SSN as Account Number, FCRA Violation?

[ficojoe]

I have a creditor reporting negative information and they are using my social security number as the account number. According to the FCRA, I have the option of hiding part of my social security number on a report. However, this is essentially nullified since the social security number is plainly visible from this creditor's account number listings. I would love to have this account deleted from my credit report entirely. What is the best course of action to make that happen? A regular dispute or should I send a letter to an alternative address? Do the CRAs have a better address for ITS type letters?

§ 609.  Disclosures to consumers [15 U.S.C. § 1681g]

(a)(1)(A):

if the consumer to whom the file relates requests that the first 5 digits of the

social security number (or similar identification number) of the consumer not34

be included in the disclosure and the consumer reporting agency has received

appropriate proof of the identity of the requester, the consumer reporting

agency shall so truncate such number in such disclosure; and

They are violating this by showing the complete social security number by truncating the first 5 numbers in one place, and the last 4 numbers in another place (the account number). I'm looking for the best way to bring this to their attention that will result in a deletion of the account bearing my social security number as the account number.

[ficojoe]

Here is the letter I am thinking about sending. Should I send it CMRRR? Use the usual dispute address for each CRA, or is there a better place to send legal notices?

Dear Sir/Mam:

I am writing to inform you that due to your negligence, you are in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) §609. Disclosures to consumers [15 U.S.C. § 1681g]. FCRA §609(a)(1)(A) reads:

if the consumer to whom the file relates requests that the first 5 digits of the social security number (or similar identification number) of the consumer not be included in the disclosure and the consumer reporting agency has received appropriate proof of the identity of the requester, the consumer reporting agency shall so truncate such number in such disclosure; and

Although you correctly redacted the first 5 digits of my social security number under the personal information section of my credit report, you have failed to do so in another area.

There are six (6) accounts on my credit report reported from a company named [Collection Agency]. These  [Collection Agency] accounts are using my social security number in the account number field. You are redacting only the last four digits of my social security number in these fields.

In the personal information section of my credit report, you redact the first five numbers of my social security number and elsewhere you redact the last four digits. Thus, you have made the entire social security number available even when you have been requested to redact that information per FCRA §609(a)(1)(A).

To remedy this situation, I request that you delete all six (6) accounts on my credit report that are being reported by  [Collection Agency]  ( [Collection Agency address shown on credit report] ). If you comply with this request to delete the six accounts, thereby correcting the FCRA violation within 10 days I will consider the matter closed and take no further action. However, if you fail to delete the accounts, I will consider the violation a willful act and pursue the matter further as allowed by the FCRA §616(a).

[chryanna]

You mention that you requested the first five digits of your social be redacted and provided proof of identification as the statute requires. If so, I'd mention more details of that request in your letter. If you haven't made that request, I'd start of with a letter making the request first instead.

I also think that the likely outcome of your complaint would be that the negative account numbers get redacted differently going forward- that the CRAs would delete the first five numbers uniformly throughout the credit report rather than deleting accurate information. Thinking about it from the creditors' perspective, they could argue they were unfairly penalized in their collection efforts for something that was not their fault/responsibility, when your grievance was with the CRA.

[DaveSignal]

I think they would just change the numbers redacted as well, but its worth a try.   I would wait to see if RobertEG has any comment here.

[RobertEG]

In my opinion, you may have a cause of action against the CRA for violation of privacy, either the cited provision of the FCRA, or under the Privacy Act itself.

You may even have a Privacy Act violation claim against the furnisher for inappropritate use of your SSN.

However, I dont see that as basis for compelling deletion of the entire reporting of the furnisher.  

If you were to bring action for any such violation, the court could of course order credit report deletion as a remedy, but I know of no provision of the FCRA that mandates entire deletion of an account based on improper reporting of a single item of information related to the account.

If, for example, you were to pursue the matter by way of dispute over accuracy of their reporting, they always have the first option of simply correcting their reporting such that it reflects the consumer assertion.  Delation is only mandated if they cannot either correct their reporting or verify that it is accurate as reported.

The fallacy, as I see it, in your argument is that deletion will "overcome the FCRA violation."  The horse is already out of the barn.  Putting it back in does not remove that fact.

[ficojoe]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

In my opinion, you may have a cause of action against the CRA for violation of privacy, either the cited provision of the FCRA, or under the Privacy Act itself.

You may even have a Privacy Act violation claim against the furnisher for inappropritate use of your SSN.

However, I dont see that as basis for compelling deletion of the entire reporting of the furnisher.  

If you were to bring action for any such violation, the court could of course order credit report deletion as a remedy, but I know of no provision of the FCRA that mandates entire deletion of an account based on improper reporting of a single item of information related to the account.

If, for example, you were to pursue the matter by way of dispute over accuracy of their reporting, they always have the first option of simply correcting their reporting such that it reflects the consumer assertion.  Delation is only mandated if they cannot either correct their reporting or verify that it is accurate as reported.

The fallacy, as I see it, in your argument is that deletion will "overcome the FCRA violation."  The horse is already out of the barn.  Putting it back in does not remove that fact.

---

My account number, at least with Experian, now has the first five numbers changed to 9s. Seems like that is inaccurate information in violation of the FCRA, right?

[ficojoe]

First Experian changed the account number to begin with five 9s, I disputed as inaccurate, then the entire account was deleted. Still waiting on TransUnion and Equifax to make their moves.

[Shogun]

Congrats!   Keep at it!

[ficojoe]

Looking at the Equifax backdoor, it appears this account has been deleted from Equifax and Experian now. Just waiting on TransUnion now. I think I am on TU's "priority" list because nothing is quick with them. Even sending a court copy of a lein withdrawl took 45 days. Even though I mailed TU the court document 2 days after mailing the inital dispute, they sent me a letter saying they were extending their 30 day time limit to 45 days to examine the additional evidence. Then they used all 45 days before deleting what was obviously something that should be deleted (a withdrawn lein). 

[ficojoe]

As of today, this account is deleted from all 3 CRAs. I have not gotten any reply to my letters, but it no longer shows on any of my reports.

So, if a baddie is using your full SSN as an account number, this looks like a good way to get a delete. EQ and EX deleted in a few days, TU took closer to 2 weeks. that seems to be fast for TU to do anything.