Credit Card Center Advertiser Disclosure†
04-20-2017 12:50 AM
I recently sent Equifax a blocking request for 2 accounts that were opened in my name without my knowledge or permission. The ID theft affidavit I sent with it listed those two accounts, plus several older acocunts that were mine but which were used without my permission. I only requested the two that were opened without my knowledge be blocked, because the other accounts have years of a good payment history which I don't want to dissapear from my credit report. Not only did they not block the accounts opened in my name and instead are treating them as normal 30-day disputes, they treated every account listed in the affidavit as a dispute.
What do I do now? I specifically didn't ask them to do anything about the charges on my existing accounts because I was hoping those companies would correct the info and a blocking request wouldn't be necessary. What is likely to happen in this situation? If my existing accounts get deleted can I request they be put back on? This is so frustrating.
04-20-2017 01:16 PM
A Request to Block Unauthorized Charges from Credit Report under FCRA 605B. Submitted the auto-generated FCRA 605B letter from the FTC at IdentityTheft.gov.
04-20-2017 04:35 PM
Contact them and informally explain that the dispute process is an entirely separate process under FCRA 611 from an identity theft blocking process under FCRA 605B.
If that does not produce results, you can file a formal complaint with the CFPB, which has administrative oversight of the CRA administration of the FCRA.
As for what might happen, it depends upon how the creditors respond back to the CRA.
The CRA is required to forward a copy of your dispute to the party who furnished the disputed information, and that party is required to conduct a reasonable investigation and respond back to the CRA.
The identity theft process was added to the FCRA in major part based on the fact that a furnisher can verify the accuracy of their reporting if they have reasonable basis in their files showing that the account or transactions reported thereunder were authorized by the consumer. Identity theft involves someone purporting to be the consumer, and furnishers are not required to hire private investigators and "prove" the source of the authorization in order to verify. Thus, handling of identity theft information is usually not productive by way of dispute, and the identity theft blockage process was added to the FCRA to remove any need for furnisher concurrence or involvement. It relies only upon an assertion by the consumer, provided that assertion is supported by a sworn police report.
They are improperly involving the furnisher in the process, contrary to what you requested and what congress intended in providing the indentity theft blockage process of FCRA 605B. I would get the CFPB to review their improper application of the FCRA by denying you the rights provided under section 605B.
If the CFPB does not requrie the CRA to comply, then you can file a civil complaint and get a court order plus damages for willful violation of the FCRA.
04-21-2017 03:17 PM - edited 04-21-2017 03:18 PM
Thank you for that info. I will keep those steps handy (but sure hope it doesn't come to having to sue - yikes!) The other part of my question was what to do about them putting every account listed in the affidavit (including existing accounts of mine that were missued) under dispute? I do NOT want those accounts blocked entirely. One of them has already disapeared from my credit file compeletely. I called the creditor and they insisted they did not stop reporting it. How do I get my 5yrs of positive payment history back without adding back the late payments and charge off that resulted from the idenity theft charges?
04-21-2017 04:47 PM
If you read section 605B, it requires the consumer to specifically identify the information that is asserted to be based on identity theft, and specifies that the blocking by the CRA then applies only to the identified information.
It could not be much clearer that information not part of the assertion of identity theft is not subject to blocking under section 605B.