|
Thomas didn't discover that the inaccuracies were
still on her credit report - and showed her credit
had gotten even worse - until three years later,
when she was in the process of buying a home. Turned
down for a mortgage, Thomas learned that her credit
report included an "a.k.a." or "also known as" listing,
indicating to potential lenders that she and the other
woman were the same person.
When renewed efforts to get Trans Union to fix the
problem were unsuccessful, Thomas contacted the
other woman, and persuaded her to write a letter to
the credit agency stating that she was not Thomas.
The "also known as" remained on Thomas' credit report
until only a few months ago, thwarting Thomas' efforts
to clear her report of credits problems.
She has not had a clean credit report in six years.
The jury was asked for both compensatory and punitive
damages. It was hopeful that this case would make
it clear that credit reporting agencies have to
follow the law.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act spells out a procedure
for consumers to dispute erroneous items on their
credit report - a document used by lenders and
insurers to set rates and determine whether to
issue new loans and insurance policies. Trans Union
is one of three major credit reporting companies
that compiles such data. The other two are
Atlanta-based Equifax and Costa Mesa-based Experian.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act also requires that
credit reporting companies investigate disputes
and correct or delete the incorrect items within
30 days.
Credit reporting firms typically investigate
consumer complaints by sending a form letter to
the creditor that reported the disputed item,
asking to verify its accuracy. If the creditor
does not verify the item within 30 days, the item
is dropped. If it's reinstated later, the credit
reporting company is supposed to notify the consumer.
However, Thomas contended in her lawsuit that the
procedures Trans Union used to investigate and
correct her report only worsened the problem.
The agency never wiped out the erroneous a.k.a.
listing, so its computer-generated forms letter
gave creditors the impression that Thomas and the
other woman were one and the same. The result
was that Thomas' report was never cleared.
Thomas eventually got her mortgage by contacting
the creditors directly, providing the correct
information about her name, address, Social
Security Number and stating she wasn't using any
other names or any other address.
"It's a perfect example of what happens to
hundreds of thousands of consumers", an
attorney said. "It's a reflection of the fact
that credit reporting systems often don't have
the proper mechanisms in place to correct a
problem even after it's been identified and
proven to be inaccurate by the consumer."
|
