{"took":399,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":27,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13693298","_score":17.102047,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Title : Equifax refuses to remove identity theft accounts ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX ) despite police and FTC reports forced to pay under duress Narrative : I have submitted multiple disputes to Equifax regarding XXXX fraudulent accounts that were opened in my name due to identity theft : XXXX  account ending in XXXX XXXX  XXXX account ending in XXXX Despite submitting a police report, an FTC Identity Theft Report, and multiple rounds of documentation verifying my identity and address, Equifax continues to report these accounts as valid. Due to Equifaxs failure to act, I have been forced to make payments under duress on accounts that were never mine, simply to protect my credit and prevent further damage. This situation has caused significant emotional stress and financial harm. Equifax is in clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including Sections 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) and 605B ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c2 ), which require credit bureaus to block and remove fraudulent accounts upon receiving proper documentation. I am filing this complaint as my final attempt before pursuing legal action. I am asking the CFPB to investigate and take the following actions : Require Equifax to delete the XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ) accounts immediately Remove all incorrect names and addresses from my file Issue me a corrected credit report in writing See attach documents","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-23T05:32:54.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13693298","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-23T05:28:48.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> Title : <em>Equifax</em> <em>refuses</em> to remove identity theft accounts ( <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ) despite police and FTC reports forced to pay under duress <em>Narrative</em> : I have submitted multiple disputes to <em>Equifax</em> regarding <em>XXXX</em> fraudulent accounts that were opened in my name due to identity theft : <em>XXXX</em>  account ending in <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> account ending in <em>XXXX</em> Despite submitting a police report, an FTC Identity Theft Report, and multiple rounds of documentation verifying my identity and address"],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[17.102047,"13693298"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13693217","_score":17.051144,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Title : Equifax refuses to remove identity theft accounts ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX ) despite police and FTC reports forced to pay under duress Narrative : I have submitted multiple disputes to Equifax regarding XXXX fraudulent accounts that were opened in my name due to identity theft : XXXX  account ending in XXXX XXXX  XXXX account ending in XXXX Despite submitting a police report, an FTC Identity Theft Report, and multiple rounds of documentation verifying my identity and address, Equifax continues to report these accounts as valid. Due to Equifaxs failure to act, I have been forced to make payments under duress on accounts that were never mine, simply to protect my credit and prevent further damage. This situation has caused significant emotional stress and financial harm. Equifax is in clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including Sections 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) and 605B ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c2 ), which require credit bureaus to block and remove fraudulent accounts upon receiving proper documentation. I am filing this complaint as my final attempt before pursuing legal action. I am asking the CFPB to investigate and take the following actions : Require Equifax to delete the XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ) accounts immediately Remove all incorrect names and addresses from my file Issue me a corrected credit report in writing See attach documents","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-23T05:32:58.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13693217","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-23T05:32:31.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> Title : <em>Equifax</em> <em>refuses</em> to remove identity theft accounts ( <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ) despite police and FTC reports forced to pay under duress <em>Narrative</em> : I have submitted multiple disputes to <em>Equifax</em> regarding <em>XXXX</em> fraudulent accounts that were opened in my name due to identity theft : <em>XXXX</em>  account ending in <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> account ending in <em>XXXX</em> Despite submitting a police report, an FTC Identity Theft Report, and multiple rounds of documentation verifying my identity and address"],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[17.051144,"13693217"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13693215","_score":17.051144,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Title : Equifax refuses to remove identity theft accounts ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX ) despite police and FTC reports forced to pay under duress Narrative : I have submitted multiple disputes to Equifax regarding XXXX fraudulent accounts that were opened in my name due to identity theft : XXXX  account ending in XXXX XXXX  XXXX account ending in XXXX Despite submitting a police report, an FTC Identity Theft Report, and multiple rounds of documentation verifying my identity and address, Equifax continues to report these accounts as valid. Due to Equifaxs failure to act, I have been forced to make payments under duress on accounts that were never mine, simply to protect my credit and prevent further damage. This situation has caused significant emotional stress and financial harm. Equifax is in clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including Sections 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) and 605B ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c2 ), which require credit bureaus to block and remove fraudulent accounts upon receiving proper documentation. I am filing this complaint as my final attempt before pursuing legal action. I am asking the CFPB to investigate and take the following actions : Require Equifax to delete the XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ) accounts immediately Remove all incorrect names and addresses from my file Issue me a corrected credit report in writing See attach documents","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-23T05:32:54.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13693215","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-23T05:32:31.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> Title : <em>Equifax</em> <em>refuses</em> to remove identity theft accounts ( <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ) despite police and FTC reports forced to pay under duress <em>Narrative</em> : I have submitted multiple disputes to <em>Equifax</em> regarding <em>XXXX</em> fraudulent accounts that were opened in my name due to identity theft : <em>XXXX</em>  account ending in <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> account ending in <em>XXXX</em> Despite submitting a police report, an FTC Identity Theft Report, and multiple rounds of documentation verifying my identity and address"],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[17.051144,"13693215"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15230029","_score":14.99317,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint- Equifax / XXXX XXXX XXXX  CFPB Complaint - Deletion Demand Complaint Against : Equifax Information Services LLC XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Data Furnisher ) Product : Credit reporting - Consumer reports Issue : deletion. \nKnowingly publishing false credit data, re-aging accounts, double-penalizing in scoring, and refusing lawful -- - This is not a dispute. This is a formal demand for PERMANENT DELETION of a knowingly false tradeline. \nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, Equifax is reporting the following for XXXX  XXXX XXXX  : - Balance : {$1000.00} - Past Due : {$1000.00} - Status : Charged Off - Narrative Codes : Disputed, Charged Off Account, Credit Card - DOFD : XX/XX/XXXX - Date Reported : XX/XX/XXXX Why this is unlawful : 1. False \" Past Due '' after Charge-Off Once an account is charged off, it can not also be reported as currently past due. This is deceptive, violates Metro 2, and artificially increases credit scoring damage. \n2. Re-Aging of the Tradeline The \" Date Reported '' was manipulated to XX/XX/XXXX - nearly 3 years after DOFD- to make the derogatory appear recent. This is illegal re-aging under FCRA 605 ( c ) and is a willful attempt to extend the 7-year reporting window. \n3. Failure to Perform a Reasonable Investigation This tradeline was previously disputed. Equifax and XXXX XXXX were required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. Instead, they reinserted the same false data without correction or deletion - a willful violation of FCRA 1681n. \nCFPB Complaint- Equifax / XXXX XXXX XXXX  This is not an error, it is deliberate credit report manipulation by both the credit bureau and the furnisher, constituting defamation, willful noncompliance, and consumer harm. \n-- - Relief Sought : only. \nPermanent deletion of this tradeline from my credit file with Equifax- not correction, not \" update, '' full deletion -- - Evidence Provided : - Equifax credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX ( attached in CFPB submission ) - Screenshots of false \" past due '' status after charge-off - Prior dispute documentation showing willful re-reporting -- - Notice : If Equifax and XXXX XXXX  do not delete this tradeline, I will proceed with arbitration and federal litigation for statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney 's fees, and injunctive relief.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-12T19:54:26.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"350XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15230029","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-12T19:47:28.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em>- <em>Equifax</em> / <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  CFPB <em>Complaint</em> - Deletion Demand <em>Complaint</em> Against : <em>Equifax</em> Information Services LLC <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  ( Data Furnisher ) Product : Credit reporting - Consumer reports Issue : deletion. \nKnowingly publishing false credit data, re-aging accounts, double-penalizing in scoring, and <em>refusing</em> lawful -- - This is not a dispute. This is a formal demand for PERMANENT DELETION of a knowingly false tradeline."],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[14.99317,"15230029"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14344391","_score":14.140456,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Disclosure : As a consumer fully exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I am documenting each step in preparation for formal legal escalation, if necessary.\n\nClarification : This complaint is separate and distinct from any previously filed complaints against Equifax. It addresses new violations and failures, specifically Equifaxs refusal to provide verification documentation in response to a formal and lawful request under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). It is not duplicative in subject matter or legal basis.\n\nSubject : Complaint against Equifax for Improper Handling of Spring Oaks Capital Dispute FCRA Violations 611, 623, and Refusal to Submit Verification Documentation Despite My Formal and Lawful Request Under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Narrative : I am filing this complaint against Equifax for its improper reinvestigation and continued reporting of a disputed account furnished by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX ). Despite submitting evidence that clearly disqualifies this account from consumer credit reporting, Equifax marked the account as verified as accurate without providing any documentation or explanation. \n\nTimeline & Evidence : On XX/XX/year>, I sent a certified dispute directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which remains unanswered a violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 8 ).\n\nIn my dispute letter to Equifax ( dated the same day ), I specifically requested verification of the original signed agreement. Equifax failed to obtain or acknowledge this critical document, which as I now provide clearly states the funds were not for personal, family, or household use.\n\nThis proves the debt is commercial in nature and therefore not subject to consumer credit reporting under the FCRA. \nOn XX/XX/year>, I filed a CFPB complaint ( ID # XXXX ) against XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX which remains unresolved. \nOn XX/XX/year>, Equifax closed its reinvestigation and issued results stating the account was verified as accurate and updated, yet provided no documentation or acknowledgment of the commercial-use clause in the loan agreement. \nDue to Equifaxs non-compliance with my documentation request, I sent a formal verification demand letter, citing violations of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), and 616 & 617. I explicitly requested the documentation used to verify the account, the method of verification, and the name of the party who confirmed the information.\n\nEquifax has refused to provide any of this information, despite my formal and lawful request under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ).\n\nAny attestation that this information was verified as accurate or updated without substantiating records may constitute false testimony, constructive fraud, or deceptive business practices. This is especially concerning given that XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to respond to both my direct dispute and my prior CFPB complaint. This suggests that Equifaxs verification process was not only inadequate but potentially misleading.\n\nI am not seeking unnecessary conflict I am requesting only the lawful correction of inaccurate and unverified information. If Equifax deletes the account in full and in good faith, I will consider the matter resolved and take no further action regarding this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-28T19:18:04.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11214","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14344391","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-28T19:01:34.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Subject : <em>Complaint</em> against <em>Equifax</em> for Improper Handling of Spring Oaks Capital Dispute FCRA Violations 611, 623, and Refusal to Submit Verification Documentation Despite My Formal and Lawful Request Under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) <em>Narrative</em> : I am filing this <em>complaint</em> against <em>Equifax</em> for its improper reinvestigation and continued reporting of a disputed account furnished by <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( account ending in <em>XXXX</em> )."],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[14.140456,"14344391"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18284384","_score":13.772708,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Type of Complaint : Incorrect information on credit report / Failure to properly investigate disputes / Re-aging and misleading reporting Complaint Narrative I am filing this complaint because Equifax is reporting inaccurate, misleading, and contradictory information on my credit report regarding the following account : Creditor : XXXX Account # : XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$0.00} Despite multiple disputes submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Equifax has failed to conduct a lawful reinvestigation and continues to report false, misleading, and re-aged data that harms my creditworthiness. \n\nDetails of Inaccurate Reporting XXXX Account Type Misrepresentation Equifax reports this as an installment account but lists XXXX terms and no payment structure, which is illogical and inaccurate. \nXXXX Conflicting Payment Status Equifax lists the account as Paid / Closed {$0.00} balance, yet simultaneously reports 30 Days Late. \nThis is materially impossible and misleading. \nXXXX Contradictory Payment History Two-Year Payment History shows ALL OK, yet the status reflects late payments. \nXXXX Improper Re-Aging & False Updating Date Last Active : XX/XX/XXXX Date of Last Payment : XX/XX/XXXX Last Reported : XX/XX/XXXX Equifax is updating an inactive, fully closed account XXXX years later, artificially refreshing derogatory impact. \nXXXX False Dispute Notation Equifax is reporting Consumer disputes after resolution which is false and violates CFPB rules. \nXXXX Missing / Illogical Data {$0.00} payment and XXXX terms can not be listed as installment or delinquent. \nXXXX Failure to Properly Verify Despite repeated disputes, Equifax refused to provide the required Method of Verification and relied on automated systems. \nLaw Violations Include FCRA 1681e ( b ) Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy FCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to maintain reasonable accuracy procedures FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to reinvestigate disputed information FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) Failure to provide Method of Verification FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) Improper re-aging 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnisher accuracy violations CFPB XXXX XXXX Improper dispute notation Further supported by case law such as XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX Equifaxs actions are materially misleading, unfair, and damaging. These inaccuracies negatively impact my creditworthiness, ability to obtain financing, credit interest rates, and overall financial stability. \n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request the CFPB to require Equifax to : Permanently delete the disputed account Provide written confirmation of deletion Provide full Method of Verification documentation Correct all misleading dispute notations Thank you for your assistance in enforcing federal consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-25T20:25:18.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33991","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18284384","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-25T20:08:14.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Type of <em>Complaint</em> : Incorrect information on credit report / Failure to properly investigate disputes / Re-aging and misleading reporting <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> I am filing this <em>complaint</em> because <em>Equifax</em> is reporting inaccurate, misleading, and contradictory information on my credit report regarding the following account : Creditor : <em>XXXX</em> Account # : <em>XXXX</em> Date Opened : XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> Balance : {$0.00} Despite multiple disputes submitted on XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> and XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, <em>Equifax</em> has failed to conduct"],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[13.772708,"18284384"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3534317","_score":13.709774,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint involves EQUIFAX Credit Report. On XX/XX/2020, Equifax lowered my credit score by 36 points. According to the report issued via XXXX XXXX, who used the Equifax Report, there were five changes to my Equifax Report : 1. XXXX XXXX Reports 2 Payments Made on Time. 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX  added the following remarks to my account : Charged Off Account. Account Closed By Credit Grantor. I continue to dispute the legitimacy of this account and demand my remarks be reflected on the account that Consumer Disputes Investigation Findings. XXXX and EQUIFAX have claimed they have previously investigated the claim and are not obligated to conduct further investigations. The reality is that a representative of the XXXX CEO staff stated that the CEO 's position is that no fraud occurred. This was not predicated upon a legitimate investigation as I have repeatedly asked for a copy of their investigation to no avail. 3. XXXX XXXX added remarks that Consumer disputes after resolution. XXXX XXXX has not conducted a legitimate investigation into my complaint and on several occasions changed the dates they claimed I was late on my auto loan. The auto loan was never late and I continue to dispute the report. 4. XXXX XXXX XXXX  added the following remarks to my account : Consumer dispute - reinvestigation in progress. I continue to dispute the legitimacy of this account and demand my remarks be reflected on the account that Consumer Disputes Investigation Findings. XXXX and EQUIFAX have claimed they have previously investigated the claim and are not obligated to conduct further investigations. The reality is that a representative of the XXXX CEO staff stated that the CEO 's position is that no fraud occurred. This was not predicated upon a legitimate investigation as I have repeatedly asked for a copy of their investigation to no avail. 5. XXXX XXXX XXXX removed the following remarks from my account : Consumer dispute - reinvestigation in progress. I continue to dispute the legitimacy of this account and demand my remarks be reflected on the account that Consumer Disputes Investigation Findings. XXXX and EQUIFAX have claimed they have previously investigated the claim and are not obligated to conduct further investigations. The reality is that a representative of the XXXX CEO staff stated that the CEO 's position is that no fraud occurred. This was not predicated upon a legitimate investigation as I have repeatedly asked for a copy of their investigation to no avail. 6. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX continues to report negatively on my credit reports and refuses to conduct a legitimate investigation. Because they wasted so much time, there is no way to prosecute the fraudulent actors, meanwhile, XXXX continues to fraudulently report negatively on my report. \n\n\nIt is clear to see that EQUIFAX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX are deliberately manipulating the credit reports and negatively impacting my EQUIFAX Credit Report and ability to purchase a home. For instance, my score dropped 36 points over a change in the narrative but has not gone up since paying off nearing {$2000.00} to XXXX XXXX XXXX \nEquifax is also under-reporting the average age of my credit. I have a 99 % on-time payment, 15 % Credit card utilization, 0 Derogatory Remarks in Collections or Public Record, 7 Hard Inquiries which I have repeatedly disputed as unauthorized and Equifax has done nothing but refer me to the creditor. The responsibility is upon EQUIFAX to report accurate information and to demand strict proof when I file a complaint or dispute. \nOn information and belief, it is public knowledge that EQUIFAX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX are corrupt and manipulate scores to fraudulently inflate the cost.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-02-17T18:30:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"37075","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3534317","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2020-02-17T17:46:30.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This <em>complaint</em> involves <em>EQUIFAX</em> Credit Report. On <em>XX/XX</em>/2020, <em>Equifax</em> lowered my credit score by 36 points. According to the report issued via <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, who used the <em>Equifax</em> Report, there were five changes to my <em>Equifax</em> Report : 1. <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Reports 2 Payments Made on Time. 2. <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  added the following remarks to my account : Charged Off Account. Account Closed By Credit Grantor."],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[13.709774,"3534317"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18079754","_score":12.5161705,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Inaccurate Credit Reporting Consumer Name : HD Institution : Navy Federal Credit Union Account Number : XXXX  Charge-Off Date : XX/XX/year> Complaint Narrative I am filing a complaint regarding Navy Federal Credit Unions inaccurate and misleading credit reporting for my account, which was charged off as a bad debt on XX/XX/year>. \n\nDespite this charge-off, Navy Federal Credit Union continues to furnish this tradeline to the consumer credit reporting agencies in a manner that reflects an ongoing monthly payment obligation and a past-due status, effectively treating the account as a current or active loan. This reporting is internally inconsistent and materially misleading, as a charged-off account should not simultaneously be reported as an active installment account with a required monthly payment. \n\nThis tradeline has been reporting for over XXXX years, and Navy Federal Credit Union has failed to ensure that the account is being furnished in a manner that is accurate, complete, and not deceptive, as required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ). Reporting a charged-off debt as if it remains an active loan with ongoing payment terms creates an inaccurate portrayal of my credit obligations and unfairly harms my credit profile. \nXXXX XXXX Reporting Inconsistencies Under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, furnishers are required to report account data that is accurate, complete, and internally consistent across all applicable data fields. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX furnishing of this account contains XXXX XXXX inconsistencies, including but not limited to reporting a charged-off account while simultaneously furnishing fields associated with an open or active account, such as a scheduled monthly payment amount, past-due status, and ongoing payment history. These data elements can not logically coexist under XXXX XXXX guidelines once an account has been charged off. \n\nFurnishing contradictory data fields constitutes materially misleading credit reporting and does not meet the accuracy standards required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. If Navy Federal Credit Union is unable to substantiate that all XXXX XXXX fields are being reported accurately and consistently with the charged-off status of this account, continued reporting of this tradeline is improper. \n\nRelief Requested - Immediate deletion of my account from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion - Written confirmation of deletion once completed- If deletion is refused, full written validation that all XXXX XXXX fields are accurately furnished and that no re-aging has occurred","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-16T17:47:18.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78109","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18079754","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-12-16T17:34:45.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> Inaccurate Credit Reporting Consumer Name : HD Institution : Navy Federal Credit Union Account Number : <em>XXXX</em>  Charge-Off Date : XX/XX/year> <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> I am filing a <em>complaint</em> regarding Navy Federal Credit Unions inaccurate and misleading credit reporting for my account, which was charged off as a bad debt on XX/XX/year>."]},"sort":[12.5161705,"18079754"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14372339","_score":10.929329,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Disclosure : As a consumer fully exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, I am documenting each step in preparation for formal legal escalation, if necessary.\n\nClarification : This complaint is separate and distinct from any previously filed complaints against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. It addresses new violations and failures, specifically their refusal to provide verification documentation under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). It is not\nduplicative in subject matter or legal basis. This is not a Re-Dispute. \n\nSubject : Complaint Against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion for Mishandling of XXXX XXXX XXXX Dispute FCRA Violations 611, 623, and Refusal to Provide Verification Documentation per 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Narrative : This complaint is directed against Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion for their willful and negligent participation in the continued reporting of an unverified, fabricated, and unauthorized account allegedly owned by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, in violation of multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \nDespite receiving prior dispute notices, detailed documentation, and verification demands, the CRAs have not permanently deleted this account from my consumer credit file. Instead, they appear to be relying on a materially deficient, deceptive, and non-verifying response from the data furnisher, which fails to meet the statutory requirements of FCRA. \nI have included key annotated excerpts from the response XXXX XXXX XXXX submitted to the CFPB ( Exhibit XXXX ), highlighting specific pages and sections that demonstrate clear violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.\n\nThis submission constitutes : A formal FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) verification demand ; A final CFPB complaint against the CRAs ; And a pre-litigation warning of my intent to sue all responsible parties for willful noncompliance under FCRA 616 and 617. \nLegal Grounds for Deletion The following sections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act are being violated by the continued reporting of this account : 1. 1681i Failure to Conduct Reasonable Reinvestigation 2. 1681g Failure to Disclose Verification Method 3. 1681s-2 ( b ) Furnisher 's Duty to Investigate 4. 1681e ( b ) / 607 ( b ) Maximum Possible Accuracy 5. 1681c-1 ( a ) ( 3 ) Ongoing Dispute Status 6. 1681b Lack of Permissible Purpose Evidence Summary ( Detailed Citations and Exhibits Available ) No Signed Contract or Authorization : XXXX submitted an unsigned, generic agreement with no evidence of consumer acknowledgment or acceptance. They also explicitly refused to provide any documentation proving legal ownership of the account or authorization to collect or report it.. \nNo Chain of Title with Account-Level Detail : The \" Ownership History '' provided lists internal entities without supporting assignment documentation. \nNo Proof of Mailing or Validation : The only mailed letter dated XX/XX/year>, contains no legally valid debt validation. \nFabricated Billing Statements : Missing transactions, phantom charges, and inflated balances across 10 billing cycles.\n\nPost-Charge-Off Reporting Gap : No payment history reported between charge-off and ownership transfer.\n\nNo Transaction Receipts or Mailing Proof : There is no evidence that I authorized or made any of the alleged charges. Additionally, XXXX has provided no proof that billing statements were ever mailed, nor any evidence that such mailings were received. \nUnverifiable Licensure in XXXX : Conflicting license numbers without proof of validity. \n\nConclusion & Demand Any attestation that this information was verified as accurate or updated without substantiating records may constitute false testimony, constructive fraud, or deceptive business practices. This is particularly concerning in light of XXXX XXXXesponse, which suggests that the verification processes used by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion may be inadequate and potentially misleading. \nThis account is a textbook example of a phantom debt : fabricated charges, absent verification, broken legal chains of ownership, and predatory reporting tactics. The CRAs are actively participating in a scheme that has caused me direct financial harm and obstructed my ability to secure critical business funding. \n\nThis is a notice of intent to legal escalation. If the XXXX XXXX XXXX tradeline is not deleted from all three of my credit reports within 15 calendar days of this complaint, I will : File suit in small claims or civil court under FCRA 616 and 617 ; Notify the New York Attorney General, FTC, and other relevant regulators ; Publicly document this complaint as part of my evidence record.\n\nHowever, if the CRAs act in good faith and permanently delete the account within 15 calendar days, I will consider the matter resolved in full and will take no further action.\n\nAll referenced exhibits XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Exhibits XXXX  ) will be submitted via the CFPB complaint upload system. \nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-30T18:50:31.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11214","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14372339","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-30T18:41:05.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Subject : <em>Complaint</em> Against <em>Equifax</em>, Experian, and TransUnion for Mishandling of <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Dispute FCRA Violations 611, 623, and Refusal to Provide Verification Documentation per 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) <em>Narrative</em> : This <em>complaint</em> is directed against Experian, <em>Equifax</em>, and TransUnion for their willful and negligent participation in the continued reporting of an unverified, fabricated, and unauthorized account allegedly owned by <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, in violation of multiple"]},"sort":[10.929329,"14372339"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14371800","_score":10.929329,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Disclosure : As a consumer fully exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, I am documenting each step in preparation for formal legal escalation, if necessary.\n\nClarification : This complaint is separate and distinct from any previously filed complaints against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. It addresses new violations and failures, specifically their refusal to provide verification documentation under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). It is not\nduplicative in subject matter or legal basis. This is not a Re-Dispute. \n\nSubject : Complaint Against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion for Mishandling of XXXX XXXX XXXX Dispute FCRA Violations 611, 623, and Refusal to Provide Verification Documentation per 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Narrative : This complaint is directed against Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion for their willful and negligent participation in the continued reporting of an unverified, fabricated, and unauthorized account allegedly owned by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, in violation of multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \nDespite receiving prior dispute notices, detailed documentation, and verification demands, the CRAs have not permanently deleted this account from my consumer credit file. Instead, they appear to be relying on a materially deficient, deceptive, and non-verifying response from the data furnisher, which fails to meet the statutory requirements of FCRA. \nI have included key annotated excerpts from the response XXXX XXXX XXXX submitted to the CFPB ( Exhibit XXXX ), highlighting specific pages and sections that demonstrate clear violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.\n\nThis submission constitutes : A formal FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) verification demand ; A final CFPB complaint against the CRAs ; And a pre-litigation warning of my intent to sue all responsible parties for willful noncompliance under FCRA 616 and 617. \nLegal Grounds for Deletion The following sections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act are being violated by the continued reporting of this account : 1. 1681i Failure to Conduct Reasonable Reinvestigation 2. 1681g Failure to Disclose Verification Method 3. 1681s-2 ( b ) Furnisher 's Duty to Investigate 4. 1681e ( b ) / 607 ( b ) Maximum Possible Accuracy 5. 1681c-1 ( a ) ( 3 ) Ongoing Dispute Status 6. 1681b Lack of Permissible Purpose Evidence Summary ( Detailed Citations and Exhibits Available ) No Signed Contract or Authorization : XXXX submitted an unsigned, generic agreement with no evidence of consumer acknowledgment or acceptance. They also explicitly refused to provide any documentation proving legal ownership of the account or authorization to collect or report it.. \nNo Chain of Title with Account-Level Detail : The \" Ownership History '' provided lists internal entities without supporting assignment documentation. \nNo Proof of Mailing or Validation : The only mailed letter dated XX/XX/year>, contains no legally valid debt validation. \nFabricated Billing Statements : Missing transactions, phantom charges, and inflated balances across 10 billing cycles.\n\nPost-Charge-Off Reporting Gap : No payment history reported between charge-off and ownership transfer.\n\nNo Transaction Receipts or Mailing Proof : There is no evidence that I authorized or made any of the alleged charges. Additionally, XXXX has provided no proof that billing statements were ever mailed, nor any evidence that such mailings were received. \nUnverifiable Licensure in XXXX : Conflicting license numbers without proof of validity. \n\nConclusion & Demand Any attestation that this information was verified as accurate or updated without substantiating records may constitute false testimony, constructive fraud, or deceptive business practices. This is particularly concerning in light of XXXX XXXXesponse, which suggests that the verification processes used by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion may be inadequate and potentially misleading. \nThis account is a textbook example of a phantom debt : fabricated charges, absent verification, broken legal chains of ownership, and predatory reporting tactics. The CRAs are actively participating in a scheme that has caused me direct financial harm and obstructed my ability to secure critical business funding. \n\nThis is a notice of intent to legal escalation. If the XXXX XXXX XXXX tradeline is not deleted from all three of my credit reports within 15 calendar days of this complaint, I will : File suit in small claims or civil court under FCRA 616 and 617 ; Notify the New York Attorney General, FTC, and other relevant regulators ; Publicly document this complaint as part of my evidence record.\n\nHowever, if the CRAs act in good faith and permanently delete the account within 15 calendar days, I will consider the matter resolved in full and will take no further action.\n\nAll referenced exhibits XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Exhibits XXXX  ) will be submitted via the CFPB complaint upload system. \nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-30T18:50:31.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11214","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14371800","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-30T18:50:01.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Subject : <em>Complaint</em> Against <em>Equifax</em>, Experian, and TransUnion for Mishandling of <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Dispute FCRA Violations 611, 623, and Refusal to Provide Verification Documentation per 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) <em>Narrative</em> : This <em>complaint</em> is directed against Experian, <em>Equifax</em>, and TransUnion for their willful and negligent participation in the continued reporting of an unverified, fabricated, and unauthorized account allegedly owned by <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, in violation of multiple"],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[10.929329,"14371800"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16333446","_score":10.338585,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX : Formal Complaint and Immediate Enforcement Demand Concerning Sham and Incomplete Reinvestigation by Equifax Regarding Inaccurate Reporting of XXXX Installment Loan Account # XXXX To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I submit this formal complaint against Equifax Information Services LLC ( Equifax ) for its gross and continuing failure to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i, regarding my dispute involving inaccurate derogatory reporting on my XXXX installment loan account ( # XXXX ). \nEquifax produced a reinvestigation response dated XX/XX/XXXX ; however that response is incomplete and substantively deficient Equifax made limited file edits but failed to supply verifiable documentation, furnisher contact details, confirmation of human review, suppression of derogatory reporting during reinvestigation, its internal policies/procedures, and the full written verification procedures required by the FCRA. These outstanding deficiencies demonstrate a sham or inadequate reinvestigation and warrant immediate CFPB enforcement intervention. \n( For the CFPB record : my original dispute was submitted via the CFPB XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( CFPB XXXX ID : XXXX ). The CFPB XXXX shows Equifax responded on XX/XX/XXXX with a summary stating the item was verified and that Past Due, Balance, and Account History fields were modified. XXXX XXXX and mailed communications did not include the substantive verification documentation or furnisher contact details required under FCRA. ) Summary of Hardship I am a XXXX parent with an XXXX son, currently living in a hotel due to the financial strain caused by MOHELAs actions compounded by the Department of Education 's inaction. My income of {$960.00} per month is dramatically insufficient to meet my living expenses, particularly with hotel rates exceeding {$1100.00} biweekly. The derogatory marks placed on my credit report by XXXX directly prevent me from obtaining necessary funding and housing stability. This ongoing predicament has led to severe emotional distress and places me and my child at risk of eviction. \nDetailed Background and Points of Noncompliance Account : XXXX installment loan ending in XXXX Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX ; Report dates observed : XX/XX/XXXX ( updated as of XX/XX/XXXX ) Reported status : XXXX, 180 DAYS OR MORE PAST DUE, with narrative codes XXXX, XXXX, XXXX reported in inconsistent order. \nReported balance in Equifax file : {$2100.00} ( discrepancies with other records ; original dispute cited {$2100.00} ). \nFirst reported delinquency date on file : XX/XX/XXXX ( disputed sequence of delinquency reporting and chronology ). \nMy dispute and requested actions ( CFPB submission XX/XX/XXXX ) : Reinvestigate account under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ).\n\nDelete or correct inaccurate/unverifiable information.\n\nProvide reinvestigation results and a description of the verification procedure used, plus furnisher name and contact information per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). \nTemporarily suppress the negative/delinquent status during reinvestigation. \nEnclosed supporting documents ( ID, proof of address, credit reports, other evidence ). \nEquifax responses and what they reported : Equifax acknowledged receipt and indicated a reinvestigation completed ( response dated XX/XX/XXXX ; CFPB portal shows company response on XX/XX/XXXX ). \nEquifaxs summary : MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN EQUIFAX VERIFIED THAT THIS ITEM IS REPORTED CORRECTLY. \nEquifax states the following fields were modified : XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Account XXXX. \nEquifax provided a boilerplate description of its general investigation process and stated that furnisher contact details are shown under the resultson the cover letter accompanying a revised credit file. \nComprehensive list of deficiencies, incomplete items, and inaccurate/missing responses from Equifax ( XXXX item below references my original requests and FCRA requirements ; XXXX responses are contrasted with what was required or requested. ) Reinvesitgation completeness XXXX from Equifax : XXXX claimed complete ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \nXXXX : XXXX completion notice is conclusory and unsupported by substantive evidence. The reinvestigation appears limited to electronic exchange with the furnisher and resulted only in limited field edits. \nDeletion or full correction of inaccurate tradeline Requested : Delete or correct unverifiable/inaccurate reporting ( e.g., Over 120 days past due, inconsistent narrative codes ). \nEquifax response : Item verified as reported correctly ; only XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Account XXXX fields were modified. \nXXXX : Equifax did not delete the tradeline nor fully correct the reported delinquency status ; derogatory status remains. \nWritten reinvestigation results and verification procedure details ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( iii ) ) Requested : Provide written notice describing procedures used to verify the information and furnishers contacted ( name, address, phone ). \nEquifax response : Boilerplate process description ; no casespecific verification documentation, no stepbystep account of records checked, and no specific verification procedure for this dispute. Equifax referenced a cover letter for furnisher contact info but did not provide the underlying verification records. \nXXXX : Failure to provide the specific verification procedures and supporting documentation used to verify this particular account. \nFurnisher contact details and communications log Requested : Furnisher name, address, phone number, and nature of communications during reinvestigation. \nEquifax response : Generic statement that such details appear on a cover letter accompanying a revised file. \nXXXX : No furnisher contact details or communication log were provided in the materials I received ; absent concrete contact information, I can not verify how the furnisher investigated or what source documents were used. \nXXXX XXXX vs. automated/computer verification ; identity and declaration of human reviewer Requested : Confirmation whether reinvestigation was completed solely by automated means ; if automated, proof that a qualified human XXXX reviewed and validated results INCLUDING name, title, signed declaration ; if not, perform humanled reinvestigation. \nEquifax response : No casespecific statement confirming human review or identification of any human reviewer for this dispute. Only a generic description of transmitting disputes to furnishers and receiving electronic results. \nXXXX : No assurance that a human XXXX reviewed or validated any automated outcome ; no human reviewer identification or signed statement provided. \nSuppression of derogatory reporting during reinvestigation Requested : Temporarily suppress the negative/delinquent status of the disputed tradeline during reinvestigation to prevent ongoing consumer harm ( CFPB guidance ). \nEquifax response : No indication that suppression occurred. \nXXXX : Equifax did not confirm suppression ; derogatory reporting continued. \nTimeliness and documentation of statutory timeframe compliance Requested : Evidence of receipt and completion dates to verify reinvestigation completed within 30 days per FCRA. \nEquifax response : Listed completion date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) but provided no evidence of receipt date, transmission to furnisher date, or timeline documentation. CFPB portal shows company response on XX/XX/XXXX, creating ambiguity about the dates and timeliness. \nXXXX : No clear evidence demonstrating compliance with the XXXX statutory window. \nInternal policies, procedures, quality control, and compliance with prior CFPB enforcement Requested : Provide internal policies and procedures governing FCRA reinvestigations, quality control/supervisory review protocols, and evidence of compliance with CFPB XX/XX/XXXX order. \nEquifax response : None ; no internal policies or QC documentation provided. \nXXXX : Equifax withheld internal documentation necessary to assess whether company procedures comport with FCRA obligations and the CFPB enforcement order. \nDelivery of reinvestigation documentation via portal and mailed correspondence Requested : Provide all reinvestigation documentation through the Equifax portal and by mail ( so I can review what verification was performed ). \nEquifax response : XXXX that a copy of dispute results has been mailed XXXX have been asserted generically ; in practice I have not received substantive mailed documentation or uploaded portal documentation containing verification records. \nXXXX : No supporting documents ( verification records, furnisher responses, communications logs ) were delivered to me via portal or mail. \nSpecific inaccuracies in data still present on file Chronology errors : XXXX shows jump to XXXX days delinquent in XX/XX/XXXX despite apparent activity in XX/XX/XXXX Equifax XXXX not resolve or provide explanation. \nNarrative code inconsistencies : Codes XXXX ( deferment ), XXXX ( 150 days ), XXXX ( XXXX days ) reported in an inconsistent sequence Equifax XXXX not correct or explain sequencing. \nBalance discrepancy : My dispute cited {$2100.00} ; Equifax file shows {$2100.00} ; Equifax modified balance field but did not provide source documentation validating the new amount. \nDelinquency coding ( XXXX, XXXX ) and XXXX 120 days past due remain reported for XXXX XXXX Equifax did not delete or meaningfully correct these codes. \nXXXX characterization of the response as verified Equifax response : Declared the item verified as reported correctly. \nXXXX : Without the verification evidence or furnisher communications, the claim of verification is unsubstantiated and effectively a conclusory assertion rather than meaningful verification. \nAdditional Allegations Willful Noncompliance and Stall Tactics Equifaxs pattern in this XXXX a conclusory verified finding with only limited field edits while refusing to provide supporting documentation and furnisher contact detailsconstitutes willful noncompliance, evasive behavior, and possible stall tactics to avoid transparency and accountability required under FCRA. The failure to provide internal policies and humanreview confirmation exacerbates concerns about adequacy of the reinvestigation. \nRequest for Equifax XXXX XXXX and HumanReview Confirmation ( explicit demand ) I request that Equifax immediately provide, at minimum : A complete copy of its internal written policies and procedures governing FCRA reinvestigations, including any automated matching/verification rules, quality control, and supervisory review procedures. \nA detailed, itemspecific reinvestigation report for account XXXX showing : ( a ) the exact records searched or reviewed ; ( b ) the furnisher ( XXXX ) contacted ; ( c ) copies of all communications exchanged with furnishers and any records furnished by them ; ( d ) the dates and times of all transmissions and receipts ; ( XXXX ) the specific reason ( XXXX ) for each field modification ; ( f ) the identity ( name, title ) and signed statement of any human reviewer who validated the result. \nA clear statement whether any portion of the reinvestigation or verification was completed solely by automated processes. If so, produce documentary proof that a qualified human XXXX reviewed and validated the automated result for this dispute ( name, title, signed declaration ). If human validation did not occur, Equifax must perform and complete a humanled reinvestigation and provide complete supporting documentation. \nProof that any derogatory status was suppressed during the reinvestigation ( if it was not suppressed, an explanation for nonsuppression and the legal basis ). \nSpecific Demands for Immediate CFPB Enforcement I urgently request that the CFPB require Equifax to : Provide a full, substantive reinvestigation of the disputed XXXX account, correcting or deleting any inaccurate data consistent with statutory accuracy standards within XXXX calendar days of this complaint acceptance. \nImmediately provide me with : A complete reinvestigation report and documentation detailing the verification and validation procedures employed ( casespecific ). \nWritten disclosure of furnishers contacted and copies of the communications/exhibits provided to or received from those furnishers. \nXXXX to all reinvestigation outcomes, supporting documentation, and any cover letters via the Equifax consumer portal and in mailed written form. \nTemporarily suppress the disputed derogatory status of the XXXX account during the reinvestigation, in accordance with CFPB recommendations. \nDisclose to the CFPB and me Equifaxs internal policies, procedures, quality control measures, and evidence of compliance with the CFPB XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX. \nProvide a direct update to the CFPB and to me ; do not close this complaint until full compliance and correction are documented and communicated effectively. \nAdditionally and explicitly : Confirm in writing whether the reinvestigation at issue was completed solely via automated/computerized processes. If any automated processes were used, produce documentation demonstrating a human reinvestigator reviewed and validated the automated result for this dispute, including the human reviewers name, title, and a signed statement of review. If such human validation did not occur, Equifax must undertake and complete a humanled reinvestigation and provide the complete results and supporting documentation. \nDamages & Financial Exposure Calculations Statutory Damages XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Demand : {$1500.00} per violation Violation Amount Failure to conduct reasonable reinvestigation {$1500.00} Failure to disclose verification procedure {$1500.00} Failure to delete unverifiable info {$1500.00} Failure to maintain maximum accuracy {$1500.00} Continuing to report knowingly inaccurate data {$1500.00} Repeated monthly reporting ( 24 months ) {$36000.00} Subtotal Statutory Damages : {$43000.00} Actual & Emotional Distress Damages XXXX & XXXX Denials of credit/loans ( documented ) {$5000.00} Pain, suffering, reputational harm, emotional distress {$15000.00} Subtotal Actual Damages : {$20000.00} Punitive Damages XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) For willful misconduct postNorman settlement {$25000.00} Attorneys Fees & Costs XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) $ XXXX XXXX hours {$32000.00} Filing/service/expert costs {$5000.00} Subtotal Fees/Costs : {$37000.00} Total Minimum Exposure if Litigated : {$120000.00} ( exclusive of interest & ongoing harm ) Relevant Legal and Regulatory Authorities XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) : reasonable reinvestigation within 30 days, including furnisher notification. \nXXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( iii ) : written notice of reinvestigation results, verification procedures, and furnisher contact information. \nXXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) : reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. \nCFPB XXXX Supervisory Highlights and prior CFPB/FTC guidance XXXX dispute handling and suppression of disputed derogatory items. \nCFPB XXXX to Equifax dated XX/XX/XXXX ( civil penalties for systemic reinvestigation failures ). \nConclusion Equifaxs failure to provide reinvestigation documentation, furnisher contact details, a humanreview confirmation, internal policies/procedures, and the specific verification evidence required by the FCRA despite asserting completion of an investigation and making limited field edits severely undermines consumer rights and the integrity of consumer reporting. The conclusory verified finding without supporting documentation is inadequate and unacceptable under the FCRA. If this matter is not resolved promptly and fully, I will pursue statutory damages and all remedies available under XXXX XXXX. XXXX and XXXX, including attorneys fees and costs. \nXXXX I attest under penalty of perjury to the accuracy and truthfulness of this complaint submitted in good faith to protect my consumer financial rights under federal law. \nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DE XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Requested immediate actions summary Produce all requested documentation and internal policies within XXXX calendar days. \nSuppress derogatory reporting during reinvestigation. \nXXXX humanled reinvestigation if human validation did not occur and provide signed reviewer statement. \nProvide full written verification records, furnishers contact details, and communications logs. \nConfirm corrections or deletions and provide proof that all CRAs have received corrected updates. \nEmail : XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-02T03:50:47.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"19702","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16333446","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-02T03:36:17.000Z","state":"DE","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Consumer Financial Protection Bureau <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> : Formal <em>Complaint</em> and Immediate Enforcement Demand Concerning Sham and Incomplete Reinvestigation by <em>Equifax</em> Regarding Inaccurate Reporting of <em>XXXX</em> Installment Loan Account # <em>XXXX</em> To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I submit this formal <em>complaint</em> against <em>Equifax</em> Information Services LLC ( <em>Equifax</em> ) for its gross and continuing failure to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i, regarding my dispute involving inaccurate"],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[10.338585,"16333446"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18032791","_score":10.217979,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX VIA CERTIFIED MAIL and CFPB PORTAL Equifax Information Service LLC XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, Georgia XXXX Re : Formal FCRA dispute and demand for correction of inaccurate and fraudulent credit reporting To Whom It May Concern : This correspondence is a formal dispute of inaccurate and fraudulent information appearing in my consumer report and a demand for correction, deletion, and full compliance with federal consumer protection laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX U.S.C. XXXX et seq., its implementing Regulation V, the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) regulations and guidance, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) guidance governing the investigation of credit reporting disputes and identity theft. \n\nBackground And Nature Of Dispute My consumer report currently reflects XXXX or more accounts, tradelines, or derogatory items that do not belong to me and/or are the result of identity theft, as detailed in the attached list and documentation. I did not open, authorize, or benefit from these accounts or transactions, and I have already filed an identity theft report with the appropriate authorities and with the FTC, and I am providing copies of my FTC Identity Theft Report, police report ( if applicable ), and proof of identity. \n\nThese inaccurate entries are causing substantial harm, including damage to my credit reputation, denial or less favorable terms of credit, and other financial and personal injuries. You are now on notice that this information is disputed and that I assert my rights as an identity theft victim and as a consumer under federal law. \n\nFCRA Duties To Assure Accuracy And Conduct A Reasonable Investigation Under the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report about consumers, and must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information when notified by a consumer. This includes the duty to review all relevant information provided by the consumer, to communicate the dispute to the furnisher of the information, and to delete or correct information that can not be verified as accurate. \n\nCFPB supervisory guidance and circulars reiterate that both consumer reporting agencies and furnishers can face liability under the FCRA when they fail to conduct reasonable investigations of consumer disputes or create barriers to the submission of disputes. Federal regulators have emphasized that you must not ignore, summarily reject, or parrot verify disputed information without a genuine, reasonable investigation that considers the evidence submitted by the consumer. \n\nIdentity Theft and FCRA 605B Blocking Rights Because the disputed information results from identity theft, I am invoking my rights under FCRA 605B ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c2 ), which provides that a consumer reporting agency must block the reporting of information that the consumer identifies as resulting from identity theft when the consumer submits : ( XXXX ) appropriate proof of identity, ( XXXX ) a copy of an identity theft report, and ( XXXX ) an identification of the fraudulent information. Section 605B requires the credit reporting agency to block this information within a short timeframe after receiving the required documentation and to notify the furnisher that the information has been blocked due to identity theft. \n\nYour failure to promptly block and remove these identitytheftrelated items after receiving proper documentation would constitute a violation of FCRA 605B and related FTC and CFPB guidance for identity theft victims. Courts have recognized that identity theft victims have a private right of action against furnishers and reporting agencies that fail to conduct a reasonable investigation and continue reporting fraudulent accounts, and regulators have supported consumers in such actions. \n\nCase Law Regarding Failure To Investigate And Identity Theft Federal courts have repeatedly held that when a consumer disputes items on a credit report, the FCRA requires furnishers and agencies to conduct a reasonable investigation, and failure to do so can give rise to liability for actual, statutory, and punitive damages. In recent appellate decisions involving allegations of identity theft, courts have focused on whether the furnisher and agencies reasonably investigated the consumers identity theft claim and whether they deleted or corrected information that could not be verified as belonging to the consumer. These decisions make clear that ignoring consumerprovided identity theft affidavits and supporting evidence, or simply confirming the debt with the original furnisher without deeper inquiry, is insufficient. \n\nBy persisting in reporting fraudulent information after clear notice of identity theft and a dispute, and by failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, a credit reporting agency and any involved furnisher violate their statutory duties under 15 U.S.C. 1681i and 1681s2 and can be held liable in a private civil action. \n\nFraudulent, Unverified Accounts or Inaccurate XXXX XXXX Closed ( Unverified/Fraudulent ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX / Account type : Credit card ( revolving ) Charge Off / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : XXXX dollars ( credit limit ) Amount in default : chargeoff amount XXXX dollars ; current balance XXXX ; amount past due XXXX Status / notes : Charge Off ; date of XXXX delinquency XX/XX/XXXX ; consumer disputes this account ( code 166 ) ; narrative codes XXXX ( chargedoff ), XXXX ( credit card ), XXXX ( high credit is credit limit ). \n\nXXXX XXXX Closed ( Unverified/Fraudulent ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account type : Credit card ( revolving ) Charge Off / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : XXXX dollars ( credit limit ) Amount in default : chargeoff amount XXXX dollars ; current balance XXXX ; amount past due XXXX Status / notes : Charge Off ; date of XXXX delinquency XX/XX/XXXX ; date closed XX/XX/XXXX ; narrative codes XXXX ( chargedoff ), XXXX ( credit card ), XXXX ( high credit is credit limit ), XXXX ( high credit is original chargeoff amount ). \n\nXXXX XXXX Closed ( Unverified/Fraudulent ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account type : Credit card ( revolving ) Charge Off / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : XXXX dollars ( credit limit ) Amount in default : chargeoff amount XXXX dollars ; current balance XXXX ; amount past due XXXX Status / notes : Charge Off ; date of XXXX delinquency XX/XX/XXXX ; date closed XX/XX/XXXX ; activity designator Closed by credit grantor ; narrative codes XXXX ( chargedoff ), XXXX ( account closed by credit grantor ), XXXX ( fixed rate ). \n\nXXXX XXXX Co / Collection agency : CREDIT COLLECTIONS ( Unverified/Fraudulent ) Account type : Collection Insurance / Original creditor : XXXX SECURE CO XXXX Date assigned : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : None reported ( Last Payment Date : None ) Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX ( collection reported and status Unpaid as of that date ) Original limit / original amount : Not stated as original amount ; collection amount and balance are XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( unpaid collection balance ) Status / notes : Individual account ; creditor classification Insurance ; date of XXXX delinquency XX/XX/XXXX ; status Unpaid ; no additional narrative notes. \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : DEPT OF XXXX / Account type : Education Loan ( student loan ) / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars ( original principal ) Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; amount past due XXXX ; no chargeoff ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; narrative XXXX ( consumer disputes after resolution ), XXXX ( student loan payment deferred ), XXXX ( student loan ), XXXX ( previously in dispute and resolved ), XXXX ( affected by natural or declared disaster on certain months ). \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; narrative XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX as above. \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative pattern ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ). \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : DEPT OF XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; narrative XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set. \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : DEPT OF XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set. \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set ( including affected by natural or declared disaster for some months ). \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set. \n\n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set. \n\nXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set. \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX  XXXX / Account type : Education Loan ( prior servicer ) / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ; no chargeoff ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; transferred/sold XX/XX/XXXX ; narrative codes XXXX ( account transferred or sold ) and XXXX ( student loan ). \n\nViolations Alleged To the extent you have failed to : I. XXXX a reasonable reinvestigation of my dispute, XXXX. Review all relevant information that I have provided, XXXX. Communicate my dispute accurately to the furnisher ( XXXX ), XXXX. XXXX identitytheftrelated information after receiving the required documentation, and/or V. Delete or correct information that can not be verified as accurate, You are in violation of the FCRA, XXXX but not limited to XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ), XXXX, and XXXX, as well as applicable CFPB and FTC regulations and guidance. Continued reporting of fraudulent and inaccurate information after notice of identity theft also constitutes willful or negligent noncompliance with the FCRA, exposing you to civil liability. \n\nDemands For Correction And Specific Relief Accordingly, I demand that you : I. XXXX a thorough, reasonable reinvestigation of each disputed item listed in my attached schedule, including review of all documents I have provided. \nXXXX. XXXX, delete, and permanently remove from my consumer report all tradelines, accounts, inquiries, or derogatory items that are the result of identity theft or can not be verified as accurate as to me. \nXXXX. Provide me with an updated copy of my consumer report showing the removal or correction of all disputed items. \nIV. Provide a written description of the procedures used in your reinvestigation, including the entities you contacted, information reviewed, and the basis for your conclusions, as permitted under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( XXXX ). \nXXXX XXXX from reinserting any deleted items in my file unless you fully comply with the FCRAs reinsertion requirements, including proper notice. \n\nThese actions should be completed within the statutory reinvestigation period, generally 30 days from your receipt of this dispute ( or shorter blocking timelines as applicable under XXXX ), and you should provide written confirmation to me at the address above. \n\nNotice Of Potential Litigation And Damages Please treat this letter as both a dispute under the FCRA and a prelitigation demand. If you fail to comply with the obligations described above, continue to report inaccurate or identitytheftrelated information, or otherwise refuse to correct and block the disputed items, you XXXX be liable for : I. Actual damages, including but not limited to credit denials, higher interest rates, and emotional distress. \nXXXX. Statutory damages for willful violations under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. \nXXXX. XXXX fees and costs. \nIV. Punitive damages where appropriate, particularly for reckless or knowing disregard of consumer rights. \n\nFederal regulators, including the CFPB and FTC, have expressly warned that consumer reporting agencies and furnishers can face enforcement actions and civil liability for failure to reasonably investigate disputes and properly address identity theftrelated information. If you do not resolve this matter within the time provided by law, I reserve all rights to pursue legal remedies in court, including filing suit against you and any furnishers involved in these inaccuracies for violations of the FCRA and related consumer protection statutes. \n\nDocuments enclosed I am enclosing the following, and you must review each item as part of your investigation : Copy of governmentissued identification Proof of current address Copy of my FTC Identity Theft Report A list of each disputed tradeline, including creditor name, account number ( redacted ), and why the item is inaccurate or fraudulent Any additional supporting documentation showing that the accounts or transactions are not mine Please confirm in writing, at the address listed above, that you have received this dispute, initiated a reinvestigation, blocked and removed any identitytheftrelated information pursuant to FCRA XXXX, and corrected all inaccurate information. Retain this letter and all attachments in your files, as they will be used as evidence of your notice and your response in any future regulatory complaint or civil litigation. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-15T05:00:24.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30909","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18032791","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-15T04:53:20.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> VIA CERTIFIED MAIL and CFPB PORTAL <em>Equifax</em> Information Service LLC <em>XXXX</em>."],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[10.217979,"18032791"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11082295","_score":9.750254,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), I am writing to lodge a complaint against Equifax for the ongoing and severe harm caused by its negligent handling of my personal and financial data. The actions of Equifax, along with the conduct of its representatives, have left me financially disenfranchised, mentally distressed, and stripped of basic dignity. I demand immediate resolution and assert my rights under the law to protect myself against further harm. \nXXXX. Breach of Personal Data and Reporting Unauthorized Accounts Equifaxs failure to safeguard my personal data has allowed unauthorized accountsspecifically accounts linked to XXXX and XXXX tarnish my credit file. This is a direct consequence of the data breach, which not only compromised my sensitive information but enabled the perpetuation of fraud against me. Despite my repeated disputes, Equifax has willfully refused to remove these accounts reporting unauthorized information, which amounts to reckless indifference toward the accuracy of my credit file. \nXXXX. Dehumanizing Treatment by Representatives Equifax representative XXXX conduct has been particularly egregious. Her dismissive and disparaging remarks made me feel demeaned and powerless, as if I were a slave to a system designed to deny me fairness and justice. Rather than addressing my concerns with professionalism and care, XXXX responses have belittled my grievances and contributed to my mental anguish. This treatment reflects a lack of respect for my rights as a consumer and human being. \nXXXX. Violations of Federal Laws and Consumer Protections Equifax has committed multiple violations of federal law, which have directly contributed to my financial harm and emotional distress : XXXX. Repeated Opt-Out Notices Disregarded Against My Will Equifax ignored my multiple opt-out notices submitted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( e ). By failing to process these notices, Equifax violated federal laws governing the permissible use of consumer information. The right to opt out of prescreened or unauthorized offers is guaranteed to consumers, and XXXX deliberate inaction is a direct affront to these rights. \nViolation of 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( e ) : Equifax has no lawful basis to retain or share my information after receiving explicit instructions through multiple opt-out requests. \nNeglect of Consumer Autonomy : By disregarding these opt-out notices, Equifax has effectively coerced me into a system that I expressly refused to participate in, stripping me of control over my personal and financial data. \nThis ongoing violation of my will constitutes a severe infringement on my legal rights and has perpetuated the harm caused by unauthorized reporting. \nEquifax has displayed a clear and deliberate pattern of negligence, defiance of federal law, and blatant disregard for my consumer rights. Despite submitting a fully compliant FTC Identity Theft Report, along with all required documentationproof of address, social security, and government-issued IDEquifax has intentionally ignored its legal obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( FCRA ), which mandates blocking disputed information resulting from identity theft. Their refusal to act not only contravenes federal law but also exhibits a shocking level of contempt for their responsibility to protect consumers. \nBy selectively acknowledging disputes, such as addressing XXXX Bank while completely disregarding the same evidence for other unauthorized accounts, Equifax is engaging in discriminatory practices that undermine the very integrity of the consumer reporting process. This selective enforcement is not only unjust but demonstrates a willful violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i, which requires a fair and thorough investigation of all disputed accounts. \nEquifaxs misconduct has left unauthorized accounts on my credit report, including XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX.all of which I have rightfully disputed. This negligence has caused severe financial harm, jeopardizing my creditworthiness, and further exacerbating the mental and emotional anguish inflicted upon me. Their actionsor lack thereofrepresent an outright denial of my constitutional rights, as well as a systemic abuse of power aimed at controlling my consumer report against my will. \nXXXX behavior constitutes a breach of trust and a clear violation of consumer protection laws, including 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires credit reporting agencies to ensure maximum accuracy, and 15 U.S.C. 1681n, which imposes liability for willful noncompliance with the FCRA. Their disregard for the law, combined with their selective and prejudiced handling of my disputes, demonstrates an egregious lack of accountability and undermines the consumer protection framework they are obligated to uphold. I have documentation that will expose Equifaxs intentional misconduct, including their selective acknowledgment of disputes while disregarding identical claims, proving their efforts to manipulate and control my consumer report with willful disregard for my rights. \nEquifaxs actionsor inactionwill not go unanswered. This pattern of abuse, negligence, and selective enforcement is both unlawful and unethical, and I demand the immediate removal of all unauthorized accounts and full accountability for their violations of federal law. Should Equifax continue to ignore its obligations, I will have no choice but to escalate this matter to arbitration or federal litigation to seek damages for the irreparable harm caused. \n\nb. Negligence and Breach of Duty Equifaxs mishandling of my data during the breach demonstrates gross negligence. By failing to protect my information, Equifax breached its duty of care, exposing me to fraud and financial exploitation. \nc. Breach of Fiduciary Duty As a credit reporting agency, Equifax has a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and safeguard the interests of consumers. Its actionsallowing the perpetuation of fraudulent accountsconstitute a willful breach of this duty.\n\nd. Violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) By denying me equitable access to accurate credit reporting and imposing barriers to resolving disputes, Equifax has engaged in discriminatory practices that undermine my financial freedom.\n\ne. Constitutional Protections Against Coercion Equifaxs refusal to correct these inaccuracies has denied me the opportunity to exercise my constitutional right to financial liberty. The burden of battling their deliberate inaction has left me enslaved to a false narrative that paints me as financially irresponsiblea grave injustice XXXX. Selective Reporting and Contradictory Actions Equifaxs reporting of accounts demonstrates blatant inconsistencies and raises serious concerns about its adherence to fairness and accuracy obligations. While they sent a check related to the XXXX account, all other and related accounts listed below were still reported as unauthorized : XXXX XXXX : Account Number : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Account Numbers : XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX : Account Number : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : Account Number : XXXX XXXX XXXX Services : Account Number : XXXX Equifaxs selective handling of the XXXX Bank account demonstrates not only negligence but an intent to manipulate the reporting process to obscure its own failures. \n\n\n\n\nXXXX. Demand for Redress To rectify the harm caused by XXXX negligence, I demand the following : XXXX. Immediate removal of all unauthorized accounts from my credit report. \nXXXX. {$1000.00} per unauthorized account as compensation for financial harm, emotional distress, and mental anguish. \nXXXX. A formal apology acknowledging XXXX misconduct and detailing corrective measures to prevent further harm. \nXXXX. A commitment to ensure the accuracy of my credit file and comply with all federal and state laws governing credit reporting. \nXXXX. Case Law Supporting My Claims XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : This case established that failure to properly investigate disputes under the FCRA constitutes a breach of duty, leading to liability for damages caused by inaccuracies. XXXX refusal to remove fraudulent accounts parallels this failure. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 578 U.S. 330 ( XXXX ) : This Supreme Court case emphasized the importance of accurate consumer reporting. XXXX continued reporting of false accounts directly contravenes this precedent, causing tangible harm to my financial standing. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : This case reinforced the standard for willful noncompliance with the FCRA. XXXX negligence and refusal to address disputes amount to willful violations of their legal obligations. \nXXXX. Emotional and Financial Anguish Equifaxs actions have caused irreparable damage to my mental well-being. The endless disputes, derogatory treatment, and refusal to act have left me feeling helpless and violated. This ordeal has stripped me of my financial dignity, as my creditworthinessa cornerstone of financial freedomremains tarnished by fraudulent accounts. \nI have suffered sleepless nights, stress-induced health issues, and a loss of confidence in pursuing opportunities that rely on accurate credit reporting. The emotional toll of being treated as a victim of fraud while being denied justice is beyond measure. \nXXXX. Preparedness for Arbitration or Legal Action If Equifax does not resolve this matter promptly and equitably, I am fully prepared to pursue arbitration or legal action. I will present comprehensive evidence of the following : Unauthorized accounts reported by Equifax. \nDocumentation of my disputes and Equifaxs inadequate responses.\n\nEvidence of the financial and emotional harm caused by Equifaxs misconduct.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-10T01:50:03.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33579","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11082295","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-10T01:29:03.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Constitutional Protections Against Coercion <em>Equifaxs</em> refusal to correct these inaccuracies has denied me the opportunity to exercise my constitutional right to financial liberty. The burden of battling their deliberate inaction has left me enslaved to a false <em>narrative</em> that paints me as financially irresponsiblea grave injustice <em>XXXX</em>."],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[9.750254,"11082295"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18637644","_score":9.478453,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Narrative : Violations of FCRA and FDCPA Company Name : LVNV Funding XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Number : [ Insert Last 4 : XXXX ] Resurgent ID : XXXX XXXX Summary of Dispute I am filing this complaint because XXXX XXXX XXXX and its servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX, are in ongoing violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Despite five ( 5 ) formal written requests for debt validation and proof of ownership, the company has failed to provide a complete \" Chain of Title '' or the required Purchase/Forward Flow Agreement. Furthermore, their own reported data contains a fatal legal contradiction that invalidates their claim of ownership.\n\nViolation 1 : Failure to Validate and False Representations ( FDCPA 1692g & 1692e ) I have disputed this debt five times. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), a debt collector must cease collection activity until it verifies. XXXX has provided data that is not only insufficient but factually impossible based on their own records : The Conflict : XXXX reports that Loan XXXX XXXX XXXX, Series XXXX, owned the account at the time of charge-off ( XX/XX/year> ). However, XXXX then claims they purchased the account from XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/year>. \n\nThe Legal Issue : If XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was the owner at charge-off, SoFi Lending Corp. had no legal \" Title '' to sell to LVNV unless a prior transfer back to SoFi occurred XXXX XXXX has refused to provide the Purchase Agreement/Forward Flow Agreement that would prove a legal transfer. \n\nViolation : Reporting a \" Seller '' ( SoFi ) that did not own the debt at the time of sale is a false representation of the character and legal status of the debt under 15 U.S.C. 1692e.\n\nViolation 2 : Continued Collection Without Verification ( FDCPA 1692g ) Because I have sent five separate requests for the Forward Flow Agreement and account-level schedules, and the company has failed to produce them while continuing to demand payment and report to my credit, they are in direct violation of the \" cease collection '' requirement of the FDCPA. A redacted bill of sale or a generic data printout does not constitute \" competent evidence '' of ownership when the chain of title is explicitly broken.\n\nViolation 3 : Reporting Inaccurate/Incomplete Information ( FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ) Under the FCRA, furnishers are required to report accurate information and conduct a reasonable investigation upon notice of a dispute. \n\nXXXX is reporting a \" Current Creditor '' status without possessing the underlying legal contract ( The Purchase Agreement ) that grants them that status. \n\nBy failing to correct the \" Seller '' vs. \" Charge-off Creditor '' discrepancy after being notified five times, they are willfully furnishing inaccurate information to the credit bureaus ( Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax ) .\n\nRequested Resolution Immediate Deletion : Since the company can not or will not provide the Purchase Agreement/Forward Flow Agreement to resolve the chain-of-title conflict, the account must be permanently deleted from all credit bureaus. \n\nCease and Desist : A formal notice from the company stating they have closed the file and will cease all collection efforts due to their inability to validate the debt. \n\nAudit : I request the CFPB to audit the \" Forward Flow '' documentation between SoFi and XXXX regarding this portfolio to verify if this specific account was even included in the legal transfer.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-11T20:17:20.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"190XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18637644","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2026-01-11T20:16:55.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : Violations of FCRA and FDCPA Company Name : LVNV Funding <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Account Number : [ Insert Last 4 : <em>XXXX</em> ] Resurgent ID : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Summary of Dispute I am filing this <em>complaint</em> because <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> and its servicer, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, are in ongoing violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA )."]},"sort":[9.478453,"18637644"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5023137","_score":9.4568615,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I received the results of a dispute I'd filed around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The results of the dispute stated the data furnisher, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, had verified the information they supplied to Equifax for a student loan were accurate. \n\nIncluded in the results was a payment history for the last two ( 2 ) years. For the months of XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, the data supplied to Equifax lists expected payment amounts of seventy-two ( XXXX ) dollars and records that no payments were received for either month. The dataset shows that no payments were due for the months of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX and that a payment was due for the months thereafter. \n\nNow, the date for which the first payment was allegedly due AFTER XX/XX/XXXX corresponds to the end of an in-school forbearance. The month for which student loan reapayments began is listed as XX/XX/XXXX. However, a letter from XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX states the student loans were in forbearance until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. A letter from early in that XXXX XX/XX/XXXX lists the end-date for the in-school forbearance as XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. A first statement is then generated on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with a current due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFor each subsequent statement, CFPB interpretation of Regulation Z requires the statement date to be the same date each month with no more than a four ( 4 ) variation from the date established per the first bill. Moreover, the minimum duration between the statement date is to be no less than twenty-one ( XXXX ) days under 12 CFR 1026.2 \" Definitions and Rules. '' XXXX XXXX acknowledges this in some facet in a letter from research and remediation associate XXXX XXXX : \" Please note that our office is only required to provide you at least a XXXX grace period between the statement notice and the due date of your monthly payment installments. '' The date of this letter is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. In direct contrast to this knowledge, the duration of statement dates from time of repayment transfer to new loan servicer and/or charge-off was consistently less than XXXX ( XXXX ) days. Thus, XXXX XXXX consistently violated its own \" policies '' and was habitually non-compliant with 12 CFR 1026.2. Moreover, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly made dubious claims of payment being required during priods for which a statement was NOT generated. This directly contradicts the terms of the MPN which requires staements to be provided even during periods of forbearance and/or deferment, which encompasses in-school forbearances, in-school deferments, disaster forbearances, etc. \n\nAny month in which XXXX XXXX furnished payment history data that is/was non-compliant with 12 CFR 1026.2, is non-reportable by a CRA and can not be included in a consumer file because it compels the CRA to report consumer history that violates my protections under 12 CFR Part 1026. As consequence the CRA would then be reporting data that is patently inaccurate resulting in CRA violations of the FCRA as amended and enforced under 12 CFR 1022, at minimum. Yet, Equifax continues to include this patently inaccurate data in my credit file, even when portions of that dataset for the same account/tradeline contradict other portions of the dataset for the same account/tradeline. Contradictory information is patently inaccurate and non-reportable by a CRA. Moreover, if supplied in whole ( or part ) as contradictory from a data-furnisher, it is patently unverifiable -- the data is patently false, thus violating 12 CFR Part 1022. \n\nAny payment history that results from inaccurate data is to be removed because that data is inaccurate and/or unverifiable. Documentation supplied by the consumer in a consumer complaint that demonstrates the data is inaccuarate, becuase it contradicts other pieces of data on which a data-furnisher 's assertion is made, necessitates removal without the consent of the data furnisher because it is patently inaccurate and continues to harm a consumer during a CRA \" investigation ''. The threshold for such instances is supplying the CRAs with information generated by the data-furnisher, that directly contradicts the information the CRA has on-file per the account/tradeline of the data-furnisher. Typically data that refutes the data within a consumer file is provided as a statement on the data-furnisher 's letterhead. \n\nIn examining the payment history data table supplied by Equifax itself there are a serious number of inaccuracies for which Equifax can not reasonably construe as \" accurate '' given the documentation that I have supplied, documentation supplied, on the data-furnisher 's letterhead, that directly refutes other pieces of data within the data-set for the XXXX accounts/tradelines for the same periods. Additionally Equifax knows the data supplied by XXXX is inaccurate and unverifiable because they removed some of the offending data between reports generated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Evidence of the rroneous data still propagating past XXXX XX/XX/XXXX include months showing payment history charge-off status codes, such as ( L ) or ( CO ), that can not possibly exist becuase Equifax has clearly registered \" no data available '' in the corresponding history table. Alleged CO status periods are boxed by CO monthsfor which the CO status has corresponding \" no data available ''. Conseuquentially the CO status indicators for months in-between ( and inclusive of ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are unverifiable because they have no identified action in the dataset that would warrant a CO action. Months for which accounts were in an in-school forbearance, acknowledged by XXXX XXXX as such in multiple letters, are recorded as having scheduled payment amounts while other months encompassing the same forbearance/deferment period show no scheduled payment amounts. One such case is the months of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX, for which it has already been stated and corroborated by XXXX XXXX that the account was in an in-school forbearance status, but reflect in the Equifax dataset as a payment scheduled and owing, while periods XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX show none. Other examples include dates for which Equifax records show payments were made, most of which were in excess of the scheduled payment, but show zero ( 0 ) decrease or increase in balance : the balance for a subsequent month remains identical to that of the previous month. Finally newer months in the Equifax history have corresponding last payment dates that are older than that of prior months. For example the month of XX/XX/XXXX indicates a last payment date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, while the month of XX/XX/XXXX indicates a ldate of last payment of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Both of these stand in stark contast to XX/XX/XXXX that shows a last payment date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAt best the dataset housed by the CRAs for the XXXX accounts is incohate. Be it due to nascency or flat-out incoherence, the data can not possibly meet the reprting requirements under the FCRA as implemented in 12 CFR Part 1022. \n\nI have filed nearly one-hundred ( 100 ) complaints with the CFPB regarding these issues, many of which have been transmitted to both the CRAs AND XXXX XXXX, thus satisfying my responsibilities to ensure factual accuracy of my credit files as permitted under the FCRA. Because many of these CFPB complaints have also been transmitted ( in writing ) to the data furnisher, I have also submitted FCRA 623 ( c ) disputes directly to XXXX XXXX. Now XXXX XXXX has received the documentation I've supplied to both FCRA 623 ( c ) disputes, AND disputes from the CRA, yet has furnished the same erroneous data to the CRAs, and mailed me the evidence that contradicts their assertions to the data furnished to CRAs in response to my disputes, They have subsequently, or even simultaneously, submitted responses to the CFPB that contradict, and in some cases directly refute, the information supplied in the datasets to the CRA. Therefore, XXXX XXXX knows, OR SHOULD KNOW there is a serious problem with their records and likely have refused to admit the failures for fear of consequences akin to those outlined in prior XXXX XXXX consent agreements they've previously enterd into with the CFPB for poor lending practics, poor billing practices, and non-compliance as a data furnisher when reporting consumer account statuses to the CRAs. Thus, despite receiving numerous 623 disputes, and FCRA disputes, XXXX XXXX has chosen not to fulfill its responsibilities as a data-furnisher under 12 CFR 1022.20 - 1022.43 \" Duties of Furnishers of Information ''. \n\nLikewise, the CRAs have received my complaints and the obviously erroneous/inaccurate/unverifiable data is perpetuated due to the CRA reliance upon the data furnisher instead of independent review of consumer dipsute narrative and accompanying documentation. Thus, it would the CRAs continue to perpetuate patently inaccurate data within my credit file that harms me as a consumer with current and potential lenders for products ranging from education financing, automobile financing, housing, etc. The fact is, data generated by a data furnisher that is non-compliant with 12 CFR 1026 in general is not reportable as a part of a consumer file. Yet, the CRAs, in this case Equifax, continues to use the blanketed statement \" the information was being reported as accurate '' becuase the data furnisher, XXXX XXXX, had verified its accuarcy. This clearly indicates Equifax has repeatedly failed in its responsibilities under FCRA to conuduct an investigation and repeatedly abridged my rights of due process under the FCRA by simply processing disputes, translating them into an eOSCAR code ( not necessarily reflecting the correct reason for the dispute ). The CRAs, here Equifax, has then submitted the dispute to the data-furnisher, to leave it to the data-furnisher ( or its computer system ) to verify the accuracy of the data. The woeful ignorance of the XXXX in even refusing to conduct a cursory examination of the documentation, or to take steps when the data-furnisher 's own statements contradict the information supplied by the data-furnisher, indicates the CRAs, in this case Equifax, knows OR SHOULD KNOW there is inaccurate information, and has thus knowingly and of their own volition chosen to abdicate their responsibilities as outlined in 12 CFR Part 1022 pursuant to the FCRA as amended. \n\nPrecedent at the Federal level indicates that I have cause to file legitimate claims within Federal courts to obtain relief, for which I am allowed to seek damages from XXXX AND the CRAs for their roles, in what coloquially would be referred to as a s-show, in what constitues a willful abdication of responsibility, integrity, and adherence to law. I am therefore demanding the CRAs, here Equifax, remove the accounts/tradelines for both XXXX student loan accounts.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-12-18T15:11:25.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48103","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5023137","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2021-12-18T14:24:14.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Thus, despite receiving numerous 623 disputes, and FCRA disputes, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> has chosen not to fulfill its responsibilities as a data-furnisher under 12 CFR 1022.20 - 1022.43 \" Duties of Furnishers of Information ''. \n\nLikewise, the CRAs have received my <em>complaints</em> and the obviously erroneous/inaccurate/unverifiable data is perpetuated due to the CRA reliance upon the data furnisher instead of independent review of consumer dipsute <em>narrative</em> and accompanying documentation."],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[9.4568615,"5023137"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15475652","_score":9.434552,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"COMPLAINT NARRATIVE : I am filing this complaint against all three major credit reporting agencies- TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax - for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in their handling of my credit dispute submitted on XX/XX/year>. \n\nBACKGROUND : On XX/XX/year>, I sent notarized dispute letters via certified mail to all three credit bureaus disputing inaccurate accounts on my credit reports. I specifically demanded manual investigations by human beings and explicitly rejected the use of automated systems such as E-Oscar. I provided all required identification documents. \n\nREMARKABLE SUCCESS PROVES DISPUTES HAD MERIT : The credit bureaus ' own actions prove my disputes were valid : Credit scores improved dramatically from poor/fair to Good range ( XXXX Equifax, XXXX TransUnion/Experian ) XXXX account completely removed from Equifax XXXX hard inquiry removed from all three bureaus Account statuses upgraded from negative to \" Pays as Agreed '' This success demonstrates that my original disputes identified legitimate inaccuracies that required correction. \n\nFCRA VIOLATIONS BY EACH BUREAU : TRANSUNION VIOLATIONS : 1. INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Despite explicit rejection of automated systems, TransUnion clearly used E-Oscar or similar automated processing. Their investigation failed to address specific inaccuracies I identified.\n\n2. CONTINUED INACCURATE REPORTING ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( {$21000.00} balance ) - Still reporting despite dispute XXXX XXXX  account ( {$2900.00} balance ) - Still reporting as closed despite dispute 3. SELECTIVE COMPLIANCE TransUnion successfully removed the XXXX inquiry but failed to investigate accounts with the same thoroughness, suggesting arbitrary decision-making rather than proper investigation. \n\nEXPERIAN VIOLATIONS : 1. INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Experian failed to conduct proper manual investigation despite explicit demands for human review. \n\n2. CONTINUED INACCURATE REPORTING ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) XXXX  XXXX XXXX account ( {$21000.00} balance ) - Still reporting despite dispute XXXX XXXX  account ( {$2900.00} balance ) - Still reporting despite dispute XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX account XXXX Still reporting despite dispute 3. INCONSISTENT STANDARDS Experian successfully removed the XXXX inquiry but failed to apply the same investigation standards to disputed accounts. \n\nEQUIFAX VIOLATIONS : 1. SELECTIVE COMPLIANCE ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Equifax demonstrates the most egregious violation through selective compliance : Successfully removed XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  account entirely Successfully removed XXXX hard inquiry Failed to remove XXXX  XXXX XXXX account despite using identical dispute language 2. INCONSISTENT INVESTIGATION STANDARDS Equifax 's own actions prove they can remove disputed accounts when they choose to investigate properly. Their failure to remove the XXXX  XXXX XXXX account while removing the XXXX account demonstrates arbitrary and inconsistent application of investigation standards. \n\n3. CONTINUED INACCURATE REPORTING ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account ( {$21000.00} balance ) - Still reporting with \" dispute resolved by data furnisher '' comment, indicating they acknowledged the dispute but failed to investigate properly PATTERN OF SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS : Automated System Use Despite Explicit Rejection : All three bureaus appear to have used automated systems ( E-Oscar ) despite my explicit written rejection of such systems in my XX/XX/year> dispute letters. \n\nSelective Compliance Across All Bureaus : The pattern of removing some disputed items while retaining others suggests systematic use of automated decision-making rather than proper human investigation. \n\nFurnisher Responsibility Violations ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) : The bureaus failed to properly investigate accounts with data furnishers, as evidenced by continued reporting of disputed information. \n\nSPECIFIC HARM : 1. Credit Score Impact : Despite dramatic improvements, remaining inaccurate accounts continue to negatively impact my credit scores 2. Inconsistent Reporting : Same accounts report differently across bureaus, creating confusion and potential credit denials 3. Violation of Consumer Rights : My explicit requests for manual investigation were ignored by all three bureaus 4. Time and Effort : I have spent significant time and resources attempting to correct these inaccuracies 5. Emotional Distress : The stress of dealing with systematic FCRA violations by all three major credit bureaus EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account still reporting on all three bureaus despite disputes XXXX XXXX  account still reporting on TransUnion and Experian Inconsistent reporting of same accounts across bureaus LEGAL CITATIONS : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) - Method of verification requirements 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) - Reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy 15 U.S.C. 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information URGENCY AND PUBLIC INTEREST : This complaint represents systematic FCRA violations by all three major credit reporting agencies that control the credit information of virtually all American consumers. The pattern of : 1. Automated system use despite explicit consumer rejection 2. Selective compliance based on arbitrary criteria 3. Inconsistent investigation standards across identical disputes ... suggests institutional non-compliance that affects millions of consumers and requires comprehensive federal regulatory intervention. \n\nThe fact that these bureaus can successfully remove disputed items when they choose to ( as evidenced by the XXXX and XXXX removals ) but selectively refuse to remove others demonstrates willful violations that warrant the strongest possible enforcement action. \n\nNote : This complaint demonstrates systematic FCRA violations by the entire credit reporting industry and may warrant referral to the Federal Trade Commission and Congressional oversight committees for comprehensive regulatory reform.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-23T20:50:13.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78229","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15475652","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-23T19:56:57.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> : I am filing this <em>complaint</em> against all three major credit reporting agencies- TransUnion, Experian, and <em>Equifax</em> - for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in their handling of my credit dispute submitted on XX/XX/year>. \n\nBACKGROUND : On XX/XX/year>, I sent notarized dispute letters via certified mail to all three credit bureaus disputing inaccurate accounts on my credit reports."],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[9.434552,"15475652"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15476304","_score":9.418019,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"COMPLAINT NARRATIVE : I am filing this complaint against all three major credit reporting agencies- TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax - for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in their handling of my credit dispute submitted on XX/XX/year>. \n\nBACKGROUND : On XX/XX/year>, I sent notarized dispute letters via certified mail to all three credit bureaus disputing inaccurate accounts on my credit reports. I specifically demanded manual investigations by human beings and explicitly rejected the use of automated systems such as E-Oscar. I provided all required identification documents. \n\nREMARKABLE SUCCESS PROVES DISPUTES HAD MERIT : The credit bureaus ' own actions prove my disputes were valid : Credit scores improved dramatically from poor/fair to Good range ( XXXX Equifax, XXXX TransUnion/Experian ) XXXX account completely removed from Equifax XXXX hard inquiry removed from all three bureaus Account statuses upgraded from negative to \" Pays as Agreed '' This success demonstrates that my original disputes identified legitimate inaccuracies that required correction. \n\nFCRA VIOLATIONS BY EACH BUREAU : TRANSUNION VIOLATIONS : 1. INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Despite explicit rejection of automated systems, TransUnion clearly used E-Oscar or similar automated processing. Their investigation failed to address specific inaccuracies I identified.\n\n2. CONTINUED INACCURATE REPORTING ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( {$21000.00} balance ) - Still reporting despite dispute XXXX XXXX  account ( {$2900.00} balance ) - Still reporting as closed despite dispute 3. SELECTIVE COMPLIANCE TransUnion successfully removed the XXXX inquiry but failed to investigate accounts with the same thoroughness, suggesting arbitrary decision-making rather than proper investigation. \n\nEXPERIAN VIOLATIONS : 1. INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Experian failed to conduct proper manual investigation despite explicit demands for human review. \n\n2. CONTINUED INACCURATE REPORTING ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) XXXX  XXXX XXXX account ( {$21000.00} balance ) - Still reporting despite dispute XXXX XXXX  account ( {$2900.00} balance ) - Still reporting despite dispute XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX account XXXX Still reporting despite dispute 3. INCONSISTENT STANDARDS Experian successfully removed the XXXX inquiry but failed to apply the same investigation standards to disputed accounts. \n\nEQUIFAX VIOLATIONS : 1. SELECTIVE COMPLIANCE ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Equifax demonstrates the most egregious violation through selective compliance : Successfully removed XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  account entirely Successfully removed XXXX hard inquiry Failed to remove XXXX  XXXX XXXX account despite using identical dispute language 2. INCONSISTENT INVESTIGATION STANDARDS Equifax 's own actions prove they can remove disputed accounts when they choose to investigate properly. Their failure to remove the XXXX  XXXX XXXX account while removing the XXXX account demonstrates arbitrary and inconsistent application of investigation standards. \n\n3. CONTINUED INACCURATE REPORTING ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account ( {$21000.00} balance ) - Still reporting with \" dispute resolved by data furnisher '' comment, indicating they acknowledged the dispute but failed to investigate properly PATTERN OF SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS : Automated System Use Despite Explicit Rejection : All three bureaus appear to have used automated systems ( E-Oscar ) despite my explicit written rejection of such systems in my XX/XX/year> dispute letters. \n\nSelective Compliance Across All Bureaus : The pattern of removing some disputed items while retaining others suggests systematic use of automated decision-making rather than proper human investigation. \n\nFurnisher Responsibility Violations ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) : The bureaus failed to properly investigate accounts with data furnishers, as evidenced by continued reporting of disputed information. \n\nSPECIFIC HARM : 1. Credit Score Impact : Despite dramatic improvements, remaining inaccurate accounts continue to negatively impact my credit scores 2. Inconsistent Reporting : Same accounts report differently across bureaus, creating confusion and potential credit denials 3. Violation of Consumer Rights : My explicit requests for manual investigation were ignored by all three bureaus 4. Time and Effort : I have spent significant time and resources attempting to correct these inaccuracies 5. Emotional Distress : The stress of dealing with systematic FCRA violations by all three major credit bureaus EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account still reporting on all three bureaus despite disputes XXXX XXXX  account still reporting on TransUnion and Experian Inconsistent reporting of same accounts across bureaus LEGAL CITATIONS : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) - Method of verification requirements 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) - Reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy 15 U.S.C. 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information URGENCY AND PUBLIC INTEREST : This complaint represents systematic FCRA violations by all three major credit reporting agencies that control the credit information of virtually all American consumers. The pattern of : 1. Automated system use despite explicit consumer rejection 2. Selective compliance based on arbitrary criteria 3. Inconsistent investigation standards across identical disputes ... suggests institutional non-compliance that affects millions of consumers and requires comprehensive federal regulatory intervention. \n\nThe fact that these bureaus can successfully remove disputed items when they choose to ( as evidenced by the XXXX and XXXX removals ) but selectively refuse to remove others demonstrates willful violations that warrant the strongest possible enforcement action. \n\nNote : This complaint demonstrates systematic FCRA violations by the entire credit reporting industry and may warrant referral to the Federal Trade Commission and Congressional oversight committees for comprehensive regulatory reform.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-23T20:50:13.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78229","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15476304","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-23T20:49:45.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> : I am filing this <em>complaint</em> against all three major credit reporting agencies- TransUnion, Experian, and <em>Equifax</em> - for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in their handling of my credit dispute submitted on XX/XX/year>. \n\nBACKGROUND : On XX/XX/year>, I sent notarized dispute letters via certified mail to all three credit bureaus disputing inaccurate accounts on my credit reports."]},"sort":[9.418019,"15476304"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14867835","_score":9.065113,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Supplemental Challenge CFPB Complaint Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Investigation Failure and Ongoing Reporting of an Illegally Charged-Off Account Dispute Report References : # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ( CFPB # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX ( CFPB # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX ( Pending ) This is a formal supplemental complaint against Equifax regarding their mailed dispute response dated XX/XX/XXXX, concerning the XXXX XXXX XXXX. This filing also references a pending CFPB dispute submitted XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nEquifaxs XX/XX/XXXX response is unacceptable, factually inaccurate, and reflects a complete failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThe mailed notice claims : We have verified that this item belongs to you. Additional information has been provided from the original source. \n\nAnd that : The following fields have been modified : additional information, high credit, date of major delinquency, 1st reported, historical account information, account history. \n\nHowever, the account history reflected in this XX/XX/XXXX report is identical to Equifaxs previous results from XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, under dispute reports # XXXX and # XXXX. No actual modifications or data corrections have occurred meaning the XX/XX/XXXX report is a false representation of reinvestigation results. \n\nEquifax Failed to Investigate Ignored Key Evidence and Relied Entirely on the Furnisher Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX mailed dispute results ( Report # XXXX ) appear to be a formal confirmation of the same findings Equifax issued in its XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response to my XX/XX/XXXX dispute. Both responses claim that the account has been verified and updated based on information received from the furnisher. \n\nHowever, this account was not updated in any factual way. \n\nIn fact : The account history remains identical to the results issued on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( Reports # XXXX and # XXXX ) No changes were made to the core issue in dispute the false charge-off status and notations and the fabricated {$2500.00} balance. \nEquifax relied on the alleged furnisher, XXXX XXXX, despite their own documentation being internally contradictory, mathematically impossible, and legally invalid. \n\nMost concerning is that Equifax has already been notified and has access to the actual promissory note and full bank payment history, which were submitted as part of my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB complaint ( still under investigation ). \n\nThose documents prove : The loan required only 18 biweekly payments not 21 ; I made over 20 verified payments totaling more than {$3100.00}, which exceeded the original loan obligation of {$2700.00} ; XXXX XXXX  has admitted to multiple third-party transfers, meaning they can not lawfully validate or furnish this data without providing full documentation of re-assignment or re-purchase which has never been done. \n\nDespite this overwhelming evidence, Equifax has made no effort to correct or even acknowledge these facts in either the XX/XX/XXXX mailed response or the XX/XX/XXXX CFPB update. \n\nEquifaxs claim that additional information was provided by the original source has no foundation or supported evidence, particularly when : No actual updates occurred to the tradeline, None of the consumer submitted documentation was reviewed or addressed, and The data being verified is false based on the actual terms of the loan agreement, verified payment history, and the timeline of events. \n\nEven more troubling who exactly is Equifax identifying as the original source? Because XXXX XXXX  and XXXX have both confirmed in writing that this account was sent to multiple third-party collection agencies. And while XXXX XXXX  and XXXX have avoided explicitly stating they relinquished their rights, basic credit reporting standards which Equifax is well aware of makes this fact clear : When an account is placed with a third-party collection agency, the original creditor can no longer legally validate, verify, or furnish data on that debt unless they have properly reassigned the account and can produce documentation of that transfer. \n\nEquifax has not received and has not reviewed any such documentation showing that XXXX or XXXX currently have legal standing authority to furnish or validate this account. Yet Equifax continues to treat their data as valid without evidence, which constitutes willful negligence under the FCRA. \n\nEquifaxs Own Credit Reporting Contradicts the Charge-Off and Confirms a Failure to Investigate Equifaxs own data shows that this account was never late during the life of the loan. \n\nSpecifically : The loan term is listed as 9 months, Payments are shown from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX totaling 10 months of consistent, on-time payments, No delinquencies or missed payments are reflected during this time. \n\nThis directly contradicts the claim that the account became delinquent and was legally charged off in XX/XX/XXXX. If the loan ended in XX/XX/XXXX ( based on the end date in the Promissory note ) all payments were made on time as confirmed by Equifaxs reporting there is no lawful or logical basis for the charge-off. \n\nInstead of recognizing this contradiction and correcting the tradeline, Equifax repeated XXXX version of events without question, even though their own records refute it. This failure to reconcile internal data with furnisher claims is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and 611 ( a ), which require maximum possible accuracy and a meaningful reinvestigation. \n\n\nXXXX  and XXXX  Have Admitted to Multiple Ownership Transfers Equifax Ignores This In the letters I submitted with my CFPB complaints, XXXX and XXXX  both admit the account was sent to third-party collectors on multiple occasions. This means : They relinquished their right to report the tradeline, Yet Equifax continues to list XXXX XXXX as the active creditor, With no notation of any third-party collection placement from XXXX through XXXX a blatant omission that violates FCRA 623 and 607 ( b ). \n\nEven if the account was allegedly returned to XXXX, they are legally required to provide chain of title documentation proving : The transfer ( s ) out, The transfer ( s ) back in, and A current, lawful right to furnish data.\n\nEquifax has no record of these transfers and never received or verified such documentation meaning the account is unverifiable.\n\nA Charged-Off Account Can not Also Be Outstanding and In Collections In a recorded call on XX/XX/XXXX, an XXXX corporate representative stated the account is : Currently in collections with TrueAccord and still has an outstanding balance. \n\nEquifaxs credit report lists the account as : Charged Off, Past Due, Still owed to XXXX XXXX, And not associated with any collection agency. \n\nThis is a FCRA violation. An account can not legally be : Charged off, In active collection, Reported with a balance by the original creditor, all at the same time, with no collection agency listed. \n\nEquifax is knowingly reporting contradictory and deceptive information, and it is harming my creditworthiness. \n\nThe Charge-Off Is False, Unsupported, and Violates Federal Law Beyond the internal contradictions in Equifaxs reporting , the entire charge-off is legally invalid based on documentation Ive already submitted including : The promissory note, which confirms the loan required 18 biweekly payments, My bank statements, which prove I made 20+ payments totaling over {$3100.00}, exceeding the scheduled repayment of {$2700.00}, And FinWises own letters, which fail to explain how a fully paid loan was ever charged off.\n\nEven XXXX claim that I made 14 of 21 payments is false and unsupported not only because the loan was never structured for 21 payments, but also because even 14 payments would total over {$2100.00}, making a {$2500.00} charge-off balance mathematically impossible.\n\nThere is no valid charge-off amount, no missed payment on record, and no delinquency reported during the life of the loan. Therefore, Equifaxs continued reporting of a {$2500.00} charge-off balance is not just inaccurate it is a direct violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX reporting standards, and has caused me long-term financial harm.\n\nIntent to Sue and Demand for Deletion and Damages Equifax has now had : Multiple disputes filed over a five-year period Access to detailed documentation, including the original promissory note and consumer financial payment history Letters from XXXX XXXX and XXXX admitting the account was transferred to third-party collectors Internal credit reporting data that clearly contradicts the charge-off status and alleged delinquency Despite all this, Equifax has refused to correct or delete the account, in violation of multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). These violations have caused serious damage to my creditworthiness, limited my access to financing, and created emotional and financial hardship.\n\nI am preparing to pursue legal action under FCRA 616 and 617, which allow recovery of statutory, actual, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees.\n\nBelow is a breakdown of the violations, responsible parties, and the monetary value of damages I intend to pursue if this account is not permanently deleted.\n\nFCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to Maintain Maximum Possible Accuracy Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : Equifax continued to report a {$2500.00} charge-off balance despite : Its own records showing 10 months of on-time payments, A loan term of 9 months, and No reported delinquency prior to charge-off.\n\nStatutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per violation ) : {$1000.00} Actual harm : Denial of credit and suppressed FICO score Claimed amount : {$5000.00} in actual and statutory damages FCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to Reinvestigate Consumer Disputes Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : Equifax relied solely on the furnishers unverifiable narrative, ignored consumer submitted evidence, and issued repeated verified results without addressing : My bank statements proving full payment, The promissory note showing only 18 required payments, The internal contradiction between Equifaxs reporting and the charge-off claim.\n\nStatutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per dispute cycle ) : {$2000.00} Actual harm : Ongoing credit damage from XXXX Claimed amount : {$10000.00} in total damages FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Failure to Delete Unverifiable Information Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : FinWise and OppLoans admitted the account was placed with multiple third-party collectors. Equifax has no documentation verifying any legal reassignment, yet continues to report the account under XXXX XXXX. \n\nEvidence : XXXX  letters ( XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX  corporate recorded phone call ( XX/XX/XXXX ) confirming current placement with XXXX  Absence of chain-of-title documentation provided to Equifax Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} ) : {$1000.00} Punitive damages for willful noncompliance : $ XXXX FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing Information Known to Be Inaccurate Violator ( s ) : XXXX XXXX, XXXX Violation XXXX Reported that I made 14 of 21 payments directly refuted by the loan agreement and bank records Supplied a fabricated charge-off balance of {$2500.00}, despite verified overpayment Failed to report third-party collection transfers, violating data integrity and transparency Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per furnisher violation ) : {$2000.00} Claimed actual harm : Damaged credit score, financing rejections, inflated interest rates Claimed amount : {$8000.00} in statutory, actual, and punitive damages Total Claim ( If Litigation Is Pursued ) : FCRA statutory damages : {$6000.00} Actual economic harm ( credit denials, interest rate increases ) : {$10000.00} Punitive damages for willful violations and negligent reinvestigations : {$15000.00} Attorneys fees and legal costs : XXXX  Total claim : $ XXXX Equifax has had multiple chances to investigate this account properly and lawfully correct or delete it. If this reporting is not removed, I will take further legal action and seek statutory, actual, and punitive damages as outlined. This complaint will be forwarded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( FDIC ) the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and my State Attorney General for additional review and investigation. \n\nSupplemental CFPB Complaint Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Investigation Failure and Ongoing Reporting of an Illegally Charged-Off Account Dispute Report References : # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ( CFPB # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX ( CFPB # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX ( Pending ) This is a formal supplemental complaint against Equifax regarding their mailed dispute response dated XX/XX/XXXX, concerning the FinWise Bank/OppLoans tradeline. This filing also references a pending CFPB dispute submitted XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nEquifaxs XX/XX/XXXX response is unacceptable, factually inaccurate, and reflects a complete failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThe mailed notice claims : We have verified that this item belongs to you. Additional information has been provided from the original source. \n\nAnd that : The following fields have been modified : additional information, high credit, date of major delinquency, 1st reported, historical account information, account history. \n\nHowever, the account history reflected in this XX/XX/XXXX report is identical to Equifaxs previous results from XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, under dispute reports # XXXX and # XXXX. No actual modifications or data corrections have occurred meaning the XX/XX/XXXX report is a false representation of reinvestigation results. \n\nEquifax Failed to Investigate Ignored Key Evidence and Relied Entirely on the Furnisher Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX mailed dispute results ( Report # XXXX ) appear to be a formal confirmation of the same findings Equifax issued in its XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response to my XX/XX/XXXX dispute. Both responses claim that the account has been verified and updated based on information received from the furnisher. \n\nHowever, this account was not updated in any factual way. \n\nIn fact : The account history remains identical to the results issued on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( Reports # XXXX and # XXXX ) No changes were made to the core issue in dispute the false charge-off status and notations and the fabricated {$2500.00} balance. \nEquifax relied on the alleged furnisher, XXXX XXXX, despite their own documentation being internally contradictory, mathematically impossible, and legally invalid. \n\nMost concerning is that Equifax has already been notified and has access to the actual promissory note and full bank payment history, which were submitted as part of my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB complaint ( still under investigation ). \n\nThose documents prove : The loan required only 18 biweekly payments not 21 ; I made over 20 verified payments totaling more than {$3100.00}, which exceeded the original loan obligation of {$2700.00} ; XXXX XXXX has admitted to multiple third-party transfers, meaning they can not lawfully validate or furnish this data without providing full documentation of re-assignment or re-purchase which has never been done. \n\nDespite this overwhelming evidence, Equifax has made no effort to correct or even acknowledge these facts in either the XX/XX/XXXX mailed response or the XX/XX/XXXX CFPB update. \n\nEquifaxs claim that additional information was provided by the original source has no foundation or supported evidence, particularly when : No actual updates occurred to the tradeline, None of the consumer submitted documentation was reviewed or addressed, and The data being verified is false based on the actual terms of the loan agreement, verified payment history, and the timeline of events. \n\nEven more troubling who exactly is Equifax identifying as the original source? Because XXXX XXXX  and XXXX have both confirmed in writing that this account was sent to multiple third-party collection agencies. And while XXXX XXXX  and XXXX have avoided explicitly stating they relinquished their rights, basic credit reporting standards which Equifax is well aware of makes this fact clear : When an account is placed with a third-party collection agency, the original creditor can no longer legally validate, verify, or furnish data on that debt unless they have properly reassigned the account and can produce documentation of that transfer. \n\nEquifax has not received and has not reviewed any such documentation showing that XXXX or XXXX currently have legal standing authority to furnish or validate this account. Yet Equifax continues to treat their data as valid without evidence, which constitutes willful negligence under the FCRA. \n\nEquifaxs Own Credit Reporting Contradicts the Charge-Off and Confirms a Failure to Investigate Equifaxs own data shows that this account was never late during the life of the loan. \n\nSpecifically : The loan term is listed as 9 months, Payments are shown from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX totaling 10 months of consistent, on-time payments, No delinquencies or missed payments are reflected during this time. \n\nThis directly contradicts the claim that the account became delinquent and was legally charged off in XX/XX/XXXX. If the loan ended in XX/XX/XXXX ( based on the end date in the Promissory note ) all payments were made on time as confirmed by Equifaxs reporting there is no lawful or logical basis for the charge-off. \n\nInstead of recognizing this contradiction and correcting the tradeline, Equifax repeated XXXX version of events without question, even though their own records refute it. This failure to reconcile internal data with furnisher claims is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and 611 ( a ), which require maximum possible accuracy and a meaningful reinvestigation. \n\n\nXXXX  and XXXX Have Admitted to Multiple Ownership Transfers Equifax Ignores This In the letters I submitted with my CFPB complaints, XXXX and XXXX  both admit the account was sent to third-party collectors on multiple occasions. This means : They relinquished their right to report the tradeline, Yet Equifax continues to list XXXX XXXX  as the active creditor, With no notation of any third-party collection placement from XXXX through XXXX a blatant omission that violates FCRA 623 and 607 ( b ).\n\nEven if the account was allegedly returned to XXXX, they are legally required to provide chain of title documentation proving : The transfer ( s ) out, The transfer ( s ) back in, and A current, lawful right to furnish data. \n\nEquifax has no record of these transfers and never received or verified such documentation meaning the account is unverifiable. \n\nA Charged-Off Account Can not Also Be Outstanding and In Collections In a recorded call on XX/XX/XXXX, an XXXX corporate representative stated the account is : Currently in collections with XXXX  and still has an outstanding balance. \n\nEquifaxs credit report lists the account as : Charged Off, Past Due, Still owed to XXXX XXXX, And not associated with any collection agency. \n\nThis is a FCRA violation. An account can not legally be : Charged off, In active collection, Reported with a balance by the original creditor, all at the same time, with no collection agency listed. \n\nEquifax is knowingly reporting contradictory and deceptive information, and it is harming my creditworthiness. \n\nThe Charge-Off Is False, Unsupported, and Violates Federal Law Beyond the internal contradictions in Equifaxs reporting , the entire charge-off is legally invalid based on documentation Ive already submitted including : The promissory note, which confirms the loan required 18 biweekly payments, My bank statements, which prove I made 20+ payments totaling over {$3100.00}, exceeding the scheduled repayment of {$2700.00}, And XXXX  own letters, which fail to explain how a fully paid loan was ever charged off. \n\nEven XXXX  claim that I made 14 of 21 payments is false and unsupported not only because the loan was never structured for 21 payments, but also because even 14 payments would total over {$2100.00}, making a {$2500.00} charge-off balance mathematically impossible.\n\nThere is no valid charge-off amount, no missed payment on record, and no delinquency reported during the life of the loan. Therefore, Equifaxs continued reporting of a {$2500.00} charge-off balance is not just inaccurate it is a direct violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX reporting standards, and has caused me long-term financial harm. \n\nIntent to Sue and Demand for Deletion and Damages Equifax has now had : Multiple disputes filed over a five-year period Access to detailed documentation, including the original promissory note and consumer financial payment history Letters from XXXX XXXX  and XXXX admitting the account was transferred to third-party collectors Internal credit reporting data that clearly contradicts the charge-off status and alleged delinquency Despite all this, Equifax has refused to correct or delete the account, in violation of multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). These violations have caused serious damage to my creditworthiness, limited my access to financing, and created emotional and financial hardship.\n\nI am preparing to pursue legal action under FCRA 616 and 617, which allow recovery of statutory, actual, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees.\n\nBelow is a breakdown of the violations, responsible parties, and the monetary value of damages I intend to pursue if this account is not permanently deleted.\n\nFCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to Maintain Maximum Possible Accuracy Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : Equifax continued to report a {$2500.00} charge-off balance despite : Its own records showing 10 months of on-time payments, A loan term of 9 months, and No reported delinquency prior to charge-off.\n\nStatutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per violation ) : {$1000.00} Actual harm : Denial of credit and suppressed XXXX score Claimed amount : {$5000.00} in actual and statutory damages FCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to Reinvestigate Consumer Disputes Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : Equifax relied solely on the furnishers unverifiable narrative, ignored consumer submitted evidence, and issued repeated verified results without addressing : My bank statements proving full payment, The promissory note showing only 18 required payments, The internal contradiction between Equifaxs reporting and the charge-off claim.\n\nStatutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per dispute cycle ) : {$2000.00} Actual harm : Ongoing credit damage from XXXX Claimed amount : {$10000.00} in total damages FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Failure to Delete Unverifiable Information Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : FinWise and OppLoans admitted the account was placed with multiple third-party collectors. Equifax has no documentation verifying any legal reassignment, yet continues to report the account under XXXX XXXX. \n\nEvidence : XXXX  letters ( XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX  corporate recorded phone call ( XX/XX/XXXX ) confirming current placement with XXXX  Absence of chain-of-title documentation provided to Equifax Statutory damages ( XXXX XXXX {$1000.00} ) : {$1000.00} Punitive damages for willful noncompliance : $ XXXX FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing Information Known to Be Inaccurate Violator ( s ) : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Violation XXXX Reported that I made 14 of 21 payments directly refuted by the loan agreement and bank records Supplied a fabricated charge-off balance of {$2500.00}, despite verified overpayment Failed to report third-party collection transfers, violating data integrity and transparency Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per furnisher violation ) : {$2000.00} Claimed actual harm : Damaged credit score, financing rejections, inflated interest rates Claimed amount : {$8000.00} in statutory, actual, and punitive damages Total Claim ( If Litigation Is Pursued ) : FCRA statutory damages : {$6000.00} Actual economic harm ( credit denials, interest rate increases ) : {$10000.00} Punitive damages for willful violations and negligent reinvestigations : {$15000.00} Attorneys fees and legal costs : TBD Total claim : $ XXXX Equifax has had multiple chances to investigate this account properly and lawfully correct or delete it. If this reporting is not removed, I will take further legal action and seek statutory, actual, and punitive damages as outlined. This complaint will be forwarded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( FDIC ) the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and my State Attorney General for additional review and investigation.\n\nI demand that Equifax permanently delete this account from my credit report, as required under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) and XXXX XXXX compliance standards.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-24T03:40:32.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14867835","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-24T03:28:43.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Supplemental Challenge CFPB <em>Complaint</em> <em>Equifaxs</em> XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> # <em>XXXX</em> ( XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> ) Investigation Failure and Ongoing Reporting of an Illegally Charged-Off Account Dispute Report References : # <em>XXXX</em> ( XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> ) # <em>XXXX</em> ( XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> ) ( CFPB # <em>XXXX</em> ) XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> ( CFPB # <em>XXXX</em> ) XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> ( Pending ) This is a formal supplemental <em>complaint</em> against <em>Equifax</em> regarding their mailed dispute response dated XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, concerning the <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>."],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[9.065113,"14867835"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16960695","_score":8.599139,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX | SSN Last XXXX : XXXX Companies involved ( select all that apply ) : Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nEquifax Information Services LLC TransUnion LLC XXXX XXXX ( furnisher ) XXXX/ XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( furnisher ) What happened ( problem summary ) : XXXX XXXX and XXXX tradelines that were previously deleted after my disputes were improperly reinserted to my files with Experian and Equifax ( and I request the CFPB review TransUnion as well ). The reinsertions occurred without the legally required certification and notice. I demanded method of verification and reinsertion notices ; Experian supervisors told me they dont have to provide proof because furnishers are certified creditors. That is false under the FCRA. I have call case numbers and prior dispute records. Im seeking permanent deletion, bureau compliance, and furnisher accountability. \nAccounts at issue ( examples/partials ) : XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX ( opened XX/XX/XXXX ; appears across bureaus ). \nXXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX ( opened XX/XX/XXXX ; appears across bureaus ). \nXXXX ( concise ) : XXXX XXXX : I sent dispute letters to each bureau addressing XXXX XXXX and XXXX ( and related items ). \nThose disputes resulted in deletions, then 35 months later the same items were reinserted ( improper reinsertion ). \nSep 2224, 2025 : I sent second formal disputes to all three bureaus specifically listing XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Thu ) : Equifax told me nothing negative is reporting, yet my score dropped XXXX points that day. ( Equifax call note included below. ) XX/XX/XXXX : Multiple calls with Experian ( dispute department and a supervisor named XXXX XXXX. They refused to provide method of verification or proper confirmation numbers, repeatedly stating furnishers are certified creditors and do not need to provide proof. Case numbers from Experian provided below. \nPhone-call notes & case numbers ( key excerpts ) : Experian call : agent XXXX provided XXXX # : XXXX ; also read back confirmation XXXX for an updated report request ( call log excerpt supplied ). \nExperian supervisor XXXX ( rude ; would not provide call confirmation IDs ) ultimately gave case # : XXXX repeated the statement that certified creditors do not need to provide proof. \nEquifax call : stated nothing negative reporting despite a XXXX drop on XX/XX/XXXX. \nWhy this violates the law ( FCRA citations ) : Improper reinsertion without certification & notice If an item is deleted as a result of a 611 reinvestigation, a CRA may not reinsert it unless the furnisher certifies its accuracy. Within 5 business days of reinsertion, the CRA must notify the consumer with the furnishers name, address, and telephone number. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). \nI did not receive the required 5-day written reinsertion notice. Experian could not provide it on the phone ; Equifaxs statement that nothing negative is reporting conflicts with the XXXX drop. \nFailure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation/ provide procedure used CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and, upon request, provide a description of the procedure used including the business name, address, and phone number of each furnisher contacted. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). \nExperian repeatedly told me they do not need to provide proof because furnishers are certified creditors, which contradicts 1681i. \nFailure to assure maximum possible accuracy CRAs must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). \nFurnisher duties after notice of dispute After receiving notice from a CRA, furnishers must conduct an investigation, review all relevant information, and report the results ; if information is inaccurate or can not be verified, it must be modified, deleted, or blocked. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nEvidence Im attaching/available to provide : Prior dispute letters showing XXXX  XXXX and XXXX accounts were formally disputed with each bureau ( XXXX XXXX ; again XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\n\nAccount lists reflecting the XXXX XXXX and XXXX tradelines reported across bureaus. \nCall logs / audio transcripts with Experian ( agents XXXX and XXXX XXXX, including case # XXXX case # XXXX, and the refusal to provide method of verification or call-ID confirmations. \nEquifax call note showing they claimed nothing negative reporting on XX/XX/XXXX, the same day my score dropped XXXX points. \nCopies of any bureau updated report mailings tied to the calls above. \nWhat I want the companies to do to fix this : Immediately and permanently delete the XXXX  XXXX and XXXX tradelines from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion unless and until lawful reinsertion standards are met ( with furnisher certification and XXXX notice in writing as required by 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ). \nProvide me the method of verification and reinvestigation procedure for every relevant dispute, including the name, address, and telephone number of each furnisher and any documents relied upon. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). \nCorrect my credit files and send updated copies showing all corrections. \nDocument retention & compliance review : require Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX to review their reinsertion, verification, and consumer-notice procedures for FCRA compliance, and certify remediation. \nAny appropriate relief for the harm caused by erroneous reporting and non-compliance. \nAdditional details the CFPB should know : Experian agents repeatedly claimed that certified creditors do not need to provide proof to Experian. This is inconsistent with the FCRAs reinvestigation and method-of-verification requirements. \nI have maintained organized dispute records since XXXX XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, including formal letters to each bureau and account lists naming XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \n\n\nIf the furnishers or CRAs claim prior fraud coding as the reason for removal/reinsertion, that does not excuse failure to comply with reinsertion certification and 5-day notice requirements. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). \nAttachments I will upload with this complaint ( or upon request ) : PDFs of my XXXX XXXX dispute letters to Experian, Equifax, TransUnion naming XXXX  XXXX and XXXX. \nPDFs of my Sep 2224, 2025 Second Formal Dispute letters to all three bureaus naming those accounts. \nExperian call transcripts/notes with case # XXXX and case # XXXX showing refusal to provide method of verification and the certified creditor rationale. \nEquifax call note documenting the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX drop narrative versus nothing negative reporting. \nAny updated reports mailed after the calls.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-01T04:18:18.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"19010","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16960695","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-01T03:30:40.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Equifax</em> call note documenting the XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> drop <em>narrative</em> versus nothing negative reporting. \nAny updated reports mailed after the calls."]},"sort":[8.599139,"16960695"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16960684","_score":8.599139,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX | SSN Last XXXX : XXXX Companies involved ( select all that apply ) : Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nEquifax Information Services LLC TransUnion LLC XXXX XXXX ( furnisher ) XXXX/ XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( furnisher ) What happened ( problem summary ) : XXXX XXXX and XXXX tradelines that were previously deleted after my disputes were improperly reinserted to my files with Experian and Equifax ( and I request the CFPB review TransUnion as well ). The reinsertions occurred without the legally required certification and notice. I demanded method of verification and reinsertion notices ; Experian supervisors told me they dont have to provide proof because furnishers are certified creditors. That is false under the FCRA. I have call case numbers and prior dispute records. Im seeking permanent deletion, bureau compliance, and furnisher accountability. \nAccounts at issue ( examples/partials ) : XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX ( opened XX/XX/XXXX ; appears across bureaus ). \nXXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX ( opened XX/XX/XXXX ; appears across bureaus ). \nXXXX ( concise ) : XXXX XXXX : I sent dispute letters to each bureau addressing XXXX XXXX and XXXX ( and related items ). \nThose disputes resulted in deletions, then 35 months later the same items were reinserted ( improper reinsertion ). \nSep 2224, 2025 : I sent second formal disputes to all three bureaus specifically listing XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Thu ) : Equifax told me nothing negative is reporting, yet my score dropped XXXX points that day. ( Equifax call note included below. ) XX/XX/XXXX : Multiple calls with Experian ( dispute department and a supervisor named XXXX XXXX. They refused to provide method of verification or proper confirmation numbers, repeatedly stating furnishers are certified creditors and do not need to provide proof. Case numbers from Experian provided below. \nPhone-call notes & case numbers ( key excerpts ) : Experian call : agent XXXX provided XXXX # : XXXX ; also read back confirmation XXXX for an updated report request ( call log excerpt supplied ). \nExperian supervisor XXXX ( rude ; would not provide call confirmation IDs ) ultimately gave case # : XXXX repeated the statement that certified creditors do not need to provide proof. \nEquifax call : stated nothing negative reporting despite a XXXX drop on XX/XX/XXXX. \nWhy this violates the law ( FCRA citations ) : Improper reinsertion without certification & notice If an item is deleted as a result of a 611 reinvestigation, a CRA may not reinsert it unless the furnisher certifies its accuracy. Within 5 business days of reinsertion, the CRA must notify the consumer with the furnishers name, address, and telephone number. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). \nI did not receive the required 5-day written reinsertion notice. Experian could not provide it on the phone ; Equifaxs statement that nothing negative is reporting conflicts with the XXXX drop. \nFailure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation/ provide procedure used CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and, upon request, provide a description of the procedure used including the business name, address, and phone number of each furnisher contacted. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). \nExperian repeatedly told me they do not need to provide proof because furnishers are certified creditors, which contradicts 1681i. \nFailure to assure maximum possible accuracy CRAs must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). \nFurnisher duties after notice of dispute After receiving notice from a CRA, furnishers must conduct an investigation, review all relevant information, and report the results ; if information is inaccurate or can not be verified, it must be modified, deleted, or blocked. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nEvidence Im attaching/available to provide : Prior dispute letters showing XXXX  XXXX and XXXX accounts were formally disputed with each bureau ( XXXX XXXX ; again XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\n\nAccount lists reflecting the XXXX XXXX and XXXX tradelines reported across bureaus. \nCall logs / audio transcripts with Experian ( agents XXXX and XXXX XXXX, including case # XXXX case # XXXX, and the refusal to provide method of verification or call-ID confirmations. \nEquifax call note showing they claimed nothing negative reporting on XX/XX/XXXX, the same day my score dropped XXXX points. \nCopies of any bureau updated report mailings tied to the calls above. \nWhat I want the companies to do to fix this : Immediately and permanently delete the XXXX  XXXX and XXXX tradelines from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion unless and until lawful reinsertion standards are met ( with furnisher certification and XXXX notice in writing as required by 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ). \nProvide me the method of verification and reinvestigation procedure for every relevant dispute, including the name, address, and telephone number of each furnisher and any documents relied upon. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). \nCorrect my credit files and send updated copies showing all corrections. \nDocument retention & compliance review : require Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX to review their reinsertion, verification, and consumer-notice procedures for FCRA compliance, and certify remediation. \nAny appropriate relief for the harm caused by erroneous reporting and non-compliance. \nAdditional details the CFPB should know : Experian agents repeatedly claimed that certified creditors do not need to provide proof to Experian. This is inconsistent with the FCRAs reinvestigation and method-of-verification requirements. \nI have maintained organized dispute records since XXXX XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, including formal letters to each bureau and account lists naming XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \n\n\nIf the furnishers or CRAs claim prior fraud coding as the reason for removal/reinsertion, that does not excuse failure to comply with reinsertion certification and 5-day notice requirements. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). \nAttachments I will upload with this complaint ( or upon request ) : PDFs of my XXXX XXXX dispute letters to Experian, Equifax, TransUnion naming XXXX  XXXX and XXXX. \nPDFs of my Sep 2224, 2025 Second Formal Dispute letters to all three bureaus naming those accounts. \nExperian call transcripts/notes with case # XXXX and case # XXXX showing refusal to provide method of verification and the certified creditor rationale. \nEquifax call note documenting the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX drop narrative versus nothing negative reporting. \nAny updated reports mailed after the calls.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-01T04:18:18.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"19010","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16960684","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-01T04:17:54.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Equifax</em> call note documenting the XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> drop <em>narrative</em> versus nothing negative reporting. \nAny updated reports mailed after the calls."],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[8.599139,"16960684"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16960683","_score":8.599139,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX | SSN Last XXXX : XXXX Companies involved ( select all that apply ) : Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nEquifax Information Services LLC TransUnion LLC XXXX XXXX ( furnisher ) XXXX/ XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( furnisher ) What happened ( problem summary ) : XXXX XXXX and XXXX tradelines that were previously deleted after my disputes were improperly reinserted to my files with Experian and Equifax ( and I request the CFPB review TransUnion as well ). The reinsertions occurred without the legally required certification and notice. I demanded method of verification and reinsertion notices ; Experian supervisors told me they dont have to provide proof because furnishers are certified creditors. That is false under the FCRA. I have call case numbers and prior dispute records. Im seeking permanent deletion, bureau compliance, and furnisher accountability. \nAccounts at issue ( examples/partials ) : XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX ( opened XX/XX/XXXX ; appears across bureaus ). \nXXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX ( opened XX/XX/XXXX ; appears across bureaus ). \nXXXX ( concise ) : XXXX XXXX : I sent dispute letters to each bureau addressing XXXX XXXX and XXXX ( and related items ). \nThose disputes resulted in deletions, then 35 months later the same items were reinserted ( improper reinsertion ). \nSep 2224, 2025 : I sent second formal disputes to all three bureaus specifically listing XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Thu ) : Equifax told me nothing negative is reporting, yet my score dropped XXXX points that day. ( Equifax call note included below. ) XX/XX/XXXX : Multiple calls with Experian ( dispute department and a supervisor named XXXX XXXX. They refused to provide method of verification or proper confirmation numbers, repeatedly stating furnishers are certified creditors and do not need to provide proof. Case numbers from Experian provided below. \nPhone-call notes & case numbers ( key excerpts ) : Experian call : agent XXXX provided XXXX # : XXXX ; also read back confirmation XXXX for an updated report request ( call log excerpt supplied ). \nExperian supervisor XXXX ( rude ; would not provide call confirmation IDs ) ultimately gave case # : XXXX repeated the statement that certified creditors do not need to provide proof. \nEquifax call : stated nothing negative reporting despite a XXXX drop on XX/XX/XXXX. \nWhy this violates the law ( FCRA citations ) : Improper reinsertion without certification & notice If an item is deleted as a result of a 611 reinvestigation, a CRA may not reinsert it unless the furnisher certifies its accuracy. Within 5 business days of reinsertion, the CRA must notify the consumer with the furnishers name, address, and telephone number. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). \nI did not receive the required 5-day written reinsertion notice. Experian could not provide it on the phone ; Equifaxs statement that nothing negative is reporting conflicts with the XXXX drop. \nFailure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation/ provide procedure used CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and, upon request, provide a description of the procedure used including the business name, address, and phone number of each furnisher contacted. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). \nExperian repeatedly told me they do not need to provide proof because furnishers are certified creditors, which contradicts 1681i. \nFailure to assure maximum possible accuracy CRAs must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). \nFurnisher duties after notice of dispute After receiving notice from a CRA, furnishers must conduct an investigation, review all relevant information, and report the results ; if information is inaccurate or can not be verified, it must be modified, deleted, or blocked. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nEvidence Im attaching/available to provide : Prior dispute letters showing XXXX  XXXX and XXXX accounts were formally disputed with each bureau ( XXXX XXXX ; again XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\n\nAccount lists reflecting the XXXX XXXX and XXXX tradelines reported across bureaus. \nCall logs / audio transcripts with Experian ( agents XXXX and XXXX XXXX, including case # XXXX case # XXXX, and the refusal to provide method of verification or call-ID confirmations. \nEquifax call note showing they claimed nothing negative reporting on XX/XX/XXXX, the same day my score dropped XXXX points. \nCopies of any bureau updated report mailings tied to the calls above. \nWhat I want the companies to do to fix this : Immediately and permanently delete the XXXX  XXXX and XXXX tradelines from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion unless and until lawful reinsertion standards are met ( with furnisher certification and XXXX notice in writing as required by 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ). \nProvide me the method of verification and reinvestigation procedure for every relevant dispute, including the name, address, and telephone number of each furnisher and any documents relied upon. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). \nCorrect my credit files and send updated copies showing all corrections. \nDocument retention & compliance review : require Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX to review their reinsertion, verification, and consumer-notice procedures for FCRA compliance, and certify remediation. \nAny appropriate relief for the harm caused by erroneous reporting and non-compliance. \nAdditional details the CFPB should know : Experian agents repeatedly claimed that certified creditors do not need to provide proof to Experian. This is inconsistent with the FCRAs reinvestigation and method-of-verification requirements. \nI have maintained organized dispute records since XXXX XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, including formal letters to each bureau and account lists naming XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \n\n\nIf the furnishers or CRAs claim prior fraud coding as the reason for removal/reinsertion, that does not excuse failure to comply with reinsertion certification and 5-day notice requirements. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). \nAttachments I will upload with this complaint ( or upon request ) : PDFs of my XXXX XXXX dispute letters to Experian, Equifax, TransUnion naming XXXX  XXXX and XXXX. \nPDFs of my Sep 2224, 2025 Second Formal Dispute letters to all three bureaus naming those accounts. \nExperian call transcripts/notes with case # XXXX and case # XXXX showing refusal to provide method of verification and the certified creditor rationale. \nEquifax call note documenting the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX drop narrative versus nothing negative reporting. \nAny updated reports mailed after the calls.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-01T04:18:15.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"19010","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16960683","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-01T04:17:54.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Equifax</em> call note documenting the XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> drop <em>narrative</em> versus nothing negative reporting. \nAny updated reports mailed after the calls."]},"sort":[8.599139,"16960683"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16114470","_score":8.420239,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Option A Credit Reporting Agency ( CRA ) Version Company : [ TransUnion / Experian XXXX Equifax / XXXX ] Category : Credit reporting Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation What happened ( Complaint Narrative ) FCRA DISPUTE & IDENTITY-THEFT ADDENDUM NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE SUBJECT : 607 ( b ), 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), 611, 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), 605B identity-theft blocking, reinsertion controls, maximum possible accuracy, and complete Method of Verification ( MOV ).\n\n1 ) Personal information hygiene ( PII ).\n\nPlease report only my correct legal name and current address, and purge obsolete addresses/phone numbers/employment entriesespecially any identifiers tied to fraudulent items. ( Metro 2 112 Personal Information Dispute ).\n\n2 ) Identity theft 605B block. \nOn [ MM/DDXXXX ], I submitted a valid Identity Theft Report ( FTC Ref # [ _____ ] ) and Police Report ( Case # [ _____ ] ) requesting 605B blocking. More than four business days have elapsed and affected items remain unblocked. Please block and cease reporting/reselling any identity-theft items and provide written confirmation with an updated report.\n\n3 ) Cross-bureau inaccuracies ( examples ). \n\nXXXX ( XXXX, acct ending [ XXXX ] ) : Conflicts between CRAs on balance/past-due ( $ XXXX {$0.00} vs. $ [ amount ] / $ [ amount ] ), high credit ( {$0.00} vs. $ [ amount ] ), dates ( open/last active/last reported ), and contradictory comments ( paid profit & loss vs. unpaid balance reported as a loss ). \n\nXXXX XXXX ( Installment, acct ending [ XXXX ] ) : Status shows Transferred but a 30-day late appears after transfer with an incomplete/aging payment string ; balance/past due at {$0.00}. \nThese discrepancies fail 607 ( b ) ( maximum possible accuracy ) and require a 611 reasonable reinvestigation with creditor-held documents. ( Metro 2 alignment required for balance/past-due/high credit/payment history. ) 4 ) Late-payment reporting issues ( global ). \nSome tradelines show XXXX lates without complete strings, or OK histories alongside charge-off labels. With identity-theft indicators, this is misleading. ( Metro 2 162 Payment History Profile Dispute ).\n\n5 ) Reinsertion controls 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).\n\nFor any item previously deleted and later reinserted, obtain furnisher certification and provide 5-day written notice with furnisher contact details. Identity-theft items require fresh certification tied to verified identifiers. ( Metro 2 118 ). 6 ) Method of Verification 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) & 609 ( a ) ( 1 ). For any item you refuse to delete/block, provide a complete MOV : man\nual vs e-OSCAR ; furnisher name/address/member code ; documents relied upon ( signed application or authenticated e-sign audit trail with IP/device/time/geo ; full billing ledger/payment history/charge-off or transfer worksheets ) ; verification date and reviewer identity. If creditor-held evidence tying the account to me can not be produced, delete the item.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-21T18:58:19.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30331","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16114470","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-21T18:50:25.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Option A Credit Reporting Agency ( CRA ) Version Company : [ TransUnion / Experian <em>XXXX</em> <em>Equifax</em> / <em>XXXX</em> ] Category : Credit reporting Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation What happened ( <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> ) FCRA DISPUTE & IDENTITY-THEFT ADDENDUM NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE SUBJECT : 607 ( b ), 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), 611, 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), 605B identity-theft blocking, reinsertion controls, maximum possible accuracy, and complete Method of Verification ( MOV ).\n\n1 ) Personal information"],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[8.420239,"16114470"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16113851","_score":8.420239,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Option A Credit Reporting Agency ( CRA ) Version Company : [ TransUnion / Experian XXXX Equifax / XXXX ] Category : Credit reporting Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation What happened ( Complaint Narrative ) FCRA DISPUTE & IDENTITY-THEFT ADDENDUM NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE SUBJECT : 607 ( b ), 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), 611, 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), 605B identity-theft blocking, reinsertion controls, maximum possible accuracy, and complete Method of Verification ( MOV ).\n\n1 ) Personal information hygiene ( PII ).\n\nPlease report only my correct legal name and current address, and purge obsolete addresses/phone numbers/employment entriesespecially any identifiers tied to fraudulent items. ( Metro 2 112 Personal Information Dispute ).\n\n2 ) Identity theft 605B block. \nOn [ MM/DDXXXX ], I submitted a valid Identity Theft Report ( FTC Ref # [ _____ ] ) and Police Report ( Case # [ _____ ] ) requesting 605B blocking. More than four business days have elapsed and affected items remain unblocked. Please block and cease reporting/reselling any identity-theft items and provide written confirmation with an updated report.\n\n3 ) Cross-bureau inaccuracies ( examples ). \n\nXXXX ( XXXX, acct ending [ XXXX ] ) : Conflicts between CRAs on balance/past-due ( $ XXXX {$0.00} vs. $ [ amount ] / $ [ amount ] ), high credit ( {$0.00} vs. $ [ amount ] ), dates ( open/last active/last reported ), and contradictory comments ( paid profit & loss vs. unpaid balance reported as a loss ). \n\nXXXX XXXX ( Installment, acct ending [ XXXX ] ) : Status shows Transferred but a 30-day late appears after transfer with an incomplete/aging payment string ; balance/past due at {$0.00}. \nThese discrepancies fail 607 ( b ) ( maximum possible accuracy ) and require a 611 reasonable reinvestigation with creditor-held documents. ( Metro 2 alignment required for balance/past-due/high credit/payment history. ) 4 ) Late-payment reporting issues ( global ). \nSome tradelines show XXXX lates without complete strings, or OK histories alongside charge-off labels. With identity-theft indicators, this is misleading. ( Metro 2 162 Payment History Profile Dispute ).\n\n5 ) Reinsertion controls 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).\n\nFor any item previously deleted and later reinserted, obtain furnisher certification and provide 5-day written notice with furnisher contact details. Identity-theft items require fresh certification tied to verified identifiers. ( Metro 2 118 ). 6 ) Method of Verification 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) & 609 ( a ) ( 1 ). For any item you refuse to delete/block, provide a complete MOV : man\nual vs e-OSCAR ; furnisher name/address/member code ; documents relied upon ( signed application or authenticated e-sign audit trail with IP/device/time/geo ; full billing ledger/payment history/charge-off or transfer worksheets ) ; verification date and reviewer identity. If creditor-held evidence tying the account to me can not be produced, delete the item.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-21T18:58:16.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30331","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16113851","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-21T18:57:51.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Option A Credit Reporting Agency ( CRA ) Version Company : [ TransUnion / Experian <em>XXXX</em> <em>Equifax</em> / <em>XXXX</em> ] Category : Credit reporting Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation What happened ( <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> ) FCRA DISPUTE & IDENTITY-THEFT ADDENDUM NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE SUBJECT : 607 ( b ), 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), 611, 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), 605B identity-theft blocking, reinsertion controls, maximum possible accuracy, and complete Method of Verification ( MOV ).\n\n1 ) Personal information"]},"sort":[8.420239,"16113851"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13321378","_score":5.367568,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:34.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13321378","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-03T22:15:06.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["And in that, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, Experian, <em>Equifax</em>, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit <em>narrative</em> that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life."]},"sort":[5.367568,"13321378"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13318699","_score":5.367568,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:30.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13318699","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-03T22:15:06.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["And in that, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, Experian, <em>Equifax</em>, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit <em>narrative</em> that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life."],"company":["<em>EQUIFAX</em>, INC."]},"sort":[5.367568,"13318699"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":27,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":27}]}},"product":{"doc_count":27,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":23,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":23}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":27,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":13,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":7},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":5},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":7},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":27,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":27}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":27,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":18},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":9}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":27,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":27}]}},"company":{"doc_count":27,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":17},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":27,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":5},{"key":"MI","doc_count":5},{"key":"PA","doc_count":4},{"key":"TX","doc_count":4},{"key":"GA","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":3},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"DE","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":27,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":7},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":27,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[5.367568,"13318699"]}}}