Consumer complaint received 09-02-2017 about Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports (Credit reporting) with Ditech Financial LLC (ME).
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: My name is : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX file number : XXXX Ditech acct number : XXXX SS XXXX XXXX I became aware of a gross error on my credit report and am shocked that after numerous attempts to correct it, little effort has been made by XXXX, who has only filed an electronic dispute, or Ditech, who admits to performing no researching before simply sending it back as verified. 

I became aware of this error through my membership with XXXX XXXX 's Credit monitoring program, which costs XXXX per month, which notifies me of negative information on report and promises help in resolving it. I sent substantial documentation which should be enough to delete this error. As an XXXX of 33 years, I ca n't believe they are ignoring this information. I tell you that not to flout my credentials but to stress that they routinely just put in for an electronic verification when the circumstances do n't call for it. Ditech did nothing to research the accuracy of their information. Even when I produced Court Orders ( attached ), they still did not change report and did not explain why they did not change it. Because of this, I am seriously concerned about the manner in which they are investigating legitimate consumer disputes. Please review my documents which prove that this should not remain on the record. I appreciate your assistance. I am shocked that a major credit bureau did little to help a paying customer ( although that should make no difference ) and that both of these entities are getting away with ruining consumers lives. Please review the iron clad info I have in this case. I have run it by several consumer credit attorneys at XXXX as well and have been told that they agree with my assessment. Also, the amount of time derogatory info remains on a report should not vary depending on who that consumer is. The following errors occurred, which I would like corrected : ( 1 ) DITECH was reporting the status of my account as DEROGATORY. I have no late payments, according to their own report. 

( 2 ) Ditech reported that I had a DISMISSED BANKRUPTCY, and is using the closed date of the account ( I just refinanced with another company ) as the date when the 7 years will begin wherein the negative info will come off report ( report states " Estimated month that this item will be removed : XX/XX/XXXX ''. ) In fact, I had a DISCHARGED Bankruptcy, which is, as you know, far different than a DISMISSED Bankruptcy, which is indeed a derogatory status. 

Here are the FACTS and attending documents which support my claim that the information is inaccurate and being willfully misreported. Furthermore, XXXX, from XXXX looked up the length of time a Chapter XXXX discharged Bankruptcy remains on a report, and verified that it is 7 years from the date the consumer first filed for BK. 

I sent XXXX 1 ) the proof of initial Ch XXXX filing date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ; 2 ) proof that my Ch XXXX bankruptcy was discharged & not dismissed ( Court Order ). Apparently, despite my best attempts, XXXX did not understand the difference between a Ch XXXX dismissed BK versus a discharged BK. 

Furthermore, XXXX did agree that NOTHING about the Ch XXXX should be reported seven years after the case is filed. Since my case was filed on XX/XX/XXXX, any reference to a BANKRUPTCY should not be permitted. In this case, the creditor put it in the remarks section where such info is often overlooked. XXXX told me that the remarks section is only used for the creditors private use. Clearly, since it is part of the public credit report, this is inaccurate. 

XXXX asked for this info to be verified electronically several times. This is not the type of info that can be verified electronically, as it involves remarks sections, etc. Ditech came back with " INFO REMAINS ''. There was no attempt on either DITECH or XXXX 'S PART to insure that the info was properly reviewed and accurate. This caused me higher interest rates, denied loans, and emotional distress. 
I find it odd that this derogatory info only appeared when I closed the account. Prior to that it was all flawless and no reference to Bankruptcy or dismissed BK whatsoever. It only appeared when we parted ways. I can give you more FACTS and US Attorney 's names to prove that there was a great deal of bad blood. I also wish to point out that for most of this loan they were not the servicer, and were In essence, my account was disputed several times with XXXX and they allowed the inaccurate info to stay. I have, on several prior occasions, faxed them proof that ( 1 ) my Ch XXXX BK was begun on XX/XX/XXXX, which should cause all references to be deleted on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX from XXXX should verify that he looked it up to verify length of time. 

I received a DECISION from XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX which stated that they had concluded their report and that the DISMISSED BANKRUPTCY WAS TO STAY. It also stated it would be removed on XX/XX/XXXX -- fourteen years since I filed Ch XXXX- two times the normal time XXXX allows is their policy and procedure manual. At this point I need your help or will be forced to file for intentional infliction of emotional distress and a bevy of counts which accompany willful misreporting of a credit report. Even Ch XXXX Bankruptcy 's, in which the debtor does not repay, only remain on report for 10 years. 

Finally, when the information was deleted on the credit report for a day or two, the scores themselves would not change. I am sending a report with no derogatory info re : Ditech but the scores show the underlying reasons and deduct the underlying points. I am asking that this manner of reporting info not on credit report be stopped. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation