Consumer complaint received 2023-10-19
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: MI
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem
Sub-issue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report

Complaint:
On or around XXXX XXXX XXXX I filed a dispute with Experian regarding their handling of a false/misleading/inaccurate XXXX XXXX account/tradeline. It is XXXX of dozens I have filed regarding this account over the past XXXX ( XXXX ) years. On or around XXXX XXXX XXXX I filed an additional dispute with updated information. On or around XXXX XXXX XXXX Experian notified me that the dispute re-investigation was " complete, '' simply stating the account/tradeline was " updated. '' Yet, a cursory review of the account/tradeline indicates no change. When XXXX furnishes information to the XXXX XXXX XXXX it does so using the actual account number, in this case XXXX. However, when it responds to customer inquiries regarding the account, it uses the last XXXX ( XXXX ) digits of the actual card number, here XXXX. While this may seem confusing, there is no reason Experian could not identify the account even with this discrepency, as the balance on the account has remained consistent across any and all documents I've supplied, which includes : XXXX own responses to the CFPB, XXXX third-party collections agent ( XXXX ) responses to the CFPB, XXXX web-portal screenshots after XX/XX/XXXX. That balance is {$3400.00}. Reasonable procedures under 1681e ( b ) are not proof of a reasonable re-investigation under 1681i ( b ). The re-investigation requirements under 1681i ( a ) mandates a more thorough investigation than 1681e ( b ) ( see. Chaitoff v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc., No. 21-2632 ( 7th Cir. 2023 ) ). While Experian may not have been able to match the last XXXX of the card number with the last XXXX ( XXXX ) digits of the account number, had Experian conducted a reasonable re-investigation, they would have been able to match the documentation provided with the appropriate account/tradeline. In fact, this technique is used to verify individuals for phone disputes whereby a " specialist '' will ask an individual to verify their identity by requesting a caller provide the name of the Data Furnisher, and the " balance '' as reported by the furnisher for a specific type of tradeline. Given the dipsute was filed on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX and the results were returned XXXX XXXX XXXX Experian has disregarded its responsibilities under 15 U.S. Code 1681 et. seq. and is allowing an account that was allegedly charged-off by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) years ago to be re-aged by XXXX such that the re-aging of account information has caused delinquencies to be reported by one-hundred XXXX ( XXXX ) for the past XXXX months -- this is after XXXX engaged in explicitly prohibited acts and practices over the past XXXX ( XXXX ) years, and then furnished the erroneous information in my consumer files. I have filed dozens of complaints regarding the reporting of this account over the past XXXX ( XXXX ) years, and demonstrated the multiple violations of Federal Law XXXX has engaged in. Experian knows, or should know, XXXX has violated 15 U.S. Code 1681s2. By now there is no possible way Experian can claim they do not know, or should not know, the account information is false/misleading/inaccurate, etc.. There is no way Experian is unaware the information for this XXXX account constitutes an error under 15 U.S. Code 1681e, which regards errors as including factual information that is false/misleading/incomplete/inaccurate. Verifying information as technically accurate, does not imply the information as reported is NOT an error, especially when XXXX itself is still conducting ITS OWN investigation into the matter. Given the contradictions in XXXX written response to my state 's attorney general 's office with those it provided to the CFPB, the account/tradeline XXXX ( identified by card number XXXX in XXXX responses ) needs to be removed and XXXX needs to XXXX blocked from inserting additional information under a new and/or duplicate account/tradeline. At this point I have standing to sue Experian under at least the FCRA to seek damages, for negligent and/or willful violations of the FCRA. I am allowed to seek recovery that includes actual damages, regardless of whether the statutory violation is negligent or willful. Specifically, I am allowed to seek recovery for financial losses suffered directly as a result of Experian 's statutory violation ( XXXX ). Moreover, I am allowed to seek recovery for other costs incurred, such as time lost correcting a false credit report. Emotional distress, loss of reputation are also compensable even in the absence of out-of-pocket expenses. ( See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ) ; ( XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). In total direct losses, indirect losses, and emotional damage are recoverable for even negligent violations of the FCRA.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation