Consumer complaint received 2024-09-06
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc. (MI)

I. INTRODUCTION : In the matter at hand, the Consumer ( Complainant ) [ XXXX ] alleges inaccuracies and material misrepresentations in credit reporting by Experian for XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with corresponding account number XXXX. Despite multiple disputes and clear evidence of inaccuracies, Experian has consistently failed to correct the information, resulting in significant harm to Complainants creditworthiness and financial stability. This complaint outlines the pattern of noncompliance by Experian and the legal basis for Complainant 's claims. XXXX. RESULTS OF EXPERIANS LATEST REINVESTIGATION : On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Complainant received the results of the latest reinvestigation from Experian regarding the disputed collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) on behalf of XXXX XXXX. The investigation revealed several critical procedural violations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). These violations include TSIs failure to properly validate the debt, discrepancies in the amounts reported, conflicting Dates of First Delinquency ( DoFD ) across credit reporting agencies, and Experian 's failure to conduct a thorough reinvestigation. Furthermore, both XXXX and Experian continue to report the collection account despite the validation process being incomplete, violating the legal requirement under Regulation F to cease collection activities until the collection account has been verified. XXXX and Experians violations not only undermine the accuracy of the information being reported but also call into question the legality of the accounts presence on the credit report. Below, the key issues are outlined in detail, supporting the demand for the immediate removal of the collection account from the credit files and reports Experian maintains and disseminates regarding Complainant. The violations continue to involve : XXXX. Unreliability Of Mailing Collection Notice to Last Known Address : Under Title 12 Part X, Supplement I to Part 1006, a debt collector who sends a required disclosure in writing or electronically and who receives a notice that the disclosure was not delivered has not sent the disclosure in a manner that is reasonably expected to provide actual notice. ( 12 C.F.R. pt. 1006, Supp. I, Comment 42 ( a ) ( 1 ) 2. ). However, when collection notices are sent by mail a debt collector satisfies the notification requirement if the debt collector mails a printed copy of a disclosure to the consumer 's last known address, unless the debt collector, at the time of mailing, knows or should know that the consumer does not currently reside at, or receive mail at, that location. ( 12 C.F.R. pt. 1006, Supp. I, Comment 42 ( a ) ( 1 ) 3. ). XXXX has demonstrated it subscribes and utilizes the services of XXXX, Experian, and XXXX by virtue of placement of collection account/tradeline in the files XXXX, Experian, and XXXX maintain and disseminate regarding Complainant. The collection account was allegedly for services at an address Complainant lived in XXXX, but that he vacated by XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. In contrast XXXX would not mail a collection notice until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, over XXXX ( XXXX ) years after ComplainanXXXX vacated the address for service. While the purported dates of first delinquency do not match among all three CRAs, each CRA places the alleged XXXX within the latter portion of XXXX, thus implying XXXX, as furnisher knew or had reasonablre cause to believe the address information the had for Complainant was stale. As such a standard industry practice would be conduct a soft or hard inquiry on files maintained by the CRAs to obtain last known address information. That XXXX failed to do so implies it did not make reasonable efforts to provide actual notice to Complainant, as required under Section 1006.42 ( a ) ( 1 ). The absence of an inquiry with XXXX, Experian, or XXXX undermines any claim that XXXX sending the notice to the service address was a reasonable expectation of delivery. XXXX. Failure to Provide Proper Validation : Given XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX not complete the validation of the debt in accordance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), a debt collector must cease all collection activities ( including reporting to credit bureaus ) until the debt is verified. The XX/XX/XXXX response from XXXX shows that the validation process was still incomplete. Additionally, XXXX listed the alleged debt amount as {$740.00}, but the documentation they used to validate the debt shows a different amount {$940.00} from XXXX XXXX. This discrepancy indicates XXXX is furnishing incomplete or inaccurate information to the credit bureaus, which is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act FCRA, ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ). Therefore, the collection account/tradeline should have been, and now must be removed. XXXX. Conflicting Dates of First Delinquency ( DoFD ) : Discrepancies exist between the Dates of First Delinquency reported by Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, which were each allegedly verified by XXXX as accurate. These inconsistencies violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) provisions requiring maximum possible accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). Conflicting DoFDs, each of which is repeatedly verified as accurate create materially misleading information, which can be ( just as damaging to a consumer when it comes from a CRA as opposed to when it comes from a [ data ] furnisher. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Failure to XXXX a Reasonable Investigation : XXXX rapid response ( including selective adjustments, such as removing the collection status for XX/XX/XXXX ) indicates inadequate reinvestigation. The FCRA mandates a thorough reinvestigation such that ( once the credit reporting agency receives notice that the consumer disputes information contained in his or her credit reportit can target its resources in a more efficient manner and conduct a more thorough investigation. ) ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ) and ( [ a ] t that point, the investigative burden on the credit reporting agencies decreases because, once a claimed inaccuracy is pinpointed by the consumer, the [ credit-reporting ] agency incurs only the cost of reinvestigating that XXXX piece of disputed information. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( quoting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ). ) ( XXXX v. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). Under Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), CRAs must reinvestigate any disputed information in a consumer 's file, including personal identifying information. ( Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, No. XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ) ). A CRAs reliance on automated processes ( ACDV ) [ XXXX ] is insufficient for a reasonable reinvestigation under the FCRA because ( there are circumstances in which the FCRA may require a credit-reporting agency to go beyond the initial [ A ] CDV process and verify the accuracy of its initial source of information. ) ( XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ), for example when a consumer ( alert [ XXXX ] the [ credit-reporting ] agency to the possibility that the source may be unreliable or when a [ credit-reporting ] agency itself knows or [ has reasonable cause to believe ] that the source is unreliable [ because contradictory information is reported for the same account/tradeline on the same report regarding the consumer. ] ) ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, and under the FDCPA and FCRA, collection activitiesincluding credit reportingmust cease during the validation process if a validation notice was not sent within five ( XXXX ) days of initial communication with Complainant ( 12 CFR 1006.34 ( a ) ). Reporting the collection account during this period violates procedural requirements because under CFPB interpretation of Regulation F, ( a debt collector who sends the requisite validation disclosure in writing or electronically but receives notice that the disclosure was not delivered to the consumer has not sent the disclosure in a manner that is reasonably expected to provide actual notice. ) ( 12 C.F.R. pt. 1006, Supp. I, Comment 42 ( a ) ( 1 ) 2. ). 6. Failure In Accurate Reporting in Conjunction With Debt Collection Practices : TSIs failure to follow standard practices in verifying the complainants address, such as through skip-tracing, is a key issue in this case. While Experian may not mandate the use of skip-tracing, it expects debt collectors to have reasonable policies and procedures in place to ensure the information furnished to Experian meets the standard of Maximum possible accuracy under 1681s-2. In order for information regarding the XXXX collection to be furnished accurately and completely, XXXX would have needed to meet its responsibilities under the FDCPA. XXXX failed to implement reasonable policies and procedures to ensure they mailed collection notice to an address for Complainant that would have reasonably been expected to be received by Complainant. Experians own web blog encourages data furnishers to use skip-tracing methods to at a minimum, to confirm the accuracy of the addresses provided by original creditors when engaging in collection activity, writing ( [ s ] kip-tracing is the first-step in effective debt collection. This essential practice helps locate individuals [, ] ) and further ( [ s ] kip-tracing is the process of locating individuals who have moved or otherwise become difficult to find. This technique is particularly important for financial institutions and debt collectors, enabling them to contact debtors and recover outstanding payments. Given the high stakes involved, mastering skip-tracing best practices is crucial for ensuring successful debt recovery. ) ( XXXX XXXX, Skip Tracing Best Practices : Improving Debt Collection and Recovery, Experian Insights Blog ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ). Under the FCRA, Experian is obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information it reports ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). Upon receiving notice of a dispute from Complainant, Experian was required to conduct a reasonable investigation into the accuracy of the disputed information, as mandated by 15 U.S.C. 1681i. Once Complainant notified Experian of XXXX  failure to mail collection notices to the correct address, Experian incurred the cost of reinvestigating that piece of disputed information. Had Experian conducted a thorough, reasonable reinvestigation under Experian Report Number XXXX, it would have discovered XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX response. In that response, XXXX stated that it " mailed an Initial Demand Letter to the address provided by the client as a good address, no mail returns were received [, ] '' and identified the address XXXX used. A comparison between that address with Experians own records would have shown that the address to which XXXX mailed its XXXX XX/XX/XXXX collection notice was an outdated address to reach Complainant by over XXXX ( XXXX ), as it was listed on the final bill from the purported original creditor in XXXX, and was no longer the complainants current address. Experian would have then concluded that XXXX mailed the collection notice to an old address per the Experian records, and that ultimately XXXX failed to take necessary steps to verify the complainants address, thereby rendering its conduct under the FDCPA unlawful under and making its reporting of the account/tradeline false and/or misleading under the FCRA. By failing to act on this critical information from XXXX, Experian knew or had reasonable cause to believe XXXX had not verified Complainants current address, yet allowed materially misleading and inaccurate and misleading information to persist in the files and reports Experian maintains and disseminates regarding Complainant, an in turn violated the maximum possible accuracy requirements of 1681e ( b ). Experians failure to act after receiving notice from Complainant, and willful persistence of information it had reasonable cause to believe was inaccurate or misleading and demonstrates a clear violation of obligation to reinvestigate the specific inaccuracy as required by 1681i. A CRA ( recklessly violates the Act if it takes an action that is not only a violation under a reasonable reading of the statutes terms, but shows that the company ran a risk of violating the law substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that was merely careless. ) ( XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ). Here, Experian ran a substantial risk of violating the law by failing to act on clear evidence, including XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX response, which indicated that XXXX sent the collection notice to an outdated address. XXXX failure to address this discrepancy demonstrates reckless disregard for the accuracy of the information it was reporting. Therefore, the collection account must be removed, as its continued reporting is both materially misleading and unlawful under the FCRA, due to TSIs failure to verify the complainants address and Experians failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation following the notice of dispute. Footnotes : [ XXXX ] A natural person and a person and consumer as defined by the FCRA at 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( b ) and ( c ) ; [ 2 ] An XXXX is an automated procedure whereby a reporting agency matches its electronic data against electronic data provided by a creditor ; if the data match, the information in the credit report is deemed verified. ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ). In the matter here, the ACDV processes appears to have used in conjunction with automatic updates even after notice was provided by Complainant that the source of the information was unreliable vis a vis the disparate DoFD across XXXX, Experian, XXXX, and the disclosure that XXXX failed to deliver notice to Complainant in a manner that could reasonably have been expected to provide actual notice to Complainant. ( see 12 C.F.R. pt. 1006, Supp. I, Comment 42 ( a ) ( 1 ) 2. ) ).