{"took":180,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":19,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6693322","_score":18.575562,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I submitted an Identity Theft police report to Experian, and a dispute for four accounts, ( XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Account XXXX XXXX ) and 5 hard inquiries ( see attached identity theft report ). The dispute was opened by Experian on XX/XX/2023. The 5 hard inquiries were removed within 48 hours, but the four accounts remained. So, after the four business days I called Experian on XX/XX/2023, to seek why the accounts were not blocked within the four business day 's, and a representative from their fraud department stated the Identity Theft Report ( Police Report ) was not attached to the dispute when the dispute was opened. But that can't be true because, they blocked the 5 hard inquiries within 48 hours after opening the dispute, which the inquiries were listed on same the Identity Theft Report, as the four accounts listed above. Moreover, I mentioned I received an email from Experian stating my identity theft report was incomplete, so the fraud representative from Experian looked at the Identity Theft Report and told me everything looks clear, and is complete. Additionally, the representative stated I should allow them to close that dispute and reopen another dispute, thus, allowing them to attach the Identity Theft Report. This occurred on XX/XX/2023. After speaking with the fraud representative from Experian on XX/XX/2023, they stated I needed to wait the additional four business days before the account could be blocked because they re-opened the dispute on XX/XX/2023. So, I gave Experian the additional four business days to properly conduct their investigation. On XX/XX/2023, I was notified via alert thru the Experian app that XXXX Account # XXXX was blocked, which was one of the 4 accounts listed on the Identity Theft Report. On XX/XX/2023 at XXXX I called Experian again to see why they had only blocked 1 of the accounts, and not the other 3. The fraud department representative stated that after review of the 3 accounts, they did not meet the \" guidelines '', but the other account did. I asked for further clarification, but the representative could not give me any more information. After hanging up with the Experian Representative I was notified via email that my dispute was reopened, and that XXXX Account # XXXX was unblocked from my consumer report. I am making this complaint because Experian is not following the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and is violating my Congress given rights in the form of the FCRA. I have followed the law in disputing these accounts listed above, but Experian believes to twist the law however the seem it fits their narrative. I believe a thorough investigation by the United States Government should be conducted on Experian. The consumer bureaus have been found time and time again to be breaking consumer laws, and there is no difference here. \n\nExperian has the signed and notarized copies of attached documents.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-14T22:28:07.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77042","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6693322","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-03-14T21:45:54.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I submitted an Identity Theft police report to <em>Experian</em>, and a <em>dispute</em> for four accounts, ( <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Account # <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Account # <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Account # <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXXXXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  Account <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ) and 5 hard inquiries ( see attached identity theft report ). The <em>dispute</em> was opened by <em>Experian</em> on <em>XX/XX</em>/2023. The 5 hard inquiries were removed within 48 hours, but the four accounts remained."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."],"sub_issue":["Difficulty submitting a <em>dispute</em> or getting information about a <em>dispute</em> over the phone"]},"sort":[18.575562,"6693322"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18160355","_score":13.846918,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nProduct : Credit Reporting Issue : Inaccurate information ; failure to conduct reasonable investigation ; identity theft ; unlawful reinsertion ; sham investigation practices COMPLAINT NARRATIVE I am filing this complaint against Experian Information Solutions , Inc. for repeated, ongoing, and systemic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including but not limited to failures under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i, 1681c-2, and 1681s-2, resulting in substantial and continuing harm to me as a consumer and as a documented victim of identity theft. \n\n1. IDENTITY THEFT FORMAL NOTICE PROVIDED AND IGNORED I am a verified victim of identity theft. I have provided Experian with : FTC Identity Theft Report IRS confirmation letter stating that I am a victim of identity theft Ongoing efforts to obtain a police report ( currently in process ) Despite receiving formal identity theft documentation, Experian has failed and refused to block or permanently suppress fraudulent information, as required under FCRA 1681c-2. Experian continues to report accounts that are not mine and that I have never authorized, used, or benefited from. \n\n\n\n2. FRAUDULENT MEDICAL DEBT XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$2000.00} ) Experian continues to report or reinstate a fraudulent medical account from XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$2000.00}. \nI have never received medical treatment from this facility I did not authorize the use of my personal or insurance information This account is the result of medical identity theft I have repeatedly disputed this account and clearly informed Experian that it is not mine. Experian has nonetheless continued to mark the account as verified, without providing me with any documentation demonstrating how the account was linked to me or how it was allegedly verified. \n\nThis conduct constitutes : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation Failure to block identity-theft-related information Improper reliance on furnisher assertions Reporting of demonstrably inaccurate information 3. STUDENT LOAN MISREPORTING DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION XXXX XXXX Experian is also reporting inaccurate delinquency information related to my federal student loans serviced by XXXX, despite being provided with clear, written proof that : My account is in an approved deferment The deferment period runs from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX I am not past due and can not lawfully be reported as delinquent during this period Other credit bureaus have taken corrective steps after receiving this documentation. Experian has not. \n\nInstead, Experian continues to report inaccurate late or delinquent status, causing unnecessary harm to my credit profile, despite indisputable evidence that the information is false. \n\n\n\n4. SHAM INVESTIGATIONS AND FAILURE TO VERIFY Experian engages in sham investigation practices by : Relying solely on automated responses from furnishers Failing to independently review documentary evidence provided by the consumer Repeatedly marking disputed accounts as verified without explanation Refusing to disclose the information allegedly relied upon to verify the accounts Each time I request : Please provide the documentation you received that allegedly verifies this account, Experian fails to provide any such documentation. \n\nThis is not a reasonable investigation under the FCRA. It is a rubber-stamp process that places furnisher convenience over statutory consumer protections. \n\n\n\n5. UNLAWFUL REINSERTION OF PREVIOUSLY DELETED INFORMATION Experian has failed to implement basic internal matching and suppression controls that prevent or greatly reduce the likelihood of reinsertion of previously deleted tradelines. \n\nSpecifically : Experian allows inaccurate accounts to reappear under the name of a new or modified furnisher Newly reported information is not properly matched against prior deletions, disputes, or identity-theft flags The same underlying fraudulent debt reappears without notice, explanation, or lawful reinvestigation Consumers, including myself, reasonably believe their credit reports have been corrected, only to later discover that the same inaccurate information has reappeared, sometimes under a different furnisher name, in violation of FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). \n\nExperian also fails to provide the required written notice of reinsertion, further compounding the violation. \n\n\n\n6. SYSTEMIC FAILURE AND DISPARATE TREATMENT AMONG BUREAUS Experian is the only credit bureau continuing to report these inaccuracies. Other bureaus have taken additional steps to investigate, verify, or remove the disputed information. \n\nExperians refusal to do so demonstrates : Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy Disregard for identity theft protections Systemic overreliance on automated furnisher responses Indifference to consumer-provided evidence This conduct is especially troubling given public enforcement actions and lawsuits filed against Experian for sham investigations and inaccurate reporting, including actions brought by consumer protection authorities in early XXXX. \n\n\n\n7. CONSUMER HARM As a direct result of Experians actions and omissions, I have suffered : Ongoing credit damage Emotional distress and anxiety Time lost disputing the same inaccurate information repeatedly Continued exposure to unlawful collection efforts Denial or impairment of financial opportunities Experians conduct has made my life a living nightmare, despite my full cooperation, extensive documentation, and repeated good-faith efforts to resolve these issues. \n\n\nREQUEST FOR CFPB ACTION I respectfully request that the CFPB : 1. Investigate Experians dispute handling and reinsertion practices 2. Examine Experians reliance on automated furnisher responses 3. Require Experian to permanently block identity-theft-related accounts 4. Mandate correction of the inaccurate medical and student loan reporting 5. Require Experian to implement meaningful reinsertion-prevention controls 6. Impose corrective and enforcement action as appropriate FINAL STATEMENT Experians conduct is not accidental, isolated, or consumer-protective. It reflects systemic noncompliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a deliberate failure to protect identity theft victims from repeated harm. \n\nI am requesting immediate regulatory intervention. \n\nDate and Time of Call : XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXX XXXX \n\n10. DEROGATORY AND DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT BY EXPERIAN REPRESENTATIVE ( DOCUMENTED ) On XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX., I contacted Experian by telephone after being unable to submit my dispute online through Experians system. The online platform would not permit submission, forcing me to dispute verbally with a customer service representative. \n\nDuring this call, I attempted to clearly explain : The nature of the inaccurate information That I am a victim of identity theft What specific information needed to be recorded in the dispute How and where I could submit supporting documentation Due to ongoing communication difficulties and the seriousness of the dispute, I requested to speak with a representative located in the United States, solely for the purpose of ensuring accurate communication and proper documentation. \n\nIn response, the Experian representative accused me of being XXXX, repeatedly stating words to the effect of you are XXXX. This accusation was made despite my explicit statements that my request was based entirely on communication clarity and accuracy, not race, ethnicity, or nationality. \n\nI clearly and calmly stated that I was not being XXXX and that I simply needed assurance that the dispute was being recorded correctly and that I would be able to submit proof. Nonetheless, the representative persisted in labeling me as XXXX. \n\nThis conduct was : Unprovoked Derogatory Humiliating Unprofessional Completely inappropriate in a regulated consumer reporting context Being falsely accused of racism by an Experian representative during an identity theft dispute is deeply offensive and constitutes unacceptable customer service conduct. \n\n11. SYSTEMIC CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES AND CONSUMER HARM Experians practicesblocking online dispute submissions, forcing consumers to rely on verbal disputes, failing to ensure accurate recording of disputes, and allowing representatives to engage in derogatory conductcreate unnecessary and repeated harm to consumers. \n\nThese failures : Prevent consumers from clearly controlling the content of their disputes Increase the likelihood of mischaracterized or incomplete investigations Discourage effective resolution of identity theft claims Cause emotional distress and reputational harm This treatment compounds the damage caused by Experians continued reporting of inaccurate information and reflects a lack of diligence, accountability, and respect owed to consumers. \n\nExperian should be required to review the recorded call from XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX, as it will corroborate the obstruction of the dispute process and the derogatory statements made by its representative.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-19T00:42:07.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33407","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18160355","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-19T00:12:09.000Z","state":"FL","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":["Date and Time of Call : <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> at approximately <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> \n\n10. DEROGATORY AND DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT BY <em>EXPERIAN</em> REPRESENTATIVE ( DOCUMENTED ) On <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> at approximately <em>XXXXXXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>., I contacted <em>Experian</em> by telephone after being unable to submit my <em>dispute</em> online through <em>Experians</em> system. The online platform would not permit submission, forcing me to <em>dispute</em> verbally with a customer service representative."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."]},"sort":[13.846918,"18160355"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18160359","_score":13.826118,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nProduct : Credit Reporting Issue : Inaccurate information ; failure to conduct reasonable investigation ; identity theft ; unlawful reinsertion ; sham investigation practices COMPLAINT NARRATIVE I am filing this complaint against Experian Information Solutions , Inc. for repeated, ongoing, and systemic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including but not limited to failures under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i, 1681c-2, and 1681s-2, resulting in substantial and continuing harm to me as a consumer and as a documented victim of identity theft. \n\n1. IDENTITY THEFT FORMAL NOTICE PROVIDED AND IGNORED I am a verified victim of identity theft. I have provided Experian with : FTC Identity Theft Report IRS confirmation letter stating that I am a victim of identity theft Ongoing efforts to obtain a police report ( currently in process ) Despite receiving formal identity theft documentation, Experian has failed and refused to block or permanently suppress fraudulent information, as required under FCRA 1681c-2. Experian continues to report accounts that are not mine and that I have never authorized, used, or benefited from. \n\n\n\n2. FRAUDULENT MEDICAL DEBT XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$2000.00} ) Experian continues to report or reinstate a fraudulent medical account from XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$2000.00}. \nI have never received medical treatment from this facility I did not authorize the use of my personal or insurance information This account is the result of medical identity theft I have repeatedly disputed this account and clearly informed Experian that it is not mine. Experian has nonetheless continued to mark the account as verified, without providing me with any documentation demonstrating how the account was linked to me or how it was allegedly verified. \n\nThis conduct constitutes : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation Failure to block identity-theft-related information Improper reliance on furnisher assertions Reporting of demonstrably inaccurate information 3. STUDENT LOAN MISREPORTING DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION XXXX XXXX Experian is also reporting inaccurate delinquency information related to my federal student loans serviced by XXXX, despite being provided with clear, written proof that : My account is in an approved deferment The deferment period runs from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX I am not past due and can not lawfully be reported as delinquent during this period Other credit bureaus have taken corrective steps after receiving this documentation. Experian has not. \n\nInstead, Experian continues to report inaccurate late or delinquent status, causing unnecessary harm to my credit profile, despite indisputable evidence that the information is false. \n\n\n\n4. SHAM INVESTIGATIONS AND FAILURE TO VERIFY Experian engages in sham investigation practices by : Relying solely on automated responses from furnishers Failing to independently review documentary evidence provided by the consumer Repeatedly marking disputed accounts as verified without explanation Refusing to disclose the information allegedly relied upon to verify the accounts Each time I request : Please provide the documentation you received that allegedly verifies this account, Experian fails to provide any such documentation. \n\nThis is not a reasonable investigation under the FCRA. It is a rubber-stamp process that places furnisher convenience over statutory consumer protections. \n\n\n\n5. UNLAWFUL REINSERTION OF PREVIOUSLY DELETED INFORMATION Experian has failed to implement basic internal matching and suppression controls that prevent or greatly reduce the likelihood of reinsertion of previously deleted tradelines. \n\nSpecifically : Experian allows inaccurate accounts to reappear under the name of a new or modified furnisher Newly reported information is not properly matched against prior deletions, disputes, or identity-theft flags The same underlying fraudulent debt reappears without notice, explanation, or lawful reinvestigation Consumers, including myself, reasonably believe their credit reports have been corrected, only to later discover that the same inaccurate information has reappeared, sometimes under a different furnisher name, in violation of FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). \n\nExperian also fails to provide the required written notice of reinsertion, further compounding the violation. \n\n\n\n6. SYSTEMIC FAILURE AND DISPARATE TREATMENT AMONG BUREAUS Experian is the only credit bureau continuing to report these inaccuracies. Other bureaus have taken additional steps to investigate, verify, or remove the disputed information. \n\nExperians refusal to do so demonstrates : Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy Disregard for identity theft protections Systemic overreliance on automated furnisher responses Indifference to consumer-provided evidence This conduct is especially troubling given public enforcement actions and lawsuits filed against Experian for sham investigations and inaccurate reporting, including actions brought by consumer protection authorities in early XXXX. \n\n\n\n7. CONSUMER HARM As a direct result of Experians actions and omissions, I have suffered : Ongoing credit damage Emotional distress and anxiety Time lost disputing the same inaccurate information repeatedly Continued exposure to unlawful collection efforts Denial or impairment of financial opportunities Experians conduct has made my life a living nightmare, despite my full cooperation, extensive documentation, and repeated good-faith efforts to resolve these issues. \n\n\nREQUEST FOR CFPB ACTION I respectfully request that the CFPB : 1. Investigate Experians dispute handling and reinsertion practices 2. Examine Experians reliance on automated furnisher responses 3. Require Experian to permanently block identity-theft-related accounts 4. Mandate correction of the inaccurate medical and student loan reporting 5. Require Experian to implement meaningful reinsertion-prevention controls 6. Impose corrective and enforcement action as appropriate FINAL STATEMENT Experians conduct is not accidental, isolated, or consumer-protective. It reflects systemic noncompliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a deliberate failure to protect identity theft victims from repeated harm. \n\nI am requesting immediate regulatory intervention. \n\nDate and Time of Call : XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXX XXXX \n\n10. DEROGATORY AND DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT BY EXPERIAN REPRESENTATIVE ( DOCUMENTED ) On XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX., I contacted Experian by telephone after being unable to submit my dispute online through Experians system. The online platform would not permit submission, forcing me to dispute verbally with a customer service representative. \n\nDuring this call, I attempted to clearly explain : The nature of the inaccurate information That I am a victim of identity theft What specific information needed to be recorded in the dispute How and where I could submit supporting documentation Due to ongoing communication difficulties and the seriousness of the dispute, I requested to speak with a representative located in the United States, solely for the purpose of ensuring accurate communication and proper documentation. \n\nIn response, the Experian representative accused me of being XXXX, repeatedly stating words to the effect of you are XXXX. This accusation was made despite my explicit statements that my request was based entirely on communication clarity and accuracy, not race, ethnicity, or nationality. \n\nI clearly and calmly stated that I was not being XXXX and that I simply needed assurance that the dispute was being recorded correctly and that I would be able to submit proof. Nonetheless, the representative persisted in labeling me as XXXX. \n\nThis conduct was : Unprovoked Derogatory Humiliating Unprofessional Completely inappropriate in a regulated consumer reporting context Being falsely accused of racism by an Experian representative during an identity theft dispute is deeply offensive and constitutes unacceptable customer service conduct. \n\n11. SYSTEMIC CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES AND CONSUMER HARM Experians practicesblocking online dispute submissions, forcing consumers to rely on verbal disputes, failing to ensure accurate recording of disputes, and allowing representatives to engage in derogatory conductcreate unnecessary and repeated harm to consumers. \n\nThese failures : Prevent consumers from clearly controlling the content of their disputes Increase the likelihood of mischaracterized or incomplete investigations Discourage effective resolution of identity theft claims Cause emotional distress and reputational harm This treatment compounds the damage caused by Experians continued reporting of inaccurate information and reflects a lack of diligence, accountability, and respect owed to consumers. \n\nExperian should be required to review the recorded call from XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX, as it will corroborate the obstruction of the dispute process and the derogatory statements made by its representative.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-19T00:42:06.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33407","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18160359","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-19T00:41:37.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Date and Time of Call : <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> at approximately <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> \n\n10. DEROGATORY AND DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT BY <em>EXPERIAN</em> REPRESENTATIVE ( DOCUMENTED ) On <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> at approximately <em>XXXXXXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>., I contacted <em>Experian</em> by telephone after being unable to submit my <em>dispute</em> online through <em>Experians</em> system. The online platform would not permit submission, forcing me to <em>dispute</em> verbally with a customer service representative."]},"sort":[13.826118,"18160359"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18160360","_score":13.824548,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nProduct : Credit Reporting Issue : Inaccurate information ; failure to conduct reasonable investigation ; identity theft ; unlawful reinsertion ; sham investigation practices COMPLAINT NARRATIVE I am filing this complaint against Experian Information Solutions , Inc. for repeated, ongoing, and systemic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including but not limited to failures under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i, 1681c-2, and 1681s-2, resulting in substantial and continuing harm to me as a consumer and as a documented victim of identity theft. \n\n1. IDENTITY THEFT FORMAL NOTICE PROVIDED AND IGNORED I am a verified victim of identity theft. I have provided Experian with : FTC Identity Theft Report IRS confirmation letter stating that I am a victim of identity theft Ongoing efforts to obtain a police report ( currently in process ) Despite receiving formal identity theft documentation, Experian has failed and refused to block or permanently suppress fraudulent information, as required under FCRA 1681c-2. Experian continues to report accounts that are not mine and that I have never authorized, used, or benefited from. \n\n\n\n2. FRAUDULENT MEDICAL DEBT XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$2000.00} ) Experian continues to report or reinstate a fraudulent medical account from XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$2000.00}. \nI have never received medical treatment from this facility I did not authorize the use of my personal or insurance information This account is the result of medical identity theft I have repeatedly disputed this account and clearly informed Experian that it is not mine. Experian has nonetheless continued to mark the account as verified, without providing me with any documentation demonstrating how the account was linked to me or how it was allegedly verified. \n\nThis conduct constitutes : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation Failure to block identity-theft-related information Improper reliance on furnisher assertions Reporting of demonstrably inaccurate information 3. STUDENT LOAN MISREPORTING DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION XXXX XXXX Experian is also reporting inaccurate delinquency information related to my federal student loans serviced by XXXX, despite being provided with clear, written proof that : My account is in an approved deferment The deferment period runs from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX I am not past due and can not lawfully be reported as delinquent during this period Other credit bureaus have taken corrective steps after receiving this documentation. Experian has not. \n\nInstead, Experian continues to report inaccurate late or delinquent status, causing unnecessary harm to my credit profile, despite indisputable evidence that the information is false. \n\n\n\n4. SHAM INVESTIGATIONS AND FAILURE TO VERIFY Experian engages in sham investigation practices by : Relying solely on automated responses from furnishers Failing to independently review documentary evidence provided by the consumer Repeatedly marking disputed accounts as verified without explanation Refusing to disclose the information allegedly relied upon to verify the accounts Each time I request : Please provide the documentation you received that allegedly verifies this account, Experian fails to provide any such documentation. \n\nThis is not a reasonable investigation under the FCRA. It is a rubber-stamp process that places furnisher convenience over statutory consumer protections. \n\n\n\n5. UNLAWFUL REINSERTION OF PREVIOUSLY DELETED INFORMATION Experian has failed to implement basic internal matching and suppression controls that prevent or greatly reduce the likelihood of reinsertion of previously deleted tradelines. \n\nSpecifically : Experian allows inaccurate accounts to reappear under the name of a new or modified furnisher Newly reported information is not properly matched against prior deletions, disputes, or identity-theft flags The same underlying fraudulent debt reappears without notice, explanation, or lawful reinvestigation Consumers, including myself, reasonably believe their credit reports have been corrected, only to later discover that the same inaccurate information has reappeared, sometimes under a different furnisher name, in violation of FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). \n\nExperian also fails to provide the required written notice of reinsertion, further compounding the violation. \n\n\n\n6. SYSTEMIC FAILURE AND DISPARATE TREATMENT AMONG BUREAUS Experian is the only credit bureau continuing to report these inaccuracies. Other bureaus have taken additional steps to investigate, verify, or remove the disputed information. \n\nExperians refusal to do so demonstrates : Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy Disregard for identity theft protections Systemic overreliance on automated furnisher responses Indifference to consumer-provided evidence This conduct is especially troubling given public enforcement actions and lawsuits filed against Experian for sham investigations and inaccurate reporting, including actions brought by consumer protection authorities in early XXXX. \n\n\n\n7. CONSUMER HARM As a direct result of Experians actions and omissions, I have suffered : Ongoing credit damage Emotional distress and anxiety Time lost disputing the same inaccurate information repeatedly Continued exposure to unlawful collection efforts Denial or impairment of financial opportunities Experians conduct has made my life a living nightmare, despite my full cooperation, extensive documentation, and repeated good-faith efforts to resolve these issues. \n\n\nREQUEST FOR CFPB ACTION I respectfully request that the CFPB : 1. Investigate Experians dispute handling and reinsertion practices 2. Examine Experians reliance on automated furnisher responses 3. Require Experian to permanently block identity-theft-related accounts 4. Mandate correction of the inaccurate medical and student loan reporting 5. Require Experian to implement meaningful reinsertion-prevention controls 6. Impose corrective and enforcement action as appropriate FINAL STATEMENT Experians conduct is not accidental, isolated, or consumer-protective. It reflects systemic noncompliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a deliberate failure to protect identity theft victims from repeated harm. \n\nI am requesting immediate regulatory intervention. \n\nDate and Time of Call : XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXX XXXX \n\n10. DEROGATORY AND DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT BY EXPERIAN REPRESENTATIVE ( DOCUMENTED ) On XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX., I contacted Experian by telephone after being unable to submit my dispute online through Experians system. The online platform would not permit submission, forcing me to dispute verbally with a customer service representative. \n\nDuring this call, I attempted to clearly explain : The nature of the inaccurate information That I am a victim of identity theft What specific information needed to be recorded in the dispute How and where I could submit supporting documentation Due to ongoing communication difficulties and the seriousness of the dispute, I requested to speak with a representative located in the United States, solely for the purpose of ensuring accurate communication and proper documentation. \n\nIn response, the Experian representative accused me of being XXXX, repeatedly stating words to the effect of you are XXXX. This accusation was made despite my explicit statements that my request was based entirely on communication clarity and accuracy, not race, ethnicity, or nationality. \n\nI clearly and calmly stated that I was not being XXXX and that I simply needed assurance that the dispute was being recorded correctly and that I would be able to submit proof. Nonetheless, the representative persisted in labeling me as XXXX. \n\nThis conduct was : Unprovoked Derogatory Humiliating Unprofessional Completely inappropriate in a regulated consumer reporting context Being falsely accused of racism by an Experian representative during an identity theft dispute is deeply offensive and constitutes unacceptable customer service conduct. \n\n11. SYSTEMIC CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES AND CONSUMER HARM Experians practicesblocking online dispute submissions, forcing consumers to rely on verbal disputes, failing to ensure accurate recording of disputes, and allowing representatives to engage in derogatory conductcreate unnecessary and repeated harm to consumers. \n\nThese failures : Prevent consumers from clearly controlling the content of their disputes Increase the likelihood of mischaracterized or incomplete investigations Discourage effective resolution of identity theft claims Cause emotional distress and reputational harm This treatment compounds the damage caused by Experians continued reporting of inaccurate information and reflects a lack of diligence, accountability, and respect owed to consumers. \n\nExperian should be required to review the recorded call from XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX, as it will corroborate the obstruction of the dispute process and the derogatory statements made by its representative.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-19T00:42:06.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33407","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18160360","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-19T00:41:37.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Date and Time of Call : <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> at approximately <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> \n\n10. DEROGATORY AND DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT BY <em>EXPERIAN</em> REPRESENTATIVE ( DOCUMENTED ) On <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> at approximately <em>XXXXXXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>., I contacted <em>Experian</em> by telephone after being unable to submit my <em>dispute</em> online through <em>Experians</em> system. The online platform would not permit submission, forcing me to <em>dispute</em> verbally with a customer service representative."]},"sort":[13.824548,"18160360"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13671835","_score":13.8088255,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX To : Experian XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX Equifax XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, GA XXXX Re : Formal Reinvestigation Request XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Under FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681i, and 1681s-2 ) Dear Experian and Equifax, This is a formal reinvestigation request pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) based on multiple material and unresolved inconsistencies in the data reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding account number # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. If this account has previously been verified, I am now providing new and unaddressed inconsistencies requiring full reinvestigation. \n\nI am demanding a thorough reinvestigation and requesting the immediate deletion of this account due to the materially conflicting and unverifiable data reported by your agencies. \n\nKey Issues and Legal Basis for Dispute : 1. Suspected Double Reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX : I have another account from this same debt collector under account number # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which reports identical inconsistencies. The fact that both accounts appear under the same furnisher with similar reporting patterns but different numbers and amounts raises serious concerns of duplicate reporting, which is prohibited under the FCRA. This tactic can mislead creditors and artificially inflate derogatory impact. \n\n2. Account Type Misclassification : Both Experian and Equifax report the account as an \" Open '' account, which is misleading and inaccurate for a collection account. A collection account can not legally be classified as Open, as the original credit relationship has been terminated.\n\n3. Inconsistent Terms : Experian reports the number of months ( terms ) as 1, while Equifax reports 0. This inconsistency implies that no reliable contract terms exist, further calling the data 's accuracy into question.\n\n4. Conflicting Payment Status : Experian lists the payment status as \" Collection/Charge-Off '', while Equifax states \" 120 Days Late. '' It is impermissible and misleading for an account to simultaneously be open and in collections or charged off. This is a clear violation of FCRA 1681e ( b ), which mandates credit information to be reported with maximum possible accuracy.\n\n5. Discrepant Reporting Dates : Experian last reported the account on XX/XX/XXXX, while Equifax last reported it on XX/XX/XXXX. Accurate and synchronized data is critical, and such discrepancies only support the conclusion that this data is unreliable. \n\n6. Conflicting Comments : Experian states : Account seriously past due date/account assigned to attorney, collection agency, or credit grantors internal collection department, while Equifax simply XXXX XXXX Account. The narrative and severity presented differ between bureaus, raising further questions about the legitimacy of the data source and accuracy. \n\n7. Different Dates of Last Activity : Experian reports the date of last activity as XX/XX/XXXX, while Equifax reports it as XX/XX/XXXX. The date of last activity is a fundamental element that affects account aging and must be consistent across all agencies under FCRA 1681e ( b ).\n\n8. Missing/Conflicting Payment Dates : Equifax reports a date of last payment as XX/XX/XXXX, while Experian fails to report a date altogether. This material omission affects validation, collection timing, and consumer rights under the statute of limitations. \n\n9. Two-Year Payment History Conflicts : Experian reports charge-offs from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, indicating persistent delinquency. \nEquifax reports OK from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, with XX/XX/XXXX being blank, which falsely indicates timely payments. \nThese can not coexist and directly conflict with one another, violating FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) regarding reinvestigation procedures when information is disputed and found to be inconsistent or unverifiable. \n\nDEMAND FOR ACTION : Due to the above-stated reasons and the legal standards outlined under the FCRA, I am demanding : The immediate deletion of this account ( # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) from both my Experian and Equifax reports . \n\nDo not merely update or verify the account without directly addressing each inconsistency identified above. \n\nIf your investigation leads you to retain the account, I am invoking my right under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) to request the full Method of Verification ( MOV ), including : The name, address, and contact details of the furnisher who verified this account ; A full description of the procedures used to verify the accounts accuracy ; Copies of all documents, account statements, contracts, and records used in the verification process.\n\nNOTICE OF FCRA NONCOMPLIANCE : Be advised that any failure to delete or correct inaccurate, unverifiable, or conflicting information will be seen as willful noncompliance with the FCRA. I reserve my rights to escalate this matter by filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the New York State Attorney Generals Office, and/or pursue civil litigation under FCRA 1681n and 1681o.\n\nPlease provide a full written response and resolution within the 30-day timeframe mandated by federal law.\n\nAttached is a copy of my state identification for verification and my bank statement for proof of address. Also attached is highlights verifying the multiple inconsistencies on my consumer report being reported to the credit reporting agencies listed above. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-23T00:02:50.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"10009","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13671835","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-23T00:02:24.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXXXXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> NY <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> : <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> Phone : <em>XXXX</em> Email : <em>XXXX</em> Date : <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> To : <em>Experian</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXXXXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, TX <em>XXXX</em> Equifax <em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[13.8088255,"13671835"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13671804","_score":13.753644,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX To : Experian XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX Equifax XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, GA XXXX Re : Formal Reinvestigation Request XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Under FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681i, and 1681s-2 ) Dear Experian and Equifax, This is a formal reinvestigation request pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) based on multiple material and unresolved inconsistencies in the data reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding account number # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. If this account has previously been verified, I am now providing new and unaddressed inconsistencies requiring full reinvestigation. \n\nI am demanding a thorough reinvestigation and requesting the immediate deletion of this account due to the materially conflicting and unverifiable data reported by your agencies. \n\nKey Issues and Legal Basis for Dispute : 1. Suspected Double Reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX : I have another account from this same debt collector under account number # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which reports identical inconsistencies. The fact that both accounts appear under the same furnisher with similar reporting patterns but different numbers and amounts raises serious concerns of duplicate reporting, which is prohibited under the FCRA. This tactic can mislead creditors and artificially inflate derogatory impact. \n\n2. Account Type Misclassification : Both Experian and Equifax report the account as an \" Open '' account, which is misleading and inaccurate for a collection account. A collection account can not legally be classified as Open, as the original credit relationship has been terminated.\n\n3. Inconsistent Terms : Experian reports the number of months ( terms ) as 1, while Equifax reports 0. This inconsistency implies that no reliable contract terms exist, further calling the data 's accuracy into question.\n\n4. Conflicting Payment Status : Experian lists the payment status as \" Collection/Charge-Off '', while Equifax states \" 120 Days Late. '' It is impermissible and misleading for an account to simultaneously be open and in collections or charged off. This is a clear violation of FCRA 1681e ( b ), which mandates credit information to be reported with maximum possible accuracy.\n\n5. Discrepant Reporting Dates : Experian last reported the account on XX/XX/XXXX, while Equifax last reported it on XX/XX/XXXX. Accurate and synchronized data is critical, and such discrepancies only support the conclusion that this data is unreliable. \n\n6. Conflicting Comments : Experian states : Account seriously past due date/account assigned to attorney, collection agency, or credit grantors internal collection department, while Equifax simply XXXX XXXX Account. The narrative and severity presented differ between bureaus, raising further questions about the legitimacy of the data source and accuracy. \n\n7. Different Dates of Last Activity : Experian reports the date of last activity as XX/XX/XXXX, while Equifax reports it as XX/XX/XXXX. The date of last activity is a fundamental element that affects account aging and must be consistent across all agencies under FCRA 1681e ( b ).\n\n8. Missing/Conflicting Payment Dates : Equifax reports a date of last payment as XX/XX/XXXX, while Experian fails to report a date altogether. This material omission affects validation, collection timing, and consumer rights under the statute of limitations. \n\n9. Two-Year Payment History Conflicts : Experian reports charge-offs from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, indicating persistent delinquency. \nEquifax reports OK from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, with XX/XX/XXXX being blank, which falsely indicates timely payments. \nThese can not coexist and directly conflict with one another, violating FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) regarding reinvestigation procedures when information is disputed and found to be inconsistent or unverifiable. \n\nDEMAND FOR ACTION : Due to the above-stated reasons and the legal standards outlined under the FCRA, I am demanding : The immediate deletion of this account ( # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) from both my Experian and Equifax reports . \n\nDo not merely update or verify the account without directly addressing each inconsistency identified above. \n\nIf your investigation leads you to retain the account, I am invoking my right under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) to request the full Method of Verification ( MOV ), including : The name, address, and contact details of the furnisher who verified this account ; A full description of the procedures used to verify the accounts accuracy ; Copies of all documents, account statements, contracts, and records used in the verification process.\n\nNOTICE OF FCRA NONCOMPLIANCE : Be advised that any failure to delete or correct inaccurate, unverifiable, or conflicting information will be seen as willful noncompliance with the FCRA. I reserve my rights to escalate this matter by filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the New York State Attorney Generals Office, and/or pursue civil litigation under FCRA 1681n and 1681o.\n\nPlease provide a full written response and resolution within the 30-day timeframe mandated by federal law.\n\nAttached is a copy of my state identification for verification and my bank statement for proof of address. Also attached is highlights verifying the multiple inconsistencies on my consumer report being reported to the credit reporting agencies listed above. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-23T00:02:47.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"10009","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13671804","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-22T23:49:32.000Z","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":["<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXXXXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> NY <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> : <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> Phone : <em>XXXX</em> Email : <em>XXXX</em> Date : <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> To : <em>Experian</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXXXXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, TX <em>XXXX</em> Equifax <em>XXXX</em>."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."]},"sort":[13.753644,"13671804"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17910642","_score":13.310953,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Urgent Demand for Immediate Action on Inconsistent, Unverifiable, and Fraudulent Credit Reporting by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am submitting this formal and urgent complaint against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, which have blatantly failed to comply with federal law under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and systematically engaged in unethical, fraudulent, and illegal conduct in violation of consumer rights. Their ongoing disregard for accuracy and verification requirements has caused severe financial harm to me and countless other consumers. These practices have already been proven by multiple court rulings, regulatory orders, and substantial financial settlements to be fraudulent, negligent, and highly unethical. I demand immediate action to delete the unverifiable items on my credit reports and hold these entities accountable under the law. \n\nDiscrepancies in My Credit Reports : Direct Violations of FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Days Past Due Violation : This account is being reported differently on each bureaus report, demonstrating a blatant failure to maintain consistent and accurate data. Under FCRA 609, 611, this discrepancy proves negligent reporting and failure to investigate and verify disputed information. Such actions are fraudulent by omission, as they mislead creditors, lenders, and consumers. \n\n* XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax : Balance : {$28000.00}, status : XXXX Days Past Due Experian : Missing or inconsistent status. \n\nTransUnion : Not reported at all. \n\nViolation : This failure to report consistently across bureaus undermines the accuracy of my credit profile and is illegal under FCRA. This shows the bureaus ' reckless disregard for maintaining the integrity of the information they distribute, which is directly harmful to consumers and violates XXXX ( a ) of the FCRA. \n\n* XXXX. XXXX XXXX  ( Account ending XXXX ) Equifax : \" Pays as Agreed, '' with flags stating \" Account Paid After Foreclosure Started '' and \" Affected by Disaster '' Experian/TransUnion : Inconsistent remarks and missing data. \n\nViolation : The inclusion of misleading and inconsistent foreclosure remarks is an unconscionable violation of FCRA, specifically 611 ( a ), as it fails to comply with requirements to provide accurate and timely information. The bureaus behavior here is not just negligent but fraudulent, intentionally obscuring key details from consumers and creditors. \n\n* XXXX. Department of Education XXXX XXXX ( Student Loan, Account ending XXXX ) Equifax : Balance : {$82000.00}, status : Pays As Agreed Experian/TransUnion : Discrepancies in balance reporting and narrative codes. \n\nViolation : The inaccurate reporting of federal student loans under the Department of Education is a clear violation of the FCRA. Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax are systematically failing to maintain accuracy, causing significant harm to the consumers ability to qualify for financing or favorable terms. Failure to comply with federal reporting guidelines is fraudulent. \n\nThe Proven Pattern of Fraudulent, Negligent, and Unlawful Conduct : Legal Precedents and Settlements Equifax History of Unethical and Fraudulent Behavior : XXXX XXXX Settlement ( Final Payouts XXXX ) In the wake of the XXXX data breach, which exposed the sensitive data of XXXX XXXX Americans, XXXX XXXX Equifax was XXXX into a global settlement with the FTC, CFPB, and state governments. The {$420.00} XXXX settlement allocated funds to victims, showing gross negligence and failure to secure consumer data, actions that the CFPB has since penalized. Final payouts are still being distributed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Final Approval XX/XX/XXXX ) Equifax settled XXXX class-action lawsuit over misreporting tribal loans. As part of the settlement, Equifax must delete erroneous loan accounts and compensate affected consumers. This reflects a pattern of erroneous reporting intentionally harming consumers for corporate benefit. \n\nCFPB XXXX {$15.00} XXXX Civil Penalty ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The CFPB issued a {$15.00} XXXX civil penalty against Equifax for failing to properly investigate consumer disputes over inaccurate credit-report information, which is a clear violation of FCRA. This penalty is just XXXX of the many regulatory actions confirming XXXX unlawful practices and the damage caused to consumers by such systemic failures. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$720000.00}, XX/XX/XXXX ) Equifax also settled a XXXX error case, paying {$720000.00} to consumers for erroneously lowering their credit scores, resulting in higher loan costs. This shows a continuing failure to maintain the accuracy required by law. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Payouts ( Final Distribution Phase XXXX ) As part of the XXXX breach, final payouts began in XXXX, marking the culmination of Equifaxs liability for its unethical and negligent handling of consumer data, a practice that has now been rectified only after massive regulatory intervention. \n\nExperian Documented Pattern of Negligence and Systemic Failures : CFPB Lawsuit Filed XX/XX/XXXX Experian has been sued by the CFPB for failing to properly investigate consumer credit disputes, falsely re-inserting previously deleted information, and not maintaining accuracy. This represents systematic failures that have been proven unlawful under FCRA. \n\nCourt Ruling in XXXX XXXX Experian ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The courts decision on Experians XXXX practices further demonstrates that Experians illegal actions continue to be challenged in court, reinforcing the ongoing fraudulent misreporting and unethical dispute-handling procedures they employ. \n\nTransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Fines : XXXX XXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX Fine ( XX/XX/XXXX ) TransUnion was XXXX {$23.00} XXXX by the CFPB and FTC for XXXX to properly process tenant screening reports and misleading consumers about security freeze processing, indicating gross negligence and fraud. \n\nXXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX ( Credit-Report Dispute Failures ) TransUnion was forced into XXXX {$23.00} XXXX class-action settlement for failing to properly investigate and delete disputed credit-report information. This case is a clear demonstration of fraudulent noncompliance and deceptive practices in consumer dispute resolutions. \n\nClass-Action Settlement {$2.00} XXXX ( Failure to Delete Information ) TransUnion was XXXX {$2.00} XXXX for violating FCRA by XXXX to delete inaccurate or outdated information after receiving valid deletion requests. \n\nBankruptcy Reporting FCRA Class-Action {$45.00} XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX XXXX others, was forced to settle for {$45.00} XXXX in a class-action lawsuit over failure to properly report bankruptcy and debt-discharge information, further underlining its systematic neglect of consumer rights. \n\nMulti-Bureau Public Record Reporting Cases ( Ongoing/Resolved Settlements ) Ongoing actions, involving TransUnion and other bureaus, continue to resolve improper public-record and tax-lien reporting, with settlements improving XXXX in consumer data across all three bureaus. \n\nThe ongoing litigation and settlements outlined above are clear evidence of these bureaus ' unlawful practices. Their history is XXXX of intentional negligence, deliberate noncompliance, and disregard for consumer welfare. If this pattern is allowed to continue, the legal consequences will be severe.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-10T06:13:04.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33578","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17910642","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-10T06:12:38.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["* <em>XXXX</em>. <em>Department</em> of Education <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( Student Loan, Account ending <em>XXXX</em> ) Equifax : Balance : {$82000.00}, status : Pays As Agreed <em>Experian</em>/TransUnion : Discrepancies in balance reporting and <em>narrative</em> codes. \n\nViolation : The inaccurate reporting of federal student loans under the <em>Department</em> of Education is a clear violation of the FCRA."]},"sort":[13.310953,"17910642"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17910638","_score":13.310953,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Urgent Demand for Immediate Action on Inconsistent, Unverifiable, and Fraudulent Credit Reporting by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am submitting this formal and urgent complaint against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, which have blatantly failed to comply with federal law under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and systematically engaged in unethical, fraudulent, and illegal conduct in violation of consumer rights. Their ongoing disregard for accuracy and verification requirements has caused severe financial harm to me and countless other consumers. These practices have already been proven by multiple court rulings, regulatory orders, and substantial financial settlements to be fraudulent, negligent, and highly unethical. I demand immediate action to delete the unverifiable items on my credit reports and hold these entities accountable under the law. \n\nDiscrepancies in My Credit Reports : Direct Violations of FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Days Past Due Violation : This account is being reported differently on each bureaus report, demonstrating a blatant failure to maintain consistent and accurate data. Under FCRA 609, 611, this discrepancy proves negligent reporting and failure to investigate and verify disputed information. Such actions are fraudulent by omission, as they mislead creditors, lenders, and consumers. \n\n* XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax : Balance : {$28000.00}, status : XXXX Days Past Due Experian : Missing or inconsistent status. \n\nTransUnion : Not reported at all. \n\nViolation : This failure to report consistently across bureaus undermines the accuracy of my credit profile and is illegal under FCRA. This shows the bureaus ' reckless disregard for maintaining the integrity of the information they distribute, which is directly harmful to consumers and violates XXXX ( a ) of the FCRA. \n\n* XXXX. XXXX XXXX  ( Account ending XXXX ) Equifax : \" Pays as Agreed, '' with flags stating \" Account Paid After Foreclosure Started '' and \" Affected by Disaster '' Experian/TransUnion : Inconsistent remarks and missing data. \n\nViolation : The inclusion of misleading and inconsistent foreclosure remarks is an unconscionable violation of FCRA, specifically 611 ( a ), as it fails to comply with requirements to provide accurate and timely information. The bureaus behavior here is not just negligent but fraudulent, intentionally obscuring key details from consumers and creditors. \n\n* XXXX. Department of Education XXXX XXXX ( Student Loan, Account ending XXXX ) Equifax : Balance : {$82000.00}, status : Pays As Agreed Experian/TransUnion : Discrepancies in balance reporting and narrative codes. \n\nViolation : The inaccurate reporting of federal student loans under the Department of Education is a clear violation of the FCRA. Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax are systematically failing to maintain accuracy, causing significant harm to the consumers ability to qualify for financing or favorable terms. Failure to comply with federal reporting guidelines is fraudulent. \n\nThe Proven Pattern of Fraudulent, Negligent, and Unlawful Conduct : Legal Precedents and Settlements Equifax History of Unethical and Fraudulent Behavior : XXXX XXXX Settlement ( Final Payouts XXXX ) In the wake of the XXXX data breach, which exposed the sensitive data of XXXX XXXX Americans, XXXX XXXX Equifax was XXXX into a global settlement with the FTC, CFPB, and state governments. The {$420.00} XXXX settlement allocated funds to victims, showing gross negligence and failure to secure consumer data, actions that the CFPB has since penalized. Final payouts are still being distributed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Final Approval XX/XX/XXXX ) Equifax settled XXXX class-action lawsuit over misreporting tribal loans. As part of the settlement, Equifax must delete erroneous loan accounts and compensate affected consumers. This reflects a pattern of erroneous reporting intentionally harming consumers for corporate benefit. \n\nCFPB XXXX {$15.00} XXXX Civil Penalty ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The CFPB issued a {$15.00} XXXX civil penalty against Equifax for failing to properly investigate consumer disputes over inaccurate credit-report information, which is a clear violation of FCRA. This penalty is just XXXX of the many regulatory actions confirming XXXX unlawful practices and the damage caused to consumers by such systemic failures. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$720000.00}, XX/XX/XXXX ) Equifax also settled a XXXX error case, paying {$720000.00} to consumers for erroneously lowering their credit scores, resulting in higher loan costs. This shows a continuing failure to maintain the accuracy required by law. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Payouts ( Final Distribution Phase XXXX ) As part of the XXXX breach, final payouts began in XXXX, marking the culmination of Equifaxs liability for its unethical and negligent handling of consumer data, a practice that has now been rectified only after massive regulatory intervention. \n\nExperian Documented Pattern of Negligence and Systemic Failures : CFPB Lawsuit Filed XX/XX/XXXX Experian has been sued by the CFPB for failing to properly investigate consumer credit disputes, falsely re-inserting previously deleted information, and not maintaining accuracy. This represents systematic failures that have been proven unlawful under FCRA. \n\nCourt Ruling in XXXX XXXX Experian ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The courts decision on Experians XXXX practices further demonstrates that Experians illegal actions continue to be challenged in court, reinforcing the ongoing fraudulent misreporting and unethical dispute-handling procedures they employ. \n\nTransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Fines : XXXX XXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX Fine ( XX/XX/XXXX ) TransUnion was XXXX {$23.00} XXXX by the CFPB and FTC for XXXX to properly process tenant screening reports and misleading consumers about security freeze processing, indicating gross negligence and fraud. \n\nXXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX ( Credit-Report Dispute Failures ) TransUnion was forced into XXXX {$23.00} XXXX class-action settlement for failing to properly investigate and delete disputed credit-report information. This case is a clear demonstration of fraudulent noncompliance and deceptive practices in consumer dispute resolutions. \n\nClass-Action Settlement {$2.00} XXXX ( Failure to Delete Information ) TransUnion was XXXX {$2.00} XXXX for violating FCRA by XXXX to delete inaccurate or outdated information after receiving valid deletion requests. \n\nBankruptcy Reporting FCRA Class-Action {$45.00} XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX XXXX others, was forced to settle for {$45.00} XXXX in a class-action lawsuit over failure to properly report bankruptcy and debt-discharge information, further underlining its systematic neglect of consumer rights. \n\nMulti-Bureau Public Record Reporting Cases ( Ongoing/Resolved Settlements ) Ongoing actions, involving TransUnion and other bureaus, continue to resolve improper public-record and tax-lien reporting, with settlements improving XXXX in consumer data across all three bureaus. \n\nThe ongoing litigation and settlements outlined above are clear evidence of these bureaus ' unlawful practices. Their history is XXXX of intentional negligence, deliberate noncompliance, and disregard for consumer welfare. If this pattern is allowed to continue, the legal consequences will be severe.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-10T06:13:01.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33578","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17910638","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-10T05:14:42.000Z","state":"FL","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":["* <em>XXXX</em>. <em>Department</em> of Education <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( Student Loan, Account ending <em>XXXX</em> ) Equifax : Balance : {$82000.00}, status : Pays As Agreed <em>Experian</em>/TransUnion : Discrepancies in balance reporting and <em>narrative</em> codes. \n\nViolation : The inaccurate reporting of federal student loans under the <em>Department</em> of Education is a clear violation of the FCRA."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."]},"sort":[13.310953,"17910638"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16960695","_score":13.294251,"_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":["Equifax call note documenting the <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> drop <em>narrative</em> versus nothing negative reporting. \nAny updated reports mailed after the calls."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."]},"sort":[13.294251,"16960695"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16960684","_score":13.294251,"_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":["Equifax call note documenting the <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> drop <em>narrative</em> versus nothing negative reporting. \nAny updated reports mailed after the calls."]},"sort":[13.294251,"16960684"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16960683","_score":13.294251,"_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":["Equifax call note documenting the <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> drop <em>narrative</em> versus nothing negative reporting. \nAny updated reports mailed after the calls."]},"sort":[13.294251,"16960683"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17910643","_score":13.261968,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Urgent Demand for Immediate Action on Inconsistent, Unverifiable, and Fraudulent Credit Reporting by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am submitting this formal and urgent complaint against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, which have blatantly failed to comply with federal law under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and systematically engaged in unethical, fraudulent, and illegal conduct in violation of consumer rights. Their ongoing disregard for accuracy and verification requirements has caused severe financial harm to me and countless other consumers. These practices have already been proven by multiple court rulings, regulatory orders, and substantial financial settlements to be fraudulent, negligent, and highly unethical. I demand immediate action to delete the unverifiable items on my credit reports and hold these entities accountable under the law. \n\nDiscrepancies in My Credit Reports : Direct Violations of FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Days Past Due Violation : This account is being reported differently on each bureaus report, demonstrating a blatant failure to maintain consistent and accurate data. Under FCRA 609, 611, this discrepancy proves negligent reporting and failure to investigate and verify disputed information. Such actions are fraudulent by omission, as they mislead creditors, lenders, and consumers. \n\n* XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax : Balance : {$28000.00}, status : XXXX Days Past Due Experian : Missing or inconsistent status. \n\nTransUnion : Not reported at all. \n\nViolation : This failure to report consistently across bureaus undermines the accuracy of my credit profile and is illegal under FCRA. This shows the bureaus ' reckless disregard for maintaining the integrity of the information they distribute, which is directly harmful to consumers and violates XXXX ( a ) of the FCRA. \n\n* XXXX. XXXX XXXX  ( Account ending XXXX ) Equifax : \" Pays as Agreed, '' with flags stating \" Account Paid After Foreclosure Started '' and \" Affected by Disaster '' Experian/TransUnion : Inconsistent remarks and missing data. \n\nViolation : The inclusion of misleading and inconsistent foreclosure remarks is an unconscionable violation of FCRA, specifically 611 ( a ), as it fails to comply with requirements to provide accurate and timely information. The bureaus behavior here is not just negligent but fraudulent, intentionally obscuring key details from consumers and creditors. \n\n* XXXX. Department of Education XXXX XXXX ( Student Loan, Account ending XXXX ) Equifax : Balance : {$82000.00}, status : Pays As Agreed Experian/TransUnion : Discrepancies in balance reporting and narrative codes. \n\nViolation : The inaccurate reporting of federal student loans under the Department of Education is a clear violation of the FCRA. Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax are systematically failing to maintain accuracy, causing significant harm to the consumers ability to qualify for financing or favorable terms. Failure to comply with federal reporting guidelines is fraudulent. \n\nThe Proven Pattern of Fraudulent, Negligent, and Unlawful Conduct : Legal Precedents and Settlements Equifax History of Unethical and Fraudulent Behavior : XXXX XXXX Settlement ( Final Payouts XXXX ) In the wake of the XXXX data breach, which exposed the sensitive data of XXXX XXXX Americans, XXXX XXXX Equifax was XXXX into a global settlement with the FTC, CFPB, and state governments. The {$420.00} XXXX settlement allocated funds to victims, showing gross negligence and failure to secure consumer data, actions that the CFPB has since penalized. Final payouts are still being distributed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Final Approval XX/XX/XXXX ) Equifax settled XXXX class-action lawsuit over misreporting tribal loans. As part of the settlement, Equifax must delete erroneous loan accounts and compensate affected consumers. This reflects a pattern of erroneous reporting intentionally harming consumers for corporate benefit. \n\nCFPB XXXX {$15.00} XXXX Civil Penalty ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The CFPB issued a {$15.00} XXXX civil penalty against Equifax for failing to properly investigate consumer disputes over inaccurate credit-report information, which is a clear violation of FCRA. This penalty is just XXXX of the many regulatory actions confirming XXXX unlawful practices and the damage caused to consumers by such systemic failures. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$720000.00}, XX/XX/XXXX ) Equifax also settled a XXXX error case, paying {$720000.00} to consumers for erroneously lowering their credit scores, resulting in higher loan costs. This shows a continuing failure to maintain the accuracy required by law. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Payouts ( Final Distribution Phase XXXX ) As part of the XXXX breach, final payouts began in XXXX, marking the culmination of Equifaxs liability for its unethical and negligent handling of consumer data, a practice that has now been rectified only after massive regulatory intervention. \n\nExperian Documented Pattern of Negligence and Systemic Failures : CFPB Lawsuit Filed XX/XX/XXXX Experian has been sued by the CFPB for failing to properly investigate consumer credit disputes, falsely re-inserting previously deleted information, and not maintaining accuracy. This represents systematic failures that have been proven unlawful under FCRA. \n\nCourt Ruling in XXXX XXXX Experian ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The courts decision on Experians XXXX practices further demonstrates that Experians illegal actions continue to be challenged in court, reinforcing the ongoing fraudulent misreporting and unethical dispute-handling procedures they employ. \n\nTransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Fines : XXXX XXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX Fine ( XX/XX/XXXX ) TransUnion was XXXX {$23.00} XXXX by the CFPB and FTC for XXXX to properly process tenant screening reports and misleading consumers about security freeze processing, indicating gross negligence and fraud. \n\nXXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX ( Credit-Report Dispute Failures ) TransUnion was forced into XXXX {$23.00} XXXX class-action settlement for failing to properly investigate and delete disputed credit-report information. This case is a clear demonstration of fraudulent noncompliance and deceptive practices in consumer dispute resolutions. \n\nClass-Action Settlement {$2.00} XXXX ( Failure to Delete Information ) TransUnion was XXXX {$2.00} XXXX for violating FCRA by XXXX to delete inaccurate or outdated information after receiving valid deletion requests. \n\nBankruptcy Reporting FCRA Class-Action {$45.00} XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX XXXX others, was forced to settle for {$45.00} XXXX in a class-action lawsuit over failure to properly report bankruptcy and debt-discharge information, further underlining its systematic neglect of consumer rights. \n\nMulti-Bureau Public Record Reporting Cases ( Ongoing/Resolved Settlements ) Ongoing actions, involving TransUnion and other bureaus, continue to resolve improper public-record and tax-lien reporting, with settlements improving XXXX in consumer data across all three bureaus. \n\nThe ongoing litigation and settlements outlined above are clear evidence of these bureaus ' unlawful practices. Their history is XXXX of intentional negligence, deliberate noncompliance, and disregard for consumer welfare. If this pattern is allowed to continue, the legal consequences will be severe.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-10T06:13:00.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33578","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17910643","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-10T06:12:38.000Z","state":"FL","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":["* <em>XXXX</em>. <em>Department</em> of Education <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( Student Loan, Account ending <em>XXXX</em> ) Equifax : Balance : {$82000.00}, status : Pays As Agreed <em>Experian</em>/TransUnion : Discrepancies in balance reporting and <em>narrative</em> codes. \n\nViolation : The inaccurate reporting of federal student loans under the <em>Department</em> of Education is a clear violation of the FCRA."]},"sort":[13.261968,"17910643"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14997263","_score":12.770977,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Demand for Deletion of Inaccurate Tradeline Due to Negligent Reporting, Refusal to Correct, and False Statements Account Numbers : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ), XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Experian ), and XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX \nAttn : XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, WA XXXX Re : Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting and Demand for Immediate Deletion CFPB Complaint Reference : XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX Compliance Team, I am writing in direct response to your company 's misleading reply dated XX/XX/XXXX, to my complaint filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) concerning the blatantly inaccurate and inconsistent reporting of my account to the consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ), including XXXX, Experian, and XXXX. In your response, you falsely assert that XXXX XXXX is furnishing accurate information, that no evidence of misreporting exists, and that your investigations in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX confirmed as much. These statements are demonstrably untrue, as my current credit reports reveal glaring conflicts in the data you have reportedconflicts that you have negligently failed to update despite multiple disputes and have outright refused to correct. This pattern of negligence, refusal, and dishonesty constitutes willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Metro 2 guidelines, entitling me to demand the immediate deletion of this tradeline from all CRAs. Failure to comply will result in escalated legal action. \n\n# # # Summary of the Account and Your Deceptive Response As per your response, I obtained a loan from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, for {$180.00} ( amount financed ). You claim I made only XXXX of XXXX payments, leading to a charge-off on XX/XX/XXXX, and insist your reporting is accurate and authorized under your Privacy Notice. You further lie by stating that your investigations found \" no evidence of misreporting '' and deny any FCRA violations, refusing to delete the reporting despite my requests. \n\nThese assertions are outright fabrications. Not only do the discrepancies in my credit reports prove your reporting is inaccurate, but your repeated failure to update the information after being notified through prior CRA disputes and this CFPB complaint demonstrates gross negligence. Moreover, your refusal to rectify these errorswhile doubling down on false claims of accuracyshows a deliberate disregard for your legal obligations. Under the FCRA, such unverifiable and conflicting information must be deleted, and I hereby demand you do so immediately. \n\n# # # Evidence of Conflicting Reporting Proving Your Lies and Negligence My credit reports, pulled as of XX/XX/XXXX, expose the falsehoods in your response through these irreconcilable discrepancies in the data you furnished : XXXX. * * Date Opened * * : - XXXX  : XX/XX/XXXX. \n- Experian : XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis XXXX variance contradicts your stated loan date of XX/XX/XXXX, and highlights your negligent failure to ensure consistent reporting. You lied about accuracy, as this basic detail varies wildly across bureaus. \n\nXXXX. * * Date of Last Activity * * : - XXXX  : XX/XX/XXXX. \n- Experian : XX/XX/XXXX. \nA discrepancy spanning over XXXX years is inexplicable and unsupported by your response, which mentions no XXXX activity. Reporting phantom recent activity on Experian could unlawfully re-age the account, and your refusal to update this after disputes proves willful negligence. \n\nXXXX. * * Account Comments and Status Descriptions * * : - XXXX  : \" Charged off as bad debt. Dispute resolved ; reported by grantor. '' - Experian : \" Account in dispute- now resolved - reported by subscriber. Account seriously past due date/account assigned to attorney, collection agency, or credit grantor 's internal collection department. Unpaid balance reported as a loss by the credit grantor. '' These conflicting narratives imply different handling ( e.g., no mention of attorney or collections assignment in your response ), rendering your claim of accurate reporting a lie. Your negligence in not standardizing these details has allowed harmful inconsistencies to persist. \n\nXXXX. * * Additional Inconsistencies * * : - Balance ( {$170.00} ), past due ( {$170.00} ), high credit ( {$180.00} ), and terms ( 2 months ) are reported, but with a {$0.00} credit limitunusual for an unsecured loan and indicative of improper categorization. The last reported date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) lacks justification, further evidencing your failure to update accurately. \n- Payment history shows uniform \" CO '' ( charge-off ) entries, yet you have refused to correct the overall conflicting data. \n\nThese discrepancies make the information unverifiable and directly contradict your false assurances of accuracy. Your negligence in maintaining consistent records and refusal to update post-dispute have prolonged this damage to my credit. \n\n# # # Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Stemming from Negligence, Refusal, and Lies Your actionsor lack thereofviolate key FCRA provisions ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ), particularly through negligent investigations, refusal to correct, and false representations : 1. * * Section 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) Duty to Provide Accurate Information * * : You must not furnish known or reasonably believed inaccurate data. The conflicts prove you knew or should have known of inaccuracies, yet you negligently continued reporting them and lied in your response about their absence. \n\n2. * * Section 623 ( b ) Duties Upon Notice of Dispute * * : After CRA disputes in XXXX XXXX and this CFPB notice, you were obligated to reasonably investigate and correct/delete unverifiable info. Your superficial \" investigation '' was negligent, as errors remain, and your refusal to update violates this duty. Claiming \" no evidence of misreporting '' is a blatant lie given the evidence. \n\n3. * * Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) Duty to Correct and Update * * : You must promptly fix inaccuracies and notify CRAs. Your ongoing refusal to do so, despite clear conflicts, constitutes negligence and willful noncompliance. \n\nThese violations have inflicted harm, including credit denials and stress. FCRA allows for actual, statutory ( {$1000.00} per violation ), punitive damages, and fees ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o ). Courts penalize furnishers for such negligent and deceptive practices.\n\n# # # Violations of Metro 2 Reporting Guidelines Due to Negligent Handling Under the Credit Reporting Resource Guide ( CRRG ) and Metro 2 standards maintained by the Consumer Data Industry Association ( CDIA ) : - * * Inconsistent Field Reporting * * : Varied Date Opened ( Field XXXX ) and Last Activity ( Field XXXX ) breach requirements for uniform data, reflecting your negligence in submissions. \n- * * Improper Status Codes * * : Conflicting comments misuse Account Status ( Field 17A, e.g., 97 for charge-off ) and Special Comment Codes ( Field 39 ), creating ambiguity you refused to resolve.\n\n- * * Prohibited Practices * * : Reporting unsubstantiated 2025 activity suggests re-aging, a Metro 2 violation, compounded by your lies about accuracy. \n\nYour negligent non-compliance has led to these issues, mandating deletion under FCRA when data can't be verified. \n\n# # # Demand for Deletion and Other Remedies Due to your negligence in updating the reporting, refusal to correct despite disputes, and false statements in your response, I demand the following within 15 days : 1. Immediate deletion of the entire tradeline from XXXX, Experian, XXXX, and any other CRAs, as the information is unverifiable and inaccurate.\n\n2. Cease all collection activities permanently.\n\n3. Provide written confirmation of deletion, including CRA notifications and updated reports.\n\n4. Compensate me for damages caused by your violations, or face litigation.\n\nNoncompliance will prompt new CFPB/FTC complaints , state Attorney General involvement, and FCRA lawsuit for willful violations. I reserve all rights. \n\nRespond in writing to the above address. All communications are preserved for legal purposes. \n\nSincerely, Enclosures : - Credit Report Excerpts ( XXXX, Experian, XXXX  ) - CFPB Complaint and Your Response ( Reference : XXXX )","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-31T17:11:33.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77471","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14997263","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-31T17:11:05.000Z","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":["Subject : Demand for Deletion of Inaccurate Tradeline Due to Negligent Reporting, Refusal to Correct, and False Statements Account Numbers : <em>XXXXXXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( <em>XXXX</em>  ), <em>XXXXXXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  ( <em>Experian</em> ), and <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> TX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> \nAttn : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, WA <em>XXXX</em> Re : <em>Dispute</em> of Inaccurate Credit Reporting and Demand for Immediate Deletion CFPB <em>Complaint</em> Reference : <em>XXXX</em> Dear <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Compliance Team"],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."]},"sort":[12.770977,"14997263"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16220764","_score":12.368349,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Date : XX/XX/year> Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Email : XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Re : FCRA 611 ( a ) Reinvestigation & 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) Method of Verification XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX Dear Experian Dispute Department : I dispute the accuracy and completeness of the XXXX  XXXX tradeline referenced above and request a reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) and the Method of Verification under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ).\n\nItems in dispute ( summary ) : Amount discrepancy : {$610.00} reported versus {$560.00} original principal ; requires itemization ( principal/interest/fees/credits/payments ).\n\nDuration/history error : A 6-month installment can not lawfully generate 17 months of derogatory reporting absent improper re-aging or duplicate coding.\n\nStatus/date conflicts : Any charge-off/major delinquency dates must align with the true DOFD and Date of Account Information ; no post-closure past due months should be reported.\n\nRequired CRA actions : Under FCRA 607 ( b ), maintain maximum possible accuracy.\n\nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ), conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and delete unverifiable information.\n\nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ), provide the Method of Verification, including : The XXXX codes and narratives used ; The documents reviewed by the furnisher ; The name/title or department of each person who verified ; The DOFD XXXX  reported to Experian.\n\nUnder FCRA 623 ( b ), require the furnisher to conduct a reasonable investigation using actual account-level documents, not automated code replies. \n\nIf XXXX can not produce a full agreement + payment ledger + DOFD supporting the amount, status, and timeline, delete the tradeline as unverifiable, or correct it to reflect a 6-month schedule and accurate balance history. While your reinvestigation is pending, ensure the account is coded as in dispute. \n\nEnclosures : Government ID ; proof of address ; annotated report pages highlighting the XXXX tradeline ; copy of my direct dispute to XXXX. \n\nPlease mail a written response with your MoV within 30 days. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX CC ( notice only ) : Experian / XXXX  / XXXX  From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Email : XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Subject : Direct Dispute & Request for Verification FCRA 623 ; Reg V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 Account # XXXX Dear Compliance Officer : This is a follow-up direct dispute of the XXXX  tradeline furnished to the CRAs for Acct # XXXX. Your XX/XX/year> response to my CFPB complaint did not resolve the following : Amount discrepancy : You confirmed a {$560.00} principal, yet CRAs show {$610.00}. Provide a full itemization ( principal, interest, fees, credits, payments ) from origination through charge-off. \n\nDuration/history error : The loan term was 6 months, but CRAs display 17 months of derogatory history. This suggests re-aging/duplicate history inconsistent with Metro 2 Payment History Profile and DOFD logic.\n\nStatus/date conflicts : Charge-off/delinquency dates must align with the loan schedule and DOFD, and no post-closure past due months may be reported.\n\nYour duties & my requests : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ), ( 2 ) : Report with accuracy ; promptly correct/update incomplete data.\n\nFCRA 623 ( b ) : Upon CRA dispute, perform a reasonable investigation and report results to all CRAs.\n\nReg V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ) : As a direct dispute, you must investigate using all relevant information and complete within 30 days ( plus 15 only if I provide additional info ).\n\nRequested validation package : Executed agreement or e-consent record and full payment ledger ; Itemization tying the reported {$610.00} to the {$560.00} origination ; DOFD and any charge-off determination records ; Billing statements/communications supporting the reported timeline.\n\nIf you can not fully substantiate amount, status, dates, and history to Metro 2 standards, correct the tradeline across Experian/Equifax/TransUnion or delete it as unverifiable. While under investigation, you must report the account as disputed.\n\nPlease provide a written response within 30 days describing your findings, documents relied upon, and any corrections transmitted to each CRA.\n\nEnclosures : Government ID ; proof of address ; annotated credit report pages highlighting the XXXX tradeline ; prior correspondence. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Support Email ( reference only ) : XXXX From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX Email : XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Subject : Debt Validation Request & Cease Collection FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ; Reg F, 12 C.F.R. 1006.34 Alleged XXXX  Acct # XXXX To Whom It May Concern : I dispute the alleged debt your company is attempting to collect related to XXXX  Acct # XXXX and request validation. Until you provide full validation, you must cease collection and cease furnishing negative information. \n\nProvide the following, pursuant to FDCPA 809 ( b ) and Reg F 1006.34 : The name of the creditor on the itemization date and the current creditor ; The itemization of the current amount ( interest, fees, payments, credits ) from the itemization date to present ; A copy of the signed loan agreement or electronic consent ; Proof of your authority to collect ( assignment/chain of title and account-level transfer records ) ; The DOFD reported to any CRA and the Date of Account Information supporting any charge-off or delinquency coding ; Your dispute address and the address for requests for original-creditor information, as required by Reg F.\n\nIf you can not validate as required, stop all collection, delete any credit reporting, and confirm closure to me in writing. If you have not yet furnished to any CRA, you are on notice that the account is disputed. \n\nPlease send your response to the address above. \n\nEnclosures : Government ID ; proof of address ; annotated report pages ( if applicable ). \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-27T14:50:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"93703","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16220764","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-27T14:30:11.000Z","state":"CA","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":["Date : XX/XX/year> Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested <em>Experian</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXXXXXX</em> From : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXXXXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXXXXXX</em> Email : <em>XXXX</em> Phone : ( <em>XXXX</em> ) <em>XXXX</em> Re : FCRA 611 ( a ) Reinvestigation & 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) Method of Verification <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Acct # <em>XXXX</em> Dear <em>Experian</em> <em>Dispute</em> <em>Department</em> : I <em>dispute</em> the accuracy and completeness of the <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> tradeline referenced above and request a reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) and"],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."]},"sort":[12.368349,"16220764"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16221732","_score":9.812049,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Date : XX/XX/year> Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Email : XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Re : FCRA 611 ( a ) Reinvestigation & 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) Method of Verification XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX Dear XXXX  Dispute Department : I dispute the accuracy and completeness of the XXXX  XXXX XXXX referenced above and request a reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) and the Method of Verification under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ).\n\nItems in dispute ( summary ) : Amount discrepancy : {$610.00} reported versus {$560.00} original principal ; requires itemization ( principal/interest/fees/credits/payments ).\n\nDuration/history error : A 6-month installment can not lawfully generate 17 months of derogatory reporting absent improper re-aging or duplicate coding.\n\nStatus/date conflicts : Any charge-off/major delinquency dates must align with the true DOFD and Date of Account Information ; no post-closure past due months should be reported.\n\nRequired CRA actions : Under FCRA 607 ( b ), maintain maximum possible accuracy.\n\nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ), conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and delete unverifiable information.\n\nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ), provide the Method of Verification, including : The XXXX codes and narratives used ; The documents reviewed by the furnisher ; The name/title or department of each person who verified ; The XXXX XXXX reported to Experian.\n\nUnder FCRA 623 ( b ), require the furnisher to conduct a reasonable investigation using actual account-level documents, not automated code replies. \n\nIf XXXX can not produce a full agreement + payment ledger + DOFD supporting the amount, status, and timeline, delete the tradeline as unverifiable, or correct it to reflect a XXXX schedule and accurate balance history. While your reinvestigation is pending, ensure the account is coded as in dispute. \n\nEnclosures : Government ID ; proof of address ; annotated report pages highlighting the XXXX tradeline ; copy of my direct dispute to XXXX. \n\nPlease mail a written response with your MoV within 30 days. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX notice only ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Email : XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Subject : Direct Dispute & Request for Verification FCRA 623 ; Reg V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 Account # XXXX Dear Compliance XXXX : This is a follow-up direct dispute of the Affirm tradeline furnished to the CRAs for Acct # XXXX. Your XX/XX/year> response to my CFPB complaint did not resolve the following : Amount discrepancy : You confirmed a {$560.00} principal, yet CRAs show {$610.00}. Provide a full itemization ( principal, interest, fees, credits, payments ) from origination through charge-off. \n\nDuration/history error : The loan term was 6 months, but CRAs display 17 months of derogatory history. This suggests re-aging/duplicate history inconsistent with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX logic. \n\nStatus/date conflicts : Charge-off/delinquency dates must align with the loan schedule and DOFD, and no post-closure past due months XXXX be reported.\n\nYour duties & my requests : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ), ( 2 ) : Report with accuracy ; promptly correct/update incomplete data.\n\nFCRA 623 ( b ) : Upon CRA dispute, perform a reasonable investigation and report results to all CRAs.\n\nReg V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ) : As a direct dispute, you must investigate using all relevant information and complete within 30 days ( plus 15 only if I provide additional info ).\n\nRequested validation package : Executed agreement or e-consent record and full payment ledger ; Itemization tying the reported {$610.00} to the {$560.00} origination ; XXXX and any charge-off determination records ; Billing statements/communications supporting the reported timeline. \n\nIf you can not fully substantiate amount, status, dates, and history to XXXX XXXX standards, correct the tradeline across XXXX  or delete it as unverifiable. While under investigation, you must report the account as disputed.\n\nPlease provide a written response within 30 days describing your findings, documents relied upon, and any corrections transmitted to each CRA. \n\nEnclosures : Government ID ; proof of address ; annotated credit report pages highlighting the XXXX tradeline ; prior correspondence. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested January Technologies , Inc. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Support Email ( reference only ) : XXXX From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Email : XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Subject : Debt Validation Request & Cease Collection FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ; Reg F, 12 C.F.R. 1006.34 Alleged XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX To Whom It May Concern : I dispute the alleged debt your company is attempting to collect related to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and request validation. Until you provide full validation, you must cease collection and cease furnishing negative information. \nProvide the following, pursuant to FDCPA 809 ( b ) and Reg F 1006.34 : The name of the creditor on the itemization date and the current creditor ; The itemization of the current amount ( interest, fees, payments, credits ) from the itemization date to present ; A copy of the signed loan agreement or electronic consent ; Proof of your authority to collect ( assignment/chain of title and account-level transfer records ) ; The XXXX reported to any CRA and the Date of Account Information supporting any charge-off or delinquency coding ; Your dispute address and the address for requests for original-creditor information, as required by Reg F.\n\nIf you can not validate as required, stop all collection, delete any credit reporting, and confirm closure to me in writing. If you have not yet furnished to any CRA, you are on notice that the account is disputed. \n\nPlease send your response to the address above. \n\nEnclosures : Government ID ; proof of address ; annotated report pages ( if applicable ). \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-27T14:50:51.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"93703","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16221732","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"January Technologies, Inc","date_received":"2025-09-27T14:50:21.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ), provide the Method of Verification, including : The <em>XXXX</em> codes and <em>narratives</em> used ; The documents reviewed by the furnisher ; The name/title or <em>department</em> of each person who verified ; The <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> reported to <em>Experian</em>.\n\nUnder FCRA 623 ( b ), require the furnisher to conduct a reasonable investigation using actual account-level documents, not automated code replies."]},"sort":[9.812049,"16221732"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17300393","_score":9.621314,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Over the last several years, multiple accounts have been reported on my credit file in a manner that I believe contains inaccuracies, incomplete information, or procedural errors. I am submitting this narrative to describe the full sequence of events, including dates, actions taken, disputes filed, communications attempted, and reasons why I am requesting intervention and review. This account of what happened reflects the information available to me through my credit reports, my payment history, and my attempts to resolve or correct the reporting issues with the companies involved. \n\nThe primary accounts involved are two XXXX  XXXX charge-off files, an XXXX  account that appears under Experian only, a XXXX XXXX  XXXX account, and multiple Department of Education student loan tradelines that were previously in good standing but later reported with extensive late payments. My intention is to explain how each situation unfolded, what steps I took to resolve or verify the information, and why I believe the current reporting may not accurately reflect the actual history of the accounts. \n\nXXXX XXXX Charge-Off Accounts ( Two Separate Accounts ) There are two XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts being reported as charge-offs or collections. Both list multiple late payments leading up to charge-off status, and both show closing dates around XX/XX/year>. The first account reports roughly XXXX XXXX dollars past due, while the second reports a past-due balance of over XXXX XXXX dollars. Both show a pattern of 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late payments.\n\nThe problem is that I do not have clear records regarding the timeframe when these accounts allegedly became delinquent. I attempted several times to determine whether these accounts were valid, whether they belonged to me, or whether the balances were correctly calculated. When I first saw the late payments appearing on my credit report, I contacted XXXX XXXX to ask for billing statements, original account documentation, and clarification about when the late payments supposedly started. In those interactions, I was not provided statements or documents that clearly identified the timeline of delinquency. \n\nWhen I attempted to dispute these entries through the credit bureaus, the results of the disputes came back as verified, but no details were provided about the method of verification used. I could not obtain a clear explanation as to whether the account information was reviewed manually by XXXX XXXX, verified electronically through automated systems, or relayed through a third-party agency. I also did not receive copies of any documents XXXX XXXX may have used to justify the reporting. As a result, I have been left without the ability to understand how the company concluded the accounts were delinquent, or how the balances reached the levels reported in the charge-off entries. \n\nI also attempted to contact XXXX XXXX during the period these accounts were allegedly open in order to address any outstanding amounts, but I was not able to access or view current statements. The company did not provide detailed breakdowns of charges, payments, or fees. Because of this, I was not able to resolve the accounts proactively or verify that the amounts being reported were accurate. \n\nGiven that both accounts appear to have similar closing dates, similar patterns of late payment coding, and similar verification outcomes during disputes, I am concerned that automated reporting systems may have been used without full investigation. The unresolved questions include whether the accounts were validated with original creditor documentation, whether the delinquency dates were calculated accurately, whether the amounts are correct, and whether procedural errors occurred during updates and reporting. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account The XXXX account in question appears only on the Experian credit report. This account shows a delinquency history leading to derogatory status, including 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late payments. The reported charge-off occurred in XXXX  with more than XXXX XXXX dollars past due. \n\nThe difficulty in addressing this XXXX account is that I do not recall receiving consistent statements, billing notices, or payment reminders during the time period in which the late payments allegedly occurred. When the account was first reported as derogatory, I attempted to obtain documentation from XXXX, including transaction history, billing dates, original loan or installment agreement information, and payment records. I did not receive detailed documentation explaining how the past-due amount was calculated or how the delinquency timeline developed. \n\nI also filed a dispute regarding this account with Experian. The result was that the account was verified, but, again, no explanation was provided about the verification method used, what documents were reviewed, or what internal procedures were followed to determine that the account was being reported accurately. I was not provided with statements, screenshots, or any form of documentation from XXXX that could help me understand the origin of the charges or validate the accuracy of the reporting. \n\nAdditionally, because XXXX operates primarily through digital invoices and app-based payment systems, there may have been email delivery issues, login issues, or missed notifications. Without being given clear documentation, I can not confirm whether I received all required notices, whether there were errors in the billing cycle, or whether the amount due is correct. These uncertainties make it difficult for me to verify the account accurately or understand how the derogatory status developed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account The XXXX XXXX collection account lists a past-due amount of XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX dollars and is marked as derogatory. I attempted to determine the origin of this debt and contact XXXX XXXX, but I was unable to obtain full validation or documentation from the collection agency. I did not receive a detailed statement, original creditor information, or written verification of the debt within a reasonable timeframe. \n\nWhen I disputed the account with the credit bureaus, the account again returned as verified, but no documentation or explanation was provided to me. I could not determine whether the debt was assigned or purchased, whether the original creditor still maintains ownership, or whether XXXX XXXX is legally authorized to collect on the debt. Without knowing the chain of custody or the source of the information, I am unable to confirm whether the account is valid. \n\nAdditionally, the small balance of the debt raises questions, as I do not recall being notified by any creditor of an outstanding amount in that range. I also did not receive notices regarding the account being sent to collections, nor did I receive itemized statements or breakdowns of the charges. Because of this, I can not confirm whether the debt belongs to me, whether the amount is correct, or whether the reporting is accurate. \n\nStudent Loan Late Payment Reporting Multiple federal student loan accounts through the Department of Education are reporting extensive 90-day late payment histories, even though those loans have since been closed or transferred. The late payments appear to be from periods where loan servicer transitions or administrative changes may have occurred.\n\nDuring the period in which the late payments are being reported, there were changes in student loan servicing nationwide, including account transfers, forbearance periods, pandemic-related administrative adjustments, and shifting payment requirements. In my case, there were times when I completed applications for forbearance or deferment, and I believed the loans were under an administrative pause. In some cases, I did not receive timely notices from the servicer notifying me that a payment was due. \n\nWhen I reviewed my credit report and saw multiple 90 days late designations for several consecutive months on multiple loan accounts, I began attempting to resolve the issue. I contacted the loan servicer to request payment histories, notice records, and documentation showing whether bills were sent or whether payments were due during the months in question. I was not provided complete or clear documentation indicating whether the loans were in an active repayment phase, in a transferred status, or under some other administrative category during the months coded as late. \n\nI disputed the student loan late payments with the credit bureaus. The bureaus indicated that the accounts were verified, but no explanation was provided about what records were reviewed. Given the known issues during servicer transitions, I am unsure whether the servicers reporting was accurate or whether there may have been a system error, miscommunication, or reporting delay. \n\nActions I Have Taken Across all accounts, I have consistently attempted to obtain validation, statements, documentation, or clear communication from the companies involved. My actions include : Filing multiple disputes with all three credit bureaus.\n\nRequesting validation or verification of debts directly from creditors or collectors.\n\nAttempting to obtain original statements, billing notices, or transactional proof.\n\nRequesting explanation of reporting timelines and delinquency calculations.\n\nReviewing credit reports from each bureau to compare inconsistencies.\n\nAttempting to resolve or verify unresolved account histories.\n\nContacting servicers regarding student loan reporting issues.\n\nDespite these efforts, I have not received detailed information, documentation, billing statements, or clarification that would allow me to confirm that the reported entries are accurate.\n\nWhy I Believe the Reporting Is Inaccurate or Incomplete There are several reasons why I believe the information may not be accurate : Inability to obtain documentation from furnishers despite repeated attempts.\n\nLack of itemized statements clearly showing how balances were calculated.\n\nDisputes marked verified without any explanation of how verification occurred.\n\nPossible automated verification processes without manual review. \n\nLack of original creditor information in the XXXX XXXX account. \n\nPotential system errors or miscommunication during student loan transitions. \n\nInconsistent reporting between bureaus, such as the XXXX account appearing only on Experian. \n\nDifficulty determining whether accounts were assigned, sold, or transferred. \n\nBecause of these factors, I can not independently confirm the accuracy of the negative information. \n\nWhat I Am Requesting Through This Complaint Through this complaint, I am requesting that the CFPB help facilitate a more thorough review or reinvestigation of these accounts. I am asking that the companies involved provide : Clear documentation showing the basis for the reporting. \n\nCopies of billing statements, transaction history, and delinquency calculations. \n\nProof of assignment or authority to collect debts where applicable. \n\nExplanation of how verification was completed during my disputes. \n\nCorrection or removal of any information that can not be substantiated. \n\nMy goal is not to avoid legitimate debts, but to ensure that the information being reported is accurate, complete, and supported by real documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-17T19:13:34.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32810","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17300393","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-17T18:58:39.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The primary accounts involved are two <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> charge-off files, an <em>XXXX</em>  account that appears under <em>Experian</em> only, a <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> account, and multiple <em>Department</em> of Education student loan tradelines that were previously in good standing but later reported with extensive late payments."]},"sort":[9.621314,"17300393"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17299757","_score":9.60795,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Over the last several years, multiple accounts have been reported on my credit file in a manner that I believe contains inaccuracies, incomplete information, or procedural errors. I am submitting this narrative to describe the full sequence of events, including dates, actions taken, disputes filed, communications attempted, and reasons why I am requesting intervention and review. This account of what happened reflects the information available to me through my credit reports, my payment history, and my attempts to resolve or correct the reporting issues with the companies involved. \n\nThe primary accounts involved are two XXXX  XXXX charge-off files, an XXXX  account that appears under Experian only, a XXXX XXXX  XXXX account, and multiple Department of Education student loan tradelines that were previously in good standing but later reported with extensive late payments. My intention is to explain how each situation unfolded, what steps I took to resolve or verify the information, and why I believe the current reporting may not accurately reflect the actual history of the accounts. \n\nXXXX XXXX Charge-Off Accounts ( Two Separate Accounts ) There are two XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts being reported as charge-offs or collections. Both list multiple late payments leading up to charge-off status, and both show closing dates around XX/XX/year>. The first account reports roughly XXXX XXXX dollars past due, while the second reports a past-due balance of over XXXX XXXX dollars. Both show a pattern of 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late payments.\n\nThe problem is that I do not have clear records regarding the timeframe when these accounts allegedly became delinquent. I attempted several times to determine whether these accounts were valid, whether they belonged to me, or whether the balances were correctly calculated. When I first saw the late payments appearing on my credit report, I contacted XXXX XXXX to ask for billing statements, original account documentation, and clarification about when the late payments supposedly started. In those interactions, I was not provided statements or documents that clearly identified the timeline of delinquency. \n\nWhen I attempted to dispute these entries through the credit bureaus, the results of the disputes came back as verified, but no details were provided about the method of verification used. I could not obtain a clear explanation as to whether the account information was reviewed manually by XXXX XXXX, verified electronically through automated systems, or relayed through a third-party agency. I also did not receive copies of any documents XXXX XXXX may have used to justify the reporting. As a result, I have been left without the ability to understand how the company concluded the accounts were delinquent, or how the balances reached the levels reported in the charge-off entries. \n\nI also attempted to contact XXXX XXXX during the period these accounts were allegedly open in order to address any outstanding amounts, but I was not able to access or view current statements. The company did not provide detailed breakdowns of charges, payments, or fees. Because of this, I was not able to resolve the accounts proactively or verify that the amounts being reported were accurate. \n\nGiven that both accounts appear to have similar closing dates, similar patterns of late payment coding, and similar verification outcomes during disputes, I am concerned that automated reporting systems may have been used without full investigation. The unresolved questions include whether the accounts were validated with original creditor documentation, whether the delinquency dates were calculated accurately, whether the amounts are correct, and whether procedural errors occurred during updates and reporting. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account The XXXX account in question appears only on the Experian credit report. This account shows a delinquency history leading to derogatory status, including 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late payments. The reported charge-off occurred in XXXX  with more than XXXX XXXX dollars past due. \n\nThe difficulty in addressing this XXXX account is that I do not recall receiving consistent statements, billing notices, or payment reminders during the time period in which the late payments allegedly occurred. When the account was first reported as derogatory, I attempted to obtain documentation from XXXX, including transaction history, billing dates, original loan or installment agreement information, and payment records. I did not receive detailed documentation explaining how the past-due amount was calculated or how the delinquency timeline developed. \n\nI also filed a dispute regarding this account with Experian. The result was that the account was verified, but, again, no explanation was provided about the verification method used, what documents were reviewed, or what internal procedures were followed to determine that the account was being reported accurately. I was not provided with statements, screenshots, or any form of documentation from XXXX that could help me understand the origin of the charges or validate the accuracy of the reporting. \n\nAdditionally, because XXXX operates primarily through digital invoices and app-based payment systems, there may have been email delivery issues, login issues, or missed notifications. Without being given clear documentation, I can not confirm whether I received all required notices, whether there were errors in the billing cycle, or whether the amount due is correct. These uncertainties make it difficult for me to verify the account accurately or understand how the derogatory status developed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account The XXXX XXXX collection account lists a past-due amount of XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX dollars and is marked as derogatory. I attempted to determine the origin of this debt and contact XXXX XXXX, but I was unable to obtain full validation or documentation from the collection agency. I did not receive a detailed statement, original creditor information, or written verification of the debt within a reasonable timeframe. \n\nWhen I disputed the account with the credit bureaus, the account again returned as verified, but no documentation or explanation was provided to me. I could not determine whether the debt was assigned or purchased, whether the original creditor still maintains ownership, or whether XXXX XXXX is legally authorized to collect on the debt. Without knowing the chain of custody or the source of the information, I am unable to confirm whether the account is valid. \n\nAdditionally, the small balance of the debt raises questions, as I do not recall being notified by any creditor of an outstanding amount in that range. I also did not receive notices regarding the account being sent to collections, nor did I receive itemized statements or breakdowns of the charges. Because of this, I can not confirm whether the debt belongs to me, whether the amount is correct, or whether the reporting is accurate. \n\nStudent Loan Late Payment Reporting Multiple federal student loan accounts through the Department of Education are reporting extensive 90-day late payment histories, even though those loans have since been closed or transferred. The late payments appear to be from periods where loan servicer transitions or administrative changes may have occurred.\n\nDuring the period in which the late payments are being reported, there were changes in student loan servicing nationwide, including account transfers, forbearance periods, pandemic-related administrative adjustments, and shifting payment requirements. In my case, there were times when I completed applications for forbearance or deferment, and I believed the loans were under an administrative pause. In some cases, I did not receive timely notices from the servicer notifying me that a payment was due. \n\nWhen I reviewed my credit report and saw multiple 90 days late designations for several consecutive months on multiple loan accounts, I began attempting to resolve the issue. I contacted the loan servicer to request payment histories, notice records, and documentation showing whether bills were sent or whether payments were due during the months in question. I was not provided complete or clear documentation indicating whether the loans were in an active repayment phase, in a transferred status, or under some other administrative category during the months coded as late. \n\nI disputed the student loan late payments with the credit bureaus. The bureaus indicated that the accounts were verified, but no explanation was provided about what records were reviewed. Given the known issues during servicer transitions, I am unsure whether the servicers reporting was accurate or whether there may have been a system error, miscommunication, or reporting delay. \n\nActions I Have Taken Across all accounts, I have consistently attempted to obtain validation, statements, documentation, or clear communication from the companies involved. My actions include : Filing multiple disputes with all three credit bureaus.\n\nRequesting validation or verification of debts directly from creditors or collectors.\n\nAttempting to obtain original statements, billing notices, or transactional proof.\n\nRequesting explanation of reporting timelines and delinquency calculations.\n\nReviewing credit reports from each bureau to compare inconsistencies.\n\nAttempting to resolve or verify unresolved account histories.\n\nContacting servicers regarding student loan reporting issues.\n\nDespite these efforts, I have not received detailed information, documentation, billing statements, or clarification that would allow me to confirm that the reported entries are accurate.\n\nWhy I Believe the Reporting Is Inaccurate or Incomplete There are several reasons why I believe the information may not be accurate : Inability to obtain documentation from furnishers despite repeated attempts.\n\nLack of itemized statements clearly showing how balances were calculated.\n\nDisputes marked verified without any explanation of how verification occurred.\n\nPossible automated verification processes without manual review. \n\nLack of original creditor information in the XXXX XXXX account. \n\nPotential system errors or miscommunication during student loan transitions. \n\nInconsistent reporting between bureaus, such as the XXXX account appearing only on Experian. \n\nDifficulty determining whether accounts were assigned, sold, or transferred. \n\nBecause of these factors, I can not independently confirm the accuracy of the negative information. \n\nWhat I Am Requesting Through This Complaint Through this complaint, I am requesting that the CFPB help facilitate a more thorough review or reinvestigation of these accounts. I am asking that the companies involved provide : Clear documentation showing the basis for the reporting. \n\nCopies of billing statements, transaction history, and delinquency calculations. \n\nProof of assignment or authority to collect debts where applicable. \n\nExplanation of how verification was completed during my disputes. \n\nCorrection or removal of any information that can not be substantiated. \n\nMy goal is not to avoid legitimate debts, but to ensure that the information being reported is accurate, complete, and supported by real documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-17T19:13:32.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32810","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17299757","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-17T19:13:04.000Z","state":"FL","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":["The primary accounts involved are two <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> charge-off files, an <em>XXXX</em>  account that appears under <em>Experian</em> only, a <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> account, and multiple <em>Department</em> of Education student loan tradelines that were previously in good standing but later reported with extensive late payments."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."]},"sort":[9.60795,"17299757"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17299756","_score":9.60795,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Over the last several years, multiple accounts have been reported on my credit file in a manner that I believe contains inaccuracies, incomplete information, or procedural errors. I am submitting this narrative to describe the full sequence of events, including dates, actions taken, disputes filed, communications attempted, and reasons why I am requesting intervention and review. This account of what happened reflects the information available to me through my credit reports, my payment history, and my attempts to resolve or correct the reporting issues with the companies involved. \n\nThe primary accounts involved are two XXXX  XXXX charge-off files, an XXXX  account that appears under Experian only, a XXXX XXXX  XXXX account, and multiple Department of Education student loan tradelines that were previously in good standing but later reported with extensive late payments. My intention is to explain how each situation unfolded, what steps I took to resolve or verify the information, and why I believe the current reporting may not accurately reflect the actual history of the accounts. \n\nXXXX XXXX Charge-Off Accounts ( Two Separate Accounts ) There are two XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts being reported as charge-offs or collections. Both list multiple late payments leading up to charge-off status, and both show closing dates around XX/XX/year>. The first account reports roughly XXXX XXXX dollars past due, while the second reports a past-due balance of over XXXX XXXX dollars. Both show a pattern of 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late payments.\n\nThe problem is that I do not have clear records regarding the timeframe when these accounts allegedly became delinquent. I attempted several times to determine whether these accounts were valid, whether they belonged to me, or whether the balances were correctly calculated. When I first saw the late payments appearing on my credit report, I contacted XXXX XXXX to ask for billing statements, original account documentation, and clarification about when the late payments supposedly started. In those interactions, I was not provided statements or documents that clearly identified the timeline of delinquency. \n\nWhen I attempted to dispute these entries through the credit bureaus, the results of the disputes came back as verified, but no details were provided about the method of verification used. I could not obtain a clear explanation as to whether the account information was reviewed manually by XXXX XXXX, verified electronically through automated systems, or relayed through a third-party agency. I also did not receive copies of any documents XXXX XXXX may have used to justify the reporting. As a result, I have been left without the ability to understand how the company concluded the accounts were delinquent, or how the balances reached the levels reported in the charge-off entries. \n\nI also attempted to contact XXXX XXXX during the period these accounts were allegedly open in order to address any outstanding amounts, but I was not able to access or view current statements. The company did not provide detailed breakdowns of charges, payments, or fees. Because of this, I was not able to resolve the accounts proactively or verify that the amounts being reported were accurate. \n\nGiven that both accounts appear to have similar closing dates, similar patterns of late payment coding, and similar verification outcomes during disputes, I am concerned that automated reporting systems may have been used without full investigation. The unresolved questions include whether the accounts were validated with original creditor documentation, whether the delinquency dates were calculated accurately, whether the amounts are correct, and whether procedural errors occurred during updates and reporting. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account The XXXX account in question appears only on the Experian credit report. This account shows a delinquency history leading to derogatory status, including 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late payments. The reported charge-off occurred in XXXX  with more than XXXX XXXX dollars past due. \n\nThe difficulty in addressing this XXXX account is that I do not recall receiving consistent statements, billing notices, or payment reminders during the time period in which the late payments allegedly occurred. When the account was first reported as derogatory, I attempted to obtain documentation from XXXX, including transaction history, billing dates, original loan or installment agreement information, and payment records. I did not receive detailed documentation explaining how the past-due amount was calculated or how the delinquency timeline developed. \n\nI also filed a dispute regarding this account with Experian. The result was that the account was verified, but, again, no explanation was provided about the verification method used, what documents were reviewed, or what internal procedures were followed to determine that the account was being reported accurately. I was not provided with statements, screenshots, or any form of documentation from XXXX that could help me understand the origin of the charges or validate the accuracy of the reporting. \n\nAdditionally, because XXXX operates primarily through digital invoices and app-based payment systems, there may have been email delivery issues, login issues, or missed notifications. Without being given clear documentation, I can not confirm whether I received all required notices, whether there were errors in the billing cycle, or whether the amount due is correct. These uncertainties make it difficult for me to verify the account accurately or understand how the derogatory status developed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account The XXXX XXXX collection account lists a past-due amount of XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX dollars and is marked as derogatory. I attempted to determine the origin of this debt and contact XXXX XXXX, but I was unable to obtain full validation or documentation from the collection agency. I did not receive a detailed statement, original creditor information, or written verification of the debt within a reasonable timeframe. \n\nWhen I disputed the account with the credit bureaus, the account again returned as verified, but no documentation or explanation was provided to me. I could not determine whether the debt was assigned or purchased, whether the original creditor still maintains ownership, or whether XXXX XXXX is legally authorized to collect on the debt. Without knowing the chain of custody or the source of the information, I am unable to confirm whether the account is valid. \n\nAdditionally, the small balance of the debt raises questions, as I do not recall being notified by any creditor of an outstanding amount in that range. I also did not receive notices regarding the account being sent to collections, nor did I receive itemized statements or breakdowns of the charges. Because of this, I can not confirm whether the debt belongs to me, whether the amount is correct, or whether the reporting is accurate. \n\nStudent Loan Late Payment Reporting Multiple federal student loan accounts through the Department of Education are reporting extensive 90-day late payment histories, even though those loans have since been closed or transferred. The late payments appear to be from periods where loan servicer transitions or administrative changes may have occurred.\n\nDuring the period in which the late payments are being reported, there were changes in student loan servicing nationwide, including account transfers, forbearance periods, pandemic-related administrative adjustments, and shifting payment requirements. In my case, there were times when I completed applications for forbearance or deferment, and I believed the loans were under an administrative pause. In some cases, I did not receive timely notices from the servicer notifying me that a payment was due. \n\nWhen I reviewed my credit report and saw multiple 90 days late designations for several consecutive months on multiple loan accounts, I began attempting to resolve the issue. I contacted the loan servicer to request payment histories, notice records, and documentation showing whether bills were sent or whether payments were due during the months in question. I was not provided complete or clear documentation indicating whether the loans were in an active repayment phase, in a transferred status, or under some other administrative category during the months coded as late. \n\nI disputed the student loan late payments with the credit bureaus. The bureaus indicated that the accounts were verified, but no explanation was provided about what records were reviewed. Given the known issues during servicer transitions, I am unsure whether the servicers reporting was accurate or whether there may have been a system error, miscommunication, or reporting delay. \n\nActions I Have Taken Across all accounts, I have consistently attempted to obtain validation, statements, documentation, or clear communication from the companies involved. My actions include : Filing multiple disputes with all three credit bureaus.\n\nRequesting validation or verification of debts directly from creditors or collectors.\n\nAttempting to obtain original statements, billing notices, or transactional proof.\n\nRequesting explanation of reporting timelines and delinquency calculations.\n\nReviewing credit reports from each bureau to compare inconsistencies.\n\nAttempting to resolve or verify unresolved account histories.\n\nContacting servicers regarding student loan reporting issues.\n\nDespite these efforts, I have not received detailed information, documentation, billing statements, or clarification that would allow me to confirm that the reported entries are accurate.\n\nWhy I Believe the Reporting Is Inaccurate or Incomplete There are several reasons why I believe the information may not be accurate : Inability to obtain documentation from furnishers despite repeated attempts.\n\nLack of itemized statements clearly showing how balances were calculated.\n\nDisputes marked verified without any explanation of how verification occurred.\n\nPossible automated verification processes without manual review. \n\nLack of original creditor information in the XXXX XXXX account. \n\nPotential system errors or miscommunication during student loan transitions. \n\nInconsistent reporting between bureaus, such as the XXXX account appearing only on Experian. \n\nDifficulty determining whether accounts were assigned, sold, or transferred. \n\nBecause of these factors, I can not independently confirm the accuracy of the negative information. \n\nWhat I Am Requesting Through This Complaint Through this complaint, I am requesting that the CFPB help facilitate a more thorough review or reinvestigation of these accounts. I am asking that the companies involved provide : Clear documentation showing the basis for the reporting. \n\nCopies of billing statements, transaction history, and delinquency calculations. \n\nProof of assignment or authority to collect debts where applicable. \n\nExplanation of how verification was completed during my disputes. \n\nCorrection or removal of any information that can not be substantiated. \n\nMy goal is not to avoid legitimate debts, but to ensure that the information being reported is accurate, complete, and supported by real documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-17T19:13:34.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32810","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17299756","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-17T19:13:04.000Z","state":"FL","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":["The primary accounts involved are two <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> charge-off files, an <em>XXXX</em>  account that appears under <em>Experian</em> only, a <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> account, and multiple <em>Department</em> of Education student loan tradelines that were previously in good standing but later reported with extensive late payments."]},"sort":[9.60795,"17299756"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7329572","_score":8.27957,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I filed three disputes against Nationstar Mortgage, DBA Mr. Cooper, who, so far, has refused to correct my credit report after a missed payment caused by company error. Coopers letters, comments, and actions show they misrepresented and mishandled an internal error at my expense, following it with punitive erroneous credit reports! \n\n\n\n1 : Mr. Cooper canceled my autopay with insufficient notice, 1 day before payment was drafted, no reason, after 5 reps stated it was still in effect and had been updated, causing my XXXX payment to be missed. With no advanced notice ( per autopay contract ), they sent a letter via US mail on the day it was cancelled, received well after payment was missed. This error was part of multiple issues processing an autopay update from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX letter of XXXX, two days before an impending account transfer, shows they were still processing the update after I was assured it was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. The XXXX statement was issued XX/XX/XXXX ( normally on the 8th of the month ), well after the grace period ended ( 15th of the month ). I did not receive any notices of cancellation until the account was already late and transferred. A supervisor and multiple reps advised late payments are not reported unless over 60 days, yet a 30-day late report for XXXX was sent. \n\n2 : When disputed, Mr. Cooper corrected their report XXXX, showing delinquencies for XXXX AND XXXX. The loan was transferred XXXX XXXX ; Cooper had no payment info, nor right to report, after XX/XX/XXXX ; their auto pay cancellation caused the missed pymt! The transfer complicated issues ; some reps stated cancellation was not required for transfer, others stated it was prep for the transfer. A letter was later sent advising Cooper \" researched '' my dispute and it was correct. How thorough was research that missed the loan transfer effective XX/XX/XXXX, after which no payment was due them, nor payment info in their possession? \n\n3 : After disputing # 2, an XXXX rep advised the report was changed to XXXX & XXXX late ; my latest dispute result, XXXX, still shows XXXX & XXXX. XXXX has received auto payments the 7th of every month since XX/XX/2013. XXXX XXXX statement shows pymt posted XXXX, also confirmed XXXX & XXXX by their reps. Neither XXXX nor XXXX payments were late ; XXXX was missed exclusively due to Cooper error.\n\nMy payment history ( NO delinquencies ) proves my intent to pay, in good faith, as agreed. Coopers letters, comments, and actions show they misrepresented and mishandled an internal error processing my autpay update, evidenced by continuing till 2 days before acct transfer, and gave no advance notice of autopay cancellation. Cooper attributed cancellation to acct transfer, claiming their letter, received XXXX weeks after, was acceptable grounds to report the resulting missed payment. \n\nThese actions seem no less than breach of contract, show irresponsible & illegal business practices with systemic, inter-departmental lack of knowledge or misrepresentation of account activity, causing confusion and conflict for employees and clients alike. I have been told I am not the only client struggling with erroneous, punitive credit reports from this transfer! Cooper 's policies and procedures demand immediate investigation and correction! \n\nA detailed chronology, follows : XXXX Faxed autopay update, new bank info ( att ). In 5 follow-up calls ( below ), all 5 reps confirmed auto pay in effect, old acct to be used until new info posted, was being processed ; XXXX advised was complete. \n\nXXXX @ XXXX : XXXX XXXX confirmed XXXX pymt rcvd XXXX, autopay form rcvd, not processed. \n\nXXXX @ XXXX : XXXX XXXX advised processing autopay changes today, confirmed new acct #, pymt changed to 1st of month from 7th, extra to principal. \n\nXXXX : IVR has old acct #. Cooper rep ( female, missed name ) confirmed fax was rcvd, is blank, as though back side of paper. While on hold, she saw it took 5 full mins to load fax image, clearly legible. She reconfirmed XXXX pymt made, being processed, takes few days, documented acct to wait for doc to load. \n\nXXXX @ XXXX : XXXX still has old #. XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX AZ, emailed autopay dept, waiting for reply. Unk why not yet processed, took time researching to find possible issues. Added privacy preferences to file. On call 49 min : 46 secs, still no answer, will call back Fri if gets reply in a.m. ( No callback, NO mention of transfer, should've seen it while researching in a 50-min call? ) XXXX @ XXXX : XXXX XXXX advised autopay setup complete, will take effect on XXXX. XXXX pymt will draft from old acct on 7th ; XXXX pymt will draft from new acct on 1st, extra to principal, new total. Assured me all set, NO mention of loan transfer. \n\nXXXX : Effective date of acct transfer. Notification letter ( att ) states if auto-paid, pymts after XXXX will be canceled, so why cancel auto pay w/in the grace period in the month prior to transferring? Clearly was not automatically cancelled as requirement for acct transfer, as confirmed by some XXXX reps, also by XXXX, whose reps were surprised it had been canceled. \n\n( early XXXX ) Received 2 letters re autopay ( att ) : dated XXXX stating autopay automatically canceled, no reason ; and XXXX, stating could not be set up w/ draft date missing or outside grace period ; form is distinctly marked on due date ( attached )! Proves autopay still being processed 2 days before transfer ; cancellation was error processing update, not prep for transfer, and carelessly misread. \n\nXXXX ( apprx XXXX ) XXXX called, advised they are new mortgage company, XXXX & XXXX pymts not made to XXXX! I thought both payments had been auto paid, called XXXX for explanation. \n\nXXXX XXXX rep confirmed transfer, advised under 60 days late = no credit report, found XXXX request faxed XXXX. XXXX canceled because draft date was not listed or is after the due date, yet request marked on due date '' ( 1st of month ), said it made no sense, transferred to supervisor. 2nd rep ( 2nd dept ) said canceled due to account transfer, no credit report if under 60 days late, transferred to supervisor. \n\nXXXX supervisor XXXX stated : -Located autopay request, notes of 5 calls that autopay still in effect/being updated -Plan to transfer acct was posted XXXX, unk why no reps advised, -Unable to change delinquent status/reverse late fee, as no longer owned by XXXX -Understands missed payment from autopay cancellation w/ no advance notice -No other delinquencies, under 60 days = not reported -Advised law requires 60-day grace period on transfers -Will pull recorded XXXX call, confirm content, call to advise status ( never called ) XXXX : XXXX & XXXX payments made XXXX to new servicer, XXXX. Late fee waived, cant change status b4 transfer, XXXX grace period starts XXXX, not considered late by them for XXXX or XXXX. \n\nXXXX Third-party credit monitoring svc = delinquent report sent. XXXX : XXXX XXXX took dispute by phone, gave me XXXX dispute #. XXXX : XXXX XXXX advised unknown why I was told no reports if < 60 days, they report every 30 days, must email credit dispute '' research dept, sent XXXX. \n\nXXXX : Experian dispute result XXXX ( att ) shows XXXX corrected report by adding 30-day late notice for XXXX! Now shows 30 days late both XXXX and XXXX ; XXXX did not even own mortgage on XX/XX/XXXX, has no pymt records or legal standing to report! \n\nXXXX XXXX : XXXX escalations XXXX 37 min on hold, disconnected twice, transferring to supvr XXXX, XXXX new company sent XXXX report, I said no, reading from credit report, shows XXXX did XXXX with NO right/info to report, filed 3rd dispute. \n\nXXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX took complaint, suggested I upload docs as PDF or mail to them, also submit dispute to XXXX, corrected middle name. Waiting for doc in mail to fwd to Cooper. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, states late status XXXX & XXXX researched, are accurate. Clearly NOT researched, no longer owned by them and violates transfer grace period law! \n\nXXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX advised dispute complete, XXXX response XXXX XXXX now shows XXXX & XXXX both 30 days XXXX! XXXX XXXX statement & 2 reps confirmed payment received XXXX via auto pay! \n\nXXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX AZ ) advised fax number, they show XXXX & XXXX, not XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX confirmed my name corrected, report in mail, removed email ; XXXX XXXX XXXX advised in mail, still shows XXXX & XXXX. \n\nXXXX : XXXX dispute result XXXX shows XXXX & XXXX, not XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX : XXXX credit report of XXXX shows XXXX & XXXX 30 days late, emailed XXXX a detailed narrative with attached documents, demanding recision. \n\nDocuments attached : XXXX aut py update XXXX Coop stmnt XXXX aut py cncd XXXX transfer notice XXXX Coop stmnt XXXX cant set up aut py XXXX XXXX response XXXX coop dispute research XXXX Exp response XXXX email to XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-07-31T21:54:35.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"923XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7329572","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","date_received":"2023-07-31T21:37:09.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>XXXX</em> : <em>Experian</em> <em>dispute</em> result <em>XXXX</em> ( att ) shows <em>XXXX</em> corrected report by adding 30-day late notice for <em>XXXX</em>! Now shows 30 days late both <em>XXXX</em> and <em>XXXX</em> ; <em>XXXX</em> did not even own mortgage on <em>XX/XX/XXXX</em>, has no pymt records or legal standing to report! \n\n<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> : <em>XXXX</em> escalations <em>XXXX</em> 37 min on hold, disconnected twice, transferring to supvr <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> new company sent <em>XXXX</em> report, I said no, reading from credit report, shows <em>XXXX</em> did <em>XXXX</em> with NO right/info to report, filed 3rd <em>dispute</em>."]},"sort":[8.27957,"7329572"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":19,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":19}]}},"product":{"doc_count":19,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":17,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":17}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":19,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":14,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":9},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":3,"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":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":19,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":19}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":19,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":11},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":8}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":19,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":19}]}},"company":{"doc_count":19,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":8},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"January Technologies, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":19,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":9},{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"PA","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"TX","doc_count":2}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":19,"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":11},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":19,"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":{}}}