Sign in to follow this  
majiking

EX wont change entry even after sending proof

Recommended Posts

When aplying for a home loan in December, much to my surprize my loan broker told me that there was a collection account on my EX CR. I said "this couldn't be" I just checked my report a week before and there were no collection accounts and my score was over 700. Sure enough there was an entry for a collection account. So, I had to go with a different lender and pay higher interest rate to get my loan.

I sent a DV letter to the CA CMRRR and no response. I disputed EX entry and it came back "remains" No change.I then sent a letter to experian as follows:

-----

Dear Experian:

I am writing to you about my report # 2488xxxxxx. I requested an investigation of a negative entry on my report, specifically ER SOLUTIONS. I requested this investigation on 12/10/2003. I received a response from you on 1/12/03. Over 30 days since my request. You stated: “Outcome: Remains.”

I am now sending you a copy of my September 23, 2003 report (# 31589xxxxxx). On this report please note that there is no mention of ER SOLUTIONS. ER SOLUTIONS did not appear on my credit report until December 2003.

Now please look at the specifics for the ER SOLUTIONS derogatory entry on my current report. It states: “Reported since: 11/2002” and Date of Status: “12/2002.” This is impossible since I have several reports from 11/2002 ongoing and ER SOLUTIONS does not appear on any of those reports. This is an error or has been fraudulently fabricated. In any case this entire entry should be deleted. I have sent a letter to ER SOLUTIONS requesting verification of this alleged debt, as is my right, and they have provided no verification at all.

Again, please delete this erroneous entry immediately. Thank you.

Sincerely,

xxxxxx

----------

I called EX today to follow up and they said: "there is nothing we can do, Blah blah, We must report what the CA tells us even if you send us proof that it is incorrect. You have to contact the CA to have it removed"

Same old run around.

My question is this: What do I do now? Send an ITS letter or ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keep faxing it to the profile maintenance dept at 972-390-3809

or 972-390-3838

Takes several attempts .

Thanks, I will try that. Do you really get a better response that way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may take a while for DV to effectively work.

And when you do send a letter to EX, you have to be VERY specific and explicit on how the CA is violating the law by not responding to your DV.

It took a couple of times of green cards that I sent to EX before they removed a collection from my report.

The way a CRA defines proof is a bit weird but when you show how a CA is violating the law, that will get their attention much faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I called EX today to follow up and they said: "there is nothing we can do, Blah blah, We must report what the CA tells us even if you send us proof that it is incorrect. You have to contact the CA to have it removed"

This is complete bullpuckey. The FCRA specifically states that they must take into account any documentation you send them, plus there is case law that holds that once a tradeline is disputed, they have a duty to go beyond what the CA tells them.

Experian SO sucks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And an EX customer service rep is not exactly the best source of information.

That is why you have to state the law and the violations of the law.

And it is better to do it in writing than talking a rep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, the DV through the collection agency is one thing that I am pursuing, but I am more interested in the proof that the entry is wring avenue. I sent EX copies of my previous credit reports which show there is no ER solutions entry. The entry that was created in Dec of last year says: Reported since 11/02.

Since I have provided EX with proof that that is wrong, I would think they would have a legal obligation to either correct it or if what they are saying is true (they have no idea and can only report the date the CA gave them) then they should delete it. They are KNOWINGLY reporting inacurate information.

Am I wrong or can I sue if they don't correct it. I don't think it is ER solutions responsibility since I have provided PROOF to EX that the date is incorrect. I am also relying on the premise that if the date is incorrect than the whole entry is in question since ER Solutions keeps verifying it with the incorrect date.

What does the law say about this? Am I on the wrong track?

EX is ignoring my letters and faxes and when I called once to talk to them they gave me the line that "only the CA can change or remove it" which is BS as we all know.

Thanks for the help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note. When I wrote ER solutions about a settlement in exchange for deletion they said "we can't delete it, that would be illegal" even though I know it is done all the time. How do you deal with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, this is so screwed up I don't even know where to begin. You are stuck between a dipwad and an idiot.

First, Experian should either correct or delete the tradeline. It doesn't even require an investigation, because anyone who can read can see that it is clearly wrong. If it has been reported since 2002, then why is it just now showing up? That is obviously wrong.

Second, Experian has a duty to investigate any time you dispute an item, unless they can reasonably determine that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant. There is nothing in the law that says they don't have to investigate just because they already have investigated once. If the item is wrong, it's wrong; just because the creditor verifies it a hundred times does not make it correct.

Third, the CRAs are supposed to take into account whatever documentation you send to them, so that part about they can't remove it even if you prove it is incorrect is just plain BS.

Fourth, once you dispute an item, the CRA has a duty to go beyond what the creditor tells them. Here is everything you need to back up what I just said:

______________________________

§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]

(a) Reinvestigations of disputed information.

(1) Reinvestigation required.

(A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.

(B) Extension of period to reinvestigate. Except as provided in subparagraph ©, the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A) may be extended for not more than 15 additional days if the consumer reporting agency receives information from the consumer during that 30-day period that is relevant to the reinvestigation.

© Limitations on extension of period to reinvestigate. Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any reinvestigation in which, during the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A), the information that is the subject of the reinvestigation is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or the consumer reporting agency determines that the information cannot be verified. (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.

(2) Prompt notice of dispute to furnisher of information.

(A) In general. Before the expiration of the 5-business-day period beginning on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a dispute from any consumer in accordance with paragraph (1), the agency shall provide notification of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in dispute, at the address and in the manner established with the person. The notice shall include all relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer.

(B) Provision of other information from consumer. The consumer reporting agency shall promptly provide to the person who provided the information in dispute all relevant information regarding the dispute that is received by the agency from the consumer after the period referred to in subparagraph (A) and before the end of the period referred to in paragraph (1)(A).

(3) Determination that dispute is frivolous or irrelevant.

(A) In general. Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a consumer reporting agency may terminate a reinvestigation of information disputed by a consumer under that paragraph if the agency reasonably determines that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure by a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.

(B) Notice of determination. Upon making any determination in accordance with subparagraph (A) that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, a consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of such determination not later than 5 business days after making such determination, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the agency.

© Contents of notice. A notice under subparagraph (B) shall include

(i) the reasons for the determination under subparagraph (A); and

(ii) identification of any information required to investigate the disputed information, which may consist of a standardized form describing the general nature of such information.

(4) Consideration of consumer information. In conducting any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) with respect to disputed information in the file of any consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer in the period described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such disputed information.

________________

This is part of the courts opinion in Henson v CSC Credit Services (link to the entire opinion follows):

"Accordingly, a credit reporting agency may be required,

in certain circumstances, to verify the accuracy of its ini-

tial source of information, in this case the Judgment

Docket. Cf. Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir.

1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1022 (1987) (holding that it

was unreasonable for a credit reporting agency to only

contact an agent of the creditor to re-verify a delinquent

account balance reported in the plaintiff's credit report

where the plaintiff notified the credit reporting agency

that he had a personal dispute with the agent).

Whether the credit reporting agency has a duty to go

beyond the original source will depend, in part, on whether

the consumer has alerted the reporting agency to the pos-

sibility that the source may be unreliable or the report-

ing agency itself knows or should know that the source

is unreliable. The credit reporting agency's duty will also

depend on the cost of verifying the accuracy of the source

versus the possible harm inaccurately reported informa-

tion may cause the consumer."

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?yr=93&num=3441&Submit1=Request+Opinion

Since you have shown that the creditor has not actually been reporting the account in question to Experian since 2002, Experian should be able to figure out that the original source is not reliable. Perhaps you should point that out to them so they can't say they didn't know.

Here is a link to Cushman v Trans Union, where the Court held an opinion similar to Henson v CSC (in fact, they quoted the Henson opinion in their opinion). http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1610p.txt

I have SO had it with Experian. I wish you luck in your dealings with the scum-sucking swine.

I almost forgot -- when ER Solutions tells you that it's illegal for them to delete, that is also pure BS. The law doesn't require them to report diddleysquat; it just says that if they do report, it has to be complete and accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. And since you had to take a higher rate on your mortgage, you do have provable damages should you decide to take their scummy asses to court.

BTW, is this really your account, or do you even know, since they haven't validated it yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.S. And since you had to take a higher rate on your mortgage, you do have provable damages should you decide to take their scummy asses to court.

BTW, is this really your account, or do you even know, since they haven't validated it yet?

Actually, they told me in my PC with them that it was an old Washington mutual account overdraft. Well, I haven't had a WM account since Jan 2000. However, it is possible that a check came in or an Electronic debit or whatever and I was never aware of it. Amazingly, it appears on my EX almost 4 years after the account is closed. They said they sent me a letter back in 01. I never received one. Also the SOL is 4 years....hmmm. Anyway, I guess I could owe them $$$ but I want to know what exactly for before I pay something I may not even owe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I sent out a new letter with case cites informing them that ER Solutions is unreliable, that there is no need to re-verify, that their own records prove they are in error, and that they have a duty to correct or delete.

OMG- I just pulled a new EX report and it says ER Solutions is "under investigation" again. What morons !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this