Banks used to be entities that could be respected. In the present financial situation many small ones are being gobbled up by the big ones that got us here. They are doing any thing they can get away with to make bucks. Some of the things they do are illegal but get under the radar till a class action contest brings them to light. The commercials you see for credit reports may have very small print disclaimers saying that you are signing up for a daily, weekly or monthly report that will cost on a regular basis. That is why the bad "rock" band is no longer blaring at is. Check to see if there is a fine print agreement to consistently charge for regular credit reports. I think looking for a small local bank or a credit union is the best move to make at this time. Why use the ones that messed up the economy?

(I have deposited more-than-a-year-old checks and had them clear; I can understand why your DH did this, as well as him not noticing. Also, my next-door neighbors were getting old a senile, and didn't cash pension checks; they got a letter saying "did you get your check? it hasn't been cashed? but it was many months later, and it was several checks still on the DR table, not one check) when they took the money out of your savings account, did they give the "defective" check back to you? Shouldn't they have? Demand it be returned to you. (a lesson to us all--if we are giving a bank money back for a check, we should get the check physically returned to us) Unless they submitted it all over again? Here's what I think happened, if I understand this right. (some queries, though) 1. You give them a check, they give you cash. 2. They send the check to the central clearing house (the Federal Reserve?) to get their money. 3. The central clearing house gives the CU its money, and sends the check on to GM to get the money back from them. 4. GM sends the check--but no money--back to the central clearing house as "defective"'; the central clearing house is still in need of money. 5. The central clearing house sends the check back to the CU as "defective" and wants its money back from them. I would think the CU would have an account of money it would use to cover this; it pays the central clearing house, and the central clearing house is out of it. 6. the CU brings the check back to you, and says they want that money back; they take it out of your account. THEY SHOULD GIVE THE CHECK BACK TO YOU--it is your property, once they have their money back. At the very least, they should have destroyed it, but really they should have given it to you so YOU could destroy it. I'm thinking this is where the CU goofed, and I'd press this point. 7. You get a replacement check, and submit it, and the "you to the CU to the central clearing house to GM" chain works, this time. (can you get the folks at GM to send you a copy of their canceled check, the replacement one that supposedly worked just fine? Might be nice to have) Suddenly the old "defective" check is around. (Sometimes if a check is returned for "insufficient funds," the bank will resubmit it, just in case the money will turn up. They will bill the depositor $15, and then if it's returned twice, they'll bill another $15; the check-writer's account will get billed as well each time; this was unpopular, so some banks don't make a second attempt. I'm wondering if your "defective" check got slipped into the "insufficient funds" category and was REsubmitted? So, let's postulate: 8. The credit union resubmits the check to the central clearing house (Federal Reserve?) to get the money. BUT IF THIS IS THE CASE, then they should have RECREDITED your account when they RESUBMITTED the check. (because if they don't give you any money, then they shouldn't be getting any money from anyone else--it's not their money, it's yours, they're just the "pipe" to move it around) Did they? If you can get them to trace their records of when the check was submitted, can you insist that they DO credit your account w/ the money, on that day? 9. The clearing house (FR?) gives the CU the money, and sends the "defective" check on to GM. 10. GM marks the "defective" check w/ a confusing note that was *intended* to indicate that this check has been replaced w/another check, and sends it, but no money, to the clearing house (FR?) 11. The clearing house sends the check back to the CU, demanding its money back. 12. The CU comes to you demanding the money that it owes to the FR. So, did they "give you money" for that check twice (once in cash, once by crediting your account)? No, you say--but if this is what happened, then they should have. Or else someone put that check in the wrong stack somewhere--and I'd want to SEE that check, and I'd want to try to figure who where the "in lieu of" came from. So they should have given you money twice, and asked to get money back from you twice. Maybe if that's the chain of events, you can make them re-credit your savings account w/t he money they owe you from having resubmitted the check (treating it as though you deposited it all over again), and then they can take it back out again. Good luck!

While we would all like credit scores to be based on personal financial responsibility, they simply are not. While the exact calculation of scores are secret, the data selected is not. It is entirely possible that being financially responsible will yield a good credit score, it is also possible that it will not. Take 100 people that manage their finances responsibly and 95 may also have good credit scores, but 5 will not. The OP is one of those 5. I hate to use personal anecdotes to support an idea with so much hard data behind it, but here it goes. When I returned from working in the Middle East I returned to a paid off home, I had no US credit cards and my vehicle was paid for. I still had all the normal utility bills and things. So far as I can remember I have never paid a bill late and for sure not in 10 years, my credit absolutely died during this period. I assumed that having a small measure of personal wealth and having no use for credit cards was sufficient. I was shocked when I applied for a home loan. With liquid assets more than 20 times the loan amount, I was initially declined. I had to meet with the VP of lending to get the loan approved and at that time I started researching credit. I absolutely agree that the current system is broken but there can be little argument on the basis of that system.

According to the article I read, requests to freeze and/or “thaw” made by phone or online must be completed “within a day”. Requests made by mail, three days of receipt of the request. You would have to do this for all three - Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. There’s a fourth company I believe but it was not mentioned in the article. Each person making the request will be given a PIN to be used when undoing the freeze.