A few months ago, a company called XXXX Collections added an incorrect collections account to my Experian credit report. Initially, I sent letters to both XXXX Collections and to Experian. Experian amended the item to say that it was disputed, but did not remove it. After a few attempts, XXXX Collections sent me a letter notifying me that the item would be removed from all of my credit reports. I sent a followup letter to Experian, certified with return receipt, saying that I was sending additional information to support the removal of this item from my credit report. I included a copy of the letter from XXXX Collections. 

Incredibly, instead of removing the item, Experian sent me the enclosed communication saying that " [ They ] received a suspicious request in the mail regarding XXXX my ] personal credit report and determined that it was not sent by [ me ]. '' The letter also says that they will not be initiating any disputed based on the " suspicious correspondence '' and that " Experian will apply this same policy to any future suspicious request that [ they ] receive regarding XXXX my ] personal credit information. " This is a serious problem, because some disputes ( such as faulty pseudonyms ) can *only* be handled by mail. Experian 's unilateral decision to ignore information that I provided - with my signature on XXXX the letter and a return receipt notice postmarked to the same address to which they sent the enclosed notice - presents an unprecedented breach of protocol. What further steps should I take to ensure that correspondence does not appear " suspicious ''? Get my letter notarized, perhaps? That will be next. 

I should add that Experian 's online dispute process has never worked for me - they have an authentication step that I can never complete, even though I know more about my life than they do - and they make it deliberately difficult to contact them on the phone. Now they have taken away the last known recourse available to me. 

Their letter includes a threatening allusion coordinating with law enforcement, but it seems to me that law enforcement should be investigating Experian.