Complaint #1561154 submitted on 09/11/2015 relating to Early Warning Services, LLC. Complaint relates to Credit reporting - Incorrect information on credit report Information is not mine.
Complaint was submitted via Web and sent to the company on Friday 11th September 2015.
I am the victim of identity theft and evidently that is humorous to Early Warning LLC, specifically said " XXXX XXXX, '' purported supervisor. I have exhausted innumerable hours correcting the impact of my identity being stolen years ago. It appears to be a never-ending effort to correct, prevent, and protect my public and private records. I have been able to get nearly all cleared up. I know for a fact that I had NO derogatory records as of XXXX/XXXX/2015 with XXXX Early Warning LLC. I have a copy of my XXXX report, and Early Warning LLC confirmed again that there were NO derogatory records on my report. In fact, they confirmed to the bank that I have NO records at all reported. When opening a personal checking account, I was told by the banker that I had a report from XXXX XXXX XXXX, reported XXXX. When making further inquiry into the inaccurate record, it was found that a TOTALLY different social security number appears on this record, with my other identifying information. I 'm sick of this to say the very least. The banker called the Early Warning department that speaks directly with banks, and Early Warning LLC communicated directly to the banker that as of XXXX/XXXX/2015 there were NO records at all that appeared on my consumer report. They further stated that they DID NOT provide this XXXX XXXX XXXX record to Deluxe Detect. When speaking with XXXX XXXX, the banker was told that they received the record from Early Warning LLC. This is just plain blatant disregard for FCRA and the accuracy of reports, especially for victims of identity theft. Early Warning LLC then advised the bank that they would forward verification directly to them to show NO records. I was told by the banker to return on today to sign my signature card for the opening of my account. When returning to the bank, instead the banker advised she 'd received nothing from Early Warning. I immediately called back to Early Warning LLC. The initial rep told me that the XXXX XXXX XXXX record had been ADDED to my report after they spoke with XXXX XXXX on Wednesday. I was completely taken aback that they would ADD a clearly inaccurate record ( which displays a totally different social security number XXXX to my consumer report. I demanded a supervisor - said " XXXX XXXX '' who was rude at onset of conversation. She claimed they did n't " add '' it in a condescending way. Semantically, they may not have " reported '' it BUT they assuredly " added, '' " inserted, '' or otherwise included a record that did n't appear before today, and had been previously regarded as inaccurate and NOT included on my consumer report. She also claimed that they did n't have a copy of my police report for identity theft. This is becoming a broken record response XXXX, and all of these so-called legitimate credit/check reporting agencies. I 've uploaded the documents right here through the CFPB online portal for each complaint I 've sent. The repetition and consistency I 've exhibited makes it HIGHLY UNLIKELY AND ILLOGICAL that I have not perfected service of my records showing indisputable proof that I 've been the victim of identity theft. So here I am AGAIN having " only the option '' according to said " XXXX XXXX '' to file a dispute and WAIT for the processing time. There should be more immediate and binding relief for victims of identity theft and IMMEDIATE and BINDING SANCTIONS for these agencies.
Company | Early Warning Services, LLC |
Complaint ID | 1561154 |
Date Received | 09/11/2015 |
Product | Credit reporting |
Issue | Incorrect information on credit report Information is not mine |
State/ZIP Code | NC 274XX |
Consumer Consent | Consent provided |
Company Public Response | |
Company Response To Customer | Closed with explanation |
Submitted | Web 09/11/2015 |
Result | Timely Response: Yes, Consumer Disputed: Yes |
Leave your comments and feedback below.