Consumer complaint received 2019-09-26
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: SC
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: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report

Complaint:
It seems that no human reads this CFPB complaints and the process is basically a medium for the consumer and complainant to input data. Nothing seems to be resolve through this CFPB online complaints. In order to prove my point, I will state the following : the CFPB online complaint system is defective and nothing gets resolve. If a CFPB employee reads this, then, and only then I will probably get a phone call or an email from the CFPB. Otherwise, my point remains valid. Through the CFPB online complaint process Consumer Reporting Agencies ( CRAs ) are only required to provide a response, most of the time stating the obvious, and the CFPB lets them get away with it. It seems that there is no human interaction from the CFPB on this online complaint process and no one is evaluating or reading the CRAs provided response and comparing them to the initial consumers complaint statement in order to either achieve a resolution or admonish the perpetrators of FCRA violations. This is approximately my eight CFPB complaint, with different entities, and up to this point it has been proven to be an ineffective and incompetent online complaint process that achieves nothing for the consumer but collects an immense amount of data for the CFPB. Prove me wrong CFPB, I challenge you to do so. I have addressed the specific issue found within this complaint twice already through CFPB complaint numbers XXXX   and XXXX. However, Experian continues to violate my consumer rights, they have not provided the requested documentation and the CFPB has not admonished Experian pursuant the lack of adherence to the FCRA and its guidelines.

To make the story short I have previously disputed ten ( 10 ) negative accounts/items, on multiple occasions, through Experian. They were : XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX   XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ), XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX   ), XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX   ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX ). On XX/XX/2019 five ( 5 ) of those accounts were deleted from my Experian credit report : XXXX   XXXX XXXX XXXXt, XXXX, XXXX   XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX, as reported by Experian on XX/XX/2019 within their response to CFPB complaint # XXXX ( see enclosed ). Nevertheless, three ( 3 ) of the aforementioned deleted accounts were reinserted in my credit report ( two on XX/XX/2019and the third one on XX/XX/2019 ) despite Experians violation to the FCRA, section 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) were it explicitly states that ( ii ) If any information that has been deleted from a consumers file pursuant to subparagraph ( A ) is reinserted in the file, the consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of the reinsertion in writing not later than 5 business days after the reinsertion or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the agency ; and ( iii ) Additional information. As part of, or in addition to, the notice under clause ( ii ), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing no later than 5 business days after the reinsertion date. On XX/XX/2019 I telephonically requested Experian a copy of any documentation submitted to them that verified the accuracy of the information being reinserted in my credit report. They were unable to provide any documentation to support the reinsertion.

Moreover, pursuant 15 U.S.C. section 609 ( c ) ( 2 ) a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer, with each written disclosure by the agency to the consumer a statement that a consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from the file of a consumer, unless the information is outdated under section 605 or can not be verified, section 609 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( E ). If Experian is verifying such accounts, pursuant 15 U.S.C section 609 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( E ), Experian should be able to validate such accounts by providing a legally sufficient, binding, valid contract ( verifiable proof ). Additionally, pursuant section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), Experian must conduct a reasonable investigation for each one of the disputed accounts. I contacted the Experian Dispute Department onXX/XX/2019 to express my concerns and inquire on their dispute process since my letters requesting a description of such procedures continued to be ignored. While talking to XXXX  ( Employee number XXXX ), an Experians Dispute Department employee, he confirmed that Experian do not conducts an investigation on disputes received from consumers. Troublesome as this sounds, XXXX explained that once a consumer dispute is received, Experians only action is to input the data received from a consumer into a computer and subsequently send such data to the required creditor/furnisher for them to verify such information. According to XXXX once Experian sends the data to the creditors/furnishers it complies and fulfills with the reasonable investigation requirement dictated to be conducted by a consumer reporting Agency ( CRA ) under the FCRA.

Additionally, according to XXXX once a computer response is received from the creditor/furnisher, Experian merely reflects such information within the consumers credit report/file. Moreover, the XXXX confirmed that Experian does not requires any documentation from the creditors/furnishers through this process to validate a disputed account. These actions performed by Experian are hardly reasonable, more less an investigation being conducted by Experian. Furthermore, on XX/XX/2019 Ms. XXXX XXXX, an Experian Senior Regulatory Affairs Associate, confirmed that Experian does not conducts reinvestigations in its entirely and merely parrots the response they obtain through XXXX from the creditors. Such dispute process strictly violates the FCRA as Experian through its reasonable investigation merely parrots the information received from the creditors/furnishers, never conducted an independent investigation on the disputed accounts and placed the burden of its required reasonable investigation and validation on the creditors and/or the consumers. This has been previously addressed within Cushman v TransUnion, Stevenson v. TRW ( Experian ), Dixon-Rollins v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc. and Richardson v. Fleet, Equifax, et al, and the courts ruled each and every time that the CRAs couldn't merely " parrot '' information from the creditors and collection agencies ... that CRAs must conduct an independent REASONABLE investigation to ensure the validity of the debt and the honesty/integrity of the creditor/Credit Agency in question. Sending out a generic form through the XXXX system that does not even contain the consumers reasons for the dispute is not REASONABLE or acceptable.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that reckless disregard of a requirement of FCRA would qualify as a willful violation within the meaning of section 616 ( a ). See Collins v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. 775 F.3d 1330, 1336 ( 11th Cir. 2015 ) citing Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 2205, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 ( 2007 ). In 1997, the Third Circuit instructed a CRA that it may not just repeat information it receives from the original source but must do more to verify the credit information. Cushman, 115 F.3d at 225. Since Cushman was decided, CRAs has been repeatedly warned of its statutorily required obligation in conducting a reinvestigation. See Krajewski, 557 F. Supp. 2d at 616 ; Crane, 282 F. Supp. 2d at 320 ; Lawrence, 296 F. Supp. 2d at 589 ; Saenz v. Trans Union, LLC, 621 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1083 ( D. Or. 2007 ) ( XXXX XXXX   must do more than parrot information received by original source ) ; Lambert v. Beneficial Mortgage Corp., No 05-5468, 2007 WL 1309542, ( W.D. Wash. May 7, 2007 ). Because XXXX has been warned of its inadequate reinvestigation practices in prior cases, it may be considered a repeat FCRA offender. See Dixon-Rollins v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc.753 F. Supp. 2d 452 ( E.D. Pa. 2010 ).

Experians actions stated above do not fulfill its statutorily required obligation contemplated within the FCRA. Experians reasonable investigations on my disputed accounts/items never took place pursuant the FCRA guidelines since Experian didnt conduct a clear validation on such accounts/items, more less an independent investigation at all. Experians method of verification, a validation, must require a legally sufficient, binding, or a valid contract documentation to ensure that the information reported by the creditors is 100 % accurate. These items have been requested to Experian on multiple occasions, however, Experian has FAILED miserably to fulfill such request, therefore evidencing a FAILED fulfillment of a reasonable investigation or FCRA requirements pursuan

t section607 ( b ). If the disputed accounts can not be 100 % accurately verified by Experian, more less validated, such accounts much be promptly deleted from my credit report pursuant section611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). In conclusio
n, Experian continues to willfully violate the guidelines within the FCRA and I will like to remind them that a reasonable reinvestigation " must mean more than simply... making only a cursory investigation into the reliability of information that is reported to potential creditors. '' See Dixon-Rollins v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc.753 F. Supp. 2d 452 ( E.D. Pa. 2010 ) citing Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, Nos. 08-2465, 08-2466, 2010 WL 3190882, at *16 ( 3d Cir. XX/XX/XXXX ) ( citing Cushman, 115 F.3d at 225 ). Experian must employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible credit reporting accuracy. In a reinvestigation of the accuracy of credit reports, a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers. See Stevenson v. TRW Inc. 987 F.2d 288, 293 ( 5th Cir. 1993 ) citing Swoager v. Credit Bureau of Greater XXXX XXXX, Fla., 608 F. Supp. 972, 976 ( M.D.Fla. 1985 ). Additionally, as part of its reinvestigation, a CRA must provide the original source of derogatory information with notice of the consumer 's dispute. 15 U.S.C. section 611 ( a ) ( 2 ). Experian has miserably failed to provide such information despite my multiple attempts and letters requesting Experian to provide me a copy of the original instrument of indebtedness. Moreover, Experian has NOT provided me a copy of ANY original documentation required under sections 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( a consumer contract with my signature on it ). Furthermore, Experian has disastrously failed to promptly DELETE all information which can not be verified as required under section 611 ( 5 ) ( A ). Therefore, clearly violating the guidelines established within the FCRA and its statutes.

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 non-monetary relief