Consumer complaint received 2023-05-09
Company: LEXISNEXIS
State: AL
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Sub-issue: Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone

Complaint:
XX/XX/XXXXXXXX -- -- -- 1 ) LexisNexis stated Court items were UNVERIFIABLE and removed the unverifiable public record Court items from my LexisNexis report on or prior to XX/XX/XXXX per their Case Number:XXXX  ( Total Pages 4 of 18 ) Page 2. ( *See Attachment ) -- -- -- -2 ) LexisNexis stated during the same investigation period that Public Record Bankruptcy COURT items were accurate, therefore Verifiable with XXXX as the Source in lieu of the Actual Bankruptcy COURT reporting as the Source with the major Credit Bureaus per their Case Number XXXX ( Total Pages 1 of 16 ) Page 1 ( See Attachment ) -- -- 3 ) LexisNexis again received my dispute on XX/XX/XXXX regarding a Court item and per their letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, this COURT item reporting was determined by LexisNexis as UNVERIFIABLE and stated this item had been removed per their Case Number : XXXX ( Total Pages 5 of 16 ) Page 1 ( See Attachment ). -- -- 4 ) LexisNexis stated in their letter dated XX/XX/XXXX that COURT Property Records were accurate, therefore verified as accurate but listed the SOURCE of the COURT items/records as LexisNexis instead of the Actual COURT per their Case Number : XXXX ( Total Pages 1 of 16 ) Page 1 ; and failed to truthfully state these COURT items are NOT Verifiable and remove them as other COURT items previously disputed and removed. -- -- -- 5 ) I also disputed the SAME Public Record item with the ( 3 ) major credit bureaus, XXXX, XXXX , and XXXX on or no more than ( 2 ) days after the LexisNexis Public Record dispute initiated on XXXX -- -- -6 ) I contacted XXXX credit bureau last week on XX/XX/XXXX to check the status of the Public Record Bankruptcy dispute directly with their company during XX/XX/XXXX and I was informed by the representative after being placed on a brief hold that XXXX completed their investigation on XX/XX/XXXX. I afterwards questioned the representative as to why I never received notification stating this. The representative stated that the " Creditor verified the information as accurate ''. Afterwards I requested that she identify the " Creditor '' who did such and she responded that the " COURT '' as listed on my credit report. -- -- -7 ) I phoned XXXX today ( XX/XX/XXXX ) to check the status of the Public Record Bankruptcy dispute phoned in also in XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX or XXXX ) and the representative informed me after an extensive search of her records that there was no record of my Public Record Bankruptcy Dispute for XXXX XXXXXXXX -- -- 8 ) I phoned XXXX today ( XX/XX/XXXX ) to check the status of the Public Record Bankruptcy Dispute phoned in on XX/XX/XXXX and was told by the representative that their investigation was complete on XX/XX/XXXX resulting in the following : Bankruptcy COURT information was certified as accurate with XXXX listed as the SOURCE. ( See Attachment 5 ) -- -- -9 ) I contacted LexisNexis today to check the status of my XX/XX/XXXX dispute of the Public Record Bankruptcy COURT item and was told the investigation is still ongoing and had to ask several times if the response meant that the investigation was Open or Closed/Completed. Her final response was that the investigation was still ongoing and Open. I then asked the LexisNexis representative how could the major credit bureaus that use LexisNexis as a 3rd Party Furnisher close their disputes prior to LexisNexis closure seeing that they all were disputed as the SAME time. -- -- -Upon my investigation of this matter by way of contacting each major Credit Bureau on a status as well as LexisNexis, it was found that both XXXX and XXXX " Pretended '' to have submitted my Public Record Court Bankruptcy dispute after I dictated very detailed verbiage to these representatives while on the phone ; but XXXX and XXXX either did not submit the dispute at all or internally deleted my dispute soon after it was taken as I did not receive any Investigation Results from these reporting agencies; or there was an illegal collaboration between the companies to disregard my dispute. Although XXXX may or may not use LexisNexis as its current 3rd Party Furnisher, XXXX 's 3rd Party Furnisher also can not Verify ANY Original COURT records/items as they too state as the Reporting Source in their consumer reports. -- -- 10 ) LexisNexis and similar 3rd Party Public Record Furnishers are illegally, fraudulently and by Bad Faith continue to use deceptive business practices to mislead consumers by utilizing " loop hole verbiage '' within their investigation results in order to retain 'Certain COURT ' items ( to include Bankruptcy Court Records ). One example of the 'loop hole strategy ' is to state a COURT item is " reported as accurate '' but not stating that the COURT items being disputed were actually " both verified and accurate ''. LexisNexis fails to include verbiage both " verified and accurate '' primarily due to the FACT LexisNexis or any 3rd Party Furnisher can not approach, request, or receive any Response from any 'Original COURT Furnisher ' whether it be a County, District , or Federal COURT, as NO COURT reports to Any credit reporting agency and I have obtained and previously submitted my letter to the CFPB, LexisNexis , and the ( 3 ) major Credit Bureaus from the Federal COURT stating such. -- -- - ( Summary ) -- - Finally, the major credit bureaus XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX all declare XXXX illegally as their SOURCE of Bankruptcy COURT records within the results of an investigation by displaying the information was provided from their 3rd Party Furnisher or by naming the COURT in the results of the investigation but actually relying on XXXX electronic computer records and providing a toll free number for XXXX. I have called this XXXX toll free number and told by the XXXX customer service representative that callers are not provided any COURT Records information but only guided how to set up a Public Record account with XXXX or only receive Technical Assistance with the XXXX electronic database issues ; therefor XXXX is NOT an Original Source for COURT records. -- -- -I am requesting an immediate Deletion of any and All COURT items reporting in my files and also requesting deletion of reported Data NOT Certifiably ( XXXX ) Compliant and Proven Valid and PHYSICALLY Verified. I also now invoke my Consumer Rights to demand that ONLY Factually Perfect True Correct Verified Validated claims that are Certified Compliantly Reported be reported. I also demand in this request that you investigate the Source of these accounts and ascertain that the CREDITOR had a permissible purpose for even the account inquiries of which to potentially initiate said alleged accounts, be true or not, valid or not, obviously at a bare minimum any alleged reporting date furnisher would be necessarily required to at least be able to VERIFY my complete file information exactly as I have indicated and No other way whatsoever or Immediately Delete and Remove the items referenced.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation