Consumer complaint received 2023-10-26
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:
I filed CFPB complaint XXXX on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The nature of the complaint involved billing errors in which XXXX mailed bill statements to incorrect addresses. Experian responded to the complaint on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  claiming they'd verified the information reported as " accurate '' for the account/tradeline. As a part of this process Experian claims it conducts re ( investigations ) that include a review of documentation supplied by the consumer, and then forwards that documentation to the data furisher. If Experian claims review of supplied documents is a part of their reasonable procedures established for reinvestigations, then it would seem Experian not actually reviewing documentation because the documentation provided shows the effect of haphazard skiptracing, where the return of a single piece of mail causes a system to select another address, that develops into a cascading chain, even if the consumer verifies and/or updates their current address. In my case bills were being sent to an address that I had not lived at, in a state I have not lived at in nearly fifteen ( 15 ) years. It is on this basis XXXX considered the payment ( s ) late. I am a XXXX individual and rely both on physical copies of my bill and electronic copies. The nature of my XXXX can make it near impossible to use devices that enable communication by light and/or sound. I have never enrolled in strictly electronic statements for that reason. I am entitled to a paper statement. Given my XXXX requesting both electronic AND paper statements is a reasonable accomodation. The following CFPB complaints wre filed regarding the billing errors : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. In their XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  response to CFPB Complaint XXXX XXXX claims that they spoke with me on XXXX XXXX XXXX  when a payment was made, during which they allege they confirmed a FL address. I made no such call on XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  as I was recovering from a third XXXX  XXXX and XXXX that resulted. The individual with whom XXXX spoke was my mother. My mother was asked about the street address -- not the state. Neither my mother nor I reside in FL. I have not resided in FL since XXXX of XXXX. Experian is aware of this because I hold a MI Enhanced driver 's license, which it has received to verify my identity. The Enhanced license can be used in-lieu of a passport and grants me border crossing by land and sea within XXXX America . I would not be able to hold a license if my residence was in FL. XXXX claims that because a current resident of the FL address did not return the mail and/or did not write " Not at this address '' on it, that somehow I am receiving mail in FL -- that's XXXX. At the end of the day, if I do not receive a bill, including instances where my address changes because of haphazard skiptracing, then XXXX can not consider my payment ( s ) to be late. And, despite Experian being provided with bills that show addresses that are not my current address, Experian has allowed the payment history resulting from the billing errors to continue in my credit files, so much so that Experian allowed XXXX to report my current address as the FL address where XXXX sent my bill statements. To include derogatory payment history in my credit files that resulted from XXXX XXXX own negligence in skiptracing ( billing errors ) is false/misleading/inaccurate and lowers a consumer 's credit score. So, if Experian is reviewing documentation as a part of their reinvestigation process, then in this instance Experian knows, or should know, the payment history is false/misleading/inaccurate under 15 USC 1681e and the derogatory payment history needs to be removed.

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