Experian refuses to remove inaccurate BK

[markhs777]

My BIL filed  Chap 7 six ago. EQ and TU removed because of a very incorrect address on Pacer. EX refuses even though LexisNexis has removed it. After sending in several docs to that fact EX continues to verify. I have no suggestions except to go to court. He did file but it is very inaccurate so it may be iffy but obvious EX is lying.

[TRC_WA]

---

@markhs777 wrote:

He did file 

---

So basically he got lucky in getting TU and EQ to remove an accurate public record... but EX refuses?  What exactly are the grounds for the dispute?

How does an incorrect address invalidate an accurate public record?

[FireMedic1]

---

@markhs777 wrote:

My BIL filed  Chap 7 six (what?) ago. EQ and TU removed because of a very incorrect address on Pacer. EX refuses even though LexisNexis has removed it. After sending in several docs to that fact EX continues to verify. I have no suggestions except to go to court. He did file but it is very inaccurate so it may be iffy but obvious EX is lying.

---

Is it yrs or months? The courts put the info on PACER. What is EX lying about? I'm sure you checked PACER while the BK was going on since you know about it. Why now 6 yrs later?

[rcrawfo2]

Experian is always the hardest for most people, even when inaccurate. FIle an FCRA complaint.  The court is the last resolution to threaten.  Even then, I know someone who took the case to court, and they just updated the Bankruptcy.  Ignore people who have no clue what "credit repair" consists of.   Keep being diligent and disputing.  You will finally get it. 

[markhs777]

It was 6 years ago. Filing is one thing having it report accurately is another. It is not close to accurate. LN had it deleted because of this. How can Ex claim it is verifying with LN if LN doesn't even have it on file and there are documents stating there is no BK on record and can't be verified with Pacer?

he is applying for a mortgage now, prior to now it had little effect on obtaining credit.

[TRC_WA]

---

@markhs777 wrote:

It was 6 years ago. Filing is one thing having it report accurately is another. It is not close to accurate.

---

Again... what does an address on Pacer have to do with accuracy?  He did file bankruptcy and got lucky with TU and EQ.  I don't see how he has a leg to stand on... but nothing really surprises me anymore with people who dispute information.  He got the public record removed years early while others like myself are forced to wait until the proper time.

Totally legit.

[markhs777]

Wrong! If Experian states it is verifying through LexisNexis they are lying. There was no luck involved with EQ & TU. Per FCRA only accurate info should be listed. Wrong address and dates should not be listed. Let them correct if they desire but the concept of accuracy is maybe escaping you in regards to credit reporting.

It's not the consumer's job to help out Experian get it right. The point of any dispute is to let a reporting company that the info is wrong and to either correct or delete. 

TU and EQ deleted for the mere fact that the info could not be verified yet EX decides to verify even without any proof from the court or through the third party vendor it uses.

[Horseshoez]

@markhs777, you're totally missing the point.  A bankruptcy was filed; it matters not how it was, or was not verified, the public records stands and the reporting is correct.

[FireMedic1]

---

@markhs777 wrote:

Wrong! If Experian states it is verifying through LexisNexis they are lying. There was no luck involved with EQ & TU. Per FCRA only accurate info should be listed. Wrong address and dates should not be listed. Let them correct if they desire but the concept of accuracy is maybe escaping you in regards to credit reporting.

It's not the consumer's job to help out Experian get it right. The point of any dispute is to let a reporting company that the info is wrong and to either correct or delete. 

TU and EQ deleted for the mere fact that the info could not be verified yet EX decides to verify even without any proof from the court or through the third party vendor it uses.

---

The CRA's get the BK info from third parties. Noy only LN. Send in proof of address at that time. Cross your fingers. BK laws state 10 yrs. Still dont know why you waited 6 yrs. Should have been done right after BK. Dont tell me you didnt look at PACER and didnt notice then when you looked up your DC. Im paying my dues for my BK. Fall off in 10 yrs or EE.

[markhs777]

All 3 reports were accessed several years ago and  disputed. All were successful except for EX. Apparently it was no big deal to my BIL at the time. Sure PACER was obtained. Now a mortgage will have a higher rate which would amount plenty of cash outgoing as to no BK.

Being more credit savvy I offered to step in provide a little advice.

Instead of the holier than thou attitude let's stick to the legal aspects of a case such as this. The court apparently messed up with the wrong information and according to law that information should not be on a consumer's file. That is fact even if a BK was indeed filed. Let EX correct then all is good.

Bottom line is if the BK is egregiously wrong how can any rational person state well it's cool when it is blatantly wrong and can NOT belong to the individual the way it is presented. That would be analogous to having a debt listed with a wrong bank. Yes the debt may be valid however is is not accurate. Again the FCRA states fair and ACCURATE information only can be reported. 

Why play the devil's advocate when the law clearly states the obvious and EX cannot verify through LN when there are legal documents that state there are no BK 's on his report and can not be verified through PACER?  Experian itself claims verification through PACER so who's giving false info?

Just saying a BK was filed and regardless how it is being reported is justification for maintaining it on a file would be considered ludicrous to an objective individual.