I recently disputed information listed on my Equifax credit report via their webservice. I received in the mail a new credit report from EQ with a note stating all tradelines I disputed were validated as correct. However, there was one huge problem with the report. While the new report had my correct SS# and birth date, it had a last name listed I've never even heard of and previous addresses I never lived at. I called Equifax to ask how can they claim my disputes were validated when my last name and addresses is completely wrong. I was informed by the CSR I spoke with that they would remove the incorrect name and addresses but would NOT re-investiage my disputes. Now what do I do? I know these accounts are not mine, and with EQ showing a completely false last name, it should be obvious to them. One other thing, when I asked the CSR how they can verify these debts as mine when my last name wasn't even correct, I was told if I sent in another request to investigate, they would list it as frivilous. Please help oh credit repair guru's!!!!
The more I read in these forums the more I'm convinced these CRAs WANT to get sued! They are just blatantly breaking the law daily! It's sick...
-Reckless suggestion -The results of the "investigation" is TOTALLY independant of the "erroneous" identifying information. -If the consumer's information was CORRECT when the dispute was sent, HOW DOES THE FACT THE PERSONAL INFO IS NOT CORRECT NOW, SHOW THE TRADELINE INFO WAS NOT CORRECT THEN? -It is ENTIRELY possible that the "investigation" of the tradelines resulted in them being "verified". -It is also possible AFTER the info on the tradelines was verified, the reporting agency made an "error" and changed some of the personal info. -They immediately said they would fix it when they were notified. -If the dispute of the tradelines was verified, then they have every right to presume an EXACT dispute would be frivilous. -Just in the few example scenerios above would be enough for the judge to question the validity of a consumers claim. -NOW...since the reporting agency has been notified of the problem of the personal info, and a DISPUTE is sent requesting they fix it, they are required to conduct a "reasonable investigation". THEN if they put the wrong info back, you have recourse under FCRA 623 (b). -Also re-dispute the tradelines WITH A SPECIFIC-DETAILED dispute (not just a not-mine). The same "reasonable investigtation" is required.
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute scary. "I recently disputed information listed on my Equifax credit report via their webservice. I received in the mail a new credit report from EQ with a note stating all tradelines I disputed were validated as correct. However, there was one huge problem with the report. " THIS IS THE ORIGINAL POST NO WHERE IN THIS DOES IT INDICATE THE PERSONAL INFO WAS INACCURATE BEFORE THE DISPUTE! "It is not an EXACT dispute. The re-investigation demand would be made based on the credit bureau now knowing what the correct last name and address should be. Therefore, it is not frivilous. " YES CORRECT. HOWEVER, they said A RE-DISPUTE OF THE TRADELINES WOULD BE FRIVILOUS. I really hope you prepare for your personal lawsuits more carefully than you read these posts
Whoa. I've been lurking for a few weeks and learning a LOT, and personally respect the opinions of BOTH of you. I feel compelled to beg that this not hit a new low level of flaming. PLEASE! It really hurts us all.
I agree...maybe clarification from the original poster about whether the personal info was correct on the original credit report, or if it was just incorrect on the SECOND report would be beneficial
So I'll clear two things up - first I'm a she, not a he as someone posted. Secondly, When I originally disputed the tradelines that had appeared on my report, my report had my correct last name and correct address along with correct previous addresses. When the CRA sent me their dispute decision along with a new copy of my credit report - my last name had been changed to the unknown one and two previous addresses were listed that I've never lived at. Hope this clears things up.
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute Just as a side note - when I received the new credit report with incorrect information I called the CRA. One of the questions I asked was how they got this last name I've never heard of. Their response was that it was reported by a creditor. I inquired which creditor had given the information so I could contact them and was told they didn't have that information!!! Credit repair is starting to make my head swim!!
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute sorry to keep beating a dead horse... Was the incorrect name and address info ON THE FIRST PAGE, AS THE "MAIN" name, or was it "other names and addresses" etc?
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute The incorrect names was on the main page of the report and also was used as the mailing name. The only reason we even opened the letter was that my first name has a unique spelling (that was correct) and the envelope looked familiar. The incorrect addresses appeared in the section for previous addresses. My old correct previous addresses were no longer listed, just the ones they inserted and again never lived at.
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute Hiding, re-read your CSC lawsuit (CitiBank - Gateway) As well as Johnson v. MBNA. TO VERIFY, MBNA only needed to provide 2 out of 4 pieces of information, NAME & ADDRESS. The other 2 being SSN, DOB - which MBNA did not have. If the NAME & ADDRESS which matched the data furnishers verification -- were the incorrect information, then the incorrect information being there is an UNREASONABLE INVESTIGATION according to Johnson v. MBNA; AND as the CSC suit showed, the procedures which were sufficient prior to the ID theft epidemic which we are in now, are now UNREASONABLE in light of the ID theft epidemic. Remember, the CRA's were the ones who designed the system to NOT be able to match what all the companies are reporting together so that the sources of the erroneous items could not be found. They should be able to isolate EVERYTHING being reported by every data furnisher constantly to ensure that they can find the exact data furnishers which are providing the eroneous information.
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute Jam I am well aware of the cases, HOWEVER, like LK, you have missed the points of the posts. 1- The original poster SENT A DISPUTE REGARDING TRADELINES on their credit report, which would require the reporting agency to conduct a "reasonable investigation"" into the matter OF THE TRADELINES. Can we agree on that? 2- The original poster's personal information WAS CORRECT ON THE OUTSET OF THE DISPUTE OF THE TRADELINES. Can we agree on this? 3-When the INVESTIGATION OF THE TRADELINES was returned to the poster, the personal identifying information WAS THEN INCORRECT. Can we agree on this? 4- SO, the reporting agency MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONDUCTED A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRADELINES as requested by the poster. This point is argueable as to whether they conducted an reasonable investigation INTO THE TRADELINES. BUT THEY SAY THEY DID. Can we agree that they at least THINK they conducted an investigation ? 5- NOW, here is my point. IF THEY THINK THEY HAVE CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRADELINES whether reasonable or not, THEY WILL CONCIDER ANOTHER DISPUTE INTO THE TRADELINES AS FRIVILOUS BECUASE THEY THINK THEY HAVE ALREADY INVESTIGATED THE TRADELINES. 6- The INACCURACY of the PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS A SEPERATE AND DISTINCT ISSUE FROM THE INVESTIGATION OF THE TRADELINES. 7- The reporting agency HAS AGREED TO "IMMEDIATELY" CORRECT THE PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, BUT INDICATED THEY WOULD CONCIDER ANOTHER DISPUTE OF THE TRADELINES FRIVILOUS 8- BECAUSE THE PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WAS INCORRECT AFTER THE INVESTIGATION, THIS DOES NOT INDICATE THE TRADELINE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT REASONABLE. 9- It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THE TRADELINE INVESTIGATION WAS REASONABLE, BUT AT THE CONCLUSION THERE WAS A BONA FIDE ERROR ON THE PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION. OF WHICH THEY OFFERED TO CORRECT. 10- SO, I hope this helps clarifies this. I WOULD AGREE THEY screwed UP. BUT "screw ups" are excusable under the law. 11- SO SUGGESTING THE POSTER FIRE OFF A LAWSUIT IS A RECKLESS SUGGESTION WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE POSSIBLE EXCUSES ETC THAT ARE PLAUSABLE.
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute In this case you seem to be more correct. From the time line it's obvious to me that there was either no investigation or the investigation into one (or more) of the tradelines was validated by incorrect information. Since the CRA will not give me the name of the creditor who gave them the incorrect name and addresses, it seems clear to me they accepted false information as truth on at least one investigation and for that reason they should investigate all three tradelines. I am writing the CRA today and requesting, no demanding, a re-investigation into the tradelines due to the incorrect name. I am also making a further demand. Since they verified the tradelines as correct by using flase information, I am demanding they remove the tradelines from my credit report until they can send to me, as required by the FCRA, the name, address and phone number of their contact people who verify the tradelines. If the CRA refuses to do so, I do plan on a lawsuit. It is amazing to me that the CRA's can take incorrect information and use it as a basis to substanciate their information. When it is brought to their attention, they fall back on a much overused "frivilous" line in the FCRA to refuse to do their job. I don't know about legally, I just believe in this case the CRA is trying to cover their rear ends in an attempt to show they are not in violation of the act. If and when this comes to a lawsuit, I hope you don't mind if I ask you a few questions to assure myself I am handling things correctly. Thanks for your assistance so far.
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute "9- It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THE TRADELINE INVESTIGATION WAS REASONABLE, BUT AT THE CONCLUSION THERE WAS A BONA FIDE ERROR ON THE PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION. OF WHICH THEY OFFERED TO CORRECT." How could there have been a bona fide investigation when the name they used to verify the tradeline is a name I've never had, heard of or used? Remember, it was not until AFTER I requested they investigate three tradelines that the information was listed on my report. From the CRA themselves, one of the creditors gave them this information. If a creditor is showing a name and address I have never had or used as validation of a debt, it is impossible for the tradeline to be mine. Secondly, as clearly stated in the FCRA the CRA can not report as accurate inaccurate information. The CRA admits it was an unnamed creditor that furnished the incorrect name and address. Not the CRA who changed the information. Right there tells me they did investigate as requested but used incorrect information to validate a debt. This is not only unreasonable but an obvious violation of the laws surrounding fair credit reporting.
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute Hiding... Would you agree... That if the consumer disputes the names & addresses today, and waits for the corrected report. THEN disputes all of the trade lines based on the fact that they were using incorrect personally identifying information to verify those trade lines. (Did they provide you with a verification request form with the results?) AND if they would verify the trade lines, AND ONCE AGAIN RETURN THE INCORRECT PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION in order to verify the trade lines again, that the case of CRA neglegence is proven. I had this same go-round with them for over 10 months, on an account in which the DATA FURNISHER settled with the FTC (well closed $24 MILLION in accounts; and paid state AG's offices an additional $1 MILLION for their expenses.) for FRAUD. Not only were they changing my DOB and address with every dispute, but they were verifying that the account was openned, and 120+ days late in the SAME MONTH. Thank goodness for Johnson v. MBNA, it finally gave me something that I could point to and say, when they conclusively verified this physical impossibility, and when you actually ACCEPTED this physical impossibility as fact, you both broke the law!
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute brytani: It's not that they won't give you the name of the furnisher who provided the erroneous information. It's that they designed the system so that they can not know who gave the incorrect information.
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute What's the deal with procedures request? Is that something that can be demanded of a CRA? or am I jumbling up the info I've gathered so far? Can't she simply get the name corrected then demand to have the procedures used in verifying/validating the info sent to her? Is procedures request limited to OC's and CA's? I need to update my notes and study some more so someone please clear this up.
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute You send the procedures request to the CRA. Essentially, most CRA's intigrate the procedures into the dispute answer. It's the information that sounds like... When you dispute, we look at what you sent. We then contact the data furnisher and ask them to respond. If available, the name, address, and phone number for the data furnisher is listed below. They believe that this type of incomplete, and inspecific answer is an appropriate response. That's why the only real way to get a real procedural request is to sue, have every person who works at the CRA who touched your dispute testify that they did not carry out a reasonable investigation in accordance with the FCRA.
Re: Re: CR refuses to investigate dispute Sgts Wife... If they designed the system in such a way that it would be possible to say that... On XX/XX/XXXX, XYZ Co reported Consumer Name ZYX XYZ ABC, Address 1313 Mockingbird Lane; Notown, NS, in reference to account number XXXXXXX**** Then all they would have to do when faced with a wrong address dispute would be to track that information back to the original data furnisher. Instead, they intentionally designed the system in such a way that they can intentionally avoid knowing who is the provider of the erroneous information. In cases such as this, what probably happened is that two of the disputed accounts 'verified' the erroneous information. Since they had the incorrect information coming from not one, but two or more data furnisher, they believe that the incorrect information is correct. We have to prove what we tell them, they don't need to prove what they are telling them to screw it up in the first place.
