Experian refuses to remove inaccurate BK

[Horseshoez]

---

@markhs777 wrote:

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.

---

Did your BIL file for bankruptcy?  Yes or no?  If "Yes", then all three credit bureaus should be reporting the bankruptcy, regardless if the address and some other particulars are correct or not.  As others have mentioned, he got lucky two of three deleted the notation, that in no way means EX should follow suit.

[markhs777]

And I suppose if the name is wrong you believe it would still be a valid entry? Read the FCRA and let me know. And to answer the question...yes now answer mine thx.

[Horseshoez]

---

@markhs777 wrote:

And I suppose if the name is wrong you believe it would still be a valid entry? Read the FCRA and let me know. And to answer the question...yes now answer mine thx.

---

If the name and SSN are correct, then it should stand; the address is basically irrelevant unless it was fraudulent and backed up by a police report.

[markhs777]

---

@Horseshoez wrote:

---

@markhs777 wrote:

And I suppose if the name is wrong you believe it would still be a valid entry? Read the FCRA and let me know. And to answer the question...yes now answer mine thx.

---

If the name and SSN are correct, then it should stand; the address is basically irrelevant unless it was fraudulent and backed up by a police report.

---

Well PACER doesn't list the full social and there are usually several individuals with the same name and or very similar names while as u know courts do not verify.

forgive me but I'd rather go with Federal statutes rather than what a particular individual believes SHOULD be law.

[despritfreya]

---

@markhs777 wrote:. . . forgive me but I'd rather go with Federal statutes rather than what a particular individual believes SHOULD be law

I was not going to get in the middle of this, but here is goes anyway, for whatever it is worth:

15 U.S.C. §1681c:

“(a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information:

(1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by more than 10 years. . .

(5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.”

So, Section (a)(1) above simply states that the CRA cannot reference a bk filing 10 years after it was filed. There is no mention of the Debtor's address.  However, Section (a)(5) above talks in terms of other adverse information.

If the BIL’s CR states he filed bk and he did, in fact, file bk, the CR is correct.

If the BIL’s CR shows an incorrect address then, if that information falls within “any other adverse item of information”, maybe there is an argument to be made.

To further illustrate the point, look at this same section under (d), Information Required to be Disclosed:

“(1) Title 11 information. Any consumer reporting agency that furnishes a consumer report that contains information regarding any case involving the consumer that arises under title 11, United States Code, shall include in the report an identification of the chapter of such title 11 under which such case arises if provided by the source of the information. If any case arising or filed under title 11, United States Code, is withdrawn by the consumer before a final judgment, the consumer reporting agency shall include in the report that such case or filing was withdrawn upon receipt of documentation certifying such withdrawal.”

Again, there is no mention of reporting an address associated with the bk filing.

Regardless, here is your BIL’s big problem if he wanted to pursue some sort of court remedy:

15 U.S.C. § 1681p

“An action to enforce any liability created under this title may be brought in any appropriate United States district court, without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, not later than the earlier of (1) 2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the violation that is the basis for such liability; or (2) 5 years after the date on which the violation that is the basis for such liability occurs.”

As it relates to a legal proceeding, it appears that the ship sailed a long time.

Des.

Note: edited on 3/1/23 to correct the reference to 15 U.S.C. §1681c.  I originally typed 11 U.S.C.. . . Wrong.  For the FCRA it is Title 15 not Title 11.  I am too comfortable typing "11".  Title 11 covers the Bankruptcy Code.  Sorry for any confusion.  Des.

[Jnbmom]

Thanks @despritfreya  there are the facts like them or not .

Your BIL should be thrilled with the 2 deletions .

[Jnbmom]

---

@rcrawfo2 wrote:

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. 

---

@rcrawfo2  People have plenty of "clues" around here as mentioned in this thread .

[markhs777]

---

@despritfreya wrote:

---

@markhs777 wrote:. . . forgive me but I'd rather go with Federal statutes rather than what a particular individual believes SHOULD be law

I was not going to get in the middle of this, but here is goes anyway, for whatever it is worth:

11 U.S.C. §1681c:

“(a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information:

(1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by more than 10 years. . .

(5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.”

So, Section (a)(1) above simply states that the CRA cannot reference a bk filing 10 years after it was filed. There is no mention of the Debtor's address.  However, Section (a)(5) above talks in terms of other adverse information.

If the BIL’s CR states he filed bk and he did, in fact, file bk, the CR is correct.

If the BIL’s CR shows an incorrect address then, if that information falls within “any other adverse item of information”, maybe there is an argument to be made.

To further illustrate the point, look at this same section under (d), Information Required to be Disclosed:

“(1) Title 11 information. Any consumer reporting agency that furnishes a consumer report that contains information regarding any case involving the consumer that arises under title 11, United States Code, shall include in the report an identification of the chapter of such title 11 under which such case arises if provided by the source of the information. If any case arising or filed under title 11, United States Code, is withdrawn by the consumer before a final judgment, the consumer reporting agency shall include in the report that such case or filing was withdrawn upon receipt of documentation certifying such withdrawal.”

Again, there is no mention of reporting an address associated with the bk filing.

Regardless, here is your BIL’s big problem if he wanted to pursue some sort of court remedy:

15 U.S.C. § 1681p

“An action to enforce any liability created under this title may be brought in any appropriate United States district court, without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, not later than the earlier of (1) 2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the violation that is the basis for such liability; or (2) 5 years after the date on which the violation that is the basis for such liability occurs.”

As it relates to a legal proceeding, it appears that the ship sailed a long time ago.

Des.

Des

---

I agree with the above however the case being made is: EX is verifying incorrect info. Dates, address and other info is wrong hence LN had to delete. How can EX  even know it's if obsolete or the the individual listed is the right person and not someone with the same name, Socials are not listed with third parties. TU and EQ have confirmed this by deleting not by being generous. 

I can't emphasize enough when EX verifies and citing LN as the source it's making the assumption it's listed on PACER so it must be accurate. How does Ex even know when it becomes obsolete since the dates are way off and the address is completely wrong. How do they even know it's the right individual since it's not listed with LN. yes a BK was filed however is doesn't mean the bureau's have carte blanche to have error filled listings on their reports.

Could be wrong but I believe the dates listed in the above refers to monetary compensation not the ability to have the BK removed from the reports.

[TRC_WA]

What we have here folks is someone who got lucky with 2 deletions of an accurate PR.

The 3rd CRA refuses... which is what the other 2 should have done.

I'm paying my dues as are others in this thread.  6 years since I filed with 10 months at a maximum until my Ch 13 is gone from my reports... a little sooner with EE.  

No sympathy from me for people who think because they are trying to get a mortgage that they are entitled to skip the 7-10 year reporting of bankruptcy.

Nothing else to see here.  

[FireMedic1]

Not here please: "Instead of the holier than thou attitude let's stick to the legal aspects of a case such as this." You asked for advice. Many gave it to you including a BK Lawyer. Your main goal is to try in any way you can to remove a BK early to purchase a house. Its obvious. This thread has run its course and really is floating on the TOS. We tried to help. Snark is unwelcomed. Being argumentive to almost everyone who posted to try and help isnt FSR.

Thanks again @despritfreya for your expert advice.