July 11, 2025 • 36 mins
Hugo Blankingship III is a highly respected attorney based in Washington, D.C., specializing in identity theft and false credit reporting issues. With over 30 years of experience, he has built a strong reputation for advocating on behalf of consumers who are struggling with inaccurate credit information. His mission is to help clients get incorrect data removed from their credit reports, allowing them to move forward with their financial lives.
A graduate of the University of Virginia (B.A., 1982) and the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of William & Mary (J.D., 1986), Hugo began his career as a law clerk to the Honorable Albert V. Bryan, Jr., former chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This foundation shaped his career and led him to become a passionate consumer rights advocate.
Throughout his career, Hugo has fought tirelessly against major credit reporting agencies like Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax, ensuring they adhere to the rules. In 2004, he argued the case Nigh v. Koons Buick Pontiac GMC before the U.S. Supreme Court, and has represented clients before the Supreme Court of Virginia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Hugo's clients know him as a tenacious attorney who won't back down in the pursuit of justice.
Thomas B. Christiano received a B.A. from the University of Virginia in 1993 and a J.D. from the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of William & Mary in 1999. Mr. Christiano has handled numerous consumer protection cases and specializes in cases involving inaccurate credit reporting under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He has reviewed the credit reporting procedure process from the major credit reporting agencies and the dispute investigation procedures of many banks who have furnished inaccurate credit information. As an experienced credit report lawyer, he can identify the actual damages associated with credit report problems, including emotional distress damages, the loss of employment opportunities, inability to obtain a mortgage, and loss of use of credit., Mr. Christiano also publishes a blog at yourfaircreditreportlawyernow.com, which is an excellent informational resource on the subject. Thomas B. Christiano has decades of experience helping clients who have been the victim of credit fraud and identity theft. Discover how he can help you!
During the show we discussed:
- Common credit report errors and their impact on consumers
- Effects of identity theft on credit and first steps to take
- Challenges in disputing false credit report information
- Overview of the dispute process with credit bureaus
- How bureaus respond to disputes and what to do if ignored
- Consumer rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
- Role of Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion in disputes
- What to do when bureaus don’t fix errors and how attorneys help
- Issues with mixed/merged credit files and how to resolve them
- Fraud tactics in credit manipulation and identity theft prevention
- Importance of checking credit reports and common review mistakes
- Steps to fix credit scores after finding report errors
- How bad credit affects loans, housing, and employment
- Benefits of working with a credit report attorney vs. doing it alone
Resources:
https://www.yourfaircreditlawyer.com/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:02):
(Transcribed by TurboScribe.ai. Go Unlimited to remove this message.) Welcome to the Business Credit and Financing Show.
Each week we talk about the growth strategies
that matter most to entrepreneurs.
Listen in as we discuss the secrets to
getting credit and money to start and grow
your business and enjoy as we talk with
seasoned business owners, coaches, and industry leaders on
(00:22):
a variety of topics from advertising and marketing
to the nuts and bolts of running a
highly successful business.
And now to introduce the host of our
show, financial expert and award-winning author, Ty
Crandall.
Hello and thanks for joining us today.
I'm super excited you could be here because
today we're talking about one of my favorite
topics ever, which is getting your credit fixed
(00:44):
the right way and doing it the legal
way where you can actually win maybe a
little bit of cash for actually the things
that you're going through.
This is basically about how to fight for
fair credit.
We're going to talk about how consumers can
actually win against false reporting.
Look, you're going to be blown away at
what you're going to discover today in learning
that a lot of things that are on
your credit report that are negative shouldn't be
(01:06):
there legally to begin with.
And I know I talk to a lot
of people that say, hey, look, this thing
really happened, but it doesn't matter if the
thing really happened or not.
It matters if the actual credit issue of
the bureaus are compliant to the law and
reporting it the way that is required to
be reported.
I can give you a little hint, like
80% of the time from my own
personal experience, they're not reported as they're required
to be reported.
(01:27):
So we're going to fix that right today.
We are going to make sure that we
are going to get you the education on
how to fight for fair credit.
And with this is two of the foremost
experts on this.
And this is Hugo Blankenship.
I'm going to introduce him.
The first Hugo Blankenship III is a highly
respected attorney based in Washington, D.C., specializing
in identity theft and false credit reporting issues.
(01:48):
With over 30 years of experience, he has
built a strong reputation for advocating on behalf
of consumers who are struggling with inaccurate credit
information.
And his mission is to help clients get
incorrect data removed from their credit reports, allowing
them to move forward with their financial lives.
He's actually a graduate of the University of
Virginia and the Marshall Wythe School of Law
(02:09):
at the College of William and Mary.
Now, Hugo began his career as a law
court to the Honorable Albert V.
Bryan, Jr., former chief judge of the U
.S. District Court in the Eastern District of
Virginia.
And that foundation basically shaped his career and
led him to become a passionate consumer rights
advocate.
Now, we also have Thomas Christiano.
(02:30):
Now, Thomas, in 2019, 14.4 million Americans
became victims of identity theft, including residents of
Fairfax County and surrounding areas.
And cyber criminals have been finding all kinds
of new ways to exploit consumers and steal
their personal information.
And this is exactly what he fights to
be able to solve.
So Thomas Christiano has a B.A. from
(02:50):
the University of Virginia and a J.D.
from the Marshall Wythe School of Law and
the College of William and Mary.
Now, Mr. Christiano has handled numerous consumer protection
cases and specializes in cases involving inaccurate credit
reporting under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
He has reviewed the credit reporting procedure process
from the major credit reporting agencies and the
(03:11):
dispute investigation procedures of many of the banks
who have furnished inaccurate credit information.
So as an experienced credit report lawyer, he
can identify the actual damages associated with credit
report problems, including emotional distress damages, the loss
of employment opportunities, inability to obtain a mortgage
and loss of use of credit.
Now, Mr. Christiano also publishes a blog at
(03:32):
YourFairCreditLawyerNow.com, which is an excellent informational source
on the subject.
And he also has decades of experience helping
clients who have been the victim of credit
fraud and identity theft.
Hey, gentlemen, thanks for joining me today.
You're welcome.
Thanks for having us, Ty.
Yeah.
So let me ask you, how common is
it that people have inaccurate information on their
(03:55):
credit reports?
I think there's a lot of it.
I mean, some of it is not terribly
significant that it's going to impact your score
all that much, but people who are the
victim of identity theft or have a inaccurate
trade line that says maybe it's 30, 60
days late that's inaccurate is something that's going
to be very impactful.
What are some of the typical derogatory items
(04:19):
that you see that are inaccurate on credit
reports?
The ones that we deal with primarily are
the more serious ones involving identity theft.
So if somebody has opened up credit in
your name, using your social and your date
of birth, they've got your information, they open
up accounts, and of course, they're never going
to pay them.
And now next thing you know, you've got
(04:39):
two or three fraudulent accounts on your credit
report and your score has dropped by 150,
200 points.
And I've seen historically in identity theft cases
that a lot of it isn't somebody stealing
identity, but a lot of it is mismatched
data from a family member, for example, sometimes
appearing on somebody's report.
So when you're dealing with somebody that's coming
to you for identity theft where they've tried
(05:00):
to resolve but haven't been able to, how
often is it that their identity is truly
stolen versus information that's just cross-matched on
their credit report from somebody with a similar
name, similar social?
Well, sure.
It can happen that way where there's mismatched
information.
In fact, two of our leading cases, the
Sloan v.
Equifax case and the Robinson v.
(05:20):
Equifax case were identity theft cases that crossed
over into mixed-merge credit files that you
spoke of.
Ms. Sloan had a baby, and when she
went to the hospital, it just so happened
that one of the administrative clerks that was
in the back office shared a common name.
Her name was Shabana Sloan.
So she also had a previous history of
(05:43):
stealing identity.
So she stole our client's identity, and then
at some point, Equifax not only allowed her
to use our client's good credit, but they
switched the identity thief's credit with our client's
credit, and it was a terrible, terrible case
of mixed-merge and identity theft.
(06:03):
So there are commonalities to the two problems,
but typically what we see is identity theft
comes in the nature that Hugo described.
I know you can't talk about intentions, but
why don't the bureaus fix it?
I've never been able to understand that.
Like, it's not that hard to make sure
that that data that's pulled down into the
report belongs to the right person, but when
(06:24):
they're using variants of like three data points
that if it's similar to this, they think
it belongs to that person, it seems like
something they can solve.
I mean, do you guys have any insights
of why they just don't solve the problem
instead of taking these people that kind of
look like the person and putting on the
report to actually matching to the specific person
it really is?
I would say I think over the years,
(06:46):
they've gotten much better at it.
I mean, more of our older cases involve
clients who had a mixed-merge with somebody
who had a similar name.
We had one client.
Their social security numbers were one digit apart,
okay?
So eight out of the nine matched.
The other one was one digit apart.
So they'd say, well, close enough.
They had similar names.
(07:06):
They lived in totally different states, but there
was a significant matching criteria.
But we don't see that much of that
anymore.
That's not as prevalent as it was, say,
15, 20 years ago.
Yeah, and I think they changed the social
security system, which is interesting because social, they
have a very specific of what the social
actually is for, and part of it's that
(07:27):
location.
So when I'm from Indiana, which I am,
and my dad's from Indiana, naturally, our socials
are going to be similar.
And then if we're born close together, they
can be even more similar.
But I think now it's more randomized, which
probably would help for that.
Why are people not able to get this
fixed on their own?
Why is there this back and forth of
trying to go to the bureau?
(07:48):
Because I imagine people that come to you
have tried to fix it on their own,
and the bureaus won't fix it.
So what happens in this process where I
guess the client has to come to you,
meaning that the client that you're typically dealing
with, have they tried to solve the problem
on their own through normal disputing to the
credit issuer and bureaus, failed, and then maybe
tried again and again, and then they're basically
(08:08):
hiring you to help fix the problem because
they're not able to do it on their
own?
Is that a typical client that you're dealing
with?
Absolutely.
That's very consistent.
The problem is over the last 15 years
or so, the credit reporting agencies have gone,
rather than trying to fix problems, they've gone
to preventing problems from getting off.
(08:30):
There have been a lot of credit clinics
that try to dispute legitimate data, and the
credit reporting agencies think that everybody's a crook
now.
So they don't want to take anything off.
The other part of it is that they've
outsourced the dispute process to India, Costa Rica,
Chile, other countries to save money.
And the companies that they send this work
(08:53):
to, they don't trust to actually do the
hard work to determine, well, is this accurate?
Is it not accurate?
They don't trust them to do it, so
they don't let them do it.
And that's why it's never coming off.
So I think that that's interesting.
And I wonder about that, because if you
deal with a credit clinic, a credit repair
company, for example, a credit repair company will
challenge basically everything in its draw return report,
(09:14):
typically.
But then again, isn't it the consumer's right
to have that done?
If I have negative items on my credit
report, then it's the credit issuer and the
bureau's responsibility to make sure that that's accurate
under the FCRA.
So then with that being the case, is
it wise or is it not wise for
me to basically try to challenge everything that's
(09:35):
negative on that credit report, knowing that it's
their responsibility to validate the accuracy of the
information?
Because as a consumer, I don't know.
I can look at a tri-merge and
I see that the data is different between
the bureaus.
I can clearly see that, but I don't
know what to dispute.
So is it good practice to try to
(09:57):
dispute everything knowing that it's their responsibility to
validate the data?
Or is there an expectation that I really
have specific knowledge of what I'm disputing and
only dispute specific accounts?
Yeah, I think it really depends on the
nature of the data being reported.
If you're disputing because you don't feel the
(10:17):
furnisher has sufficient supporting documentation, those disputes typically
don't fare well and they're more along the
credit clinic type disputes.
If you're disputing a legitimate status of your
account, it's not been charged off or I
paid a charged off and they're not reporting
it as I paid it, which we've seen
(10:37):
in those cases are pretty impactful because people
are very vulnerable because they're trying to recover
from a previous past credit act problem.
And then they pay down and pay back
a charge off and they're expecting to get
the return on their investment, so to speak,
from a credit reporting standpoint and reported as
a zero balance starts to rehabilitate the credit
(10:59):
file.
This is a very vulnerable person.
And if you pay $3,000 to clean
up a repossessed vehicle that you had two,
three years ago, and then all of a
sudden it still says $9,000.
I mean, I would think that's a status
dispute that fits into what are significant cases
with vulnerable people that are trying to rehabilitate
(11:20):
their credit.
You talk about impact.
So what do you feel or what have
you seen from your experience are the most
impactful negative items that affect somebody's score?
Like you talk about status, that seems like
one.
So when you look at an item and
it's incorrect, what are the most impactful, incorrect
report aspects of that reported item that probably
(11:42):
more adversely affect the credit score?
Well, you know, one of the things I
think most consumers don't appreciate it or understand
is it, it depends on how good your
credit score is to begin with.
So if you have an elite credit score
of say 800, right?
You paid everybody for years and all of
a sudden a 30 day late shows up
on your credit report.
You know, you would think, well, that's not
(12:03):
that big of a deal because I've been
paying everybody for years.
Oh, it's going to be huge.
You could drop a hundred points, 70, 80,
a hundred points just on one 30 day
late.
So if you're in the six hundreds or
the high five hundreds and you get a
collection that goes on it, well, I mean,
that's salt in the ocean.
You're not going to drop that much.
(12:23):
So the first thing it really depends on
is where is your credit score to begin
with?
How good is it?
And that's where people really professionals don't realize
how vulnerable they are.
We've had parents who guarantee a debt for
a child and who think, oh, well, it's
a $500 credit card that my kid didn't
pay.
But then they look at it and go,
oh my God, my score went down so
(12:44):
much because the way that the scoring models
are tailored to find recent inaccuracies, credit utilization
ratios and things of that nature.
So when you have a recent derogatory, just
like Hugo was saying, it's going to be
way more impactful to your credit score and
your credit file.
And it will affect you in ways you
don't even imagine from car insurance rates to
(13:06):
if you suddenly want to do a refire.
We see it where people are shocked at
how a relatively small dollar amount, the recency
effect can just demolish your credit score.
Let's say they see that.
They see the impact of the score.
They see an inaccuracy on the item.
They try to dispute it.
What do you find are the biggest challenges
(13:28):
from that point of them trying to fix
it on their own and actually being able
to get a result?
Well, the problem is, is that we do
not see these problems getting solved by the
credit reporting agencies.
So you can bang your head against the
wall as long as you want, but they're
not going to fix it because they're not
going to put the work into it.
I mean, the statistics are around about 12
(13:50):
cents.
That's what they're going to pay to reinvestigate
your dispute.
Well, how much of an investigation you think
you're going to get for 12 cents, right?
So they're not doing it.
Basically what happens is the credit reporting agency
is going to take your dispute and they're
going to send it to the furnisher.
Let's say it's Verizon, right?
And you say, hey, I didn't open up
this account or you got my bill wrong.
If Verizon is not going to fix it,
(14:12):
it's not going to get fixed.
Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, they're not going to fix
it.
Whatever Verizon says, well, that's what they're going
to continue to report.
So it's not coming off.
But doesn't the FCRA put the burden on
the bureaus of the accuracy, the information they're
reporting?
Absolutely.
Yes, it does.
(14:32):
So the way the bureau set things up
is in the case law describes it as
a data conformity review.
So as he was saying, they don't want
to trust the outsource processor overseas to actually
conduct a proper reinvestigation of inaccurate data.
So what they do is engage in a
data conformity review where the consumer really is
(14:53):
caught in this endless circle where the data
is inaccurate to begin with, which is why
they're disputing.
And then they send the letter to I'll
just name Equifax.
They send the letter to Equifax.
Equifax sends it out to their outsource processor.
They don't really investigate, read the letter, think
about, hey, should this be on this consumer's
credit report?
(15:13):
They're going to send a small metro code.
It's a two or three digit code to
the furnisher who is then going to send
a response back electronically.
And that's Equifax's investigation, in my opinion, where
they're not going to really conduct a meaningful
investigation of disputes and review a letter that
says, hey, I did pay this account offer.
(15:33):
Here's a letter from my bank that says
I wasn't really 30 days late and they
took the money out of my account.
I mean, some of these back patterns can
be shocking where you're like, what if the
bank says that I paid within 30 days,
why am I having a 30 day late
status on my account?
They say they took the money.
And Equifax, they're just going to send it
off to the furnisher and let the data
(15:55):
conformity review happen and have it come right
back to them.
It's really outrageous.
It's a shocking process that they go through.
And it used to be that there were
some things you could do to get better
results than others.
Like if you disputed online, it used to
go right into eOscar and then eOscar would
send it, sign the code and send it
direct to the actual creditor.
Now, I mean, so then the idea was
(16:16):
that you would want to manually mail it
in.
I mean, do things crazy, like crinkle the
letter up.
I mean, anything to stop it from going
into eOscar and even fax.
So what is it nowadays?
Is there a better way to process a
dispute to get better results like mail versus
fax versus doing it online?
Or it just doesn't matter?
(16:37):
Well, I think that mail matters.
I would not recommend doing an online dispute.
You could do it just if you really
want to get a dispute going quickly and
you think it can be solved through the
eOscar system.
You could do it online.
Written letters are really good for two reasons.
One, you can sign it.
And if you just put a wedding signature
on it and print your envelope off in
(16:57):
your own handwriting, you're going to not look
like a credit clinic.
They should look at that.
They claim they look at it to see
if a credit clinic's batch mailing things.
Then they should look at a handwritten envelope
and say, this is a real person who
signed their letter and mailed it to me.
I should maybe consider this one a little
different than the batch envelope where I got
50 to 100 that looked the same.
(17:17):
So I think there are definitely still mechanisms
to make your dispute stand out, tax supporting
documentation, and make it obvious they didn't review
it.
I mean, some of these cases are pretty
simple that if you just read the stuff,
you could figure it out.
I try to do it on my own.
I follow what you said to do.
I mail the letter.
I sign the letter.
It's inaccurate.
(17:38):
It's identity theft.
Or it's just flat out wrong.
And they come back with that wonderful message
that it's verified.
I'm steaming.
I'm upset.
Maybe I disputed again.
Same thing happens.
What do I do now?
At that point, you're going to have to
get a lawyer because it's not coming off.
And shockingly, guess when it always comes off.
And now a quick break to hear from
(18:00):
our sponsor.
Hey, it's Ty Crandall with CreditSuite.
Many of our subscribers want to build business
credit that's linked to their EIN without a
personal guarantee or credit check.
Now, if you're looking to get no doc
high limit business credit cards that report to
the business reporting agencies without a personal guarantee
or credit check, give us a call at
877-600-2487.
(18:20):
That's 877-600-2487 or schedule your free
consultation online to talk more at CreditSuite.com
forward slash consult.
Right after we file suit, right after we
file suit, they can investigate three or four
times, but it's unbelievable.
They keep track of our lawsuits.
They follow them.
Okay.
They haven't even been served yet.
(18:41):
And they know, oh, well, we're going to
take this one off now.
Okay.
That's when they come on.
As soon as the lawsuits get filed, it's
shocking.
So do you guys just file suit or
do you write them a letter first?
I would be scared to death.
I've seen your reputation.
It's a phenomenal reputation of helping people in
these scenarios.
So do you even attempt to contact them
(19:03):
first or you just immediately file suit?
Well, by that time, the damage is done,
right?
So you've gone through this process, right?
And you've tried to get credit and you
can't get it because they won't take it
off your credit report.
And you've been frustrated by all that.
Well, I can write them a letter, but
they're not going to write me a check
to cover your damages right away.
They need a gun in the face.
(19:25):
And they have a different attitude when they
get a federal lawsuit.
I've been working with Hugo for 25 years,
and I've rarely seen letters of work of
any nature.
But a deadline in a federal court lawsuit
tends to get people's attention.
So I'm skeptical in letters in general.
And you guys bring up a really good
point because people don't pull their credit just
to pull their credit.
(19:45):
I mean, I wish people would monitor their
credit just to monitor it to make sure
it's okay.
They typically don't.
They're typically using the credit when they're trying
to buy something.
There's a timeline.
They're trying to buy a home.
They're trying to buy a car.
And so going through this process, it's a
massive disruption to their life because they're usually
using it for a pretty significant purchase.
So in that case, they come to you,
(20:06):
the damage is done.
You're then filing suit.
And then I don't know if there's a
typical result.
What do you oftentimes see when a consumer
then comes to you, you file a suit?
Like what happens?
Is it damages?
Did they get damages?
Are they just removing the item from their
credit report?
Like what kind of things typically happen once
(20:27):
a suit is filed?
Well, we take these cases on a contingency
fee basis.
So we don't get paid by the client.
Most of the clients can't afford the amount
of legal fees that it's going to take
to get to the end of the game.
The other thing about the Fair Credit Reporting
Act that is very, very helpful to consumers
is there's a provision for if you win
(20:48):
on behalf of your consumer, they have to
pay your legal fees.
And the legal fees in these cases are
often more than the amount of the damages
we're talking about.
So that's the impetus for the credit reporting
agencies to get the cases settled sooner rather
than later.
Because they know if they're going to litigate
this thing through summary judgment or even go
to a trial, I mean, there could be
half a million to a million dollars in
(21:08):
legal fees between the two firms taking it
all the way.
Sure.
And I love that you brought this up
because it was my next question.
So if I come to you and here's
my problem, I'm able to meet with you
for free to consult, tell you what's going
on, supply to you whatever it is that
you require or request.
Then you look at it and you say,
(21:28):
you have a case here.
And at that point, it doesn't cost me
any money out of pocket.
I'm able to tap into your experience, which
is vast.
You guys are a lot of really phenomenal
experience in this area.
And then you're able to help me through
it.
My attorney fees are covered, whether I win
or I lose.
And then I may win potential damages.
And then the damage to my credit report
(21:49):
is potentially fixed.
Is that fair to say?
Correct.
To me, one of the first steps when
we get involved in the lawsuit is let's
take a look behind the scenes.
What did happen when it was outsourced?
What parts of the act did they follow?
What is it really egregious?
We'll see instances where they don't even send
the electronic notice.
(22:10):
They get the letter.
And for whatever reason, the person just says,
it's not even on your credit file.
We're not even going to send it out
when it's clearly on there.
So those are aggravating factors.
The client's distress.
I like to say that I can feel
it in their voice.
When I talk to someone on the phone
and they're trying to buy a home and
they can't, and they feel like they've done
(22:31):
everything they can do, it's really impactful.
And so Hugh and I are very careful
in the cases that we do select.
And I mean, we really are lucky.
We have great clients.
I love all of our clients.
And these are significant problems, significant life events.
Babies are born.
Houses can't get bought.
I mean, these are problems that are significant
(22:52):
distress damages that are corroborated by circumstances and
events that match with the consumer's life.
What should I be doing to tee up
the perfect case for you guys?
I'm sure people come in frustrated, upset, try
to hire you.
They haven't done things correctly to even get
to a point where you can come in.
Maybe you have to have them go back
(23:13):
and do things a certain way to be
able to have an actual case.
So what should I be doing on my
end to make sure that I'm doing everything
in my dispute properly to then know that
if they're doing their part wrong, I can
come to you and you guys are like,
you did everything exactly the way we would
want it up to this point where we're
involved?
(23:33):
Well, as Tom said, we find that sending
a written letter, written dispute letter with documentation
and backup is the best way because now
you explain to them, look, this isn't mine
and here's the proof, right?
Here's what I have.
It's funny.
We see more identity theft of related people
than we do of unrelated people.
(23:54):
So it's parents, it's children, it's people who
are actually related that are stealing somebody else
that they know's identity.
Those are the disturbing cases when your mom
says, hey, I'm going to take out a
student loan in your name and I'm not
going to mention it and I'm going to
pay it back, but they never do.
And then the student gets out of school
and they're like, whoa, what's this?
(24:15):
Because mom never paid it back and said,
sorry.
Right.
Documentation is key.
The better the dispute, the more detailed the
dispute, the better the case will ultimately be.
And you got to be truthful to the
extent of that.
The system is entirely set up to punish
the innocent and find the people that are
lying.
So you can't play into the narrative that
(24:36):
they already have, they being the credit reporting
agencies.
So, I mean, they'll mark you credit clinic
right on your, I've seen it on files.
They'll write credit clinic right into the file.
So I guess there's a little bit of
an element of when you bring a dispute,
be as accurate and clear as you can
and be as factually descriptive of what's wrong
with your supporting documentation.
(24:56):
And you are the innocent victim and you're
the good guy.
So just show you're the good guy.
That's what I say, because there really is
no excuse for not taking these things off.
Even if there's a dispute over the underlying
finances of a situation, there's civil courts, the
furnisher could obviously just sue for $700 in
(25:16):
a court of your jurisdiction.
And then you could explain to a judge
why you don't have the money, but they
don't want to do that because they know
it's easier to hold your credit hostage and
to put a $700 collection on your credit
account.
And you go, oh, well, what am I
going to do?
Do I really want to buy this house?
I'll just pay that $700 that I don't
really owe and move on, which unfortunately some
people do.
But it's not fair.
(25:37):
I mean, not to cry about fairness, but
it isn't fair.
And it's the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
So document dispute and protect your rights.
And keep your documents.
Keep records.
Yeah.
And the sad thing about what you just
said is that that actually can hurt your
credit more.
If I had that collection and I pay
it off, then I'm updating the data blast
(25:58):
activity on that account, at least what I've
seen historically.
And that can actually hurt my credit.
So I mean, literally what you're describing is
100% accurate.
I could try to do the right thing
and pay that account off and actually hurt
my credit more than if I wouldn't have
paid the thing.
I mean, it is the most backward system
I've ever seen.
And one of the other things is people,
you owe a debt collector, right?
(26:19):
The debt collector says you owe me $1
,000.
But if you want to pay me $300,
I'll mark it as paid for the $300.
And they think, okay, well, I'm going to
pay the $300.
And now it's going to go to a
zero balance.
It is, but it's going to report as
paid less than full balance due, which is
seriously going to negatively impact your credit.
(26:39):
So if you take that deal, usually if
it's tens of thousands of dollars, okay, that's
probably a pretty good deal.
But if it's only a couple hundred dollars,
pay the whole thing and get it zeroed
out.
Don't let it go less than full balance
due.
That's really bad.
Yeah, I just haven't seen too many positive
things from collection companies where it goes well
for a consumer to deal with them in
(27:00):
a lot of cases.
So what should somebody be doing?
So let's say I come in, I dispute
the account.
I've done everything you said.
I've mailed the dispute.
I've got detailed account of what took place.
That's accurate.
I've included supporting documentation.
I've signed it.
Do I just do it once and then
come to you?
Is there other steps beyond that one dispute
(27:21):
that I should be doing before it makes
sense to come to you guys?
Well, I think personally more disputes are always
better.
Again, they being the credit reporting agencies, I'll
just try to put my credit reporting lawyer
hat on.
I don't like that hat.
But they'll come up with anything to defend
the case.
So they'll say, well, you only disputed once.
How bad could it have been?
(27:42):
So for my money, I would dispute until
every time somebody said something that was inaccurate
about my name.
It's my name.
It's inaccurate.
And I'm going to dispute that until you
take it off and you follow the law.
And that's just my personality.
I'm tougher like that.
And disputes matter to the credit reporting agency
(28:02):
lawyers.
So I think it matters to us that
you keep disputing.
And then I don't personally think that it
should matter, but I think it does.
It matters to judges.
Judges will go, oh, well, you only disputed
it once.
And then they took it off six months
later.
How bad could it be?
I mean, they just sometimes don't appreciate how
bad it is for these consumers.
(28:22):
And it goes back to victim blaming.
They're going to be like, well, you really
didn't try that hard.
You only sent one letter out.
You could have done more.
I mean, when these cases get defended, they
get defended in a traditional fashion.
And part of that tradition, unfortunately, has been
victim blaming.
So they will say, oh, you should have
done more.
Why did you leave your ID in your
house so your son could steal it?
(28:43):
It's amazing what they can come up with
when they're defending the case.
Do you guys do much with disputing or
fighting LexisNexis?
We've had a couple of LexisNexis cases.
That's more in the employment background area of
credit reporting.
That's a whole different, that could be another
half hour discussion.
I'm going to have you guys back to
(29:04):
have that conversation.
I mean, short answer for criminal records are
sloppy.
And part of it is the clerk's office
isn't designed to retain data, to match it
to everybody else.
So you go matching names and an address.
They might not even have a date of
birth in the file.
They could.
(29:24):
Some of them do.
But when people go to pull a LexisNexis
report, you're going to see the wild west
of what's matched.
I mean, you talked about matching algorithms earlier.
It's even less, I think, in the employment
in LexisNexis background area.
Yeah.
And I might want to have you guys
back to talk about that because there's things
about LexisNexis I don't understand.
(29:45):
Like you have 10 years to have a
public record on your credit report, but yet
LexisNexis has it on there indefinitely.
But yet they're a credit reporting agency.
There's just a lot of things like that
that I'm not sure of.
So it's a whole other discussion for another
day.
But what should we be doing proactively?
(Transcribed by TurboScribe.ai. Go Unlimited to remove this message.) Welcome to the Business Credit and Financing Show.
Each week we talk about the growth strategies
that matter most to entrepreneurs.
Listen in as we discuss the secrets to
getting credit and money to start and grow
your business and enjoy as we talk with
seasoned business owners, coaches, and industry leaders on
(00:22):
a variety of topics from advertising and marketing
to the nuts and bolts of running a
highly successful business.
And now to introduce the host of our
show, financial expert and award-winning author, Ty
Crandall.
Hello and thanks for joining us today.
I'm super excited you could be here because
today we're talking about one of my favorite
topics ever, which is getting your credit fixed
(00:44):
the right way and doing it the legal
way where you can actually win maybe a
little bit of cash for actually the things
that you're going through.
This is basically about how to fight for
fair credit.
We're going to talk about how consumers can
actually win against false reporting.
Look, you're going to be blown away at
what you're going to discover today in learning
that a lot of things that are on
your credit report that are negative shouldn't be
(01:06):
there legally to begin with.
And I know I talk to a lot
of people that say, hey, look, this thing
really happened, but it doesn't matter if the
thing really happened or not.
It matters if the actual credit issue of
the bureaus are compliant to the law and
reporting it the way that is required to
be reported.
I can give you a little hint, like
80% of the time from my own
personal experience, they're not reported as they're required
to be reported.
(01:27):
So we're going to fix that right today.
We are going to make sure that we
are going to get you the education on
how to fight for fair credit.
And with this is two of the foremost
experts on this.
And this is Hugo Blankenship.
I'm going to introduce him.
The first Hugo Blankenship III is a highly
respected attorney based in Washington, D.C., specializing
in identity theft and false credit reporting issues.
(01:48):
With over 30 years of experience, he has
built a strong reputation for advocating on behalf
of consumers who are struggling with inaccurate credit
information.
And his mission is to help clients get
incorrect data removed from their credit reports, allowing
them to move forward with their financial lives.
He's actually a graduate of the University of
Virginia and the Marshall Wythe School of Law
(02:09):
at the College of William and Mary.
Now, Hugo began his career as a law
court to the Honorable Albert V.
Bryan, Jr., former chief judge of the U
.S. District Court in the Eastern District of
Virginia.
And that foundation basically shaped his career and
led him to become a passionate consumer rights
advocate.
Now, we also have Thomas Christiano.
(02:30):
Now, Thomas, in 2019, 14.4 million Americans
became victims of identity theft, including residents of
Fairfax County and surrounding areas.
And cyber criminals have been finding all kinds
of new ways to exploit consumers and steal
their personal information.
And this is exactly what he fights to
be able to solve.
So Thomas Christiano has a B.A. from
(02:50):
the University of Virginia and a J.D.
from the Marshall Wythe School of Law and
the College of William and Mary.
Now, Mr. Christiano has handled numerous consumer protection
cases and specializes in cases involving inaccurate credit
reporting under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
He has reviewed the credit reporting procedure process
from the major credit reporting agencies and the
(03:11):
dispute investigation procedures of many of the banks
who have furnished inaccurate credit information.
So as an experienced credit report lawyer, he
can identify the actual damages associated with credit
report problems, including emotional distress damages, the loss
of employment opportunities, inability to obtain a mortgage
and loss of use of credit.
Now, Mr. Christiano also publishes a blog at
(03:32):
YourFairCreditLawyerNow.com, which is an excellent informational source
on the subject.
And he also has decades of experience helping
clients who have been the victim of credit
fraud and identity theft.
Hey, gentlemen, thanks for joining me today.
You're welcome.
Thanks for having us, Ty.
Yeah.
So let me ask you, how common is
it that people have inaccurate information on their
(03:55):
credit reports?
I think there's a lot of it.
I mean, some of it is not terribly
significant that it's going to impact your score
all that much, but people who are the
victim of identity theft or have a inaccurate
trade line that says maybe it's 30, 60
days late that's inaccurate is something that's going
to be very impactful.
What are some of the typical derogatory items
(04:19):
that you see that are inaccurate on credit
reports?
The ones that we deal with primarily are
the more serious ones involving identity theft.
So if somebody has opened up credit in
your name, using your social and your date
of birth, they've got your information, they open
up accounts, and of course, they're never going
to pay them.
And now next thing you know, you've got
(04:39):
two or three fraudulent accounts on your credit
report and your score has dropped by 150,
200 points.
And I've seen historically in identity theft cases
that a lot of it isn't somebody stealing
identity, but a lot of it is mismatched
data from a family member, for example, sometimes
appearing on somebody's report.
So when you're dealing with somebody that's coming
to you for identity theft where they've tried
(05:00):
to resolve but haven't been able to, how
often is it that their identity is truly
stolen versus information that's just cross-matched on
their credit report from somebody with a similar
name, similar social?
Well, sure.
It can happen that way where there's mismatched
information.
In fact, two of our leading cases, the
Sloan v.
Equifax case and the Robinson v.
(05:20):
Equifax case were identity theft cases that crossed
over into mixed-merge credit files that you
spoke of.
Ms. Sloan had a baby, and when she
went to the hospital, it just so happened
that one of the administrative clerks that was
in the back office shared a common name.
Her name was Shabana Sloan.
So she also had a previous history of
(05:43):
stealing identity.
So she stole our client's identity, and then
at some point, Equifax not only allowed her
to use our client's good credit, but they
switched the identity thief's credit with our client's
credit, and it was a terrible, terrible case
of mixed-merge and identity theft.
(06:03):
So there are commonalities to the two problems,
but typically what we see is identity theft
comes in the nature that Hugo described.
I know you can't talk about intentions, but
why don't the bureaus fix it?
I've never been able to understand that.
Like, it's not that hard to make sure
that that data that's pulled down into the
report belongs to the right person, but when
(06:24):
they're using variants of like three data points
that if it's similar to this, they think
it belongs to that person, it seems like
something they can solve.
I mean, do you guys have any insights
of why they just don't solve the problem
instead of taking these people that kind of
look like the person and putting on the
report to actually matching to the specific person
it really is?
I would say I think over the years,
(06:46):
they've gotten much better at it.
I mean, more of our older cases involve
clients who had a mixed-merge with somebody
who had a similar name.
We had one client.
Their social security numbers were one digit apart,
okay?
So eight out of the nine matched.
The other one was one digit apart.
So they'd say, well, close enough.
They had similar names.
(07:06):
They lived in totally different states, but there
was a significant matching criteria.
But we don't see that much of that
anymore.
That's not as prevalent as it was, say,
15, 20 years ago.
Yeah, and I think they changed the social
security system, which is interesting because social, they
have a very specific of what the social
actually is for, and part of it's that
(07:27):
location.
So when I'm from Indiana, which I am,
and my dad's from Indiana, naturally, our socials
are going to be similar.
And then if we're born close together, they
can be even more similar.
But I think now it's more randomized, which
probably would help for that.
Why are people not able to get this
fixed on their own?
Why is there this back and forth of
trying to go to the bureau?
(07:48):
Because I imagine people that come to you
have tried to fix it on their own,
and the bureaus won't fix it.
So what happens in this process where I
guess the client has to come to you,
meaning that the client that you're typically dealing
with, have they tried to solve the problem
on their own through normal disputing to the
credit issuer and bureaus, failed, and then maybe
tried again and again, and then they're basically
(08:08):
hiring you to help fix the problem because
they're not able to do it on their
own?
Is that a typical client that you're dealing
with?
Absolutely.
That's very consistent.
The problem is over the last 15 years
or so, the credit reporting agencies have gone,
rather than trying to fix problems, they've gone
to preventing problems from getting off.
(08:30):
There have been a lot of credit clinics
that try to dispute legitimate data, and the
credit reporting agencies think that everybody's a crook
now.
So they don't want to take anything off.
The other part of it is that they've
outsourced the dispute process to India, Costa Rica,
Chile, other countries to save money.
And the companies that they send this work
(08:53):
to, they don't trust to actually do the
hard work to determine, well, is this accurate?
Is it not accurate?
They don't trust them to do it, so
they don't let them do it.
And that's why it's never coming off.
So I think that that's interesting.
And I wonder about that, because if you
deal with a credit clinic, a credit repair
company, for example, a credit repair company will
challenge basically everything in its draw return report,
(09:14):
typically.
But then again, isn't it the consumer's right
to have that done?
If I have negative items on my credit
report, then it's the credit issuer and the
bureau's responsibility to make sure that that's accurate
under the FCRA.
So then with that being the case, is
it wise or is it not wise for
me to basically try to challenge everything that's
(09:35):
negative on that credit report, knowing that it's
their responsibility to validate the accuracy of the
information?
Because as a consumer, I don't know.
I can look at a tri-merge and
I see that the data is different between
the bureaus.
I can clearly see that, but I don't
know what to dispute.
So is it good practice to try to
(09:57):
dispute everything knowing that it's their responsibility to
validate the data?
Or is there an expectation that I really
have specific knowledge of what I'm disputing and
only dispute specific accounts?
Yeah, I think it really depends on the
nature of the data being reported.
If you're disputing because you don't feel the
(10:17):
furnisher has sufficient supporting documentation, those disputes typically
don't fare well and they're more along the
credit clinic type disputes.
If you're disputing a legitimate status of your
account, it's not been charged off or I
paid a charged off and they're not reporting
it as I paid it, which we've seen
(10:37):
in those cases are pretty impactful because people
are very vulnerable because they're trying to recover
from a previous past credit act problem.
And then they pay down and pay back
a charge off and they're expecting to get
the return on their investment, so to speak,
from a credit reporting standpoint and reported as
a zero balance starts to rehabilitate the credit
(10:59):
file.
This is a very vulnerable person.
And if you pay $3,000 to clean
up a repossessed vehicle that you had two,
three years ago, and then all of a
sudden it still says $9,000.
I mean, I would think that's a status
dispute that fits into what are significant cases
with vulnerable people that are trying to rehabilitate
(11:20):
their credit.
You talk about impact.
So what do you feel or what have
you seen from your experience are the most
impactful negative items that affect somebody's score?
Like you talk about status, that seems like
one.
So when you look at an item and
it's incorrect, what are the most impactful, incorrect
report aspects of that reported item that probably
(11:42):
more adversely affect the credit score?
Well, you know, one of the things I
think most consumers don't appreciate it or understand
is it, it depends on how good your
credit score is to begin with.
So if you have an elite credit score
of say 800, right?
You paid everybody for years and all of
a sudden a 30 day late shows up
on your credit report.
You know, you would think, well, that's not
(12:03):
that big of a deal because I've been
paying everybody for years.
Oh, it's going to be huge.
You could drop a hundred points, 70, 80,
a hundred points just on one 30 day
late.
So if you're in the six hundreds or
the high five hundreds and you get a
collection that goes on it, well, I mean,
that's salt in the ocean.
You're not going to drop that much.
(12:23):
So the first thing it really depends on
is where is your credit score to begin
with?
How good is it?
And that's where people really professionals don't realize
how vulnerable they are.
We've had parents who guarantee a debt for
a child and who think, oh, well, it's
a $500 credit card that my kid didn't
pay.
But then they look at it and go,
oh my God, my score went down so
(12:44):
much because the way that the scoring models
are tailored to find recent inaccuracies, credit utilization
ratios and things of that nature.
So when you have a recent derogatory, just
like Hugo was saying, it's going to be
way more impactful to your credit score and
your credit file.
And it will affect you in ways you
don't even imagine from car insurance rates to
(13:06):
if you suddenly want to do a refire.
We see it where people are shocked at
how a relatively small dollar amount, the recency
effect can just demolish your credit score.
Let's say they see that.
They see the impact of the score.
They see an inaccuracy on the item.
They try to dispute it.
What do you find are the biggest challenges
(13:28):
from that point of them trying to fix
it on their own and actually being able
to get a result?
Well, the problem is, is that we do
not see these problems getting solved by the
credit reporting agencies.
So you can bang your head against the
wall as long as you want, but they're
not going to fix it because they're not
going to put the work into it.
I mean, the statistics are around about 12
(13:50):
cents.
That's what they're going to pay to reinvestigate
your dispute.
Well, how much of an investigation you think
you're going to get for 12 cents, right?
So they're not doing it.
Basically what happens is the credit reporting agency
is going to take your dispute and they're
going to send it to the furnisher.
Let's say it's Verizon, right?
And you say, hey, I didn't open up
this account or you got my bill wrong.
If Verizon is not going to fix it,
(14:12):
it's not going to get fixed.
Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, they're not going to fix
it.
Whatever Verizon says, well, that's what they're going
to continue to report.
So it's not coming off.
But doesn't the FCRA put the burden on
the bureaus of the accuracy, the information they're
reporting?
Absolutely.
Yes, it does.
(14:32):
So the way the bureau set things up
is in the case law describes it as
a data conformity review.
So as he was saying, they don't want
to trust the outsource processor overseas to actually
conduct a proper reinvestigation of inaccurate data.
So what they do is engage in a
data conformity review where the consumer really is
(14:53):
caught in this endless circle where the data
is inaccurate to begin with, which is why
they're disputing.
And then they send the letter to I'll
just name Equifax.
They send the letter to Equifax.
Equifax sends it out to their outsource processor.
They don't really investigate, read the letter, think
about, hey, should this be on this consumer's
credit report?
(15:13):
They're going to send a small metro code.
It's a two or three digit code to
the furnisher who is then going to send
a response back electronically.
And that's Equifax's investigation, in my opinion, where
they're not going to really conduct a meaningful
investigation of disputes and review a letter that
says, hey, I did pay this account offer.
(15:33):
Here's a letter from my bank that says
I wasn't really 30 days late and they
took the money out of my account.
I mean, some of these back patterns can
be shocking where you're like, what if the
bank says that I paid within 30 days,
why am I having a 30 day late
status on my account?
They say they took the money.
And Equifax, they're just going to send it
off to the furnisher and let the data
(15:55):
conformity review happen and have it come right
back to them.
It's really outrageous.
It's a shocking process that they go through.
And it used to be that there were
some things you could do to get better
results than others.
Like if you disputed online, it used to
go right into eOscar and then eOscar would
send it, sign the code and send it
direct to the actual creditor.
Now, I mean, so then the idea was
(16:16):
that you would want to manually mail it
in.
I mean, do things crazy, like crinkle the
letter up.
I mean, anything to stop it from going
into eOscar and even fax.
So what is it nowadays?
Is there a better way to process a
dispute to get better results like mail versus
fax versus doing it online?
Or it just doesn't matter?
(16:37):
Well, I think that mail matters.
I would not recommend doing an online dispute.
You could do it just if you really
want to get a dispute going quickly and
you think it can be solved through the
eOscar system.
You could do it online.
Written letters are really good for two reasons.
One, you can sign it.
And if you just put a wedding signature
on it and print your envelope off in
(16:57):
your own handwriting, you're going to not look
like a credit clinic.
They should look at that.
They claim they look at it to see
if a credit clinic's batch mailing things.
Then they should look at a handwritten envelope
and say, this is a real person who
signed their letter and mailed it to me.
I should maybe consider this one a little
different than the batch envelope where I got
50 to 100 that looked the same.
(17:17):
So I think there are definitely still mechanisms
to make your dispute stand out, tax supporting
documentation, and make it obvious they didn't review
it.
I mean, some of these cases are pretty
simple that if you just read the stuff,
you could figure it out.
I try to do it on my own.
I follow what you said to do.
I mail the letter.
I sign the letter.
It's inaccurate.
(17:38):
It's identity theft.
Or it's just flat out wrong.
And they come back with that wonderful message
that it's verified.
I'm steaming.
I'm upset.
Maybe I disputed again.
Same thing happens.
What do I do now?
At that point, you're going to have to
get a lawyer because it's not coming off.
And shockingly, guess when it always comes off.
And now a quick break to hear from
(18:00):
our sponsor.
Hey, it's Ty Crandall with CreditSuite.
Many of our subscribers want to build business
credit that's linked to their EIN without a
personal guarantee or credit check.
Now, if you're looking to get no doc
high limit business credit cards that report to
the business reporting agencies without a personal guarantee
or credit check, give us a call at
877-600-2487.
(18:20):
That's 877-600-2487 or schedule your free
consultation online to talk more at CreditSuite.com
forward slash consult.
Right after we file suit, right after we
file suit, they can investigate three or four
times, but it's unbelievable.
They keep track of our lawsuits.
They follow them.
Okay.
They haven't even been served yet.
(18:41):
And they know, oh, well, we're going to
take this one off now.
Okay.
That's when they come on.
As soon as the lawsuits get filed, it's
shocking.
So do you guys just file suit or
do you write them a letter first?
I would be scared to death.
I've seen your reputation.
It's a phenomenal reputation of helping people in
these scenarios.
So do you even attempt to contact them
(19:03):
first or you just immediately file suit?
Well, by that time, the damage is done,
right?
So you've gone through this process, right?
And you've tried to get credit and you
can't get it because they won't take it
off your credit report.
And you've been frustrated by all that.
Well, I can write them a letter, but
they're not going to write me a check
to cover your damages right away.
They need a gun in the face.
(19:25):
And they have a different attitude when they
get a federal lawsuit.
I've been working with Hugo for 25 years,
and I've rarely seen letters of work of
any nature.
But a deadline in a federal court lawsuit
tends to get people's attention.
So I'm skeptical in letters in general.
And you guys bring up a really good
point because people don't pull their credit just
to pull their credit.
(19:45):
I mean, I wish people would monitor their
credit just to monitor it to make sure
it's okay.
They typically don't.
They're typically using the credit when they're trying
to buy something.
There's a timeline.
They're trying to buy a home.
They're trying to buy a car.
And so going through this process, it's a
massive disruption to their life because they're usually
using it for a pretty significant purchase.
So in that case, they come to you,
(20:06):
the damage is done.
You're then filing suit.
And then I don't know if there's a
typical result.
What do you oftentimes see when a consumer
then comes to you, you file a suit?
Like what happens?
Is it damages?
Did they get damages?
Are they just removing the item from their
credit report?
Like what kind of things typically happen once
(20:27):
a suit is filed?
Well, we take these cases on a contingency
fee basis.
So we don't get paid by the client.
Most of the clients can't afford the amount
of legal fees that it's going to take
to get to the end of the game.
The other thing about the Fair Credit Reporting
Act that is very, very helpful to consumers
is there's a provision for if you win
(20:48):
on behalf of your consumer, they have to
pay your legal fees.
And the legal fees in these cases are
often more than the amount of the damages
we're talking about.
So that's the impetus for the credit reporting
agencies to get the cases settled sooner rather
than later.
Because they know if they're going to litigate
this thing through summary judgment or even go
to a trial, I mean, there could be
half a million to a million dollars in
(21:08):
legal fees between the two firms taking it
all the way.
Sure.
And I love that you brought this up
because it was my next question.
So if I come to you and here's
my problem, I'm able to meet with you
for free to consult, tell you what's going
on, supply to you whatever it is that
you require or request.
Then you look at it and you say,
(21:28):
you have a case here.
And at that point, it doesn't cost me
any money out of pocket.
I'm able to tap into your experience, which
is vast.
You guys are a lot of really phenomenal
experience in this area.
And then you're able to help me through
it.
My attorney fees are covered, whether I win
or I lose.
And then I may win potential damages.
And then the damage to my credit report
(21:49):
is potentially fixed.
Is that fair to say?
Correct.
To me, one of the first steps when
we get involved in the lawsuit is let's
take a look behind the scenes.
What did happen when it was outsourced?
What parts of the act did they follow?
What is it really egregious?
We'll see instances where they don't even send
the electronic notice.
(22:10):
They get the letter.
And for whatever reason, the person just says,
it's not even on your credit file.
We're not even going to send it out
when it's clearly on there.
So those are aggravating factors.
The client's distress.
I like to say that I can feel
it in their voice.
When I talk to someone on the phone
and they're trying to buy a home and
they can't, and they feel like they've done
(22:31):
everything they can do, it's really impactful.
And so Hugh and I are very careful
in the cases that we do select.
And I mean, we really are lucky.
We have great clients.
I love all of our clients.
And these are significant problems, significant life events.
Babies are born.
Houses can't get bought.
I mean, these are problems that are significant
(22:52):
distress damages that are corroborated by circumstances and
events that match with the consumer's life.
What should I be doing to tee up
the perfect case for you guys?
I'm sure people come in frustrated, upset, try
to hire you.
They haven't done things correctly to even get
to a point where you can come in.
Maybe you have to have them go back
(23:13):
and do things a certain way to be
able to have an actual case.
So what should I be doing on my
end to make sure that I'm doing everything
in my dispute properly to then know that
if they're doing their part wrong, I can
come to you and you guys are like,
you did everything exactly the way we would
want it up to this point where we're
involved?
(23:33):
Well, as Tom said, we find that sending
a written letter, written dispute letter with documentation
and backup is the best way because now
you explain to them, look, this isn't mine
and here's the proof, right?
Here's what I have.
It's funny.
We see more identity theft of related people
than we do of unrelated people.
(23:54):
So it's parents, it's children, it's people who
are actually related that are stealing somebody else
that they know's identity.
Those are the disturbing cases when your mom
says, hey, I'm going to take out a
student loan in your name and I'm not
going to mention it and I'm going to
pay it back, but they never do.
And then the student gets out of school
and they're like, whoa, what's this?
(24:15):
Because mom never paid it back and said,
sorry.
Right.
Documentation is key.
The better the dispute, the more detailed the
dispute, the better the case will ultimately be.
And you got to be truthful to the
extent of that.
The system is entirely set up to punish
the innocent and find the people that are
lying.
So you can't play into the narrative that
(24:36):
they already have, they being the credit reporting
agencies.
So, I mean, they'll mark you credit clinic
right on your, I've seen it on files.
They'll write credit clinic right into the file.
So I guess there's a little bit of
an element of when you bring a dispute,
be as accurate and clear as you can
and be as factually descriptive of what's wrong
with your supporting documentation.
(24:56):
And you are the innocent victim and you're
the good guy.
So just show you're the good guy.
That's what I say, because there really is
no excuse for not taking these things off.
Even if there's a dispute over the underlying
finances of a situation, there's civil courts, the
furnisher could obviously just sue for $700 in
(25:16):
a court of your jurisdiction.
And then you could explain to a judge
why you don't have the money, but they
don't want to do that because they know
it's easier to hold your credit hostage and
to put a $700 collection on your credit
account.
And you go, oh, well, what am I
going to do?
Do I really want to buy this house?
I'll just pay that $700 that I don't
really owe and move on, which unfortunately some
people do.
But it's not fair.
(25:37):
I mean, not to cry about fairness, but
it isn't fair.
And it's the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
So document dispute and protect your rights.
And keep your documents.
Keep records.
Yeah.
And the sad thing about what you just
said is that that actually can hurt your
credit more.
If I had that collection and I pay
it off, then I'm updating the data blast
(25:58):
activity on that account, at least what I've
seen historically.
And that can actually hurt my credit.
So I mean, literally what you're describing is
100% accurate.
I could try to do the right thing
and pay that account off and actually hurt
my credit more than if I wouldn't have
paid the thing.
I mean, it is the most backward system
I've ever seen.
And one of the other things is people,
you owe a debt collector, right?
(26:19):
The debt collector says you owe me $1
,000.
But if you want to pay me $300,
I'll mark it as paid for the $300.
And they think, okay, well, I'm going to
pay the $300.
And now it's going to go to a
zero balance.
It is, but it's going to report as
paid less than full balance due, which is
seriously going to negatively impact your credit.
(26:39):
So if you take that deal, usually if
it's tens of thousands of dollars, okay, that's
probably a pretty good deal.
But if it's only a couple hundred dollars,
pay the whole thing and get it zeroed
out.
Don't let it go less than full balance
due.
That's really bad.
Yeah, I just haven't seen too many positive
things from collection companies where it goes well
for a consumer to deal with them in
(27:00):
a lot of cases.
So what should somebody be doing?
So let's say I come in, I dispute
the account.
I've done everything you said.
I've mailed the dispute.
I've got detailed account of what took place.
That's accurate.
I've included supporting documentation.
I've signed it.
Do I just do it once and then
come to you?
Is there other steps beyond that one dispute
(27:21):
that I should be doing before it makes
sense to come to you guys?
Well, I think personally more disputes are always
better.
Again, they being the credit reporting agencies, I'll
just try to put my credit reporting lawyer
hat on.
I don't like that hat.
But they'll come up with anything to defend
the case.
So they'll say, well, you only disputed once.
How bad could it have been?
(27:42):
So for my money, I would dispute until
every time somebody said something that was inaccurate
about my name.
It's my name.
It's inaccurate.
And I'm going to dispute that until you
take it off and you follow the law.
And that's just my personality.
I'm tougher like that.
And disputes matter to the credit reporting agency
(28:02):
lawyers.
So I think it matters to us that
you keep disputing.
And then I don't personally think that it
should matter, but I think it does.
It matters to judges.
Judges will go, oh, well, you only disputed
it once.
And then they took it off six months
later.
How bad could it be?
I mean, they just sometimes don't appreciate how
bad it is for these consumers.
(28:22):
And it goes back to victim blaming.
They're going to be like, well, you really
didn't try that hard.
You only sent one letter out.
You could have done more.
I mean, when these cases get defended, they
get defended in a traditional fashion.
And part of that tradition, unfortunately, has been
victim blaming.
So they will say, oh, you should have
done more.
Why did you leave your ID in your
house so your son could steal it?
(28:43):
It's amazing what they can come up with
when they're defending the case.
Do you guys do much with disputing or
fighting LexisNexis?
We've had a couple of LexisNexis cases.
That's more in the employment background area of
credit reporting.
That's a whole different, that could be another
half hour discussion.
I'm going to have you guys back to
(29:04):
have that conversation.
I mean, short answer for criminal records are
sloppy.
And part of it is the clerk's office
isn't designed to retain data, to match it
to everybody else.
So you go matching names and an address.
They might not even have a date of
birth in the file.
They could.
(29:24):
Some of them do.
But when people go to pull a LexisNexis
report, you're going to see the wild west
of what's matched.
I mean, you talked about matching algorithms earlier.
It's even less, I think, in the employment
in LexisNexis background area.
Yeah.
And I might want to have you guys
back to talk about that because there's things
about LexisNexis I don't understand.
(29:45):
Like you have 10 years to have a
public record on your credit report, but yet
LexisNexis has it on there indefinitely.
But yet they're a credit reporting agency.
There's just a lot of things like that
that I'm not sure of.
So it's a whole other discussion for another
day.
But what should we be doing proactively?
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.