MIXED FILE DEPT. TWEAKING FILE!!! MUST READ

Father-Son, Mother-Daughter, Junior-Senior-Trey [Generational Designators], Common Names, Variations on Social Security Numbers and Other Mixed File Issues
David A. Szwak

MIXED FILE DEPT. TWEAKING FILE!!! MUST READ

Postby David A. Szwak » Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:13 pm

156
16 Q. Right. In March and April of 1995, you all were
17 conducting testing, and it posted internal inquiries?
18 A. Right. Okay. And then it goes down to 3/18 of
19 '98, disclosure with a reference number.
20 Q. Okay. And that's a CAPS ID number indicating a
21 CDI went out to the consumer, and we talked about that
22 earlier?
23 A. Or a CDI was generated, yes. Then there was 3/24
24 of '98, another ID number was generated.
25 Q. Is it your belief that that's in connection with

157
1 the paragraph letter that was sent that we looked at it?
2 A. It could be. There's indication of two people
3 pulling up -- accessing the file, and they could have
4 created -- each one created a different ID number.
5 Q. So if we've got two different people accessing, we
6 can cross-reference that to the D/R log. And it should
7 have the same person's badge number that's shown on the
8 admin?
9 A. Well, it wouldn't have the person's ID -- the
10 badge number. It would have a -- the same ID number.
11 Q. Right. And so you would cross-reference it with a
12 CAPS ID number?
13 A. Yes. Then 3/28 of '98, there is an Experian
14 inquiry which is an internal inquiry. There's no reference
15 number attached to it, possibly related to the
16 investigation of the file.
17 Q. What, if anything, do we know was happening on
18 March 28?
19 A. We know that the mixed file process was in place
20 and --
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. -- the agent possibly viewed the ID.
23 Q. Did a CDV issue on that date?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. I thought the CDV issued on March 24.

158
1 A. I think that's when it did too.
2 Q. It's probably the very first --
3 A. Well, 4/8 of '98, actually. Date sent, 3/24/1998.
4 Response date was 4.
5 Q. So we know that the CDV went out on March 24, and
6 then there's an inquiry on the 28th?
7 A. It's not unusual in a mixed file situation --
8 Q. Right.

9 A. -- for them to view --
10 Q. Well, you got a letter from the plaintiff roughly
11 during the week of the 10th of March. His letter is dated
12 the 10th. I assume he sent it sometime; then and you all
13 got it. You issued the CDV on the 24th and you sent him a
14 letter saying we need more detail dispute. Then on the
15 28th, four days later, there's an internal inquiry, looking
16 into his file by the mixed file department?
17 A. Possibly.

18 Q. If his dispute wasn't specific enough, why are
19 they fooling with a file in the interim if they've asked
20 him to now call them?
21 A. If you'll respond -- I mean, if you'll look to the
22 D/R log --

23 Q. Right.
24 A. -- there's a lot of information going on during
25 that time frame, things -- trades being moved to another

159
1 consumer, so that update is going on.
2 Q. When you refer to the trades being moved in March
3 of '98, we're only referring to those -- these four trades
4 that are shown on this request form, right?
5 A. No.
6 Q. There were other trades?
7 A. Yes. If you'll look at --
8 Q. But they're not part of the dispute?
9 A. No. But as we stated earlier, if the agent was
10 able to match up the name -- the wrong name, the wrong
11 address, and the wrong social security number, he would go
12 forth and take that opportunity to move it to that
13 consumer. So the mixed file agent did as much as he could
14 with the information he had.

15 Q. Did any of those files that you show that the
16 mixed file agent moved, did they ever reappear on
17 Mr. Jensen's credit report?
18 A. Not that I'm aware of.

19 Q. But you've reviewed the D/R log to check that?
20 A. I haven't reviewed the D/R log to check that.
21 Q. Let's look and see what you show as in March of
22 '98 being moved around.
23 A. Let's look at the D/R log here. These are all
24 2000.

25 Q. We're starting to pile up a lot of paper.

160
1 A. Okay. Did you want to look at this? We have
2 America Agencies that was moved.
3 Q. Yes, ma'am.
4 A. We had ANBCC, that was moved. AT&T Wireless, that
5 was moved. Capital One, that was moved. Department of
6 Veteran's Affairs, that was moved. First Union, that was
7 moved. Mercantile Bank was moved.
8 Here's Pacific Gas and Electric, so it was -- it was
9 on there. It was moved. Wells Fargo Bank, that was moved.
10 Let's see, Discover was investigated out. Okay. And then
11 the rest were addresses and the general paragraphs.
12 Q. If my math is correct, on the list of accounts
13 that were moved by the mixed file department in March of
14 1998, three of those were specific items shown on this
15 dispute form --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- that we've discussed?
18 And the other one, two, three, four, five, six -- the
19 other six were ones that -- that Mr. Jensen had not
20 specified by name because the form didn't have enough room,
21 but he did request a reinvestigation of all of the
22 accounts. But those other six were moved without them
23 being specified in the form.
24 A. That's because he gave us additional information
25 about addresses, and we knew the social. So we knew that

161
1 it was a mixed file. So we did what we could without
2 getting a specific dispute, and those that we could not
3 determine for sure were not the other person's.
4 Q. Do you know whether the ANBCC, the Associates
5 National Bank trade, ever reappeared on his credit report?
6 A. I don't know. We can look at the admin to see. I
7 would think that it would not have because once a
8 suppression code is -- unless it's changed in some
9 reporting would not.

10 MR. Szwak: Do you have that 1999 report?
11 That's what I'm looking for. Thanks.
12 MR. FARLOW: Here's this.
13 MR. Szwak: Thank you.
14 Q. (BY MR. Szwak) The -- please bear with me just a
15 second.
16 I do not find any of the moved accounts from that date
17 as having reappeared in the April 15 of '99 report. Do you
18 believe that to be correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Once they were moved, they stayed moved?
21 A. Yes.

22 (Sotto voce discussion between Mr. Szwak and
23 Ms. Jensen.)
24 MS. JENSEN: I'm not able to put my fingers
25 on it.

162
1 MR. Szwak: I don't even see the inquiry date
2 listing the admin. Perhaps this will tell me. Yes.
3 January of '2000.
4 Q. (BY MR. Szwak) Do you know whether any of the
5 moved accounts re-merged in the subscriber version of the
6 credit report after March of '98?
7 A. I don't know for sure. I would think not, but I
8 don't know. I haven't seen any of the subscriber reports.
9 Q. Have you seen occasions in the past when your
10 mixed file department or anyone in the Allen center would
11 move files in a mixed file situation, and yet those files
12 reappear later in the same complaining consumer's file but
13 in a subscriber-version report?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. If I understood correctly, this -- this
16 particular credit report was forwarded on to the mixed file
17 department in March of '98?
18 A. Yes. I think there's notations in the file.
19 Q. There's a notation to that effect?
20 A. Yes.

Return to “Mixed File Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests