Called today about judgment dispute that came back previously investigated. I told rep wasn't mine. She said they get info from third party and they verified. It is now up to me to prove it's not mine. EXP is not responsible for errors recv'd from third party, they just report it. I ask name of third party and how to contact them, and was told it couldn't be given out. I guess it's time to send some letters explaining the law to them, since they obviously don't know it.
Also send a complaint to the FTC and to your state's AG. Include the absurd position they claimed, that "they just report", yet they won't give you the name of the party reporting. You may later need to sue to get this fixed, but not at least filing complaints will only delay getting your file corrected. They can't have it both ways. The reality is probably that they get their public record information from some service, and both are responsible for accuracy. If the CRA uses but does not disclose the furnisher, then they are fully responsible for accuracy regardless of errors made by their undisclosed furnisher. �§ 609. Disclosures to consumers [15 U.S.C. �§ 1681g] (a) 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: (1) All information in the consumer's file at the time of the request, except that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to disclose to a consumer any information concerning credit scores or any other risk scores or predictors relating to the consumer. (2) The sources of the information; except that the sources of information acquired solely for use in preparing an investigative consumer report and actually used for no other purpose need not be disclosed: Provided, That in the event an action is brought under this title, such sources shall be available to the plaintiff under appropriate discovery procedures in the court in which the action is brought.
Another poster was stating that they were having problems with TU verifying judgements, after some brow-beating, they finally disclosed that Lexis/Nexis was the third-party source of information. What I would do is send a Procedures Request, requesting the name and address of the source which verified the information. Hopefully, they respond providing the information as a part of the procedures request, if not, then I would send a dispute to the BBB for CA (their home office is in Orange, CA; and not TX). If you still run into problems, next step would be your state, and their state AG's offices... Still no luck, the Federal Trade Commission (with the paper trail from the other three steps, you should have enough pressure by then.)
The first CR that shows the results (of the investigation regarding your dispute) may have the business name and address of the person that the CRA contacted in connection with their alleged investigation. At the very least, that CR should notify you that you may request "...the business name and address of any furnisher contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available." Have a look at Section 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii). The "Previously Investigated" notice is a subject that I have posted on here within the past 2-3 months. I believe that this notice violates Section 1681i(a)(3)(C)(ii). In a nutshell: The CRA has precisely two choices upon their receipt of a consumer's dispute: (1) perform the "Reinvestigation required" by 1681i(a)(1), or (2) determine that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant. Therefore, by default, a failure to reinvestigate is indicative of either a willful violation of 1681i(a)(1) or alternatively, a determination of "frivolous or irrelevant." Experian has admitted to me that the "Previously Investigated" notice is a determination of "frivolous or irrelevant." (This is a decent choice considering the alternative, lol) Experian's "Previously Investigated" notice does not provide notice of "identification of any information required to investigate the disputed information..." in compliance with 1681i(a)(3)(C)(ii). The purpose for Experian's failure is simple: Experian don't wanna reinvestigate...particularly if the alleged investigation never occurred in the first instance. So the consumer gets to keep the derrogatory tradeline and Experian conserves manpower--it's part of their business model.
Ok, so in sum, here is what a consumer in your shoes could do: Demand the name, address and telephone number of the furnisher that was contacted in connection with the alleged "investigation." The CRAs read "reasonably available" to mean that provision of the phone number is subject to their pure discretion. Instead, I think that it demands the question: "What is your REASON for not having the telephone number?" Give meaning to the words. Find out who it is that is furnishing this false information. Report back, please, and don't let Experian drive you crazy...you don't wanna end up like me.
