Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports

Hello, Ive already filed a discrimination case against your company. Thank you! Those arrest ( not convictions ) were from 17 years ago. 7 years is the maximum time for a look back period. So I can see now that you all are blatantly discriminating against me. As far the evictions its a filing with the court not a evictions. This was clearly thrown out by the court due to the circumstance. Thank you for submitting all the evidence and emailing me as it relates to this I will submit it to the Hud and the other government agencies now. 

My Name is XXXX XXXX. I was recently discriminated against due to inaccurate reporting of an eviction and criminal record in my rental history. A housing provider through XXXX XXXX XXXX discriminated against me due to your inaccurate reporting. I believe my rights may have been violated. I have submitted this information HUD to initiate an investigate and process my claim of housing discrimination. I have disclosed all legal documents and proof for lawful investigatory purposes as well as to the U.S. Department of Justice for its use in the filing of pattern and practice suits of housing discrimination or the prosecution of the person ( s ) who committed the discrimination where appropriate ; and to State or local fair housing agencies that administer substantially equivalent fair housing laws for complaint processing. I am a victim of family XXXX and by law I was allowed to break the lease without penalty as Texas law allows me to do. I am a victim of family XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of my family. I decided to file charges against these people and was told by the detectives and Texas crime victim advocate that I would need to move into XXXX XXXX and out of the home I was renting at the XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX Texas at the time. My attackers were family members and knew where I lived and would be likely to retaliate against myself and XXXX XXXX XXXX  at the time. These people have protective orders filed against them in XXXX XXXX and as of today XXXX only one of the 3 have been arrested on the charges. I did inform the manager at the time that I would need to leave after everything that had been done. I could not continue to live there due to retaliation and safety issues. My attack happened at the end of XXXX however formal charges were made against them until XXXX when I agreed to press charges and was relocated for my safety and my daughters safety. The manager there did not care about this and still filed eviction against me and has now put it on my credit record. We were unlawfully evicted because of the abuse that we experienced. Black women face disproportionately high rates of XXXX XXXX  ; we are also more likely to experience eviction than white women or women of other races. This landlords/ housing provider is one of the many landlords who maintain a blanket ban on tenants with prior eviction records. This causes disproportionate harm to people of color, specifically Black women Which happens to be a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits race- and gender-based discrimination in housing. State of the Texas Property Code gives victims of family XXXX the right to vacate and avoid liability. This means a victim of family XXXX may break her residential lease without penalty and in some cases without notice. Landlords who do not allow the tenant to break the lease or who attempt to place barriers, conditions, or restrictions on the victim are breaking the law and are subject to a civil penalty of one months rent plus {$500.00}, damages, and they must pay the victims attorneys fees. I want this removed from my credit immediately. This needs to be removed within the next 30 days at minimum or I will be having my attorney reach out to you. I know for a fact I submitted the documents to the front office there and I took pictures of the documents on the day they were delivered to the front office. I have all the documents including emails to file civil lawsuits against this company. To charge a victim of XXXX XXXX  violates the law making the landlord liable for damages to the tenant. As of right now I want the item removed from my credit ASAP. Otherwise, I will be seeking legal counsel. It is common knowledge and against the law for a landlord to create a lease that does not allow a victim of family XXXX to break a lease for safety reasons. I have attached documentation of the family XXXX against me.

Sec. 93.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter : ( 1 ) " Advocate '' means a person who has at least 20 hours of training in assisting victims of family XXXX and is an employee or volunteer of a family XXXX center. 

( 2 ) " Family XXXX center '' means a public or private nonprofit organization that provides, as its primary purpose, services to victims of family XXXX, including the services described by Section 51.005 ( b ) ( 3 ), Human Resources Code. 

( XXXX ) " Victim '' has the meaning assigned to " victim of family XXXX '' by Section 51.002, Human Resources Code. 



Added by Acts XXXX, 85th Leg., R.S. , Ch. 1091 ( H.B. 3649 ), Sec. 2, eff. XX/XX/XXXX. 



Housing providers are permitted to run criminal background screenings on applicants ; 4 housing providers have an obligation, however, to ensure that any admissions and occupancy requirements they impose comply with all applicable civil rights requirements. Thus, housing providers should wait to undertake criminal background screening of applicants until after all other screening procedures are completed, such as credit checks and landlord references. So, too, housing providers that ban applicants based on arrests, as opposed to convictions, will be in 2 violations of HUDs guidance 5 and may be in violation of federal law. 6 And housing providers that impose blanket prohibitions on housing applicants with any past convictions without further individualized review may also be in violation of federal law.7 An admissions or occupancy policy that uses criminal records as a pretext for intentional discrimination is a violation of the Fair Housing Act under a disparate treatment theory of liability.10 A disparate treatment claim is supported by evidence that the housing provider treated housing applicants differently based on a protected characteristic, including race, color, national origin, gender, familial status, disability, or religion. Disparate treatment claims can be proven by overt or direct evidence of discrimination or by indirect evidence, by establishing the following : 11 ( i ) the applicant is a member of a protected class ; ( ii ) the applicant applied for housing ; ( iii ) the housing provider rejected the applicant because of the applicants criminal record; and ( iv ) the housing provider offered housing to a similarly situated applicant not of the applicants protected class, but with a comparable criminal record. An admissions or occupancy policy that uses criminal records in a manner that causes an unjustified discriminatory effect on a protected class is a violation of the Fair Housing Act under HB 1510 : LANDLORD LIABILITY HB 1510, which went into effect on XX/XX/XXXX, and is codified at 92.025 of the Texas Property Code, further encourages landlords to look beyond the mere fact of a criminal record when making leasing decisions. Specifically, the legislation limits any perceived risk of foreseeable negligence liability that might arise if leasing property to an individual with a criminal record who later commits a criminal act at the property. Moreover, while not creating a new risk of liability, the statute also does not preclude the possibility if a landlord leases property to someone convicted of a Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 62.001 or Article 42A.054 offense. Notwithstanding any new protection offered by HB 1510, landlords can always protect against possible legal liability by creating clear, written tenant screening policies and ensuring that all applicants are provided notice of those policies as required by 92.3515 of the Texas Property Code. 3 a disparate impact theory of liability. 12 Disparate impact liability results when a rule that appears, on its face, to treat everyone equally, in fact has a disadvantageous effect on people with a protected characteristic. Discriminatory intent is not a requirement for disparate impact liability ; as long as the policy or rule has a disproportionate adverse impact against an otherwise protected class of persons, a housing provider can be found liable.

13 A disparate impact claim has a three step shifting burden of proof that includes the following:14 ( i ) the applicant must prove there has been an adverse disparate impact from a policy towards a protected class, even if the policy appears neutral ; ( ii ) the burden then shifts to the housing provider to prove the policy was necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, and nondiscriminatory interest; and ( iii ) the applicant can then show that the substantial, legitimate, and nondiscriminatory interest could have been served by a less discriminatory policy. Additionally, housing providers should not implement strict look-back periods without affording applicants an Individualized Further Review. A strict look-back period policy can subject a housing provider to a disparate impact claim because strict look-back periods can have the same practical effect as a discriminatory ban of finite duration. Reasonable, specific look-back periods should be the first source of screening in determining whether a housing candidate with a criminal conviction may pose an unreasonable risk to other residents or to the property. 24 Housing providers should use reputable and consistent background screening companies. For most criminal activity, the focus of the criminal background screening is limited to activity that occurred during a reasonable time before the screening process takes place. 25 HUD expects that reasonable time be defined in the housing providers policy.26 The reasonable time should be considered from the date of the conviction. Where the suggested look-back period accounts for multiple offenses, for example, a 1- year look-back period for felony drug possession but only if two or more convictions are involved, the look-back period should be calculated from the date of the last conviction. If a housing applicant has a criminal conviction on his or her record and the date of the conviction falls outside of the enumerated look-back period, then the applicant should not be denied housing based on the criminal background screening. In no discretionary situation should the enumerated look-back period extend greater than seven ( 7 ) years. I expect to hear back from all parties involved and have all these inaccurate reports removed from my background and rental history!! XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX