Consumer complaint received 2017-12-25
Company: LEXISNEXIS
State: IL
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:
This now falls under section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) [ 1681i ], under the title which includes Expedited Dispute Resolution. And in keeping with such title, LexisNexis has 3 days to comply, after which on XX/XX/2017, I will file a legal action to enforce LexisNexis ' liability in this matter. I am providing my phone number and email address to make it easier for LexisNexis to contact me in the 3 days provided ( XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX. 

In an effort to clarify my position and the position of LexisNexis for the purposes of litigation, I submit the following : Through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and by mail, I have submitted numerous, well-documented challenges to LexisNexis concerning an item, Bankruptcy # XXXX, reported by them to the credit reporting agencies ( i.e. XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ). XXXX has deleted the item and is not included in this complaint. 

By their own admission, LexisNexis was unable to verify the item in question in the time allotted by the FCRA : 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [ 15 U.S.C. 1681i ] ( a ) Reinvestigations of  Disputed Information ( 1 ) Reinvestigation Required ( A ) In general. Subject to subsection ( f ), if the completeness or the accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumers file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 5 ), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. 
( B ) Extension of period to reinvestigate. Except as provided in subparagraph ( c ), the 30-day period described in subparagraph ( A ) may be extended for not more than 15 additional days if the consumer reporting agency receives information from the consumer during that 30-day period that is relevant to the reinvestigation. 
( C ) Limitations on extension of the period to reinvestigate. Subparagraph ( B ) shall not apply to any reinvestigation in which, during the 30-day period described in subparagraph ( A ), the information that is the subject of the reinvestigation is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or the consumer reporting agency determines that the information can not be verified. 

Yet in violation of the following regulation, specifically " Deadline '', LexisNexis continues to report the item as accurate : 623 - 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( E ) if an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified after any reinvestigation under paragraph ( 1 ), for purposes of reporting to a consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation promptly ( i ) modify that item of information ; ( ii ) delete that item of information ; or ( iii ) permanently block the reporting of that item of information.

( 2 ) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph ( 1 ) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) [ 1681i ] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information. 

LexisNexis ' claim the item is correct is a moot point in light of the time given to them to investigate had expired. Their obligation was and is to " delete '' the item and submit the appropriate documents i.e. " electronic or paper XXXX '' to the Credit Reporting Agencies they report to. Instead, XXXX and XXXX have indicated that LexisNexis has " certified '' the accuracy of this item that LexisNexis had a clear obligation to delete. 

FCRA regulations do not provide a " Do Over '' to LexisNexis. FCRA regulations under section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) [ 1681i ] do provide the guidelines for the ( loosely used ) " certification '' claimed. In this case, LexisNexis fails the first paragraph of the guidelines. 

The ongoing and documented failure of LexisNexis, XXXX, and XXXX to comply with the FCRA shows a willful and negligent way in their handling of my case. Please see the following : 617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [ 15 U.S.C. 1681o ] ( a ) In general. Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any a requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( 1 ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure ; and ( 2 ) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court. 

Additionally, I have made multiple requests to XXXX and XXXX for the name etc of the entity " certifying '' the item in question. To be specific I asked for the " Method of Verification '' to no avail. XXXX and XXXX have given no information on the provider of this information to this date. 

Conclusion : This now falls under section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) [ 1681i ], under the title which includes Expedited Dispute Resolution. And in keeping with such title, LexisNexis has 3 days to comply, after which on XX/XX/2017, I will file a legal action to enforce LexisNexis ', XXXX 's, and XXXX 's liability in this matter. I am providing my phone number and email address to make it easier for LexisNexis to contact me in the 3 days provided ( XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation