[IC Anonymous]

Dear fellow board members:

I have a problem with a derogatory account being reported twice. The account is being reported by the same creditor, but under the names: "LEASE FINANCE GROUP LLC" & "CIT/LEASE FINANCE GROUP." The account number, creditor address, creditor phone number, and all other items reported are exactly the same. When I disputed this account with Equifax, they claim the creditor verified both items (Transunion & Experian deleted the duplicate account). Here are my questions:

-Is anyone else having this same problem with this creditor? If so, how widespread is this problem?

-If Equifax continues to refuse to delete one of the accounts, do I sue Equifax, LEASE FINANCE GROUP LLC and CIT/LEASE FINANCE GROUP, or some combination thereof?

Thanks.

[Qtip]

I had a similar problem in the past but it was with a student loan. More than likelly the CRA is not even verrifiying the data with the OC. I think others will be able to provide good advice. If it was me, I probably send a CRRR letter to CRA with an attached Complaint; telling them that if they do not remove the duplicate tradeline I would have no option but to seek relief from the court.

However there are more seasoned members here that would probably handle it differently.

[jlynn]

Have you tried a FACTA dispute to see if the furnisher will fix the error?

[stargazer0725]

I had the same problem with EQ and it continued through 4 disputes. I finally managed to get somebody on the telephone to handle my dispute (and listen to me complain about their dispute handling process) and it was removed within 20 minutes.

[hogwild]

I think you may want to look further into this. Lease Finance Group, CIT, MBF Leasing, Northern Leasing Systems, Golden Eagle Leasing, Leasecomm, and its many other names are all THE SAME COMPANY.

More importantly, you are most likely another victim of this scandalous operation. You should look into more. Check out:

(www . mbfleasing . org)

google for mbf leasing sucks

and also google for 1-866-781-0411

Good luck.

[PDXBLAZERFAN]

not exactly the same issue but address if two corporations are considered the same entity.


DE COITO v. UNIFUND CORPORATION

Defendant is a "collection agency" because it is collecting for a
third
party, in this case, Unifund CAR Partners ("CAR"). Defendant counters
that CAR
and Defendant have common ownership and therefore, are the same entity.
Although
a portion of CAR is owned-by Mr. Rosenberg, who owns Defendant as well,
CAR is
also partially owned, 20%, by ZB Partnership Limited. Accordingly, CAR
is a
separate entity than Defendant, even if they are partially
commonly-owned.
Therefore, Defendant is collecting for a third party, and is a
collection agency
by definition pursuant to § 443B.