XX/XX/XXXX Re : Complaint of XXXX XXXX XXXX Complaint ID # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX has received your XX/XX/XXXX complaint from XXXX XXXX XXXX. Thank you for contacting us and for the opportunity to respond. 



To briefly summarize, XXXX XXXX complaint focuses on whether, as a consumer reporting agency, XXXX can properly report a bankruptcy XXXX it has reasonable grounds to believe is associated with XXXX XXXX and whether its procedures for re-investigating a dispute are reasonable. We believe XXXX has acted in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and that XXXX XXXX complaint is meritless. 



XXXX XXXX claims that XXXX has failed to provide me with a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information. A cursory review of those documents will reveal that XXXX XXXX is mistaken or misunderstands XXXX obligation in this regard. 



As you know, bankruptcy records are public record and are an important source of information lenders use in making credit decisions. According to our records, XXXX XXXX originally contacted XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX to request a copy of his XXXX consumer report and place a security freeze. The consumer report was mailed to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX we received a dispute from XXXX XXXX to validate the bankruptcy. 



According to PACER, it appears XXXX XXXX filed for bankruptcy on XX/XX/XXXX. In addition to matches on his first name, last name and address, the truncated Social Security number in the bankruptcy petition matches to the Social Security number XXXX XXXX supplied to XXXX to verify his identity. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX sent the bankruptcy petition to XXXX XXXX with the matches highlighted. On XX/XX/XXXX we received a second letter from XXXX XXXX stating that the bankruptcy still was not validated. On XX/XX/XXXX we again sent XXXX XXXX copies of the Bankruptcy Petition highlighting the matches on his first name, last name, address and truncated social security number that he provided to us to verify his identity. 


As XXXX has informed him previously, it uses XXXX to obtain the bankruptcy records in question and then manually compares the identifying information in the publicly available bankruptcy records to the information he supplied to XXXX. XXXX  is a federal government-licensed tool that permits licensees to access the same court records as are available as if a requestor had visited the court house in person. XXXX XXXX provides no legal basis for his position that the use of XXXX  to conduct re-investigations is impermissible, and I have found none. In contrast, I have found cases in which a plaintiff has argued that the consumer reporting agency should have used XXXX. See, e.g., XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX ). We view the use of XXXX   to support re-investigations as reasonable. 



Once XXXX retrieved the relevant records from the court clerk via XXXX, XXXX XXXX manually matched various data points between the two data sets. You will immediately note the bankruptcy petitions match on his first name, last name and address, the truncated Social Security number in the bankruptcy petition matches to the Social Security number XXXX XXXX supplied to XXXX to verify his identity. As XXXX XXXX correctly notes, Bank.R.Proc. XXXX requires filers to truncate certain sensitive information. However, that rule does not prevent the public from relying on the information that is publicly available from making a reasonable determination as to whether it belongs to a particular individual. 



XXXX XXXX assessment of XXXX compliance with the FCRA and 5 of the FTC Act is fatally flawed. Importantly, in order to bring a valid case under the FCRA, XXXX XXXX must affirmatively demonstrate that the disputed credit information is inaccurate. See, e.g., XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX  XXXX. XXXX ). In other words, XXXX XXXX will need to represent that the bankruptcy is not his. Nowhere in any of XXXX XXXX correspondence does he make that allegation. Instead, he focuses all of his efforts on whether XXXX has verified the bankruptcy. Unless he can demonstrate that the bankruptcy is not his and that XXXX was unreasonable in its reliance on a presumptively reliable source. Interestingly, XXXX XXXX complaint includes this statement : Upon speaking to the DEPUTY CLERK for JUDGE XXXX and asking the status of this pending case, I was told it is not even close to being completed as they are still determining the scope of class and motion to dismiss to be filed. XXXX has seen almost that exact same language in other, ostensibly, unrelated and unconnected complaints alleging XXXX has not properly verified that a consumer has filed a bankruptcy. But even laying that observation aside, the substantive statement is irrelevant. The fact that the underlying case is still pending does not affect the precedential value of a published court decision. XXXX XXXX fundamentally misunderstands the application of law. 



We have identified a trend of requests for re-investigations, recently. Like XXXX XXXX, they almost uniformly allege that since a bankruptcy petition does not have the consumers signature, it is unverifiable or un-validated and that XXXX  is insufficient for reinvestigation purposes. We have found instances on the Internet of so-called experts recommending this line of dispute. ( See, e.g., https : XXXX ; https : XXXX ). 



We will continue to afford XXXX XXXX an opportunity to place a consumer statement in his consumer file pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( b ) regarding the accuracy or completeness of our information. 



I trust this letter satisfactorily responds to XXXX XXXX allegations. Of course, please feel free to contact me at XXXX, if you have any further questions or need further information. 



Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The validation came from a third party source. You claim that the clerk of courts gave you this information even though I have a certified letter from the clerk of courts that states " they do not provide public records information for verification to anyone ''. 

XXXX also violated the FCRA by not marking my consumer reports disputed by consumer on both XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX disputes that I sent to them during their 30 day investigation. They also failed to notify XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX  to mark my credit reports as disputed per the FCRA " The creditor or CRA Failing to Follow Debt Dispute Procedures ''. 

When you submit a written dispute about the accuracy of an item on your report, credit bureaus and your creditors must take certain actions in response. Their duties include conducting a reasonable investigation of your dispute, correcting any inaccurate information, or even removing the disputed debt from your credit report. There are a number of ways they can fall short of their duties, depending on whether they are the CRA or the creditor. 

Debt Dispute Violations by CRAs Some common violations by a CRA include failing to : notify a creditor that you dispute the debt that it has reported conduct a reasonable investigation of your dispute, or correct or delete any inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information within 30 days of the receiving notice of your dispute.