Hi Gang, Excelllent case find by SCMomof5 reaveals that the "Unable To Locate" notification is actionable. Many have asked recently about "unable to locate" and I responded by suggesting that I wouldn't tolerate that flag. It implies that you were running from, escaping, avoiding, skipping out on your debt. Another flag is "Recently Located Indivdual", which is the change from the above. Thanks to Momof5 you have at least one item of case law to use in your argument. It's at: http://www.cfac.org/CaseLaw/Cases/Schendorf_v_UD_Registry.html FAYE A. SCHOENDORF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U.D. REGISTRY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. "Schoendorf argues that her UDR report, while technically correct and based on public information, is misleading and incomplete. As to the first unlawful detainer, she contends that, as shown by the declarations and exhibits she filed in the trial court, UDR' s report should contain additional information, such as: (1) she contacted the county health department about the landlord' s health code violations, (2) the department found serious violations upon inspection and issued a citation to the landlord, (3) the unlawful detainer was filed two months later, (4) she filed suit against the landlord for failure to correct the health problems, and (5) the litigation settled with a payment to her. Instead, the report simply notes that an unlawful detainer was filed and dismissed, leaving the reader to speculate about what actually happened - that perhaps Schoendorf skipped out owing three months' rent. As for the second unlawful detainer, Schoendorf asserts that the UDR report should reflect the statements of other tenants that she was a quiet, polite tenant." It was so ordered. You might be able to force the CRA to make the information complete with the following "flag" of your own: Unable to locate BECAUSE THEY NEVER LOOKED. They've ALWAYS had my address. etc. Or, of course, just delete it.
