Consumer complaint received 2023-10-22
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 have filed at least six ( 6 ) disputes with Experian in XXXX regarding the data reported for a XXXX account/tradeline. This means at minimum Experian has had five ( 5 ) different opportunities to correct false/misleading/inaccurate information furnished y XXXX. Yet, after each re-investigation, Experian has chosen to incorporate more and more inchoate data from the furnisher regarding payment history and delinquency status. For example, a before and after XXXX acct/tradeline screenshot from Experian circa XXXX XX/XX/XXXX shows a charge-off alleged to occur after a ninety ( 90 ) day delinquency in XX/XX/XXXX. Yet, there is a preceding period of an alleged one-hundred twenty ( 120 ) day delinquency in XX/XX/XXXX. The alleged one-hundred twenty ( 120 ) day delinquency of XX/XX/XXXX is immediately preceded by an alleged ninety ( 90 ) day delinquency in XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX is required to charge-off accounts after the same number of days for all card holders. Thus, if accounts are charged-off after ninety ( 90 ) days delinquent, then the account would have been charged-off in XX/XX/XXXX. Likewise, if XXXX charges off accounts after one-hundred twenty ( 120 ) days past-due delinquencies, then the alleged charge-off for this account/tradeline would have occurred in XX/XX/XXXX. Again Experian reports the account charged off in after a ninety ( 90 ) day delinquency in the month XX/XX/XXXX. Whats more is that the same screenshot shows no data ( ND ) reported for XX/XX/XXXX, implying the status of the account was indeterminate/unverifiable for XX/XX/XXXX. Be that as the case, it is the not possible to verify the charge-off status of the account for the months thereafter, because the charge-off occurs at some number of days past-due after a date of first delinquency. An ND in XX/XX/XXXX implies a date of first delinquency ( and date of charge-off is indeterminate relative to XX/XX/XXXX, and therefore any data beyond XX/XX/XXXX is invalid. A more recent screenshot from XXXX XX/XX/XXXX shows Experian last concluded a re-investigation around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Yet, instead correcting errors from the prior XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( presumed persisted ) Experian and/or XXXX introduced additional erroneous data to make it " fit. '' This time, Experian reports a charge-off now occurred in XX/XX/XXXX after an alleged ninety ( 90 ) day past-due status for XX/XX/XXXX. The number of days delinquent for XX/XX/XXXX between the XXXX XXXX results screenshot and the reporting as of XXXX XXXX shows Experian and or XXXX fit the data by increasing the alleged number of days past-due for XX/XX/XXXX from sixty ( 60 ) days to one-hundred twenty ( 120 ) days. Yet, even still Experian reports the account was not alleged to have been charged-off until XX/XX/XXXX after an alleged ninety ( 90 ) day delinquency in XX/XX/XXXX. The data for XX/XX/XXXX is then marked as ND, implying the date of first delinquency is indeterminate relative to that month, and thus demonstrating the payment history from XX/XX/XXXX onward is unverifiable. At this XXXX knows or has reasonable cause to believe the account payment history it is furnishing to the CRAs is false false/misleading/inaccurate on its face. XXXX has had at least six ( 6 ) opportunities fro each CRA to correct this information in response to my CRA disputes -- they have not. Likewise, Experian has conducted at least five ( 5 ) separate re-investigations and knows, or should know, the data furnished by XXXX is false/misleading/inaccurate under my circuit 's interpretation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( see Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr , Inc. , 954 F.3d 938 ( 6th Cir. 2020 ) ). Moreover, Experian does not seem to be conducting reasonable re-investigations. Note that reasonable procedures under 1681e ( b ) are not proof of a reasonable re-investigation under 1681i ( b ). The re-investigation requirements under 1681i ( a ) mandates a more thorough investigation than 1681e ( b ) ( see. Chaitoff v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc., No. 21-2632 ( 7th Cir. 2023 ) ). It is clear XXXX has violated 15 U.S. Code 1681s2. Likewise it would be clear to any reasonable individual that the data reported by Experian is horridly inaccurate and unverifiable. The bottom line is that Experian and XXXX need to remove the derogatory payment history for the months 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 } AND Experian needs to block XXXX from furnishing new and/or additional and/or updated data under the same and/or a duplicate and/or a new account/tradeline.