Since we last refinanced our mortgage, I've found that my father's credit was interspersed throughout my credit report. Generally this wasn't a problem, as he had good credit. Prior he needed to go to a long term care facility which forced my mother to claim bancrupty, (which now he has crappy credit, but he has since died, so it doesn't bother him anymore) TU & EF have both done admirably in removing his credit references from my report (with little fuss). Experian on the other hand.... One creditor, we both had accounts with, so EX shows both accounts on my credit report. I first tried to have it removed in August. Since it had a date opened in 1977 (I was 13 at the time, I figured this was a no brainer). EX verified the account, and the creditor verified that it was mine. I have since contacted the creditor, only to find out that years ago, my SSN was placed on his account (guess the different Birthdates weren't enough for them to figure out we were two different people), so that's why they did verify it to be mine. They have since corrected the SSN Problem. They stated they sent a letter to EX (actually to all three, but EX was the only one that mattered), telling them to remove it did not belong to me. EX tried to verify this once again, and again they say the creditor verified it. Contacted the creditor again. they said his account does NOT have my SSN and that EX must be mistaken. 1. Asked creditor for a letter stating that the account does not belong to me. Creditor refused since the account is not mine, they can't mail me something that doesn't belong to me (account #). 2. They won't mail my mother a letter, since she is not on the credit account as the primary account holder. 3. They won't talk to Experian because it's not my account. (I'm thinking they sent a letter to EX telling them it belongs to my father, but not to remove it from mine). 1. Experian won't supply me with a copy of the form which the creditor "verified" the account with, so I can show the creditor. 2. Experian won't supply me with the FULL account#'s either, and both start with the same #'s. I'm in the process of bitching to the AG's in both the creditor's state and TX (for Experian), and the FTC regarding this matter. At what point am I able to sue either the creditor or the CRA for this F-UP, since I have been denied credit because of it. (this entry reflects a bancrupcy so it's not just a late payment...) Any other suggestions? GG in NJ
this may be too simple, but if you challenge the account again with the CRA will they come back and say it is verified again or will they try to verify and then find out that is not your account and delete it from your credit report.
Well, last time I tried, I spoke to the creditor on 09/30, supposedly it was fixed on 09/30. I then had EX re-verify on 10/1, Creditor states letter went out on 10/7, per EX, creditor verified on 11/01 that it was still my account. On 11/3 I had Ex reverify again, just in case it really wasn't fixed right away. But...here is what I think is the problem. If they send the account # that is DISPLAY, the partial, along with my name, address, SSN, date of birth, then YES, the creditor will verify that it is my account. If they however, send the FULL account#, then the creditor should not verify it. (or if they include the date the account was opened). EX stated they send the entire account#, but she couldn't tell me if the two had differnet account #'s. It's really annoying me now. 30 days, OK, 60 days tolerable, 90+ days, unacceptable for getting this resolved. EX states I have to have creditor fix the problem, Creditor says they did, now EX has to fix the problem. Round and round she goes. GG in NJ
you're right; that's too simple. one would think that you could simply dispute as not mine; the CRA would not be able to confirm identity and ownership; and delete ... but more than likely, Exp will "verify". My suggestion is to fatten them both up for the killing. If you've already disputed, send them both your ID, a copy of the CR containing the TL and advise them that you will be suing them if the TL is not deleted within one week of receipt of your letter and documents. Be ready to file your small claims complaint (there are plenty of people here who can walk you through the small claims process).
Sue 'em and take the money. It's clear that they want to give it to you. Apply to refinance your home since you say it's affecting your credit. Get yourself some damages. I'd go after Experian. They are the arrogant SOB's that refuse to do the minimum effort needed to see the account is not yours. They are breaking the law.
How does one factor the amount of "damage" for a small claims suit? And if I'm sueing the CRA, Am I able to file a suit without having to travel to TX? George
You suffered damages while you are in NJ, not in TX. You can sue in your local county small claims court. EXP would have to send their agent in to defend themselves. You needn't worry.
If I can't get the creditor to supply me proof they notified the CRA, then I have not much to work with in "proof" that the CRA isn't doing it's job. It is afterall possible that the creditor approved an account even though I was under 18. This sounds more like a case against the creditor. Am I able to file a claim, even if I've filed a complaint with the AG's, and the CRA / Creditor fixes my file secondary to the AG complaint? The main culprit here, is the creditor for initially placing my SSN on the wrong account. and EX for, well, just being EX. Where/who can give me info on the small claims route, needed paperwork, etc. GG in NJ
When you say you were denied credit -- did you apply for a credit card and got rejected? I'd think in this case you can take the highest credit limit of your existing cards and those would be your damages. After all, without the disputed tradeline, you were able to get a card with that high a limit; and now you were denied. The difference must be your damages .... Or did you get denied for a mortgage or refinance? You can take the difference in the amount of interest you would have paid over the life of the loan, had you been approved for the prime rate, and the total interest you'd pay at your existing rate. Those are your damages ... What I'm trying to say is ... there are hundred different ways to calculate your damages, as long as you can reasonably justify them to the judge. Note that there is a limit to the amount of damages you can claim if you are sueing in small claims courts.
George, keep track of all your postage, copy costs, the costs of a process server, even the time you take off work. Any money you spend on this case. The Court will know the costs of the lawsuit, so you needn't worry about that. You can ask for pain and suffering, but most courts don't award it. A few might, but don't count on it. As has been said, since Exp is based in Costa Mesa, CA, you need not worry about traveling out of state to sue them. Sue them where you are; that's where the violation occured.
Experian is in Calif? All their paperwork shows Texas. Allen, TX I believe. Makes a difference which AG I bitch to. hmmm. GG in NJ
Re: Re: sueable or not subable.... I just won a case against them here in Northern California. They're headquartered here. They do, however, have a major operartion Allen, TX. If you're gonna complain to an AG, do it in YOUR state. But I'm not sure you'd get very far with the AG unless you're going to allege some kind of unfair or fraudulent business practice. You're better off suing in small claims court. It's faster; you get an actual chance to make your case; they decide and you get an actual judgment. The AG basically investigates (when they can get to it) and files the results away for posterity.
Don't forget to write to your Senators and Congressman and tell them about this. A Congressional intervention may help. I used to work for an insurance company, and believe me, "Congressionals" went straight to the executive office. You might also try Planet FeedBack. Since they can't send you a letter with the account number, what about the credit card company sending you a letter stating that you don't have an account with them.
actually, that's not a bad idea. Given in NJ, now certain Auto insurance co's can base their rates on your credit report. So far, our Car ins co doesn't, or at least hasn't with us. Thanks
It is Experian's job to verify your claim. If you are informing them that the OC's information is wrong, and they continue to go back to the OC for information - then it stands to reason that they will continue to get the same incorrect information. Ultimately what you are suing them for are to have your report corrected. But you can also go after damages. Check out the case Richardson v Fleet, Equifax, et al at http://proselitigant.net/wwwthreads/Wc59d0bd2d89b8.htm "a. Reasonable Procedures [*11] Equifax contends that it maintains reasonable procedures as a matter of law because it transcribed, stored, and communicated consumer information from Fleet, a source that it believed to be reliable and credible on its face. In addition, it argues that the plaintiffs cannot produce any proof that they caused Equifax to be notified that their credit history was being erroneously reported. Section 1681e(b) mandates that agencies follow reasonable procedures in preparing consumer reports but "does not impose strict liability for inaccurate entries in consumer reports; the preparer is held only to a duty of reasonable care. The exercise of reasonable care is determined by reference to what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances." Spence v. TRW, Inc., 92 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). In evaluating whether procedures are reasonable, courts also balance "the potential harm from inaccuracy against the burden of safeguarding against such inaccuracy." Stewart v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 47, 50 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The Court declines to say that relying on creditors for accurate credit information constitutes [*12] a reasonable procedure as a matter of law where, as here, the credit reporting agency had reason to know of the dispute between the plaintiffs and Equifax. See Bryant v. TRW, 689 F.2d 72, 77 (6th Cir. 1982) (where agency knew of dispute between consumer and creditors, confirming consumer's credit information with creditors constituted unreasonable procedure); Barron v. Trans Union Corp., 82 F. Supp. 2d at 1295-96. A credit reporting agency is initially entitled to rely on information contained in the reports issued by credit grantors, because it would be unduly burdensome and inefficient to require an agency to look beyond the face of every credit report. However, once notified that a consumer disputes the information contained in such records, exclusive reliance on such information is neither reasonable or justified. See Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 285 (7th Cir. 1994) (credit reporting agency entitled to rely on court dockets to correctly recite consumer's credit history absent notice that information is flawed); Gill v. Kostroff, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1161, Civ.A. 98-930- T17A, 2000 WL 141258, at *6 (M.D. Fla. 2000). Thus, "[a] [*13] credit reporting agency that has been notified of potentially inaccurate information in a consumer's credit report is in a very different position than one who has no such notice." Henson, 29 F.3d at 286. In this case, the exhibits and affidavits show that the plaintiffs caused notices to be sent to Equifax regarding errors in their credit history on at least three occasions before Equifax prepared their credit report for BP Oil. Despite the communication of these notices, Equifax continued to rely exclusively on Fleet's version of the plaintiffs' credit history. In the Court's view, there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was reasonable for Equifax to rely exclusively on the information provided by Fleet, given that Equifax knew or should have known that this information was unreliable or inaccurate. See Gill, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1161, 2000 WL 141258, at *7 (genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether defendant maintained reasonable procedures where plaintiff sent several notices to defendant, but defendant failed to correct reported errors). Equifax contends that the plaintiffs have produced no evidence that it received the correction notices [*14] purportedly sent by Shawmut and Fleet. However, the plaintiffs have proffered letters from both Shawmut and Fleet indicating that they would inform the relevant credit reporting agencies, including Equifax, of the errors regarding the plaintiffs' Shawmut account. In addition, it was standard business practice at Fleet to send UDF notices to Equifax. Although the affidavit of Janet Mullins, Senior Manager in the Office of Consumer Affairs for Equifax, states that Equifax has no record of receiving the UDFs sent by Fleet, her statement is silent on whether Equifax has a record of receiving the Shawmut notice. Moreover, even if Equifax had categorically denied ever receiving all three correction statements from Shawmut and Fleet, this assertion merely creates a classic dispute of material fact that is susceptible of resolution only by the finder of fact at trial. Equifax also suggests that, even if it received the UDF correction notices, there were errors in the forms that would have made correction of the accounts impossible. For instance, the UDFs sent by Fleet contained incorrect data regarding the plaintiffs' mortgage account, such as account numbers and the dates of origin and termination. [*15] This argument, however, is unpersuasive. Indeed, the UDFs contained the plaintiffs' correct names, address, and social security account numbers. See Thompson v. San Antonio Retail Merchs. Ass'n, 682 F.2d 509, 513 (5th Cir. 1982) (citing testimony of manager of defendant credit reporting bureau that "the social security number is the single most important information in a consumer's credit file.") In addition, the UDFs contained the name, address, and telephone number of John Wasik, the Fleet employee who sent the UDFs to Equifax, so that any discrepancies in the received data could easily have been clarified by Equifax. Certainly, if the fact finder rejected Equifax's assertion that it did not receive the UDFs from Fleet in 1996 and 1997, he or she could reasonably infer that Equifax maintained unreasonable procedures because it failed to reconcile the inconsistent data contained in the UDFs. "
in General, is this Lexington Law firm a worthwhile deal? Would that be something included in their services (small claims on contingency) GG
Re: Re: sueable or not subable.... Can't have an attorney in Small Claims (unless your state doesn't have a small claims division). And with this kind of case, there's not enough damages at stake for the average competent attorney to take your case on a contingency. You could contact them and see what their rates are, but you'd probably find that it's cheaper (and probably more satisfying) to do it yourself.
Re: Re: sueable or not subable.... 1*Since it had a date opened in 1977 (I was 13 at the time, I figured this was a no brainer). 2*(I'm thinking they sent a letter to EX telling them it belongs to my father, but not to remove it from mine). 3* gginnj =============== ******************** +++++++++++ 1*This is the kind they're good at LOL 2*Wouldn't put it past them. 3* THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
Am I able to file a claim, even if I've filed a complaint with the AG's, and the CRA / Creditor fixes my file secondary to the AG complaint? gginnj =============== ******************** +++++++++++YES.
