Introduction

Understanding Identity Theft
Identity theft involves the unauthorized acquisition and use of someone’s personal information, typically for financial gain. This crime can manifest in various forms, from unauthorized credit card transactions and bank withdrawals to fraudulently opening new accounts or obtaining loans in your name. Early detection and understanding of the nuances of different types of identity theft are crucial for effective protection and response.

Types of Identity Theft
– Financial Identity Theft: The most common form where your personal information is used to access financial resources.
– Medical Identity Theft: When someone uses your identity to obtain medical services or drugs.
– Criminal Identity Theft: This occurs when a criminal impersonates you during a legal encounter.
– Synthetic Identity Theft: Combining real and fake information to create a new identity.

Proactive Measures for Identity Protection

Regular Monitoring of Credit Reports
One of the most effective ways to detect identity theft is by regularly reviewing your credit reports from the three major credit bureaus: Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. This practice allows you to spot any unauthorized activities or inaccuracies early, such as unfamiliar accounts or inquiries.

Utilizing Fraud Alerts
Placing a fraud alert on your credit reports is a proactive measure that requires creditors to verify your identity before opening new accounts or making changes to existing ones. There are two main types of fraud alerts:
1. Initial Fraud Alerts: Ideal for those suspecting potential identity theft. These alerts last for one year and can be easily renewed.
2. Extended Fraud Alerts: For confirmed identity theft victims, these alerts provide seven years of protection.

Active Duty Alerts for Servicemembers
Military personnel can benefit from active duty alerts, which offer additional protection during deployment. These alerts last for 12 months and require creditors to take extra steps to verify identity before issuing credit.

Remedial Actions After Identity Theft

Placing a Security Freeze
A security freeze, or credit freeze, is a powerful tool that prevents new creditors from accessing your credit report. This step is crucial in stopping identity thieves from opening new accounts in your name. It’s important to contact each credit bureau individually to set up a freeze.

Blocking Fraudulent Information
Victims of identity theft can request credit bureaus to block fraudulent information from appearing on their credit reports. This process involves providing an identity theft report and proof of your identity.

Reporting and Resolving Issues
Immediate action is crucial when dealing with identity theft. Report the theft through IdentityTheft.gov and follow their guidance, including obtaining a sample letter to send to credit bureaus and disputing fraudulent charges with your financial institutions.

Conclusion
Maintaining vigilance and taking prompt action are key to protecting your identity. Regular monitoring of your credit reports, understanding and utilizing fraud alerts and security freezes, and knowing how to respond effectively if your identity is compromised are essential steps in safeguarding your personal information. For residents near Clearwater, FL, Super Credit Repair offers specialized services in credit repair and assistance in resolving identity theft issues. Their experienced team provides invaluable support in navigating the complexities of restoring your credit health and securing your financial identity, ensuring peace of mind in the face of these modern challenges.

Picture Credit: Freepik

The post Credit Repair And Identity Theft appeared first on supercreditrepair.

Flying strong in the credit risk assessment industry with competitors like TransUnion and Experian, in mid-late 2017, Equifax ran into a bit of turbulence when it was hacked and exploited by an unknown party, exposing approximately one-hundred fifty million Americans’ sensitive data, including things like social security numbers, full names and drivers license information. To this day, it remains unknown where the data went, as of 2019 there are only speculations in light of the fact none of the information has since surfaced for sale on the dark web, a segment of the internet usually only accessible by special modified browsers through virtual private networks where nefarious trading with varying illegality is known to and often takes place. Some experts speculate it could have been a foreign government, as the methods used to extract the information and the tools used were quite sophisticated. It took the unknown party several days to gain access, and they extracted information for the next seventy-six days before Equifax discovered the exploit.

Occurring in July 2017, Equifax notified the public of the breach in September later that year, where one software engineer working for Equifax was soon after being charged with insider trading for selling stock prior to the breach being disclosed to the public. When Equifax did notify the public, many consumers scrambled to check if they were indeed affected and the resulting internet traffic caused Equifax’ website to become intermittently unresponsive as a result of being choked with congestion. In 2017, the same year the data breach occurred, a man named Christian Haigh won a case against Equifax in Small Claims Court which garnered him $8,000 from the credit bureau giant, in lieu of the data breaches that affected millions of Americans. The judge ruled in Mr. Haigh’s favor for the costs of credit monitoring, ongoing emotional stress, for Equifax’ willful non-compliance with regard to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and court costs in January 2018. As recently as January 2019, a chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Georgia ruled that class-action lawsuits against Equifax for the breaches had legal precedent and would be able to move forward, stating the breach was unprecedented, commenting that Equifax’ security systems still aren’t adequate and another breech he considered an imminent affair. Equifax contended in this legal case that no real harm resulted in the breach, merely only speculative harm in the future. The judge looked into an eighty page order from claims of almost a hundred consumers who were affected by the breach.

In light of all of this, some legislators have been keen on introducing bills that would strongly urge credit reporting companies to take a much higher responsibility for their vigilance over personal data they have access to, and Equifax did issue free credit freezes, preventing someone from opening any new accounts in your name in an attempt to steal your identity, which expired in June 2017. In an ever increasing technology oriented world, these types of security and data breaches happen at an alarmingly common frequency, making it ever more important to be in charge of your credit score, and if you must, having it managed by professionals with your best interest and safety of information in mind. It’s even possible for phishing websites, with a clever enough disguise, to prompt you to enter in legitimate information in hopes to rob you of that valuable data, to later impersonate you and decimate your credit score, all the while looking to most casual users as a true mirror of the original website. Despite the advances in the technological world that affect how this industry grows and behaves, there are still things to look out for when looking for legitimate credit repair. There are many more companies, if you could call them that, that aren’t a legitimate business but are instead a clever scam.

One of the main red flags to look out for are ads from companies that promise you a brand new identity, a completely new start with your credit, often asking you to do questionable things like demanding compensation before any work is done for you, encouraging you to give wrong or false information on applications, instructs you to give blatantly false information when you know it is correct, or perhaps they aren’t explaining your rights legally when pitching what can be done for you. Often, these shady companies will assign you a number that looks very similar to a social security number, and direct you to use it on your applications moving forward. What they aren’t telling you, is many of these social security numbers are stolen, and you are likely paying them to be complicit in their identity theft scheme, not something anyone wants to get involved in on a path to repairing their credit. There are many resources available to attempt credit repair yourself, but should you require a little more piece of mind, that your personal information being handled by professionals with helping you in mind. For over 25 years, Super Credit Repair & Julian Credit Management has been professionally serving the Bay Area in most matters dealing with debt obligation, credit repair being one of the many facets they can tackle. When embarking into the world of credit repair, it goes without saying, be careful who you trust with your personal information.

Picture Credit: Oleg Magni

The post Pitfalls Of Credit Repair, Equifax Data Breach Of 2017 appeared first on supercreditrepair.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) defines a debt collector as “any person who uses an instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principle purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” This definition was the foundation of the lawsuit: Henson v Santander Consumer USA, Inc. 582 U.S. ___ (2017). The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was a debt collector as the debt was incurred with CitiFinancial as an automotive loan. The vehicle has been repossessed, sold and the debt remaining was the balance of the difference. This debt was among a group of accounts purchased from CitiFinancial by Santander Consumer USA, Inc. Santander moved to have the case dismissed, the district court granted the motion. The US Court of appeals for the Fourth Circuit – which covers the District of Maryland, the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Middle District of North Carolina, the Western District of North Carolina, the district of South Carolina, the Eastern District of Virginia, the Western District of Virginia, the Northern District of West Virginia, and the Southern District of West Virginia – affirmed the lower court’s decision, declining to hear the case before all of the judges.

The question was put to the Supreme Court of the United States. “If a company that regularly attempts to collect debts it purchased after the debts had fallen into default is a “debt collector” subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?” (Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 19, 2018, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/16-349)

The plaintiffs asserted that the phase “owed” was the past tense of the verb phrase “to owe.” They also claimed that this would exclude originators of the debt but include the defendant and others who “purchase debt” and then collect on it. While they did agree that some are excluded as debt collectors, they argued that since the debt was originally owned by CitiFinancial, that the defendant should be a debt collector under the FDCPA.

Santander Consumer USA, Inc. purchased all of the automotive loans which had been in CitiFinancial’s portfolio – both the non-defaulted and the defaulted loans. In purchasing the automotive loans from CitiFinancial – who no longer wanted to transact business in the automotive loan industry following a financial downturn prior to 2012 – Santander Consumer USA, Inc. now owned the loans in question. The counsel for the Respondent (Santander Consumer USA, Inc.) conceded that their collection actions are more common than they were when the case was originated.

In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts decisions. In the opinion of the court, drafted by Justice Neil Gorsuch, mentions two related issues that were not addressed by the courts as the plaintiff did not bring them up in their writ of certiorari – the request for the Supreme Court to review the case. One of the two issues that was not addressed – but which may have yielded a different outcome – was that Santander Consumer USA, Inc. does regularly collect debts owed another as a part of their business. The other issue raised was one where the parties alluded to another definition of “debt collector” – however since arguments about that were not heard in lower courts, it was not addressed in this decision either. These two issues leave open additional avenues for consumers to be able to pursue in courts with companies who currently fit in the same group of debt purchasers as Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

The opinion of the court went further as to state that the explanation of the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation of the Act which defines debt collectors as entities who collect debts “owed…another” on a regular basis as part of their business. This seems to exclude those who own the debt despite how it was acquired – origination or purchase. The opinion also pointed to the petitioner’s claim that Congress would have – had they been faced with debt purchasers 1977 when the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as passed – included them in the definition of debt collectors under the FDCPA.

In conclusion, the decision of the court was that it is not their job to rewrite what Congress passed. Although it is not difficult to see where things could be included to clarify or removed to make it less muddy, it is not in the court’s purview to make such alterations. The opinion even went so far as to say that this was something that Congress, not the Supreme Court of the United States, should resolve. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Santander Consumer USA, Inc. acquired the debt – in this case defaulted car loans – as a part of a much larger purchase of the automotive loans that CitiFinancial was divesting themselves of. The purchase of the debt made Santander Consumer USA, Inc. the owners of the debt. They began collecting on debts that were owned by them. The court case that ensued as a result was decided in their favor as under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act they did not classify as a “debt collector” as the plaintiffs alleged – because they were collecting on a debt owed (past tense) to another (CitiFinancial – originally).

Image credit: AJEL

The post A Supreme Court Case Regarding Definition of “Debt Collectors” Under the FDCPA appeared first on supercreditrepair.