Date Received: 2020-10-15
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Public record information inaccurate
Consumer Complaint: I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This a petition for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681-1681x ( FCRA ) by XXXX XXXX seeking relief for Respondents widespread violations thereof. 2. Despite the public availability of court records that conclusively demonstrate that certain court records in eviction cases have been dismissed, withdrawn, vacated, satisfied, or resulted in judgments for tenants, Respondent routinely fails to obtain up-to-date information pertaining to the disposition. 3. Respondents practices harm consumers seeking residential leases by prejudicing their prospective landlords with inaccurate, adverse information. II. PARTIES 4. Petitioner XXXX XXXX ( Petitionoer or Mr. XXXX XXXX is an adult individual who resides in XXXX XXXX County, California. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was a consumer as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ). 5. Respondent XXXX, XXXX ( Respondent or XXXX ) regularly conducts business in the State of California. Respondent also does business as XXXX, having acquired certain assets of XXXX XXXX, XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. 6. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was a person and a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) within the meanings of 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( b ) and ( f ), respectively. III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Respondents practices harm consumers seeking residential leases by prejudicing their prospective landlords with inaccurate, adverse information as it did for Petitioner 8. The FCRA is intended to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them, and to establish credit reporting practices that utilize accurate, relevant, and current information in a confidential and responsible manner. Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 706 ( 3d Cir. 2010 ) 9. Respondent is required by the FCRA to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom its reports relate. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). 10. For many years, Respondent has purchased public records information pertaining to residential eviction litigation ( eviction information ) from third-party vendors instead of retrieving the actual underlying court records themselvesor even more manageable digital representationsfor the purpose of creating and selling consumer reports to third party landlords and rental property managers. 11. The eviction information Respondent purchases is merely a summary prepared by its vendors LexisNexis that does not include all the information or the most up-to-date information available at the courthouses or government offices where the records themselves are housed in conjunction with the day-to-day functioning of those entities. Both LexisNexis and Respondent are subject to two class action lawsuits because of the very same reporting irregularities attached herein. 12. Respondent knows that its public records vendors make mistakes in the condensed, summary eviction information that it purchases for credit reporting purposes and that the information routinely does not include the most up-to-date status of the actual cases. 13. Purchasing distilled, incomplete public records information was the impetus for regulatory investigations of the Big Three CRAs, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and dozens of FCRA lawsuits throughout the United States, including in this District. 14. For example, in XXXX, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) noted that CRAs did not adequately oversee their public records vendors : Examiners found that the oversight of public records providers by one or more CRAs was weak and required corrective action. For example, one or more CRAs had never conducted a formal audit of their public records providers. In addition, one or more CRAs did not have defined processes to verify the accuracy of public record information provided by their public records providers. In light of such weaknesses, Supervision directed one or more CRAs to establish and implement suitable and effective oversight of public records providers. ( CFPB, Supervisory Highlights, 2.1.1 ( Summer XXXX ), available at http : //files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf ( last viewed XX/XX/XXXX ) 15. Further, the CFPB expressed concern about the accuracy of public records information that the CRAs imported into their consumer databases : Examiners reviewed quality control processes with respect to the accuracy of consumer reports produced by one or more CRAs and found that, with certain exceptions, there were no quality control policies and procedures to test compiled consumer reports for accuracy. While processes existed to analyze and improve the quality of incoming data, there was no post-compilation report review or sampling to test the accuracy of consumer reports. In light of these weaknesses, Supervision directed one or more CRAs to develop a plan with implementation timelines to establish quality controls that regularly assess the accuracy and integrity of the consumer reports and consumer file disclosures produced. Id. at 2.1.2. 16. Other regulators, including the New York Attorney General, initiated investigations of the Big Three in part due to similar problems with the accuracy and currency of publics records information in credit reports. 17. The Big Three ultimately entered into an agreement with the New York Attorney General that they took to calling the National Consumer Assistance Plan ( NCAP ). ( Settlement Agreement, In the Matter of the Investigation by XXXX XXXX XXXX, Attorney General of the State of New York, of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ; and XXXX, XXXX, XXXX : //www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/CRA % 20Agreement % 20Fully % 20Executed % 203.8.15.pdf ( last viewed XX/XX/XXXX ). ) XXXX. As of XX/XX/XXXX, pursuant to the requirements of the settlement and the NCAP, the Big Three ceased including in credit reports civil judgment information that did not meet certain minimum standards. In practice, this meant that civil judgments disappeared entirely from consumer reports prepared by the Big Three.bSee CFPB, Quarterly Consumer Credit Trends Report, 2-3 ( XX/XX/XXXX XXXX https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/documents/6270/cfpb_consumer-credit-trends_public- records_022018.pdf ( last viewed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. 19. Although the Big Three stepped back from using public records information in some of their consumer reporting products, other CRAs, like Respondent, continue to do so. 20. At all times relevant to these allegations, Respondent was aware of the investigations of the CFPB and state attorneys general into the Big Threes public records practices, the NCAP, the various public records class actions pending throughout the United States, and its obligations under the FCRA. 21. Nevertheless, Respondent, fully aware of the problems associated with the incomplete and inaccurate public records information purchased from vendors of such information, continues to report eviction information to potential landlords. 22. The data and reports Respondent sells are used and expected to be used for multiple purposes governed by FCRA section 1681b and the information included in them bears on the credit history, credit worthiness, reputation, personal characteristics, and mode of living of each respective consumer. Thus, the reports that Respondent sells about thousands of consumers each year are consumer reports. See 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ). 23. Based upon a common policy and practice, Respondent regularly reports inaccurate and out-of-date eviction information pertaining to cases and judgments that have been dismissed, withdrawn, satisfied, or have resulted in a judgment for the tenant. 24. Respondents practices not only violate the FCRA as a matter of law, they exact serious consequences on rental housing applicants and interstate commerce. Consumers who have obtained the dismissal, withdrawal of an eviction matter, satisfied an eviction judgment, or prevailed in an eviction matter are prejudiced in their ability to obtain leased housing. IV. PETITIONERS EXPERIENCE 25. At all times relevant to Petitioners allegations, information pertaining to Landlord Tenant Complaints filed in the XXXX XXXX XXXX Superior Court , including full case dockets and digital representations of all documents filed in such cases, including, but not limited to complaints, judgments, XXXX, withdrawals, and satisfactions of judgment, were publicly available. 26. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff applied to rent an apartment of moderate housing as defined by the Housing Authority for City of XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX managed by XXXX XXXX XXXX in an apartment building in the XXXX XXXX area of the City of XXXX XXXX. 27. In conjunction with his application, Respondent prepared a Rental Report about Plaintiff for a fee under the trade name XXXX. 28. Upon information and belief, The XXXX passed Respondents fee along to Plaintiff as an application fee. 29. The Rental Report contained credit information about Plaintiff that Respondent had acquired from XXXX, one of the Big Three national credit reporting agencies. 30. The Rental Report included a header labeled Landlord Tenant Court Records. However, upon information and belief, Respondent did not conduct any independent search of relevant civil records, but rather purchased the data it included in the Rental Report from a third- party vendor namely LexisNexis Risk Solutions. 31. Upon information and belief, Respondent purchased the eviction information from XXXX after XXXX itself had stopped including public records information in its own credit reports. 32. The first inaccurate and out-of-date item appeared, in relevant part, as follows : Landlord Tenant Court Records A landlord tenant court record does not necessarily mean that a tenant owed rent or was evicted from an apartment. Date Filed Case Type Case Number Record Source Record Vendor 8/2015 CIVIL ACTION FOR POSSESSION XXXX XXXX XXXX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, XXXX XXXX XXXX LexisNexis Risk Data Retrieval Services, LLC Judgment Judgment Amount Status Amount Paid Possession Only Judgment for Plaintiff XX/XX/XXXX {$0.00} {$0.00} Defendants XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Address Comments XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Plaintiff Phone # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This information was inaccurate and out-of-date because the original case number in the complaint filed against Petitioner was XXXX XXXX ; on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX was reduced to judgment of dismissal but that judgment was with prejudice to named Plaintiff in that action amongst other cases as there were multiple parties. Please See stenographer notes. Respondents reflecting these updates were filed on the publicly-available case docket contemporaneously with their entry and used the wrong case number and the wrong outcome. 34. Nevertheless, the Rental Report contained no reference to the vacatur of the case of the judgment dismissal with prejudice. Please See Multi Order of Dismissal 35. As of the date of the Rental Report, Respondent had failed to update the status to have XXXX XXXX XXXX decide to approve Petitioner which is predicated on the records maintained by Respondent and the accuracy thereof. 36. Petitioner has sought to dispute the items via RealPages, Inc.s dispute procedure that has failed to receive and intelligible response or otherwise ignored and not processed with a boilerplate response of no investigation nor corrective action taken place. V. BASIS FOR RELIEF FIRST BASIS FOR RELEIF VIOLATION of FCRA SECTION 1681e ( b ) 37. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein. 38. Pursuant to sections 1681n and 1681o of the FCRA, Respondent is liable to the Petitioner for negligently and willfully failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom a consumer report relates, in violation of section 1681e ( b ). Specifically, Respondent failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy of eviction information contained in tenant screening reports prepared about Petitioner hereby publishing inaccurate and outdated eviction information to their potential landlords and property managers. VI. PRAYER for RELIEF 39. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays the enter an order granting relief to have Respondent take corrective action to remove the inaccurate information 40. Any further relief or order that the CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAUX deem appropriate or just. Dated : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX County. California. Respectfully submitted, By : /s/ XXXX XXXX ____________________________________
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 904XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-10-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-10-16
Issue: Improper use of your report
Subissue: Reporting company used your report improperly
Consumer Complaint: After I was a victim of identity theft I contacted Lexis Nexis in good faith to place a security freeze on my Lexis Nexis file.I recieved a letter from them on XX/XX/XXXX confirm that the security freeze was in effect and would remain until I asked for it to be removed.However in XXXX of XXXX a third party with ill intentions claims that they recieved infomation about my credit file dirrectly from Lexis Nexis.This is a breach of the security freeze from XX/XX/XXXX and a violation of the FCRA.I trusted Lexis Nexis to be responsible and protect me from being exploited by companies looking to buy my information from them.I sent a certified letter to Lexis Nexis asking them to explain their error but they never responded back to it. At this point I am considering filing a small claims action against them.
Company Response:
State: NY
Zip: 11710
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-10-19
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-10-15
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Public record information inaccurate
Consumer Complaint: I am insured on a vehicle with my son through XXXX XXXX. The Auto policy just renewed, but a Driving history was obtained via LexisNexis Risk Solutions. Upon reviewing the driving history, I am concerned about Not at Fault accident ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and a Comp Coverage Claim < XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) that pulled up on me. This was a claim that I was forced to file with my primary auto insurance ( not with XXXX ) by my health insurance. I endured shoulder damage when I pulled up into a friend 's truck that was parked in a public location on XX/XX/XXXX. Since an auto was involved, was told it had to be primary and my health insurance secondary. The above incident was the only claim I made in XXXX and it was on Comprehensive. Did replace a windshield in Spring XXXX. I do not feel that the above incident should affect my driving history report in a negative manner, esp when claim was NOT made on said policy or with said company.
Company Response:
State: AR
Zip: 72015
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-10-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-10-15
Issue: Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Please remove my extended fraud alert, consumer statement and security freeze.
Company Response:
State: GA
Zip: 30052
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-10-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-10-14
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Information belongs to someone else
Consumer Complaint: Company : LexusNexis They are reporting incorrect information regarding vehicle accidents that I was not involved in. I received a letter of experience from XXXX that shows that I am not at fault on any of these claims. The dates are XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX.
Company Response:
State: MD
Zip: 21206
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-10-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-10-14
Issue: Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Please remove my fraud alert and consumer statement. Thank you.
Company Response:
State: GA
Zip: 30518
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-10-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-10-14
Issue: Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Initiated multiple disputes with the 3 credit bureaus on XX/XX/XXXX. Mailed a security freeze request letter to Lexis Nexis through certified mail on XX/XX/XXXX. Through tracking information, I can see that the letter made it to its destination around XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Disputes came back with no change. Lexis Nexis advised that they have not received letter with all my personal information including a copy of SSN and drivers license even though Tracking says otherwise. They have no idea where this letter is nor do they have any information in their system in regards to a security freeze request. Verbally verified that the address the certified letter was mailed to was correct and that they just have not received the letter. The consumer report ID # for Lexis Nexis is XXXX
Company Response:
State: MI
Zip: 480XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-10-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-10-13
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was paid
Consumer Complaint: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, # XXXX XXXX XXXX, Texas XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX | ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, IA XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NV XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, Pennsylvania. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ga XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, Texas. XXXX XXXX Member Id. XXXX Re : XXXX Account Number : XXXX CFPB Complaint Case # : XXXX Details : Complainant Date-of-Birth : XXXX Complainant Social Security No. XXXX Complaint In Rebuttal to XX/XX/XXXX Response of XXXX XXXX XXXX BEFORE THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU : I, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Complainant herein, and In Complaint and Rebuttal to the XX/XX/XXXX correspondence of the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX '' ) represent as follows : 1. I am not indebted to XXXX 'S client, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX '' ) to the sum of {$220.00} for services rendered on XX/XX/XXXX. 2. While the documentation provided may establish an outstanding balance, they do not, however, establish the validity of the alleged debt itself as said documentation only provides dates of service of XX/XX/XXXX and not a description of the services nor my signature acknowledging the services. 2.1 To this date, XXXX has failed to perform its lawful obligation to mitigate any potential losses by failing to submit a bill to Louisiana XXXX. 2.2 Pursuant to Title 8, section 91.001 : The general rule in Texas is that damages that may have been avoided or mitigated are not recoverable, and an injured party must use reasonable efforts to avoid or mitigate its losses. The standard is that of ordinary care, and what an ordinary prudent person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. And, while an injured party has a duty to minimize its damages, this duty arises only if the damages can be avoided or mitigated with only slight expense and reasonable effort. 2.3 XXXX was advised that all it had to do was request the issuance of a Louisiana XXXX Identification Number, an act that could have been, and can be still, accomplished with minimum effort. La. XXXX No. XXXX 3. For the reasons that follow, XXXX actually owes me money due to insurance overpayments for services rendered on XX/XX/XXXX : 3.1 As of XX/XX/XXXX, Complainants primary health insurer was XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. Member Id. XXXX. 3.2 Moreover, I had secondary health insurance with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Health Maintenance Organization. 3.3 Primary insurance is the insurance that pays its portion medical claims first. Secondary Health insurance is the insurance that pays the remainder of the medical claim. Medical claims are submitted first to the primary insurer and that plan pays out the maximum amount an insured is allowed. After the primary insurer pays, then and insured 's secondary health insurer helps to cover the rest, including co-insurance. 3.4 At all times pertinent, XXXX was a participating provider within the both the XXXX and XXXX networks, meaning that XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX negotiated by contract the amount of payments that XXXX would receive from XXXX and XXXX for services provided ( less plan discounts ) including XXXX. 3.5 For the XXXX services provided on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX submitted a claim to XXXX to the sum of {$5600.00}. As per its contract with XXXX, the maximum amount XXXX allows for an XXXX is {$220.00}, which it paid, leaving Complainant with a co-insurance balance of {$200.00}. 3.6 XXXX also submitted the {$5600.00} claim to XXXX. Less, plan discounts negotiated between them, XXXX paid XXXX the sum {$860.00}, which more than satisfies the debt of {$220.00} allegedly owed for services provided on XX/XX/XXXX. 3.7 Less the {$220.00} XXXX claims it is owed in the instant scenario, it still owes me the sum of {$640.00}. 4. Notwithstanding that XXXX owes me money in excess of {$220.00}, XXXX 's collection efforts may be in conflict with a payment arrangement I have with XXXX 5. Additionally, XXXX is lawfully obligated to cease and desist collection efforts on behalf of XXXX as XXXX is not lawfully licensed as a Collection Agency in the State of Texas as it has not posted the requisite surety bond as required pursuant to Title 5 of the Texas Finance Code, section 392.001, which provides : BOND REQUIREMENT. ( a ) A third-party debt collector or credit bureau may not engage in debt collection unless the third-party debt collector or credit bureau has obtained a surety bond issued by a surety company authorized to do business in this state as prescribed by this section. A copy of the bond must be filed with the secretary of state. ( b ) The bond must be in favor of : ( 1 ) any person who is damaged by a violation of this chapter ; and ( 2 ) this state for the benefit of any person who is damaged by a violation of this chapter. ( c ) The bond must be in the amount of {$10000.00}. 6. The foregoing considered ; I respectfully request : 6.1 Reinvestigation to determine the veracity of the information subject to this dispute. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). 6.2 SUSPENSION of collection activities with respect to the alleged debt, pending final disposition upon re-investigation. 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). 6.3 SUSPENSION of collection activities with respect to the alleged debt, pending final disposition upon re-investigation. 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), as XXXX has not satisfied the requirements of Title 5 of the Texas Finance Code, section 392.001 to lawfully operate as a third-party debt collector in the State of Texas. 6.4 Payment from XXXX on behalf of its principal, XXXX, to the sum of {$640.00} for unjust enrichment for overpayment of monies not due. Sincerely, __________________________ XXXX XXXX XXXX
Company Response:
State: TX
Zip: 78852
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-10-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-10-12
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Information belongs to someone else
Consumer Complaint: I want to report that in a trip back some years ago my document where loss, I didn't report the incident at the moment because I didn't know about the severity of this event, sometime after I realize that my identity was been use by someone who had opened account in my name, that's why I'd like to note this to try to correct this in my credit record. Please help.
Company Response:
State: FL
Zip: 32789
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-10-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-10-12
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: In XXXX of XXXX, I requested and received a copy of my consumer file from LexisNexis. In it were several incorrect facts, some of which were corrected, while one, in particular, was not and that is what this complaint is about. My LexisNexis file continues to show an automobile insurance policy lapse from XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX which was NOT the case. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a certified letter to LexisNexis explaining my request to correct that particular mistake and, in addition, I enclosed a letter ( per their instructions ) from my insurance company, XXXX XXXX, showing that I had no policy lapses during the dates shown in my consumer file. I have tried calling on their always busy phone lines and the online system they provide is so convoluted that I have given up trying to reach them and am hoping you may be able to help get this straightened out and corrected. Every time I have attempted to correct this matter I get a letter stating that it has been amended and yet when viewing my file the same inaccurate fact remains.
Company Response:
State: FL
Zip: 33755
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-10-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A