I pulled out my EXP CR, and saw a couple of my brother's CC accounts in my CR. I told my brother about it and he got so pissed. He said he gonna sue EXP. Can he do that? Anyway, I requested EXP to remove them from my CR, but they refused. EXP did not even bother to verify my disputes at all. Should I send EXP another dispute stating that these accounts belong to my bro? Thanks!
it's your report effected, not his, so he can't do anything. Elaborate a little more on Exp not verifying... the scenerio as you explained is a bit vague. What was their reason?
To avoid disputing too many accts at one time, I did not include my bro accounts which were reported to my CR on my first dispute. My second dispute, I included one account that EXP already investigated on my first dispute and 2 of my bro's accounts. EXP responded that they won't re-investigate. However, there are still 2 new accounts that were not investigated yet.
hmm, they should have done the other 2 for you.. FCRA violation there. Did you do this online? if so, maybe do the other via mail.
. 1*Can he do that? 2- Should I send EXP another dispute stating that these accounts belong to my bro? wonder | ================ 1*Don't see why not. 2*Absoutely not The END ************************* LB 59
Really? Suppose the brother has 2 perfectly paid cc accounts that are 3+ years old but are being reported on the posters file. If those are the only 2 cc accounts the brother has, is he not affected? I think he is. Why can't he do anything? If the accounts are legitimately the brothers, and they both are reporting to someone elses cra file, it seems to me the creditor is reporting bad info. The brother should calmly send a letter to the creditor explaining the screwup and ask them to correctly report the accts.
the assumption on my part was that the accounts were stilling show up on his brothers CR as well. If they aren't on his brothers, then yes I would agree he has every reason to get PO'd From what I can discern of the CRA's technology, their database records do not have solid relational "primary key" and "foreign key" links but are possibly dynamicly linked at the time of generating the report. This means one record could be returned on multiple CR's if that record shared enough indentifying characteristics (this would explain how purposely segregated files get merged, as it's not the SSN or any other single item that ties records to their owners, and how sometimes old TL's disappear from a womens CR when they get married).
