CoreLogic Inc

Review: I was notified today that this company conducted a credit check on me without my permission. When I called, the number listed by the credit company was wrong and nobody answered the phone in their office.

I am applying for a mortgage and additional credit checks are affecting my credit.Desired Settlement: The company should not do unapproved credit checks. I'm not even sure if this is a legitimate business.

They can't correct what they did, but should not be permitted to do this in the future.

Business

Response:

In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] is questioning a CoreLogic

Credco (“Credco”) inquiry that is appearing on his credit report and he desires

to have the inquiry removed from his credit profile.

I had a very very negative experience with this company, I was on hold for over an hour and when I finally spoke to a representative, they put me on hold AGAIN. Their customer service is absolutely terrible and I recommend no one to call them for their services. HORRIBLE EXPERIENCE!

Review: I did not authorize company for any services.Desired Settlement: Remove inquiry from all 3 Credit agencies.

Business

Response:

In his complaint, the consumer questions a CoreLogic Credco (hereinafter referred to as “Credco”) inquiry that is appearing on his credit report.

Review: I [redacted] did not authorize your company to pull my credit report. Please remove the inquiry from my credit.Desired Settlement: Remove inquiry from my credit report.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Please send signed documents by me giving your company permission to run my credit report!

Regards,

Business

Response:

We stand by our original response.If [redacted] has any questions, she may contact our Consumer Services Department at 1-800-637-2422.

Review: There were two payments made to my county for property taxes. One was my personal check and another from core logics. Since my personal check was received first, Jan 2nd 2015, the one from core logics was returned early Jan. The money is suppose to be sent back to my mortgage carrier, [redacted], and then forwarded to me. I have made several attempts to get my check/money back without success. I keep getting told it will be another few weeks for processing. We are now going on two months for a simple property tax refund.Desired Settlement: I want my property tax overpayment sent to me.

Business

Response:

CoreLogic Tax Services has confirmed with the Town of

[redacted] that [redacted] refund check was never sent to

CoreLogic Tax Services. Per the Town of [redacted],

Review: This Corelogic company needs to get it together and [redacted] for using them.

Ok, So here is it. I am actually transferring with my job from [redacted] to [redacted] I thought finding an apt would be easy. Truth be told it easy to be denied, especially with this company Core Logic. The apartment complex I was applying to is called [redacted], located in [redacted]. The rep [redacted] was very patient and helpful with us. She said they just switched to this company and that she is sorry that we got denied. Now, the reasons why she denied us is because when they checked my fiances background, which she states that she couldn't see exactly why it was denied, but something do to criminal background history. So she gave my fiance the number to contact Core Logic to see why, so when he called and spoke to one of the reps there, they said that it came stating that "Arrest for marijuana possession and drinking in public, in [redacted]." He has never even lived in [redacted] ever!!!!!! Then he told them can they run his info by his middle name and when they did that something else popped up "Some sort of arrest in [redacted] for drugs. Which once again he has never lived in [redacted] either. Let me give some history this cannot be true about my future husband is because he works for law enforcement day in and day out. He actually carries a weapon, which is part of his job. He would not be employed in law enforcement if this were to be true. He clearly has to go through intense background screening and fingerprinted. So this company needs to get it together seriously.They need to stop bashing peoples background. Also we told them to run it by his social, they said they cant do it that way. THEN ALL IN ALL , they figured that it wasn't my fiance and that it would take 30 days for it to be disputed. I don't have 30 days my job already transferred me and I needed a place to live with my 4 year old as well and for him to be enrolled into school. How could I do all of this and then to be denied can't enroll him into a district that isn't going to guarantee a place to stay. I mean these places have all your info and still process it the way how they want. Why ask for our S.S if your only going to input in the data base first , last name and DOB. Makes no sense to me. Then so I tried to put my sister on the lease with me and still same BS. According to [redacted] she said when she ran my sisters background it came back that she was evicted before. Which one again is not true, wrong person. So then my sister contacted them, and they stated that they don't see anything on her report like that and that she needs to build up more credit. Which is why she had been denied ,sounds more logical . But like I said ,no one has it together because according to [redacted] from [redacted] she said that it was because of and eviction on the report, but then came back and said that when they do it themselves (apt complex) they don't see what exactly comes up. They just see that the applicant gets denied. I mean which one is it, you either see it or you don't, so I don't know where she saw that my sister has been evicted from a place before. But like I said when my sister contacted Core logic they didn't see that had came up on her background. I mean something needs to be done. According [redacted] this always happens with Core logic as well, Due to common names,,, well Duh thats why we have different SS numbers that can help distinguish issues we have in todays world we live in. There is a lot of identity theft, but they need to make there process faster so people need to not to be more stressed about this on top of what they are already going through , like a huge transition to a new state and place. They totally besmirch my fiance name with false inquires and my sisters. I wonder if they did a background check on Uncle Sam what would come up, now that would be a different story or how about Bush or Obama. I mean I could go on. BuDesired Settlement: A continuation from the top portion.....to pop up and there is nothing that can be done, because the fee is non-refundable. Its all about money making and this company as well as to the companies using them needs to be shut down, and totally be a huge law suit against them. Point in case nothing has been resolved as of yet. Its sad to say after reading the reviews before mine , its like history repeating itself. So if anyone who is reads this please be fully aware because this is all true. I wis

Business

Response:

This email is in response to the correspondence we received from your office regarding the complaint filed by [redacted].

Review: On 11/14/2014 I received a call from Loan Depot regarding re-financing my home. I was only looking for information I hadn't quite decided what I wanted to do. The salesman stated in order to give me better figures he could do a "soft inquiry" on my credit report. I asked him a couple of times that this would be a soft inquiry as I wasn't quite sure what I wanted to do just yet and was just gathering information. I was assured that this would be a soft inquiry he even mention that the call was being recorded.

I contacted Credco CoreLogic who stated I had to contact Loan Depot which I did and the Customer Care rep [redacted] told me that he had never heard of such a thing as a soft inquiry and that the inquiry could not be taken off. He then advised me to contact Credco CoreLogic I advised him they referred me to LoanDepot and I was not going back to Credco. The representative kept stating he could not remove it off my report. I told him to pull the phone call and see exactly what was said since he had never heard of a soft inquiry. I then asked to speak with a manager who of course was in a meeting. (I work in the Customer Service Field) so I know that spill. He was going to send an email to the Manager - I said ok and disconnected the call at this point I know there is nothing going to be done. So I am going to the next step.Desired Settlement: Removal of the inquiry on my credit report and a letter advising me of same. Preferably an email

Business

Response:

In her complaint, the consumer questions a Loan Depot inquiry that is appearing on her credit report.Please be advised that CoreLogic Credco (“Credco”) is not a credit grantor. Rather, it is a reseller of the credit information provided by the three national consumer reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union, collectively, the "NCRAs"). Each time Credco prepares a new credit report for its clients (who are typically lenders or other qualified end users), it orders such credit information from one or more of the three NCRAs. In order to obtain a credit report from Credco, our clients certify that they have a permissible purpose under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") to do so.

Review: This company (CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC) was used by an apartment complex in Fort Wayne, IN (Arbor Lakes) that I had applied to rent housing from. They were used in order to obtain a background check for the complex. After finding an apartment, paying the application fee and filling out the application, I received an email from the apartment complex less than 24 hours later stating that they have rejected my application due to being charged for Felony dealing in a schedule I, II or III controlled substance back in August of 1999. I was born in [redacted], making me 10 years old at the time. Neither CoreLogic or Arbor Lakes took the initiative to do their due diligence and confirm these findings. I was immediately denied house at Arbor Lakes once the report was presented to them and told to call CoreLogic in order to dispute the report if in fact it was incorrect. After speaking with CoreLogic and questioning them on their findings, they were not able to answer any questions as to how they were able to match me to the criminal report they had obtained. They did not use DOB, SSN or any other relevant information that would confirm this report was at all related to me. After tirelessly speaking with them on the phone and have them not be able to provide any information as to how they matched this criminal report to me, they hung up the phone. After looking this company up online, it is clear they are no stranger to these type of errors, and they show no remorse for the defamatory, false and highly inaccurate information they report on people.They do not go through the proper channels in order obtain, review and confirm the information they provide, resulting in individuals being wrongly accused and denied whether it be housing, jobs, loans etc.Desired Settlement: I immediately want a new report ran, showing that my record is clean and does not consist of any type of criminal activity, a written or verbal apology from a representative of CoreLogic as well as an explanation of how they came up with the false report that they ran. I believe there should be a review of this company, their approach to obtaining criminal history, what steps taken to confirm their reports as accurate and a stoppage from continuing such business until a review is conducted.

Business

Response:

In his complaint, Mr.

[redacted] desires to dispute certain information that is appearing in his

CoreLogic SafeRent ("SafeRent") consumer report and he requests that

his file be corrected.

Review: I recently received a denial for elderly housing from [redacted] in [redacted] The reason checked for the denial was a poor credit report which was provided by CoreLogic [redacted], [redacted]. Within the letter it states I am entitled to receive a free copy of the report they sent to [redacted] in Webster, MA. The number provided is 888-333-2413. When I was connected to a representative she says she needs to verify over the phone who I am. She asks for my social security number which I provided. She also asked for my physical and mailing address which I also provided. After which she informs me in order to complete the verification I must provide a credit card I've recently used. I tell the representative I haven't had a credit card for a few years. She then tells me she can not send the report. I explained they sent the report to [redacted] and I'm entitled to receive the report. The representative than tells me I need to fill out a form which I can get on-line and mail it. I tell her I can't verify a credit card if I do not have one. After speaking to a supervisor he says the same thing. This is so bogus!My issue is they say in the letter you can receive the report by requesting it over the phone. I should have been able to receive the report with the verification I provided. This company has you going around in circles. I also found there were numerous complaints on line about this company.Desired Settlement: If anything the company should be investigated for their validity. They should look at the numerous complaints that are written about their agency on line. If the telephone number is provided to call for a report they just sent to a housing agency from which I was denied housing, there should not have been an issue to send me a copy. Also if I don't have an active current credit card how accurate can their report be.

Business

Response:

We are still in the process of researching this matter. We respectfully request a 10 day extension in order to complete our research and provide a definitive response.thank you.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

They have had plenty of time to respond to my complaint. To ask for additional time is really to avoid the issue at hand. They should have been able to fulfill my request over the phone as offered in the letter.

Regards,

Business

Response:

In

her complaint, the consumer states that she is having difficulty in obtaining a

disclosure copy of her CoreLogic [redacted] (“[redacted]”) file.

Review: It appears that all negative information was released and outdated information was released IT appears of signs of ongoing discrimination and the documents released to JPMorgan on 06/18/2015 will show systematicDesired Settlement: Restore, repair and refund 100%.

Business

Response:

In

her complaint, Ms. [redacted] is disputing the accuracy of certain information

(the “Disputed Information”) contained in a credit report generated by

CoreLogic Credco ("Credco").

Review: I am disputing this inquiry which I did not request so please delete immediately it is fraudulent.

CREDCO

10277 SCRIPPS RANCH BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92131

Name

CREDCO

Date

10/08/2014

Type

Auto ResellerDesired Settlement: Delete this inquiry immediately or I will file a small claims case.

Thank you.

Business

Response:

In her complaint, [redacted] is questioning a CoreLogic

Credco (“Credco”) inquiry that is appearing on her credit report and she

desires to have the inquiry removed from her credit profile.

Review: After subscribing to Corelogic's services for a number of years, I advised them to cancel my account and to pick up their real estate books in December 2013. I am still getting billed and followup emails. They acknowledged that I cancelled the subscription by sending me a postcard that they would arrange a pickup. They then sent me a prepaid box for me to put books in. I got another followup email and phone call. I spoke to them and advised that I wanted someone to pick up their books by the end of today.In addition, they are billing the wrong account. They are billing this in a company name and I told them that I was the subscription holder (in my individual name).Desired Settlement: I do not want to harrassed anymore.

Review: I mailed CredCo a letter in mid August regarding a hard inquiry that was made on my credit report by this company without my authorization. I contacted the person who mistakenly ran my credit without my knowledge and he apologized. He said he will have CredCo remove the hard inquiry, which appears on my credit report on July 15th. It's been two months and I haven't heard anything back from CredCo after formally mailing them a letter and the documentation that I provided. I would like this hard inquiry removed from my credit report since it wasn't ran with my consent or authorization. My understanding is that a hard inquiry drops your credit score a few points and my credit report is inaccurately reflecting the hard inquiry that was made on my credit file on 07/15/14. The person who ran my credit, [redacted], used CredCo for a mortgage inquiry. After speaking with [redacted], he is deeply apologetic and is wanting to help me get the hard inquiry he made removed by CredCo.Desired Settlement: Remove the hard inquiry made by [redacted], who used CredCo to run a mortgage inquiry on my credit on 07/14/14.

Business

Response:

In his complaint, the consumer states that he did not authorize [redacted] to access his credit report on July 15, 2014. The consume requests that the [redacted] inquiry be removed from his credit report.

Review: I have repeatedly contacted this company, both via USPS certified mail and by phone to remove outdated inquiries from their reports. With the current letter, I have contacted them 5 times with no resolution to my issue. Instead I receive erroneous responses, get nasty customer service representatives, put on hold for 24 minutes, get told different information each time I contact them, etc.Desired Settlement: This company should adhere to the Fair Credit Reporting Act notices they include in each of their responses. Inquiries that are from 4/6/11 and are now approaching 5 years old should not continue to be included on my report. I have also filed a complaint with the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (#[redacted]) in the hopes that this regulatory agency can somehow prevent this company from continuing with these types of business practices.

Business

Response:

We are currently in the process of researching our records in connection with the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]. However, due to holiday scheduling, we respectfully request an extension until January 14th to complete our research and provide an appropriate response to Ms. [redacted]'s complaint.

Business

Response:

In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] requests that CoreLogic SafeRent (“SafeRent”), a tenant screening company, remove certain inquiries from her consumer file on the ground that they are “outdated.” Ms. [redacted] states that the inquiries are dated April 6, 2011, and alleges that SafeRent’s failure to remove these inquiries is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The FCRA does not require SafeRent to remove the inquiries that Ms. [redacted] has identified. Section 605 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) governs the time limits beyond which a consumer reporting agency, like SafeRent, cannot include certain negative information in consumer reports. In general, the FCRA establishes a seven year time limit for negative information, with a longer time limit for bankruptcies. Criminal convictions are not subject to a time limitation. Similarly, there is no time limit imposed on positive or neutral information.

The inquiries that Ms. [redacted] has identified are not considered “negative” information under the FCRA and are not subject to the seven-year limitation. Further, even if the seven-year limitation did apply, the inquiries identified by Ms. [redacted] are within that time frame. Therefore, SafeRent declines Ms. [redacted]’s request to remove the identified inquiries.

SafeRent apologizes for any inconvenience caused Ms. [redacted] by any lack of clarity in its responses to her dispute. We hope that this letter provides Ms. [redacted] with a sufficient explanation as to why her dispute was denied. If she would like further information, however, Ms. [redacted] can contact our Consumer Services Department at 1-888-333-2413 and ask for Mr. [redacted], Supervisor.

Please note that SafeRent is a tenant screening company and does not offer consumer financial products or services as defined by the Dodd-Frank Act.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and don't feel that their response addresses the issues in my previous letters/complaints. Section 605 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act addresses negative/adverse information, which is the section Safe Rent is referring to. I'm specifically referring to the time limit for "inquiries" which I understand to be 2 years. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but their response doesn't seem to apply to the condition I am questioning. Is there any way you can clarify this?

Review: I was attempting to purchase a mobile home in largo florida and rent the lot was turned down by safe logic failed criminal background and sent them information to get information and recieved nothing from them making me homeless. its been 13 days since they supposedly sent the info which they said only takes 7 days. me and friend did multiple background checks on myself and found nothing against me anywhere so where do they get their lies at? they've been sued already by federal govt so why are they still in business? am very upset about being homeless and their being in business at all is a crime in itself. class action lawsuit would be only acceptable outcomeDesired Settlement: clear my name with the trailer park asap only thing accepatable

Business

Response:

In his complaint, the consumer states that he did not receive a disclosure copy of his CoreLogic SafeRent consumer report. Please note that CoreLogic SafeRent ("SafeRent") is a consumer reporting agency as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). SafeRent maintains public landlord/tenant and criminal court records which it provides to its clients who are property owners, property management companies, and landlords in the multi-family housing industry for the purposes of evaluating housing eligibility of an applicant. Records are returned based upon certain matching criteria; however, due to the nature of public records, the records returned may or may not pertain to the applicant. Moreover, as a consumer reporting agency, SafeRent does not make the decision to take adverse action and is unable to provide the specific reasons why adverse action was taken; the consumer would have to obtain such information from the property owner/landlord.

Our records indicate that on October 29, 2014, we mailed the consumer a copy of his SafeRent consumer report to the address provided by the consumer; on November 4th, we received a returned mail notice indicating "insufficient address--unable to forward." We have called the consumer and left him a voicemail message asking him to contact us to confirm his address. To date, he has not called us back.

The consumer can call us at 1-888-333-2413 and we will be happy to assist him with his request.

Sincerely,

CoreLogic SafeRent

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

first of all they put the wrong address on the package and it was returned to them incomplete address even though they had the right address and their information is whats keeping me from renting. they say I failed criminal background check and the info they has supposedly on me says i'm in federal prison doing 30 years to life for drugs and weapons charges.the person that they say is me still has 23 years minimum in jail and it would make it hard to buy a mobile home to live in 2037? they do not check to see if the info is correct or not and i'm automatically

guilty regardless till I prove otherwise.[redacted] is the most common name there is and they are too stupid to realize that they're making me homeless until they decide if I can live inside or not the longer they delay the more lawyers will get involved

Regards,

Review: I applied for credit to rent an apartment. I was refused on the basis that there is a discrepancy with your background check. I contacted CoreLogic and after going through the process with the representative it was found that the background check was in error. It had information from another individual on my report. I was told by the representative that CorLogic runs background check using first name, last name and date of Birth only. Social security is not used because some screens can't accept all the numbers. This was evident because the information they had was someone else with a different middle name. If this is how a background check is run without using social security and middle name, I am probably not the only individual with this issue. I am in the process of relocating for a new job and I have to be at my new location by June 29, 2015. I was told that a dispute was started and it would take at least 30-45 days to clarify the issue. This has caused me great damage because I might not be able to relocate for the new position because I won't have a place to reside do to this error.

I am raising this issue because if a background check was done properly, this issue would not have occurred. I have held and currently hold clearances from the federal government and for this issue to arise is totally humiliating.

If it is proven that CoreLogic only uses first name, last name and b=date of birth for a background check this needs to be address because others will also be harm.Desired Settlement: I would also like to see CoreLogic utilize social security numbers when doing a background check. Since my issue was was identified on the phone with the representative a process should be in place to correct the problem immediately or notify in this case the rental agency that there was an error on the report. If this is not done, individuals will have to suffer for 30-45 days before they could apply for any credit or similar to my case an apartment rental.

Business

Response:

We are still in the process of researching this matter. As such, we respectfully request a 10 day extension to provide a more definitive response to the consumer's complaint.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

I am not satisfied that this company is requesting additional time to resolve this issue. When the dispute was filed I was told that it takes 30 days and the dispute will be completed on June 29th. Requesting additional time to resolve this is unacceptable. Moving from one state to another is not easy and takes a great deal of coordination. If a company such as CoreLogic can not perform a back ground check they should not be in that business.Providing false information on an individual can cause a great deal of harm to that individual personally and financially. As, motioned in my previous complaint, I was told by the CoreLogic representative that CoreLogic does not use social security number to conduct a background check. This is unheard of and has cause me personally a great deal of embarrassment and have place me in a difficult situation to wait until CoreLogic has completed its dispute process. I contacted the agency the requested the background check and was told that they requested a credit check and a background check. To conduct a credit check a social security number is needed. After conducting the back ground check and realized that there were more than one of the same name CoreLogic should have resorted to using the social security number. CoreLogic knowingly made a major mistake and should have corrected it immediately. I am not satisfied with the CoreLogic's response to date and the request for additional time. I still need to know how this issue is going to be resolved. If this happened to me, I would assume that it has happened to many others. This affects people lives.

Regards,

Business

Response:

In

his complaint, [redacted] states that CoreLogic [redacted] (“[redacted]”), a tenant

screening company, is incorrectly reporting certain items of information (the “Information”)

on his consumer report and he requests that [redacted] remove the Information

from the file it maintains on him.

Review: Credco provides credit reports apparently...they provided a credit report on me for a company that I did not authorize. Furthermore, the phone numbers they have on that company are not in service, so attempts I made to investigate this unauthorized credit pull have been largely fruitless. When I asked the Credco phone representative whether they were required to have valid information on the companies they pull reports for, he said they were, but indicated that the compliance department, who would be in charge of this, did not take phone calls. He told me he would attempt to get his supervisor on the phone, but then came back on the phone and told me that his supervisor was "away from his desk".Desired Settlement: I desire this company's compliance department to do it's job, so that this doesn't happen to others like me.

Business

Response:

In his complaint, the consumer states that CoreLogic Credco ("Credco") provided his credit report to a company (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") without his authorization.

Please be advised that Credco is not a credit grantor. Rather, it is a reseller of the credit information provided by the three national consumer reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union, collectively, the "NCRAs"). Each time Credco prepares a new credit report for its clients, it orders such credit information from one or more of the three NCRAs. In order to obtain a credit report from Credco, our clients certify that they have a permissible purpose under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") to do so. Pursuant to section 607(e) of the FCRA, each time that Credco orders credit information from the NCRAs to prepare a report, Credco is required to provide to the NCRAs the identity of its clients requesting the report. Finally, pursuant to section 609(a)(3), Credco and the NCRAs are required to disclose to a consumer the identity of each person that procured a consumer report for a one year period (two years if the request was made for employment purposes).

We have contacted the Company regarding its access of the consumer's credit report through Credco. The Company indicated that they will provide Credco with a letter requesting that the Company's inquiry be removed from the consumer's credit files maintained by the applicable NCRAs.

Once Credco receives the letter from the Company, we will forward it to the applicable NCRAs with a request that the NCRAs remove the inquiry from the credit files that they maintain on the consumer.

We have also called the consumer to notify him of the steps we have taken and will take regarding this matter. If you or the consumer has any further questions, please contact our customer service department at 1-800-637-2422.

Upon applying to buy a new vehicle , I have bought 8 in 4 years , I recieved numerous turndows , The salesperson questioned why I was currently behind on my Auto loan

After further review I noticed it was a vehicle paid out in 2013.

I called company they tell me to file a dispute online with 3 Bureaus .

ITS CORRECT ON ALL 3 . So where exactly do they get thier information .

I have asked that all inquiries resulting in the time that the reporting inaccurately occured and also the account be reported correctly .

Review: Very unfair to me how this company reported outdated information and all negative information not giving me a chance what so over.Desired Settlement: Refund, Restore and repair 100%

Business

Response:

In

his complaint, Mr. [redacted] is disputing the accuracy of certain information

(the “Disputed Information”) contained in a credit report generated by

CoreLogic Credco ("Credco").

Review: CoreLogic, [redacted] and [redacted] ("CoreLogic"), repeatedly provided false, derogatory and materially harmful information about me to my mortgage firm, [redacted], resulting in [redacted]'s refusal to refinance my mortgage. Specifically, for two weeks, between October 9 and October 21, 2014, CoreLogic continued to insist, in message to both [redacted] and to myself, that there was a foreclosure in my [redacted] record, despite hours of time spent on the phone and on email with personnel at both [redacted] and CoreLogic, providing links, data and documentation clearly proving that no such record of foreclosure existed. Despite all these efforts, [redacted] on October 21 cited CoreLogic's erroneous foreclosure report in refusing to refinance my mortgage, a decision that represented a potential loss to me of tens of thousands of dollars in savings over the life of the loan.

On October 28, 2014, I sent a five-page letter to the CEO's and other relevant personnel at both [redacted] and CoreLogic, providing a clear narrative of my experiences and asking for acknowledgement of receipt and some form of reparations. Responding to one of the requests in the above-referenced letter, [redacted] did make a show of attempting a new refinancing with me in late 2014, an attempt that culminated on January 22, 2015, with a new statement of denial form based on extensive, false and derogatory data generated by CoreLogic.

The final resolution: In late January, I began refinancing efforts with [redacted], immediately qualified for a highly favorable, 2.99 percent rate for 15 years, and closed on this refinancing in late February.

At no point, from late October 2014 to the date of this complaint, has CoreLogic responded to my letter or to any other attempts to communicate or seek resolution, either directly with me or through [redacted].Desired Settlement: 1. An apology directed to myself by the CEO or another officer of sufficient authority at CoreLogic, with carbon copies to the CEO of [redacted] and other officers of that firm, as appropriate

2. An acknowledgment of the considerable time, effort, harm and embarrassment CoreLogic's errors and/or incompetence and/or malice have caused me

3. A description of how things will change at CoreLogic and [redacted] to prevent such problems in the future

4. A purchase order for 30 hours of my time in a consultative capacity, where 30 hours is my estimate of the time I have spent to date addressing the issues described above

5. A per-hour rate for said time, listed explicitly in the purchase order, of at least $100 USD per hour; or, should a lower figure be listed, an explanation of why my time is not worth $100 per hour

Business

Response:

We are still in the process of researching this matter. As such, we respectfully request an extension until April 15th to provide a definitive response.

Thank you.

Business

Response:

In his complaint, [redacted] states that [redacted] provided [redacted] Mortgage, LLC (“[redacted]”) with his credit report that contained incorrect information.

Please note that [redacted] is a reseller of the credit information provided by the three national consumer reporting agencies ([redacted], [redacted], [redacted], collectively, the "[redacted]"). Each time we prepare a new credit report for our clients (who are mortgage lenders and other qualified end-users), we order the credit information from one or more of the three [redacted].

Since the consumer's complaint centers around the handling and disclosure of sensitive, non-public personal information, we will send him a more thorough response, directly, that addresses his concerns.If you have any further questions, please contact our customer service department at [redacted].

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Thanks, [redacted], I did have a complete reply, rebutting/rejecting CoreLogic's answer. Here it is: