Consumer complaint received 2017-08-01
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: EQUIFAX, INC. (TX)

Equifax is not honoring FCRA 605B. I submitted an identity theft packet to Equifax via certified mail on XXXX-2017. The item was delivered on XXXX. FCRA 605B ( c ) explicitly sets forth reasons the CRA must provide in order to deny or rescind a block of information from your credit report. The reasons are : 1. the information was blocked in error, or the consumer requested a block in error ; 2. the information was blocked, or the block was requested by the consumer, on the basis of a material representation of fact by the consumer relevant to the request to block ; or 3. the consumer obtained possession of goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction or transactions. They did not provide one of the statutory reasons that permit them to deny. In fact, Equifax failed to send any documentation or statements explaining the reason to deny the block.Additionally, the asserted reason of conducting an investigation is not a condition of blocking under section 605B. I contacted Equifax on XX/XX/2017 to obtain an update since I had not received anything from Equifax. The first representative transferred me to the XXXX, an agent from the Equifax Dispute Department. XXXX explained that their internal process dictates that they open a 30 day dispute and notify the creditors/agencies identified in the identity theft report. I explained that I had sent them all the documentation required for a block. If the block request was denied, I should have received a letter citing one of the 3 reasons outlined above. I also inquired about the results of the dispute ( since I had not yet received any documentation following my submission of my identity theft packet. XXXX continued to state that only one item on the block request had been deleted. Furthermore, she incorrectly referenced items that have been deleted that were not part of the identity theft packet. The very implementation of the identity theft process was based on the intent of congress to remove any investigation by the furnisher or CRA, with blockage based only on an assertion of the consumer that is supported by a sworn police report. After some back and forth, I requested to speak to a supervisor to clarify the reason the block was denied, why an investigation was opened and why Equifax had failed to send any communication or acknowledgement of the matter. I was transferred to XXXX, a supervisor in the Equifax Dispute Department. He also cited the internal policy/procedure to not block identity theft but rather open a dispute and notify the creditors/agencies of the block request. This dispute process would allow 30 days for the creditors/agencies to investigate. I asked XXXX why no communication was sent providing a valid block reason as the internal policy is not a valid reason citing : ( 2 ) Notification to consumer. If a block of information is declined or rescinded under this subsection, the affected consumer shall be notified promptly, in the same manner as consumers are notified of the reinsertion of information under section 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). I have failed to reach resolution with Equifax and have decided to open a complaint as they are violation FCRA 605B.