Consumer complaint received 2021-02-06 00:00:00
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 — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I disputed inaccurate information reporting on my credit report by XXXX. I was notified by the 3 credit reporting agencies, Equifax, XXXX and XXXX that the information was verified. I disagreed with this information, so on XX/XX/XXXX I sent a follow-up to the 3 credit reporting agencies that I disagreed with the information reported and requested their method of verification as in my research, I found they should be able to provide me. Again, they verified the accuracy of the reporting and made no changes. 

Ive also requested procedures in place for the bureaus because they have continually reported inaccurate information, knowingly and willingly. I sent a follow up on XX/XX/XXXX. I wanted to follow-up with the 3 credit reporting agencies, Equifax, XXXX and XXXX. I notified them of the errors with the reporting and made it evident that they were knowingly and willfully reporting inaccurate information. This was my exact reason for my dispute : Please verify this account and It's a shame how you have conducted and supposedly verified this account. The errors are evident as they are inaccurate in more ways than one. When reading up on the FCRA, I learned that if an account is reported on my credit report, everything within the reporting must be free from error which is not the case. You have failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and now I'm requesting from you the information you affirm to have firsthand knowledge of this account reporting with 100 % accuracy. Should you deny my request, I simply request that you remove this account in its entirety from my credit report. Based on my research, I'm requesting to further clarify your compliance with Metro2 Compliance. I don't agree with the Credit Limit listed and request that you please verify this information. I am also requesting that you provide verification of documents that you have reviewed. Please confirm the Status Code is also correct. I would like you to provide me with the Metro 2 Format, specifically Base Segment, Field 17A. Let me remind you that " parroting '' is not " conducting a reasonable investigation ''. Please take my request seriously. You have again confirmed to me in writing that the information reported is in fact accurate. It is now my opinion that you may have mix or mis-merged this file onto my credit report. After my research, I have found that mis-merged files occur largely because the CRAs ' computers do not use sufficiently rigorous score or scale thresholds to match consumer data precisely, even when such unique identifiers as Social Security numbers are present. The nationwide CRAs rely on a match of only seven of nine digits of the SSN ( See Reeves v. Equifax Info. Serv. ) The CFPB has identified mixed files as a particularly challenging problem. I again request that you immediately remove this account from my credit profile. Last month, I requested you to provide me with the " reasonable procedures '' that you have in place, yet you didn't provide anything " specific '' with " first-hand knowledge '' about this reporting. Need I remind you that these procedures are designed to prevent inaccuracies. I've requested this in writing and once again, you have failed me. It is my right to know that you have actually followed YOUR own procedures. ( Rothery v. TransUnion, LLC. ) It's not enough to just have procedures put in place but that the employee also follows the procedures in each and every report they prepare ( See Konter v. CSC Credit Serv., Inc. ). You must not just have reasonable rules, but your employees must strictly follow those internal CRA rules ( Carroll v. Exxon Co. ). The FTC staff indicates that " [ o ] ne of the most significant compliance procedures to assure accuracy will be the training of new personnel and the retraining of current employees from time to time. Even isolated instances or error should be followed up and procedures adjusted in order to correct the cause of the error '' ( FTC, Compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ). Since you have failed yet again, I implore you to do the right thing and remove this from my credit report. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent another dispute to the 3 credit reporting agencies to let them know that I have not been able to obtain actual verification of what XXXX is reporting. I notified them that the information is inaccurate and unable to be verified per my request. 

I sent my initial request for full verification of this account to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. They didnt provide me sufficient verification per my request which was made pursuant to the FACT Act, Section 312.

In my research, I found something called Appendix B to Part 1022 - Model Notices of Furnishing Negative Information. My research shows that a financial institution that is subject to section 623 ( a ) ( 7 ) of the FCRA shall be deemed to be in compliance with the notice requirement in section 623 ( a ) ( 7 ) of the FCRA if the institution properly uses the model notices in this appendix. I would like to see the actual document that was sent to me to verify that my rights have not been violated. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a follow up to XXXX to again request verification. I requested 29 very specific items to in fact verify the account, which, if needed would be requested during discovery if I were to ever file a lawsuit regarding my request. They failed to provide me with the requested information. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a request of verification to XXXX so that I can see how and why they have verified this information with the 3 credit reporting agencies, yet, all 3 of them didn't report the exact same thing. I requested information specifically in regards to UCC Article 9, which were as follows : 1 ) I would like to see my wet signature that was authenticated ( Authenticate is a broader term than sign and encompasses electronic signatures and similar methods. See U.C.C. 9-102 ( a ) ( 7 ). ) on a security agreement that describes the collateral. 
2 ) Written confirmation that the " Right of Redemption '' was provided so that I know that my rights weren't violated under Article 9. 
3 ) A copy of the notice of the intended disposition of the collateral, including the date after which a private sale occurred and the time and place of where the public sale was conducted. 
4 ) Verification of the notice of my right to redeem the collateral after repossession by paying the full accelerated amount of the debt. ( U.C.C. 9-623 ). 
5 ) Notice of the disposition of the collateral that contained all the required information and that it was accurate in all respects. Keep in mind that Article 9 adopts a " zero tolerance '' rule for mistakes or omissions in the notice of disposition. 

As you guessed, they didnt provide me with any of this information. On XX/XX/XXXX, I requested a Deficiency Waiver in writing regarding the account. I also requested that they provide me with ALL 426 identifiers of their reporting to the bureaus as the information is inaccurate. As well, Ive requested that they remove this account from my credit report since they have failed to oblige the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the FACT Act Section 312, U.C.C. Section 9, Fair Credit Billing Act amongst many other laws put into place to protect my consumer rights. This, in my opinion is the reason that the Attorney Generals from more than half of the States have entered an agreement for them to follow.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation