Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Apartment increased deposit based on inaccurate report

New Member

Apartment increased deposit based on inaccurate report

I tried searching all over the internet for some advice on this but came up empty. I'm hoping someone here can help me out. Back in 2011/2012 I was a victim of ID theft. Someone rented an apartment in my name and opened tons of accounts with that address. Most of which have been fixed but Experian has been awful to work with. 


I am currently trying to rent an apartment but they denied me. I requested a copy of my report and sure enough, there was a collection from the apartment that was opened fraudulently. I promptly froze Experian and sent them a copy of my ID theft report and all documentation to get the account blocked again. I also sent the information to the collection agency to remove the account. 


Now here is the confusing part. I explained the situation to the apartment agency and even filed an official dispute with their tenant screening service. They have reversed their denial but want a month's deposit instead of the standard $500. When I asked for an adverse action letter stating the reason why I'm being provided different terms, they stated the collection account for the apartment complex. That account has now been removed from my report so I feel they should no longer use it against me. Plus I provided enough proof to show that the account was not authorized by me. Can they legally base a decision on information that is blocked from my report and sufficient proof that it was ID theft?

Message 1 of 2
Legendary Contributor

Re: Apartment increased deposit based on inaccurate report

The identity theft process under FCRA 605B intentionally does NOT reach any determination as to whether the assertion of identity theft is factually true.

Instead, it relies upon an assertion by the consumer, provided that the assertion is made before a law enforcement agency, and thus carries criminal penalties for any knowingly false statements.


That is the standard chosen by congress to weed out anyone simply making an unsupported statement of an account/debt not being theirs.

It does not prevent the debt collector from continuing collection on the debt and bringing civil action to prove the legitimacy.


Simply stated, the 605B blocking process is not proof that information resulted from identity theft.

I does not remove it from the consumer's credit file, only from the consumer's credit report.

The assertion that you provided adequate info to additionally prove the matter is only an assertion until proven before a court.


I would seek guidance from your local or state agency that regulates landlord tenant issues for possible state or local statutes or regs that apply to ability to increase a deposit, and the degree of proof required in making such determination.


Message 2 of 2
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.