IN A MIXED FILE, THE CRA SEES THE VARIATIONS IN ID DATA AS TO EACH ACCOUNT. RATHER THAN TAKE THE TIME TO SEGREGATE THE ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DATA ACCORDING TO THE METRO TAPE PERSONAL ID DATA ATTACHED TO EACH ITEM, THE CRAs BLAST OUT PERFUNCTORY ACDVs/CDVs TO THE SUBSCRIBERS. THEY REFUSE TO TAKE THE TIME TO UNWIND THEIR OWN MIXED FILE DEBACLES. FOR MORE ON THIS, READ JENSEN V. EXPERIAN [RUN SEARCH HERE] AND READ O'CONNOIR V. TRANS UNION POSTS HERE. DO NOT BUY INTO THE CRAZY DISTRICT COURT RULING IN CRABILL V. TRANS UNION. READ THE 7TH CIR. OPINIO IN CRABILL.
9 Q. What is Mr. Jensen's complaint with regard to his
10 credit report?
11 A. Okay. He is listing his correct address. And
12 he's also indicating, through a noted handwritten form that
13 "I request that you investigate all accounts in the
14 attached credit report and report the results of your
15 investigation to all of my creditors and to me." And then
16 he has specific accounts with specific disputes.
17 Q. So he filled up the form -- in terms of the space
18 provided, he filled those in with specific account
19 information, but then he -- he apparently attached a copy
20 of the entire report to the dispute letter and asked that
21 you investigate everything in it. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes. I believe that's part of the dispute.
23 Q. Okay. Do you know if you all initiated a full --
24 a full reinvestigation of all of the accounts on the credit
1 A. I believe that we did not do all of them.
2 Q. Did you all respond to Mr. Jensen and tell him,
3 "No. We're not going to do what you've asked us to do," or
4 "We're not going to do a complete reinvestigation of all of
5 the accounts," or what happened?
6 A. I believe, as a result of this, we investigated
7 the specific accounts. I believe that when the agent went
8 in to enter his information, he found that there were some
9 accounts that he could see were not related to him.
10 I believe that he -- the particular agent, he or she,
11 sent out system letters to Mr. Jensen indicating that we
12 needed to have specific disputes and for him to please
13 contact us by phone so we could help.
14 Q. If Mr. Jensen supplied you with a copy of Exhibit
15 No. 1, which we've marked -- that's the February 1998
16 credit report which is the only one that he had received at
17 that point in time and, in fact, corresponds to the -- to
18 the reinvestigation form -- and he said, "Reinvestigate all
19 of these." He indicates that there's a number of problems
20 with the report, a number of errors and disputes, isn't
21 that specific enough?
22 A. No, to answer you. But I want to clarify one
23 thing. I don't believe this is the report that he sent in.
24 I believe there's a March that he actually received from
25 Experian. I may be mistaken, but I know there was a March
1 disclosure, I believe.
2 Q. I'm sorry. I've seen a March disclosure from
3 Trans Union, but I do not have a copy of a March Experian
5 A. I had thought that he had had a contact in March
6 before us. I could be wrong.
7 But to answer your question: A request to investigate
8 all accounts without a specific reason -- not mine, paid in
9 full -- is not specific. So we would do the best we can to
10 see if, indeed, there are some of the accounts that aren't
11 related to him.
12 We would investigate any information that we had
13 specifically, but we would ask questions as to the others
14 because just a statement, we -- you investigate all
15 accounts -- if we have to send verification forms out to
16 those creditors, we would not be able to be explicit
18 Q. Would you agree or disagree that Experian issued
19 dispute reinvestigation requests to some of its subscribers
20 indicating, based upon this correspondence from Mr. Jensen,
21 that these accounts were not his?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Well, if you knew that they were not his and
24 that's what his complaint was, why could that same dispute
25 have not been lodged to all of the creditors appearing on
1 the report?
2 A. Because there's no way of knowing if -- if he was
3 disputing all of the accounts as not his. He specifically
4 stated certain ones were not, but that's not explicit
5 enough for us to know that all of the accounts were not
7 Q. Did Mr. Jensen provide you with information on how
8 to contact him?
9 A. There is an address and there is a telephone
11 Q. Did anyone telephone Mr. Jensen to ask, you know,
12 about more specifics if they believed that there was not
13 specific enough dispute?
14 A. That is not part of our process. We usually
15 correspond by mail.
16 Q. But there's nothing that would have prevented one
17 of the consumer representatives in Allen, Texas, from
18 contacting Mr. Jensen, right?
19 A. That's true, but we usually do it by mail.
20 Q. Okay. Well, if -- if Mr. Jensen was truly
21 disputing all of the accounts on the report and indicating
22 a number of major items that he was complaining about, it
23 would seem that he's got a pretty serious problem with that
24 credit report, true?
25 A. I would say that he felt like he had a lot of
1 inaccuracies on the report, which is why we sent him out
2 immediately a notice to contact us.
3 Q. But didn't the agent indicate -- I think you told
4 me a moment ago the agent pulled up the report and actually
5 noticed that there were accounts merged into Mr. Jensen's
6 file which should not have been there?
7 A. That's true.
8 Q. If the agent recognized that fact, wouldn't that
9 prompt some sort of additional assistance on the part of
10 Experian to find out what type of problems this man's
11 having as a result of these erroneous credit reports?
12 A. That's not -- our normal process is to contact
13 them by mail. The fact that he was able to do as much as
14 he could by matching up social security numbers and
15 addresses that he indicated were not his is enough for us
16 to go ahead and investigate those items.
17 But items that matched up to his personal
18 identification information, we would not have known whether
19 to dispute them as not mine or paid in full or not -- never
21 Q. What about the -- the Chase account and the Elan
22 Financial account we talked about a moment ago that had no
23 information corresponding to the plaintiff, Jim Jensen --
24 James Jensen? Why would those have not been part of that
25 process immediately upon the agent reviewing it?
1 A. Well, there again, we don't know if they didn't
2 have a particular name and address. But if it has no -- no
3 distinctive delineation of not belonging to the other
4 consumer, we would have wanted the consumer to tell us
6 Q. I guess maybe we're playing a game of semantics.
7 I want to make sure we're clear though. Mr. Jensen said
8 "Reinvestigate all of this stuff," and he specified as many
9 as he could on the form that was provided. He specified
10 individual account reportings that he said were not mine.
11 Experian received it. Their agent pulled up the file,
12 immediately noticed that there was a merged file situation
13 with erroneous information patently appearing in it; could
14 have telephoned Mr. Jensen, but that's not part of the
15 procedure; and, instead, sent out a single CDV to Discover
16 Card Services, which is Nova Services, indicating the
17 dispute reason as 002, the code, which means belongs to
18 another individual with a same or similar name; is that
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. Szwak: Let's mark that as No. 3, please.
22 (Exhibit No. 3 was marked.)
23 Q. (BY MR. Szwak) So as a result of Mr. Jensen's
24 complaints, one CDV was sent?
25 A. That's true. And that -- the CDV was -- was sent
1 as a result of an explicit dispute from him and one that we
2 could not match up to other identification information.
3 Q. What about the other specific items that were
4 listed in the dispute form there?
5 A. I don't see -- I know in other previous or
6 successive disputes, those items were not on the file at
7 that point in time. I don't know if these were moved.
8 Possibly these were, and I'd have to look at the D/R log
9 because I can't remember.
10 Q. Do you believe the CRS agent had the ability --
11 the authority to delete whichever items that CRS agent,
12 whoever it may have been, determined to have been mixed
13 into Mr. Jensen's file?
14 A. Yes. The agent, if he was able to match it up
15 with the other person's identification information, would
16 have moved and deleted it from Mr. Jensen's file.
17 Q. And the actual CRS agent has the authority to do
18 that? He does not have to transfer the file to a different
20 A. If that file had been in a mixed file department,
21 and I believe there's indications on the D/R log that it
22 was transferred to mixed file.
23 Q. The file was transferred from the originating CRS
24 agent to the mixed file department?
25 A. Yes. I believe there's notations that indicate
2 Q. And the mixed file department actually issued the
3 single CDV that is marked as Exhibit No. 3?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do we know who the agent was in the mixed file
6 department that handled that?
7 A. We would be able to tell the agent badge number.
8 Offhand, I don't know names.
9 Q. The Experian No. 159, which I'll mark with a --
10 Exhibit No. 4, indicates a badge number RM-017075. Do you
11 know -- and it also indicates a second operator as
12 PG-020917. Do you know either one of those persons?
13 A. No.
14 (Exhibit No. 4 was marked.)
15 Q. There is another agent badge number listed in
16 connection with the same activity in March as AB-021712.
17 Do you know that person?
18 A. No.
19 Q. There is a fourth -- well, I'm sorry. This is
20 apparently from November, but it's stapled as part of this.
21 Let me show you Exhibit No. 4 and see if you agree
22 with me that it appears there's at least three Experian
23 employees who were acting upon this file in March of 1998.
24 (Witness reviewed document.)
25 A. Yes, it does.
1 Q. And what they did in response was to send a single
2 CDV which is not shown in Exhibit No. 4, or is it?
3 A. Well, this is a disclosure request log, so this
4 means these are all of the agents that actually generated
5 reports for Mr. Jensen.
6 Q. I'm sorry. You're right. That's not a D/R log;
7 that's a disclosure log. But those actually show three
8 different Experian CRS/mixed file department people who
9 came in contact with Mr. Jensen's problem in March of 1998?
10 A. It -- they all may not have been mixed file
11 people. It just indicates three agents that came in
12 contact with it. It could have been -- as -- and we need
13 the D/R log to tell us, probably, a more adequate story.
14 Q. Okay. Is there any way to determine which
15 department those different employees were in, based upon
16 their badge number?
17 A. No.
18 Q. So we would have to just decode those and then
19 determine which department or division or team that they're
20 assigned to?
21 A. Yes.
Father-Son, Mother-Daughter, Junior-Senior-Trey [Generational Designators], Common Names, Variations on Social Security Numbers and Other Mixed File Issues
Postby David A. Szwak » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:44 pm
- General Discussions, Forum Registration, and ID Theft and Credit-Related News Stories
- General Discussion
- News Stories on Identity Theft, Personal Data Thefts and Credit Reporting Abuses
- Current Cases
- Lawyer Jokes
- FCRA Statute and Defined Terms Under the FCRA
- FCRA Statute And Amendments: 15 U.S.C. 1681, et. seq.
- What is a Consumer [Credit] Reporting Agency?
- What is a Consumer [Credit] Report?
- Resellers: Who are They? What Do They Do? Are They Liable Under the FCRA?
- Investigative Consumer [Credit] Reports
- Who is a Furnisher?
- How to Get Your Credit Reports and How and Who to Write Your Dispute Letters to
- How To Get Your Credit Reports
- Dispute Letters
- Do You Have To Pay For Your Credit Report?
- FCRA Private Rights of Action and Duties Imposed by the FCRA
- Impermissible Access: 15 U.S.C. 1681b[f] and 1681q
- Front End Duties of the Credit Reporting Agencies: 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b)
- Back End Duties of the CRAs: 1681i[a]:
- Credit Bureau's Duty to Provide Consumer Documentation to Furnisher: 1681i[a][B]
- Duty to Add a Consumer's Dispute Statement in Association with a Specific Account and In Connection with the Credit File/Report: 15 U.S.C. 1681i[c]
- Furnisher FCRA Liability: 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2
- Failing to Mark Contested Accounts As Disputed: 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2[a]
- Obsolescence: When Must the Credit Reportings Come Off of the Credit Report: 15 U.S.C. 1681c
- Duty to Notate Disputed Accounts As Such: 15 U.S.C. 1681c[f]
- Adverse Action Notice Rules: 15 U.S.C. 1681m and ECOA
- Credit Solicitations Are Required to be Clear and Conspicuous: 1681m[d]
- Potential Exposure For Sanctions Due to Filing Bad Faith FCRA Cases: 15 U.S.C. 1681n[c], 28 U.S.C. 1927, and Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 11
- Credit Repair Organizations Act [CROA]
- 1681g: Credit Bureaus' Duties to Provide Reports/Disclosures and to Add 100 Word Statements of the Consumer
- Affiliate Sharing Problems and Violations, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-3
- Common Credit Report Errors and Agency Misconduct
- Credit Errors
- Theft of Identity
- Mixed File Cases
- Re-Aging: Debt Collector's Efforts to Revive Obsolete Reportings
- Reinsertion of Previously Deleted Data: How and When Can It Happen?
- VIP Databases and Offline Status
- Deceased Reporting Cases
- Causation: The Crucial Link Between Breach of a Duty and Damages
- Causation to Damage [Proving Your Damages Are Related to and Caused by the Defendants
- Types of Damages, Remedies, and Awards Under the FCRA and Related State Law Claims
- Damages Under FCRA
- Punitive Damages: 15 U.S.C. 1681n
- Injunctive Relief: FCRA and State Law
- Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses and Costs:
- Declaratory Relief Under the FCRA
- What is Your Potential Case Worth? Other Case Verdicts, etc.
- FCRA Jury and Bench Trial Verdicts
- Other Federal Laws Related to Credit Reporting, Data Privacy, Billing Errors and ID Theft
- FDCPA Statute And Amendments: 15 U.S.C. 1692, et. seq.
- Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1666, et. seq.
- Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, 18 U.S.C. §1028
- Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) and Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (“HAFA”)
- State Law Claims Related to Credit Reporting, Billing Errors, Privacy Breaches and ID Theft
- Invasion of Privacy: State Law
- Defamation: State Law
- Interference With Prospective Credit: State Law
- Interference With Marital/Family Relations: State Law
- Infliction of Emotional Distress/Mental Anguish: State Law
- Data Breach Claims and Issues
- Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Claims: State Law
- Jurisdiction, Venue, Removal to Federal Court, Remand to State Court, and Other Pre-Trial Jurisdicti
- Removal of FCRA Cases From State Court To Federal Court
- Personal Jurisdiction and Venue in Credit Reporting Cases
- FCRA Litigation Strategies and Procedural Issues and Law
- Settlements, Releases, Prevailing Party Status, and Other Things You Need to Know If You Resolve Your Case Before Judgment
- Offers of Judgment In FCRA Litigation
- Secret Documents, Product Information and Testimony
- Choicepoint Secret Documents:
- Equifax/CSC and Affiliates Secret Documents:
- Experian Secret Documents
- Innovis Secret Documents:
- Trans Union Secret Documents
- Furnisher and Public Records Suppliers Secret Documents
- Respondeat Superior, Vicarious Liability, and Whether Others Are Liable
- Liability For Employee's FCRA Violations? Liability For FCRA Violations by Third Parties?
- FCRA Preemption, Immunity, and Qualified Immunity
- FCRA Preemption: 15 U.S.C. 1681t[b][F] and Related Discussions
- FCRA Qualified Immunity: 15 U.S.C. 1681h[e] and Related Discussions
- States/Govermental Immunity From FCRA Claims?
- Jury Voir Dire, Instructions, Verdict Forms, etc.
- Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Forms
- Jury Questionnaires, Voir Dire, Jury Selection and Jury Bias
- Credit Card Issues
- Credit Card Liabilities
- Do You Have a Right to Bring Claims and How Long Do You Have?
- Statute Of Limitation: 15 U.S.C. 1681p
- Standing to Sue
- Credit Scores, Adverse Action Codes, and Other Report Codes
- Credit Scores, Adverse Action Codes, Risk Factors, Denial Codes and Other Scores and Codes Supplied by the Credit Reporting Agencies
- The Mechanics of Credit Reporting
- Public Records Reportings [Non-Bankruptcy]
- Bankruptcy Reporting
- Student Loan Credit Reporting
- Metro Tape [I and II]: Standardized Credit Reporting Formats Used by the Credit Industry
- Defenses Asserted by Credit Reporting Defendants
- What Law Applies? Problems Barring Use of the Court and Law
- Arbitration, Forum Selection, Choice of Law, Choice of Venue and Other Adhesionary Clauses
- Conflicts of Laws Issues in FCRA and Related State Law Issues
- Standing and Statutes of Limitations
- Statute Of Limitation: 15 U.S.C. 1681p
- FCRA Legal Forms [Suits, Discovery, etc.]
- Discovery: Interrogatories, Requests For Production of Documents, Requests to Inspect, Requests For Admissions, Deposition Notices, Subpoenas, Deposit
- FCRA Sample Pleadings: Complaints, Motions, Oppositions and Other Standard Lawsuit Filings
- Defenses Frequently Asserted by Defendants to Consumer's Actions
- FCRA Class Actions and Class Issues
- FCRA Class Actions
- Special Evidentiary Issues: What is Evidence?
- Evidentiary Issues in FCRA Cases
- Expert Witnesses, Special Issues and Daubert and Related Challenges
- Appellate Issues, Rules, Law, Etc.
- Defenses Asserted by Industry and Abuse Stories
- Defense Counsel Abuses and War Stories
- Law Outlines: Various Topics
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests