Experian False Names, SSN, addresses, etc..

[willy2004]

Their "trade information" is a bluff as confirmed on consumerinfo.com that concedes the very obvious: We CAN "dispute" false items of identifying information including false names, nonexistent addresses and SS numbers that belong to other consumers. The FCRA ain't that bad after all, it was an Experian bluff...and it is far from over, but I am positive that it is 100% bluffing.

 

Here is what I have learned:

 

Experian is intent on maintaining as many "variations" as possible in a file.

 

(Lemme post and edit as that was not cool at all.)

 

The Comeaux case brings to light Experian's fraud that I have also seen, but I have not experienced a mixed file first hand. I have seen one first hand and lemme tell you, it AIN"T PRETTY. MOre on that below.

 

So, Experian...they want as many variations of your name as possible, and I am talking about FALSE names: The accurate name of the consumer is John Adam Waller and the false name in the file include Jon Adam Walls, Jonathan ....make up some names, but they are FALSE, names that belong to other consumers.

 

SSN variations speak for themselves, my friend with the mixed file had (may still have) one that is different with respect to each number at each position. (Comeaux had FIVE Social Security number variations.)

 

Addresses include nonexistent ones and "mixes" of different addresses. Imagine..3036 West Adams St. and 8017 E. Broadway Blvd. are totally different, one might be accurate or close to it, but then you will see a mixed address like 8017 West Adams St., nonexistent.

 

SO, Experian does not like to regard a consumer's "dispute" as a "dispute" of "any item of information..." subject to Section 611 and reinsertion guidelines which include notification, disclosure of the identifying information of the furnisher. See, there is NO furnisher, that is the point I think. Experian grabs this false information from computer programs or something, hypothetical typographical errors.

 

Ask for the "source" of the false names and see what they say.

 

An Experian Manager told me that when it comes to reinsertion, Experian regards "variations" as "trade information." Well, that immediately *grabbed* me as a rather purposeful, arbitrary category.

 

BUT, "trade information" sounds like "any information," so that is good.

 

I "dispute pursuant to Section 611(a)(1)" very false items of identifying information and Experian deletes them two days later (so that they don't have to notify the furnisher). Of course, this "expedited dispute resolution" requires a phone call to be placed to me, a bunch of stuff that Experian thinks that I don't even see towards the end of Section 611. No phone calls, no notice of reinsertion, no requirement of certification from a furnisher, just THROW THAT FALSE INFORMATION back on my file and HOPE TO GOODNESS I don't actually gain confidence that FALSE NAMES and other "file mixers" are actually "any information" in my "file." That is a verifiable *sh*tload* of violations after the Manager states that Experian does not interpret names, addresses, SSN as "any information," you don't wanna be wrong about that one, no no.

 

WELL, it all came full circle when I logged onto consumerinfo.com.

 

I did it because Experian was concealing the false names. My file is with one representative and trust me, it was concealment all the way.

 

So I got my CR online, that is how you do this, folks.

 

ConsumerInfo.com showed my "Personal Information" and there was a new false address. I linked on "dispute an item" or whatever it says, and it says that I can "dispute" any "underlined" item of information. Okay, here we go...so I concluded that they are in fact bluffing, and here is the KICKER:

Click on a false address and a notice comes up that reads "To dispute this item, you will need to call or write us." [/size

 

Now it made perfect sense! When Experian concludes their "investigation," they will delete the false address and refer to it as an "update" and not a "deleted" item of information. Don't pay attention to the words, that item was DELETED and is fully subject to reinsertion guidelines.

 

Now tell me if this does not make sense to you. It may not if you have not seen their tactics. They DO delete and false addresses is their mainstay I think, so they will refer to the address deletion as an "update" in order to fool you. They wouldn't want to publicize on their website that consumers can't "dispute" names, addresses, etc...and they don't publicize it. They DO require you to CALL or WRITE...hummmmmm. When you play the game with them, it will ring loud like a bell.

 

I won't make the legal arguments, but let's face it: a false name, false address or any variation of one's identifying information creates a higher risk of file mixing...ACCURACY and PRIVACY are both served. Meanwhile, there is no basis whatsoever for excluding these items of information from the broad category of "any information..."

 

Read through Experian's bullsh*t, their "Fraud Prevention" program includes notifying me of Social Security number variations, name variations...keep that crap OUT of my file, please Experian.

 

 

SO this is a topic for Local Advocates, I wanna crush these CRAS gang

[willy2004]

CYNTHIA COMEAUX, Plaintiff, vs. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, Defendant.

 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:02cv0304

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, MARSHALL DIVISION

 

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10705

 

 

June 4, 2004, Decided

June 8, 2004, Filed

OVERVIEW: The credit reporting agency asserted that the consumer's claims under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i were time barred since they were not brought within two years from when any liability arose as required by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681p. The magistrate held that the idea that a credit reporting agency (especially one familiar with mixed file cases, and put on notice two years prior by the consumer) to carte blanche accept the consumer's dispute that she was suffering from identity theft and not even investigate whether or not other potential causes existed (such as mixed credit files), or to correct any of the inaccuracies found in the file, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was a willful misrepresentation that reasonable procedures were in place to resolve any credit file problems. The magistrate further found that the consumer had not only shown that her credit report was fraught with inaccuracies, but that the most harmful inaccuracy, bankruptcy, was either the sole cause or a substantial factor in the declining of her credit. Lastly, genuine issues of fact remained as to the consumer's mental distress claims and as to whether the agency had engaged in willful conduct.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND

 

On December 11, 2002, Comeaux filed this lawsuit under Sections 1681e( and 1681i(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), claiming that a mixed credit file has caused her to be denied credit with various lenders. More specifically, Comeaux claims that Experian combined her credit file with the credit file of another consumer, Mrs. Cindy Carr, thereby causing adverse credit that belonged to Mrs. Carr to be placed in Comeaux's credit file. Some of the inaccurate and derogatory information in Comeaux's credit file included: misspellings of Comeaux's name; that she had filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy; a listing of at least 70 trade lines and collection accounts; that she was married to another woman, Bridget, who is Mrs. Carr's teenage daughter; a listing of Mrs. Carr's home mortgage; that she had joint accounts with Louis Carr, Mrs. Carr's ex-husband; that she worked and lived in New Orleans; a listing of false telephone numbers, employer data; and finally, five different social security numbers, with only one [*3] being Comeaux's.

 

Comeaux did contact Experian several different times in January and October 1999, and informed them that she might be a victim of identity fraud. There is mention in the record that Mrs. Carr also contacted Experian in 1997 regarding discrepancies in her credit file. Experian asserts that Comeaux never informed them that her file was a mixed credit file, and thus, placed a fraud alert on her file. Furthermore, Experian claims that Comeaux's personal identifiers (i.e. her name and social security number) are not so unique, which could have created the combination of two separate files. These similarities are proof, according to Experian, that there is a need for flexibility in the Credit Reporting Industry.According to Comeaux, she was advised about various derogatory date found on her credit report when she was denied a loan by Hibemia National Bank in late December 1999 or in early January 1999. As a result, Comeaux contacted Experian as well as two other national credit reporting agencies. Comeaux's dispute communications with Experian began on January 4, 1999, when she telephoned and faxed Experian a request for a copy of her credit file. See Comeaux's 11-11-03 deposition, pp. 86-97, 100-101, 108, 110-111, 160 ("Comeaux's depo."). Comeaux further asserts that she telefaxed a copy of her January 4, 1999 Trans Union credit report to Experian that same day, and "marked up" or circled, what she believed to be errors in her credit file. See Comeaux's depo. 11-11-03, pp. 113-136. Comeaux expressed her concern with Experian that someone may have stolen her identity.

 

In a January 6, 1999 letter, Experian stated that they did not process any credit report disputes made by Comeaux because Comeaux's social security number did not appear on the file. See Experian deposition [*10] of G. Mathews, Vol. 2, 1-29-04, pp.95-99 ("Experian depo. G. Mathews"); see also Comeaux depo, Exhibit 2, pp. 86, 88-89, 99. According to Comeaux, Experian instructed her to fill out a social security administration form and return it. See G. Mathews, Vol. 2, p. 95-99. As such, Comeaux's dispute letter was filed away in their mail room. See Id. at 97; see also Exhibit 9, p. 1 of Experian deposition of S. Stafford ("Experian depo. S. Stafford").

 

Comeaux has produced evidence that Experian did in fact know who she was and which credit file contained her credit data. See Experian depo. S. Stafford; see also Experian's Administrative report and 7X reports, p. 1, EXPO12. Page one of Exhibit 9, as referenced above, indicates that Experian had an identifiable "PIN #" associated with Comeaux credit file, and that Gloria Mathews, an employee of Experian, added a perfunctory fraud alert to Comeaux's credit file on January 4, 1999 (likely in response to Comeaux's concern that her identity had been stolen), and refused to process disputes, claiming that Comeaux's social security number did not appear on the file. Contrary evidence to Experian's reasons to "shelve" or delay any efforts to [*11] process Comeaux's disputes has been produced by Comeaux in Experian's Administrative report and 7X reports ("7X reports"). See Exhibit 9, p. 1 of Experian depo. S. Stafford.

 

Experian's 7X reports show that Comeaux's credit file contains her identifiable "PIN #" and that numerous name row elements contained in that data file list Comeaux's social security number. See Experian's Administrative report and 7X reports, p. 1-2, EXPO144-0145. According to Comeaux, Experian did not need Comeaux to fill out a social security administration form in order to find her credit file. Gloria Mathews was able to retrieve Comeaux's credit file under Comeaux's identifiable "PIN #." See Experian depo. G. Mathews; see also Jensen v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15134 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Tex. 2001).

[attaboy]

I had Experian remove some names and addresses - they had more extransous names and addresses than the other 2 combined and doubled. They also had a SSN variation for me - the others did not.

 

I was able to get the addresses removed (except for one) - or so I think...

[willy2004]

attaboy, you will notice that the updated report that you received refers to the deletions as an "update."

 

Experian does this for the purpose of reinserting the false information.

[attaboy]

lol - great....that should be fun

[tryingbetter]

How do you get those addresses and extra social security numbers erased? I have a ton of addresses and TWO extra social security numbers!!!!

THanks in Advance,

[ijdbs]

tserrano I sent you a PM

[tryingbetter]

thanks, got it!

[willy2004]

How do you get those addresses and extra social security numbers erased? I have a ton of addresses and TWO extra social security numbers!!!!

THanks in Advance,

 

My philosophy follows, but it has not and will not cause Experian to change their policy until they are successfully sued:

 

Send a letter requesting FIRST for the "source" of each false item of information pursuant to 1681g(a)(2), including the name, address and phone number of the source.

 

SECOND, after the source is disclosed, dispute the items of information pursuant to 1681i(a)(1) according to whatever grounds is applicable (address is nonexistent, an address I never lived at, a SSN that is not mine) and demand DELETION.

 

Inevitably, names and SSN will be "deleted," whereas addresses (that are in fact deleted) will be guised by Experian as "updated."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The updated consumer report will look something like this:

 

Social Security Number deleted

Name deleted

Residence updated

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I am in the process of making procedural requests, including a statement as to which "residence" was "updated."

 

Keep your eye out for the "updated" address that gets reinserted without notice of reinsertion.