Consumer complaint received 2025-03-31 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Other personal consumer report
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information is incorrect
Company: Checkr, Inc
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX was deactivated from the XXXX platform following a background check completed by Checkr on XX/XX/XXXX, which was flagged as " Consider. '' The background check cited a XXXX violation listed as " UNINSURED MOTOR-INSUR CANCEL-REG. '' However, this entry lacked critical context : it related specifically to a single, older vehicle ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) that XXXX had never used for XXXX. This generic description in the report failed to make that distinction. 
The suspension was automatically generated due to XXXX not surrendering the license plates for that older vehicle after canceling its insurance. New Jersey state law ( under NJSA XXXX and XXXX ) triggers a registration suspension when insurance is canceled but plates are not returned regardless of whether the vehicle is still owned or in use. 
At the time of this report : XXXX drivers license remained valid and in good standing. 
His active XXXX delivery vehicle ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) had valid insurance and registration, as verified by a XXXX declarations page and XXXX documents. 

Despite promptly resolving the issue by surrendering plates, paying XXXX fees, and submitting official documentation ( including a stamped driver abstract ), both XXXX and Checkr continued to treat the record as unresolved. Checkr issued an updated background check on XX/XX/XXXX, but still classified it as " Consider. '' At the same time, Checkr independently ran new background checks for XXXX and XXXX XXXX using the exact same XXXX record and marked both of those reports as " Clear. '' This glaring inconsistency using the same state data yet yielding different results proves that Checkrs internal flagging system is either flawed or applied with subjective bias, and that XXXX 's reliance on that flawed data ( without proper individualized review ) resulted in wrongful deactivation. XXXX submitted multiple follow-ups to both Checkr and XXXX, clearly presenting : A formal reinstatement request on XX/XX/XXXX ( with full supporting documentation ). 
Follow-up clarification on XX/XX/XXXX requesting action or a formal denial explanation. 
Notice of ticket escalation on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, XXXX with Checkr ( including a final response by " XXXX XXXX '' again rejecting the dispute ). 
A response to XXXX noting that their background check was incomplete or incorrect, referencing the vague language used in the Checkr entry on XX/XX/XXXX. 
A direct reply to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX challenging the vague and misleading interpretation of the report and reiterating that the suspension pertained only to a previously owned vehicle with supporting documentation from XXXX. 
Checkr 's acknowledgment that a dispute ticket was opened ( Ticket # XXXX ) and that Checkr legally has 3045 days to resolve disputes yet concluded the dispute with the same generic support responses and no substantive review. 

XXXX issued a Pre-Adverse Action Notice on XX/XX/XXXX, stating it was considering deactivation based on the entry UNINSURED MOTOR-INSUR CANCEL-REG, without any reference to the updated documentation already submitted. XXXX followed up immediately, pointing out the misleading nature of the entry and urging XXXX to reassess.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation