I filed for bankruptcy protection in Maine as a temporary method of protecting my financial commitments while waiting for a consumer complaint case to be mediated-I did n't want my vehicle repossessed before the manufacturer was held accountable under the Lemon Law and replacing it or refunding my money. In order for the bankruptcy to be valid and proceed, I would have had to pay the required fee ( which I did not ) as well as providing the complete application paperwork & forms ( I also did not do that, as this was simply a strategy to delay repossession for a few days. Since I did not submit the complete package and fees, the case was dismissed almost immediately, but Experian has maintained that this was a valid bankruptcy and has listed it as such in my credit report since XXXX. 

This has caused me great harm in that I have been repeatedly turned down for consumer credit despite my record being pretty much spotless with no debt. I first submitted appeal # XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX that included a statement from XXXX Maine that the case was dismissed, but Experian refused to acknowledge the dismissal, saying that the bankruptcy was valid. 

A year later on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX I checked my credit report and found that Experian still burdens me with this invalid bankruptcy, so I filed another appeal ( # XXXX ) and Experian still maintains their unreasonable position. 

I believe that if a bankruptcy was dismissed/never happened that I should not suffer the same consequences as though I had proceeded through the entire bankruptcy process and since I did not benefit from the bankruptcy other than to gain a few more days so that the mediation could be completed, then I should not have to suffer the same consequences as if I had. 

To consider otherwise would unreasonably burden consumers with the punishing effects of " credit terrorism '' without being justified by actual events. In what world does " dismissed '' really mean I have to suffer this harm anyway? If valid, then it would take away any incentive for consumers to avoid bankruptcy - was that the intent of the government - to ceaselessly punish consumers when they try to do the right thing and honor their commitments? That would be counterintuitive at best and easily seen as a grossly negligent policy if true. 

Please review the attached materials and tell Experian that they are causing more harm than good. In fact, I ca n't think of one positive aspect of their business model that benefits our society whatsoever.