazy to do bumpage when it was possible.

Later.

dylan38 said: Assuming that TU had the information (which I think is a reasonable assumption) and simply did not display it on the report because of a software glitch, then they violated the FCRA by not providing a report that was as accurate as possible.

And TU will say that they could not have reasonably anticipated that people would "abuse" their system through "manipulation" of the credit monitoring services, so it was not "possible" for them to report the data any more accurately. And as soon as they were able to implement a system that was "fair" to consumers, they did.

Not that I necessarily agree, but it does seem like a very strong defense to me.

jef2000 said: dylan38 said: Assuming that TU had the information (which I think is a reasonable assumption) and simply did not display it on the report because of a software glitch, then they violated the FCRA by not providing a report that was as accurate as possible.

And TU will say that they could not have reasonably anticipated that people would "abuse" their system through "manipulation" of the credit monitoring services, so it was not "possible" for them to report the data any more accurately. And as soon as they were able to implement a system that was "fair" to consumers, they did.

Not that I necessarily agree, but it does seem like a very strong defense to me.


TU and others have marketed their credit report monitoring services with the FEATURE of being able to pull your report daily. IMHO, it would be very disingenuous on their part to argue that taking advantage of such an advertised feature is "abusing" the system. Not to say they wouldn't argue that way, just that it would be disingenuous.

Again, I'm not saying anyone would win any lawsuits on this argument, but a refund of your credit monitoring service fees may not be out of the question.

So both me and my wife's TU inquiries came back. We both pulled using PM123.

I wonder if it's worth pulling with CreditSecure now. Has anyone been able to B* inquiries back off using CS? It seems like the CS b* people still have their inquiries off their report.

If you had inquiries come back, could you please take a second and add to the Quick Summary along these lines:

Username: (# inquiries returned), (date returned or first notices), (first initial of last name), (b* services being used)

For example:

Venturion: 17, 7/8/2008, "V", PM123, NCIP, CS123, CK
(in my case, this is fictional since I haven't had inquiries reappear - yet?)

Venturion said: If you had inquiries come back, could you please take a second and add to the Quick Summary along these lines:

Username: (# inquiries returned), (date returned or first notices), (first initial of last name), (b* services being used)

For example:

Venturion: 17, 7/8/2008, "V", PM123, NCIP, CS123, CK
(in my case, this is fictional since I haven't had inquiries reappear - yet?)


WHAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!? lol

What a disappointment?! Venturion is TU mole

74ak said: What a disappointment?! Venturion is TU mole

Surely not - I suspect he is a class-action lawyer.

Nummerkins said: Guess I'll have to remove my red. My inquiries showed back up.

I don't really care though. Even when doing AORs I haven't been denied for 'too many inquiries'. I donly encountered this when I started building my credit. Once your file is established, I don't think their impact is as severe, aside from the score drop.

No severe impact except the score drop. That's like when an airplane crashes in the desert. There is no severe impact except to the airplane and its occupants.

Just to add a data point, I bumped ~6 inquiries in Jan/Feb and ~2 since then using a variety of services (namely, CreditKarma, CreditSecure, Privacy Matters 123, ChaseIDProtect and TrueCredit).

So far, so good, none have reappeared. That could be due to the sheer volume of soft-inquiries I've had since Jan/Feb, which is not surprising.

edit: for those wondering, I only used free trials or paid for 1 month of each of those services at a maximum. I'm not quite that crazy--more curious.

Floydian said: So far, so good, none have reappeared. That could be due to the sheer volume of soft-inquiries I've had since Jan/Feb, which is not surprising.
Wondering if that's why none of mine (knock on wood) have come back.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014