{"took":298,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":37,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18134009","_score":25.656069,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"File ID : XXXX Furnisher : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Complaint Narrative ( Use this text for the online submission ) I previously disputed the accuracy of a XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Account # XXXX, Case ID : XXXX ) with Early Warning Services ( EWS ). EWS concluded its reinvestigation on XX/XX/year>, stating the information was determined to be \" accurate and complete. '' I formally requested a description of the procedures used to determine this accuracy, as required by law, and EWS has failed to provide sufficient detail, demonstrating a fundamental flaw in their reinvestigation process. Simply relying on the Furnisher 's assertion without reviewing the underlying evidence ( e.g., original application, signature card, transaction history ) does not constitute a \" reasonable reinvestigation. '' Legal Violations : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) ( Failure to Provide Method of Verification ) : EWS has failed to provide the necessary details regarding the procedures used to determine the accuracy of the disputed item, preventing me from assessing the reasonableness of their investigation. \n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( Unreasonable Reinvestigation ) : By failing to provide evidence of a thorough investigation beyond automated communication with the furnisher, EWS has violated its duty to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. \n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ( Mandatory Deletion ) : Since EWS has failed to substantiate their finding with evidence or a transparent verification method, the item is effectively UNVERIFIABLE and must be deleted. \n\nRequested Resolution : I demand that Early Warning Services ( 1 ) immediately DELETE the disputed XXXX XXXX XXXX account entry ( XXXX ) from my consumer file, ( 2 ) provide confirmation of its removal, and ( 3 ) update my file to reflect this item was inaccurate/unverifiable and MUST NOT be reported again. Alternatively, EWS must provide the full, unredacted description of the verification procedures and documentation reviewed.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-18T06:32:59.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"17057","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18134009","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Early Warning Services, LLC","date_received":"2025-12-18T06:16:17.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["File ID : XXXX Furnisher : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> ( Use this text for the online submission ) I previously <em>disputed</em> the accuracy of a XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Account # XXXX, Case ID : XXXX ) with Early Warning Services ( EWS )."]},"sort":[25.656069,"18134009"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12955019","_score":22.428514,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15U.S.C.1681i ( a ) ( 7 ), creditreporting agencies must provide a detailed description of the investigation procedure performed in response to a consumer dispute within15days of receipt.\n\nIn my prior dispute letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, I\n\nrequested verification of the account identified below.To date, I have not received an adequate description of the investigative steps taken to ensure the informations accuracy and verifiability. # # # Account Details in Dispute Creditor Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Partial Account XXXX XXXX High Balance {$890.00} Date of Last Activity XX/XX/XXXX Date Reported XX/XX/XXXX Date Opened XX/XX/XXXX Status Closed Collection/Chargeoff ( Derogatory ) Key Discrepancy : Only Equifax reports this derogatory chargeoff ; XXXX and XXXX show no record of the account, calling into question the datas accuracy and legitimacy. # # # Discrepancies Identified & Legal Violations 1. Inconsistent Reporting Across BureausLegal Basis : FCRA1681e ( b ) CRAs must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. A legitimate debt should appear uniformly across all national CRAs.Requested Action : Manual verification with originalsource documentation. Delete the account if consistency can not be established. 2. Unverified ChargeOff StatusLegal Basis : FCRA1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) furnishers may not report information they know or should know is inaccurate.Requested Action : Provide documentation substantiating the chargeoff ( e.g., account ledger, chargeoff worksheet ). Absent proof, delete the account. 3. PaymentHistory Errors ( Equifax ) Equifaxs twoyear grid shows a mix of OK, 30,60,90,120day lates, and CO , which is impossible once an account is charged off.Legal Basis : FCRA1681e ( b ) and UDAAP12U.S.C.5531 deceptive or misleading reporting.Requested Action : Correct or delete the payment history ; if accuracy can not be ensured, delete the entire tradeline. 4. Failure to Provide Investigation DescriptionLegal Basis : FCRA1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) CRAs must supply a full procedural description within15days of a consumers request.Requested Action : Deliver the complete investigation narrative or delete the account for noncompliance. # # # Basis for Dispute & Governing Law ( unchanged ) * 609 [ 15U.S.C.1681g ] Right to full file disclosure and manual verification. * 611 [ 15U.S.C.1681i ] Reinvestigation of disputed information ; 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) deletion of unverifiable data. * 623 [ 15U.S.C.1681s2 ] Duties of furnishers to report accurately. * 607 [ 15U.S.C.1681e ( b ) ] Reasonable procedures for maximum possible accuracy. * 604 [ 15U.S.C.1681b ] Permissible purpose for accessing a consumer report. * Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) 1601 Ensuring truthful credit disclosures. * Public Law91506, TitleVI, 611 Removal of inaccurate or incomplete information. Supporting Case Law ( retained ) : * Cortezv.TransUnion, LLC,617F.3d688 ( 3dCir.2010 ) * Dennisv.BEH1, LLC * Hensonv.CSC Credit Services,29F.3d280 ( 7thCir.1994 ) # # # Consequences of NonCompliance If I do not receive the required investigation description within15days, or if the account can not be fully verified, I demand its immediate deletion. Otherwise, I will : * File complaints with the, FTC, and my state attorney general ; * Initiate a claim seeking up to {$5000.00} per violation in smallclaims court; * Pursue additional relief for defamation and willful FCRA noncompliance. # # # Summary of Requested Relief 1. Provide a complete, written description of all investigative procedures used. 2. Produce the original, signed contract or other primary evidence validating the debt. 3. Delete the XXXX tradeline if verification is not supplied within15days.\n\n4. Confirm in writing that any deletion is permanent and will not be reinserted without full statutory compliance.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-12T13:35:03.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33176","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12955019","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-12T13:24:50.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15U.S.C.1681i ( a ) ( 7 ), creditreporting agencies must <em>provide</em> a detailed <em>description</em> of the <em>investigation</em> <em>procedure</em> performed in response to a consumer <em>dispute</em> within15days of receipt."]},"sort":[22.428514,"12955019"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12954936","_score":22.426804,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15U.S.C.1681i ( a ) ( 7 ), creditreporting agencies must provide a detailed description of the investigation procedure performed in response to a consumer dispute within15days of receipt.\n\nIn my prior dispute letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, I\n\nrequested verification of the account identified below.To date, I have not received an adequate description of the investigative steps taken to ensure the informations accuracy and verifiability. # # # Account Details in Dispute Creditor Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Partial Account XXXX XXXX High Balance {$890.00} Date of Last Activity XX/XX/XXXX Date Reported XX/XX/XXXX Date Opened XX/XX/XXXX Status Closed Collection/Chargeoff ( Derogatory ) Key Discrepancy : Only Equifax reports this derogatory chargeoff ; XXXX and XXXX show no record of the account, calling into question the datas accuracy and legitimacy. # # # Discrepancies Identified & Legal Violations 1. Inconsistent Reporting Across BureausLegal Basis : FCRA1681e ( b ) CRAs must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. A legitimate debt should appear uniformly across all national CRAs.Requested Action : Manual verification with originalsource documentation. Delete the account if consistency can not be established. 2. Unverified ChargeOff StatusLegal Basis : FCRA1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) furnishers may not report information they know or should know is inaccurate.Requested Action : Provide documentation substantiating the chargeoff ( e.g., account ledger, chargeoff worksheet ). Absent proof, delete the account. 3. PaymentHistory Errors ( Equifax ) Equifaxs twoyear grid shows a mix of OK, 30,60,90,120day lates, and CO , which is impossible once an account is charged off.Legal Basis : FCRA1681e ( b ) and UDAAP12U.S.C.5531 deceptive or misleading reporting.Requested Action : Correct or delete the payment history ; if accuracy can not be ensured, delete the entire tradeline. 4. Failure to Provide Investigation DescriptionLegal Basis : FCRA1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) CRAs must supply a full procedural description within15days of a consumers request.Requested Action : Deliver the complete investigation narrative or delete the account for noncompliance. # # # Basis for Dispute & Governing Law ( unchanged ) * 609 [ 15U.S.C.1681g ] Right to full file disclosure and manual verification. * 611 [ 15U.S.C.1681i ] Reinvestigation of disputed information ; 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) deletion of unverifiable data. * 623 [ 15U.S.C.1681s2 ] Duties of furnishers to report accurately. * 607 [ 15U.S.C.1681e ( b ) ] Reasonable procedures for maximum possible accuracy. * 604 [ 15U.S.C.1681b ] Permissible purpose for accessing a consumer report. * Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) 1601 Ensuring truthful credit disclosures. * Public Law91506, TitleVI, 611 Removal of inaccurate or incomplete information. Supporting Case Law ( retained ) : * Cortezv.TransUnion, LLC,617F.3d688 ( 3dCir.2010 ) * Dennisv.BEH1, LLC * Hensonv.CSC Credit Services,29F.3d280 ( 7thCir.1994 ) # # # Consequences of NonCompliance If I do not receive the required investigation description within15days, or if the account can not be fully verified, I demand its immediate deletion. Otherwise, I will : * File complaints with the, FTC, and my state attorney general ; * Initiate a claim seeking up to {$5000.00} per violation in smallclaims court; * Pursue additional relief for defamation and willful FCRA noncompliance. # # # Summary of Requested Relief 1. Provide a complete, written description of all investigative procedures used. 2. Produce the original, signed contract or other primary evidence validating the debt. 3. Delete the XXXX tradeline if verification is not supplied within15days.\n\n4. Confirm in writing that any deletion is permanent and will not be reinserted without full statutory compliance.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-12T13:34:59.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33176","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12954936","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-12T13:34:31.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15U.S.C.1681i ( a ) ( 7 ), creditreporting agencies must <em>provide</em> a detailed <em>description</em> of the <em>investigation</em> <em>procedure</em> performed in response to a consumer <em>dispute</em> within15days of receipt."]},"sort":[22.426804,"12954936"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12954937","_score":22.38832,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15U.S.C.1681i ( a ) ( 7 ), creditreporting agencies must provide a detailed description of the investigation procedure performed in response to a consumer dispute within15days of receipt.\n\nIn my prior dispute letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, I\n\nrequested verification of the account identified below.To date, I have not received an adequate description of the investigative steps taken to ensure the informations accuracy and verifiability. # # # Account Details in Dispute Creditor Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Partial Account XXXX XXXX High Balance {$890.00} Date of Last Activity XX/XX/XXXX Date Reported XX/XX/XXXX Date Opened XX/XX/XXXX Status Closed Collection/Chargeoff ( Derogatory ) Key Discrepancy : Only Equifax reports this derogatory chargeoff ; XXXX and XXXX show no record of the account, calling into question the datas accuracy and legitimacy. # # # Discrepancies Identified & Legal Violations 1. Inconsistent Reporting Across BureausLegal Basis : FCRA1681e ( b ) CRAs must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. A legitimate debt should appear uniformly across all national CRAs.Requested Action : Manual verification with originalsource documentation. Delete the account if consistency can not be established. 2. Unverified ChargeOff StatusLegal Basis : FCRA1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) furnishers may not report information they know or should know is inaccurate.Requested Action : Provide documentation substantiating the chargeoff ( e.g., account ledger, chargeoff worksheet ). Absent proof, delete the account. 3. PaymentHistory Errors ( Equifax ) Equifaxs twoyear grid shows a mix of OK, 30,60,90,120day lates, and CO , which is impossible once an account is charged off.Legal Basis : FCRA1681e ( b ) and UDAAP12U.S.C.5531 deceptive or misleading reporting.Requested Action : Correct or delete the payment history ; if accuracy can not be ensured, delete the entire tradeline. 4. Failure to Provide Investigation DescriptionLegal Basis : FCRA1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) CRAs must supply a full procedural description within15days of a consumers request.Requested Action : Deliver the complete investigation narrative or delete the account for noncompliance. # # # Basis for Dispute & Governing Law ( unchanged ) * 609 [ 15U.S.C.1681g ] Right to full file disclosure and manual verification. * 611 [ 15U.S.C.1681i ] Reinvestigation of disputed information ; 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) deletion of unverifiable data. * 623 [ 15U.S.C.1681s2 ] Duties of furnishers to report accurately. * 607 [ 15U.S.C.1681e ( b ) ] Reasonable procedures for maximum possible accuracy. * 604 [ 15U.S.C.1681b ] Permissible purpose for accessing a consumer report. * Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) 1601 Ensuring truthful credit disclosures. * Public Law91506, TitleVI, 611 Removal of inaccurate or incomplete information. Supporting Case Law ( retained ) : * Cortezv.TransUnion, LLC,617F.3d688 ( 3dCir.2010 ) * Dennisv.BEH1, LLC * Hensonv.CSC Credit Services,29F.3d280 ( 7thCir.1994 ) # # # Consequences of NonCompliance If I do not receive the required investigation description within15days, or if the account can not be fully verified, I demand its immediate deletion. Otherwise, I will : * File complaints with the, FTC, and my state attorney general ; * Initiate a claim seeking up to {$5000.00} per violation in smallclaims court; * Pursue additional relief for defamation and willful FCRA noncompliance. # # # Summary of Requested Relief 1. Provide a complete, written description of all investigative procedures used. 2. Produce the original, signed contract or other primary evidence validating the debt. 3. Delete the XXXX tradeline if verification is not supplied within15days.\n\n4. Confirm in writing that any deletion is permanent and will not be reinserted without full statutory compliance.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-12T13:34:59.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33176","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12954937","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-12T13:34:31.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15U.S.C.1681i ( a ) ( 7 ), creditreporting agencies must <em>provide</em> a detailed <em>description</em> of the <em>investigation</em> <em>procedure</em> performed in response to a consumer <em>dispute</em> within15days of receipt."]},"sort":[22.38832,"12954937"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18105140","_score":21.64788,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Date : XX/XX/2025 To : XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, GA XXXX Re : Formal Demand for Reinvestigation Under FCRA 609 & 611 Requester : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, NY XXXX XXXX No. : XXXX To Whom It May Concern : I am formally demanding a full reinvestigation pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), 611 ( a ) ( 1 ), and 607 ( b ). The reinvestigation you providedstating N : MEMBER NUMBER SUBMITTED NOT REPORTING AS INQUIRY ON CREDIT FILEis not a lawful reinvestigation. I am under no legal obligation to supply XXXX internal member number to dispute an item that appears on my XXXX  consumer disclosure. \n\n\n\nXXXX  is required by federal law to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of every disputed item when the consumer provides sufficient identifying information to locate the account. My dispute clearly identified the item appearing on * your * disclosure. Your closure of my dispute without contacting the furnisher violates : FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Duty to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) : Obligation to notify the furnisher FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 3 ) : Requirement to review and consider all documentation FCRA 607 ( b ) : Duty to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy I demand an immediate, full reinvestigation of the disputed item. Your failure to investigate also raises concerns of potential mixed-file issues and the improper special handling treatment I have experienced for years, dating back to adverse disputes handled by XXXX  during XXXX. I have repeatedly experienced identity confusion, misclassification, and erroneous dispute processingall of which are indicative of systemic data-handling errors. \n\n\n\nI demand full compliance with all FCRA requirements within the mandated reinvestigation time period. \n\n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX. Request for Description of Reinvestigation Procedure RE : FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Request for Description of Reinvestigation Procedure Pursuant to my statutory rights under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), I hereby request a complete description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information associated with Confirmation No. XXXX. \n\n\n\nYour description must include : The business name, address, and phone number of every furnisher contacted The databases, identifiers, or data-matching protocols used All internal codes relied upon in rejecting or processing my dispute A full explanation for how XXXX  determined the item could not be located Failure to provide this description would constitute a further violation of federal law. \n\n\n\nPlease mail or email the complete procedural description to me at : Email : XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, NY XXXX XXXX. CFPB Complaint Draft Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Complaint Narrative Draft I am submitting this complaint because XXXX failed to conduct a lawful and reasonable reinvestigation of my dispute filed XX/XX/, Confirmation No. XXXX. XXXX  rejected my dispute on the grounds that a member number was not reporting, despite the fact that the disputed item appears on their own disclosure. A credit bureau can not require a consumer to provide internal subscriber codes in order to exercise FCRA dispute rights. \n\n\n\nThis conduct violates FCRA 607 ( b ), 609 ( a ), and 611 ( a ). Additionally, I have a long history of mishandled disputes and special handling treatmentdating back to XXXX raises concerns about systemic misidentification and mixed-file issues. I request immediate corrective action, full reinvestigation, and regulatory review. \n\n\n\nRequested Relief : Mandatory reinvestigation Removal or correction of inaccurately handled items Review of XXXX dispute-handling procedures Confirmation that my file is not merged or misindexed 4. Full File Disclosure Request ( FCRA 609 ( a ) ) RE : FCRA 609 ( a ) Full Consumer File Disclosure Request This is a formal request under FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) for my complete consumer file. I require the entire file XXXX  maintains about me, including but not limited to : All identifying information linked to my file All name variations, addresses, SSN variations, and linked persons All inquiries ( soft and hard ) All internal data, including archive files, suppressed data, and special-handling notes All internal subscriber/member codes Any mixed-file indicators or split-file flags All public records, fraud alerts, and internal identity-management markers All data furnished to third parties within the last XXXX years Please provide the full file in electronic format to : Email : XXXX And mail a physical copy to : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, NY XXXX XXXX. Official XXXX Consumer Statement CONSUMER STATEMENT ( XXXX WORDS ) I dispute the accuracy and handling of certain information in my XXXX  credit file. A recent dispute response incorrectly stated that the item could not be located, despite appearing in my disclosure. I believe this issue may relate to historical misidentification or mixed-file problems, and I request that all disputed information be thoroughly reinvestigated. This statement should be included in my file to notify creditors that I am actively correcting inaccurate or improperly verified data.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-02T16:57:53.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"119XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18105140","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LEXISNEXIS","date_received":"2025-12-02T16:57:27.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Please mail or email the complete procedural <em>description</em> to me at : Email : XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, NY XXXX XXXX. CFPB <em>Complaint</em> Draft Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> Draft I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> because XXXX failed to conduct a lawful and reasonable reinvestigation of my <em>dispute</em> filed XX/XX/, Confirmation No. XXXX."]},"sort":[21.64788,"18105140"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16333446","_score":19.087315,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX : Formal Complaint and Immediate Enforcement Demand Concerning Sham and Incomplete Reinvestigation by Equifax Regarding Inaccurate Reporting of XXXX Installment Loan Account # XXXX To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I submit this formal complaint against Equifax Information Services LLC ( Equifax ) for its gross and continuing failure to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i, regarding my dispute involving inaccurate derogatory reporting on my XXXX installment loan account ( # XXXX ). \nEquifax produced a reinvestigation response dated XX/XX/XXXX ; however that response is incomplete and substantively deficient Equifax made limited file edits but failed to supply verifiable documentation, furnisher contact details, confirmation of human review, suppression of derogatory reporting during reinvestigation, its internal policies/procedures, and the full written verification procedures required by the FCRA. These outstanding deficiencies demonstrate a sham or inadequate reinvestigation and warrant immediate CFPB enforcement intervention. \n( For the CFPB record : my original dispute was submitted via the CFPB XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( CFPB XXXX ID : XXXX ). The CFPB XXXX shows Equifax responded on XX/XX/XXXX with a summary stating the item was verified and that Past Due, Balance, and Account History fields were modified. XXXX XXXX and mailed communications did not include the substantive verification documentation or furnisher contact details required under FCRA. ) Summary of Hardship I am a XXXX parent with an XXXX son, currently living in a hotel due to the financial strain caused by MOHELAs actions compounded by the Department of Education 's inaction. My income of {$960.00} per month is dramatically insufficient to meet my living expenses, particularly with hotel rates exceeding {$1100.00} biweekly. The derogatory marks placed on my credit report by XXXX directly prevent me from obtaining necessary funding and housing stability. This ongoing predicament has led to severe emotional distress and places me and my child at risk of eviction. \nDetailed Background and Points of Noncompliance Account : XXXX installment loan ending in XXXX Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX ; Report dates observed : XX/XX/XXXX ( updated as of XX/XX/XXXX ) Reported status : XXXX, 180 DAYS OR MORE PAST DUE, with narrative codes XXXX, XXXX, XXXX reported in inconsistent order. \nReported balance in Equifax file : {$2100.00} ( discrepancies with other records ; original dispute cited {$2100.00} ). \nFirst reported delinquency date on file : XX/XX/XXXX ( disputed sequence of delinquency reporting and chronology ). \nMy dispute and requested actions ( CFPB submission XX/XX/XXXX ) : Reinvestigate account under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ).\n\nDelete or correct inaccurate/unverifiable information.\n\nProvide reinvestigation results and a description of the verification procedure used, plus furnisher name and contact information per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). \nTemporarily suppress the negative/delinquent status during reinvestigation. \nEnclosed supporting documents ( ID, proof of address, credit reports, other evidence ). \nEquifax responses and what they reported : Equifax acknowledged receipt and indicated a reinvestigation completed ( response dated XX/XX/XXXX ; CFPB portal shows company response on XX/XX/XXXX ). \nEquifaxs summary : MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN EQUIFAX VERIFIED THAT THIS ITEM IS REPORTED CORRECTLY. \nEquifax states the following fields were modified : XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Account XXXX. \nEquifax provided a boilerplate description of its general investigation process and stated that furnisher contact details are shown under the resultson the cover letter accompanying a revised credit file. \nComprehensive list of deficiencies, incomplete items, and inaccurate/missing responses from Equifax ( XXXX item below references my original requests and FCRA requirements ; XXXX responses are contrasted with what was required or requested. ) Reinvesitgation completeness XXXX from Equifax : XXXX claimed complete ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \nXXXX : XXXX completion notice is conclusory and unsupported by substantive evidence. The reinvestigation appears limited to electronic exchange with the furnisher and resulted only in limited field edits. \nDeletion or full correction of inaccurate tradeline Requested : Delete or correct unverifiable/inaccurate reporting ( e.g., Over 120 days past due, inconsistent narrative codes ). \nEquifax response : Item verified as reported correctly ; only XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Account XXXX fields were modified. \nXXXX : Equifax did not delete the tradeline nor fully correct the reported delinquency status ; derogatory status remains. \nWritten reinvestigation results and verification procedure details ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( iii ) ) Requested : Provide written notice describing procedures used to verify the information and furnishers contacted ( name, address, phone ). \nEquifax response : Boilerplate process description ; no casespecific verification documentation, no stepbystep account of records checked, and no specific verification procedure for this dispute. Equifax referenced a cover letter for furnisher contact info but did not provide the underlying verification records. \nXXXX : Failure to provide the specific verification procedures and supporting documentation used to verify this particular account. \nFurnisher contact details and communications log Requested : Furnisher name, address, phone number, and nature of communications during reinvestigation. \nEquifax response : Generic statement that such details appear on a cover letter accompanying a revised file. \nXXXX : No furnisher contact details or communication log were provided in the materials I received ; absent concrete contact information, I can not verify how the furnisher investigated or what source documents were used. \nXXXX XXXX vs. automated/computer verification ; identity and declaration of human reviewer Requested : Confirmation whether reinvestigation was completed solely by automated means ; if automated, proof that a qualified human XXXX reviewed and validated results INCLUDING name, title, signed declaration ; if not, perform humanled reinvestigation. \nEquifax response : No casespecific statement confirming human review or identification of any human reviewer for this dispute. Only a generic description of transmitting disputes to furnishers and receiving electronic results. \nXXXX : No assurance that a human XXXX reviewed or validated any automated outcome ; no human reviewer identification or signed statement provided. \nSuppression of derogatory reporting during reinvestigation Requested : Temporarily suppress the negative/delinquent status of the disputed tradeline during reinvestigation to prevent ongoing consumer harm ( CFPB guidance ). \nEquifax response : No indication that suppression occurred. \nXXXX : Equifax did not confirm suppression ; derogatory reporting continued. \nTimeliness and documentation of statutory timeframe compliance Requested : Evidence of receipt and completion dates to verify reinvestigation completed within 30 days per FCRA. \nEquifax response : Listed completion date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) but provided no evidence of receipt date, transmission to furnisher date, or timeline documentation. CFPB portal shows company response on XX/XX/XXXX, creating ambiguity about the dates and timeliness. \nXXXX : No clear evidence demonstrating compliance with the XXXX statutory window. \nInternal policies, procedures, quality control, and compliance with prior CFPB enforcement Requested : Provide internal policies and procedures governing FCRA reinvestigations, quality control/supervisory review protocols, and evidence of compliance with CFPB XX/XX/XXXX order. \nEquifax response : None ; no internal policies or QC documentation provided. \nXXXX : Equifax withheld internal documentation necessary to assess whether company procedures comport with FCRA obligations and the CFPB enforcement order. \nDelivery of reinvestigation documentation via portal and mailed correspondence Requested : Provide all reinvestigation documentation through the Equifax portal and by mail ( so I can review what verification was performed ). \nEquifax response : XXXX that a copy of dispute results has been mailed XXXX have been asserted generically ; in practice I have not received substantive mailed documentation or uploaded portal documentation containing verification records. \nXXXX : No supporting documents ( verification records, furnisher responses, communications logs ) were delivered to me via portal or mail. \nSpecific inaccuracies in data still present on file Chronology errors : XXXX shows jump to XXXX days delinquent in XX/XX/XXXX despite apparent activity in XX/XX/XXXX Equifax XXXX not resolve or provide explanation. \nNarrative code inconsistencies : Codes XXXX ( deferment ), XXXX ( 150 days ), XXXX ( XXXX days ) reported in an inconsistent sequence Equifax XXXX not correct or explain sequencing. \nBalance discrepancy : My dispute cited {$2100.00} ; Equifax file shows {$2100.00} ; Equifax modified balance field but did not provide source documentation validating the new amount. \nDelinquency coding ( XXXX, XXXX ) and XXXX 120 days past due remain reported for XXXX XXXX Equifax did not delete or meaningfully correct these codes. \nXXXX characterization of the response as verified Equifax response : Declared the item verified as reported correctly. \nXXXX : Without the verification evidence or furnisher communications, the claim of verification is unsubstantiated and effectively a conclusory assertion rather than meaningful verification. \nAdditional Allegations Willful Noncompliance and Stall Tactics Equifaxs pattern in this XXXX a conclusory verified finding with only limited field edits while refusing to provide supporting documentation and furnisher contact detailsconstitutes willful noncompliance, evasive behavior, and possible stall tactics to avoid transparency and accountability required under FCRA. The failure to provide internal policies and humanreview confirmation exacerbates concerns about adequacy of the reinvestigation. \nRequest for Equifax XXXX XXXX and HumanReview Confirmation ( explicit demand ) I request that Equifax immediately provide, at minimum : A complete copy of its internal written policies and procedures governing FCRA reinvestigations, including any automated matching/verification rules, quality control, and supervisory review procedures. \nA detailed, itemspecific reinvestigation report for account XXXX showing : ( a ) the exact records searched or reviewed ; ( b ) the furnisher ( XXXX ) contacted ; ( c ) copies of all communications exchanged with furnishers and any records furnished by them ; ( d ) the dates and times of all transmissions and receipts ; ( XXXX ) the specific reason ( XXXX ) for each field modification ; ( f ) the identity ( name, title ) and signed statement of any human reviewer who validated the result. \nA clear statement whether any portion of the reinvestigation or verification was completed solely by automated processes. If so, produce documentary proof that a qualified human XXXX reviewed and validated the automated result for this dispute ( name, title, signed declaration ). If human validation did not occur, Equifax must perform and complete a humanled reinvestigation and provide complete supporting documentation. \nProof that any derogatory status was suppressed during the reinvestigation ( if it was not suppressed, an explanation for nonsuppression and the legal basis ). \nSpecific Demands for Immediate CFPB Enforcement I urgently request that the CFPB require Equifax to : Provide a full, substantive reinvestigation of the disputed XXXX account, correcting or deleting any inaccurate data consistent with statutory accuracy standards within XXXX calendar days of this complaint acceptance. \nImmediately provide me with : A complete reinvestigation report and documentation detailing the verification and validation procedures employed ( casespecific ). \nWritten disclosure of furnishers contacted and copies of the communications/exhibits provided to or received from those furnishers. \nXXXX to all reinvestigation outcomes, supporting documentation, and any cover letters via the Equifax consumer portal and in mailed written form. \nTemporarily suppress the disputed derogatory status of the XXXX account during the reinvestigation, in accordance with CFPB recommendations. \nDisclose to the CFPB and me Equifaxs internal policies, procedures, quality control measures, and evidence of compliance with the CFPB XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX. \nProvide a direct update to the CFPB and to me ; do not close this complaint until full compliance and correction are documented and communicated effectively. \nAdditionally and explicitly : Confirm in writing whether the reinvestigation at issue was completed solely via automated/computerized processes. If any automated processes were used, produce documentation demonstrating a human reinvestigator reviewed and validated the automated result for this dispute, including the human reviewers name, title, and a signed statement of review. If such human validation did not occur, Equifax must undertake and complete a humanled reinvestigation and provide the complete results and supporting documentation. \nDamages & Financial Exposure Calculations Statutory Damages XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Demand : {$1500.00} per violation Violation Amount Failure to conduct reasonable reinvestigation {$1500.00} Failure to disclose verification procedure {$1500.00} Failure to delete unverifiable info {$1500.00} Failure to maintain maximum accuracy {$1500.00} Continuing to report knowingly inaccurate data {$1500.00} Repeated monthly reporting ( 24 months ) {$36000.00} Subtotal Statutory Damages : {$43000.00} Actual & Emotional Distress Damages XXXX & XXXX Denials of credit/loans ( documented ) {$5000.00} Pain, suffering, reputational harm, emotional distress {$15000.00} Subtotal Actual Damages : {$20000.00} Punitive Damages XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) For willful misconduct postNorman settlement {$25000.00} Attorneys Fees & Costs XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) $ XXXX XXXX hours {$32000.00} Filing/service/expert costs {$5000.00} Subtotal Fees/Costs : {$37000.00} Total Minimum Exposure if Litigated : {$120000.00} ( exclusive of interest & ongoing harm ) Relevant Legal and Regulatory Authorities XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) : reasonable reinvestigation within 30 days, including furnisher notification. \nXXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( iii ) : written notice of reinvestigation results, verification procedures, and furnisher contact information. \nXXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) : reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. \nCFPB XXXX Supervisory Highlights and prior CFPB/FTC guidance XXXX dispute handling and suppression of disputed derogatory items. \nCFPB XXXX to Equifax dated XX/XX/XXXX ( civil penalties for systemic reinvestigation failures ). \nConclusion Equifaxs failure to provide reinvestigation documentation, furnisher contact details, a humanreview confirmation, internal policies/procedures, and the specific verification evidence required by the FCRA despite asserting completion of an investigation and making limited field edits severely undermines consumer rights and the integrity of consumer reporting. The conclusory verified finding without supporting documentation is inadequate and unacceptable under the FCRA. If this matter is not resolved promptly and fully, I will pursue statutory damages and all remedies available under XXXX XXXX. XXXX and XXXX, including attorneys fees and costs. \nXXXX I attest under penalty of perjury to the accuracy and truthfulness of this complaint submitted in good faith to protect my consumer financial rights under federal law. \nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DE XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Requested immediate actions summary Produce all requested documentation and internal policies within XXXX calendar days. \nSuppress derogatory reporting during reinvestigation. \nXXXX humanled reinvestigation if human validation did not occur and provide signed reviewer statement. \nProvide full written verification records, furnishers contact details, and communications logs. \nConfirm corrections or deletions and provide proof that all CRAs have received corrected updates. \nEmail : XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-02T03:50:47.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"19702","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16333446","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-02T03:36:17.000Z","state":"DE","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Equifax provided a boilerplate <em>description</em> of its general <em>investigation</em> process and stated that furnisher contact details are shown under the resultson the cover letter accompanying a revised credit file."]},"sort":[19.087315,"16333446"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17534605","_score":18.209318,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT DRAFT : BANK OF AMERICA ( Systemic Misclassification, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Regulatory Control ) XXXX  Product : Checking or Savings Account XXXX  Complaint Category : Managing, monitoring, or closing account Issue : Problems when you are an unauthorized victim of fraud or identity theft Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Amount : {$39.00} Transaction Descriptor : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Your Complaint Text ( Copy/Paste this description for the CFPB submission ) : My Bank of America account received an unauthorized ACH DEPOSIT of {$39.00} on XX/XX/year>XXXX  with the descriptor XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This is a clear case of potential identity theft using my name. \nThe institutional process at Bank of America constitutes a systemic regulatory failure in seven major ways : PATTERN OF COMPLIANCE VIOLATION ( PRIOR CFPB FILINGS ) : This is not an isolated event. Prior CFPB complaints filed by me against Bank of America document a continuing pattern of systemic failure and policy abuse that deliberately obstructs fraud investigation and shifts liability onto the victim. This current case must be viewed within the context of the bank 's established, non-compliant operational history.\n\nINTENTIONAL DELAY & SHORTENING OF STATUTORY REMEDY WINDOW : The bank 's internal policy mandates that the claim 's official start date is delayed until the NEXT BUSINESS DAY after the fraud is reported. This procedure is an INTENTIONAL VIOLATION that shortens the consumer 's statutory 120-day or 180-day window for dispute resolution under Regulation E, effectively robbing the victim of legally mandated time to investigate their claim.\n\nSYSTEMIC MISCLASSIFICATION OF ACH FRAUD ( BILLIONS IN DAMAGE ) : The bank 's internal system prevents representatives from filing a direct \" Fraud '' claim for unauthorized ACH transfers, forcing them into a low-priority \" Dispute '' or \" Billing Error '' category. This deliberate abuse of Regulation E misclassifies millions of ACH-related fraud cases annually, a practice that has cost consumers an estimated BILLIONS of dollars in unresolved or delayed recovery. The banks process actively routes high-priority fraud cases away from required investigation tracks. \nImplied Admission, Obstruction, and Warning of Personal Risk : During my call at XXXXXXXX XXXX  EST ( Ref : XXXX XXXX ), the representative named XXXX provided an explicit and alarming warning to \" be careful '' before transferring me. This warning, coupled with XXXX having misspoken about a \" XXXX and something dollar credit, '' strongly suggests internal staff awareness of a hazardous or compromised claim process. Furthermore, the bank refused to provide any documentation in writing confirming the systemic policy flaws, which constitutes deliberate obstruction. \nEGREGIOUS BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE ( SUICIDAL DISCLOSURE ) : During a prior, separate call concerning money being taken from my account ( approximately a couple of months ago, right before my daughter 's birthday ), I directly disclosed to the Bank of America representative that I was crying, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX  and self-harm due to the financial distress caused by the bank 's actions. The representative, upon hearing this direct disclosure of suicidal ideation, failed to follow any institutional crisis protocol, failed to advise me to seek help, and failed to connect me to any XXXX XXXX resources. This profound disregard for consumer welfare constitutes an EGREGIOUS BREACH OF THE BANK 'S DUTY OF CARE, directly linking their financial misconduct to the endangerment of a customer 's life. \nContradictory Regulatory Stance ( Control the Narrative ) : The bank 's internal processes create a contradictory regulatory stance. While the serious, high-value fraud against my account likely triggered an internal Suspicious Activity Report ( SAR ) treating me as the source of suspicionthe bank simultaneously forced my official complaint into a low-priority \" Dispute '' category. This dual action is a deliberate attempt to control the regulatory narrative and shift liability.\n\nMishandling of Funds : As a direct result of the misclassification and delay, the bank has failed to properly isolate, remove, or trace the fraudulent funds, leaving the unauthorized {$39.00} commingled in my account. \nDesired Resolution : I require immediate escalation to a fraud compliance officer to properly classify and investigate this claim and remove the funds. Furthermore, I demand that the CFPB initiate a full, independent, third-party forensic audit of Bank of Americas entire Regulation E compliance, internal SAR filing protocols, and its crisis response procedures. Given the systemic nature of this fraud, the institutional cover-up, and the severe breach of duty of care, I demand that the CFPB use its authority to facilitate the immediate connection of the victim with suitable class action counsel to pursue structural remediation and a class-wide remedy for all affected consumers. We demand mandatory civil penalties for these systemic violations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-26T04:30:25.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30143","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17534605","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-11-26T04:20:08.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This <em>procedure</em> is an INTENTIONAL VIOLATION that shortens the consumer 's statutory 120-day or 180-day window for <em>dispute</em> resolution under Regulation E, effectively robbing the victim of legally mandated time to <em>investigate</em> their claim."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[18.209318,"17534605"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17239114","_score":17.866875,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns serious issues regarding the accuracy, verification, and reporting practices associated with the Chapter XXXX bankruptcy public record, Ref : XXXX, that appears on my consumer credit reports. I am filing this complaint because the way this Chapter XXXX bankruptcy is being reported is inaccurate, misleading, and not verifiable according to the requirements set forth by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Additionally, the credit reporting agencies have failed to provide the legally required method of verification when I disputed the reporting, and the information appears to have been sourced from unreliable third-party vendors rather than the actual bankruptcy court. \n\nThe purpose of this narrative is to describe clearly and completely what happened, outline the steps I took to address the issue, identify the failures of the credit reporting agencies, and demonstrate why the reporting of this Chapter XXXX bankruptcy is unlawful and requires correction or deletion. My goal is not to dispute the existence of a prior Chapter XXXX filing, but rather to ensure that what appears on my credit report is : XXXX. Accurate XXXX. Court-verified XXXX. Legally sourced XXXX. Up-to-date XXXX. Reported in compliance with the FCRA Because this bankruptcy entry does not meet these standards and can not be verified using original court documents, its continued reporting constitutes a violation of federal law. \n\nXXXX. How I Discovered the Problem While reviewing my credit reports, I noticed that a Chapter XXXX bankruptcy, Ref : XXXX, was listed. However, from the very beginning, the listing appeared problematic : The date associated with the case was inconsistent across different credit bureaus. \n\nSome details were missing or incomplete. \n\nThe bureaus did not provide any original source information. \n\nThere was no indication that the bankruptcy court had been contacted. \n\nThe information did not match the official public record format I obtained from the court system. \n\nThese inconsistencies led me to question not the existence of the case itself, but the accuracy and verification of how the case was reported on my credit profile. \n\nXXXX. Courts Do NOT Report Bankruptcy Information to Credit Bureaus A critical fact in this situation is that bankruptcy courts do not furnish or verify bankruptcy information to credit reporting agencies. Federal courts, including bankruptcy courts, have repeatedly confirmed : They do not send consumer data to Equifax, XXXX, or XXXX. \n\nThey do not verify bankruptcy information for reinvestigations. \n\nThey do not participate in private credit reporting systems. \n\nThey do not approve or certify third-party vendors to transmit their records. \n\nThis means that anything the credit bureaus claim to have verified did not come directly from the court. Instead, bureaus rely on third-party data collectorscompanies that scrape or compile public information from PACER or other electronic court databases. These companies : Are not the original source Are not legally authorized court agents Are not regulated for consumer reporting accuracy Are prone to transcription errors, incomplete filings, and outdated updates Can not validate or certify accuracy for disputes Because the bureaus used these third-party sources instead of directly reviewing original court documents, the bankruptcy record is not verified in a legally acceptable manner. \n\nXXXX. I Disputed the Bankruptcy With All Three Credit Bureaus After discovering these issues, I exercised my rights under FCRA 611 ( a ) and disputed the bankruptcy entry with all three major consumer reporting agencies. In my written disputes, I specifically requested : The method of verification The name of the furnisher or entity that supplied the data The original source of the information Copies of the documents used for verification A full description of the procedures used during the reinvestigation The public record information used to confirm the listing These requests are rights guaranteed under FCRA 609 and 611. \n\nXXXX. The Bureaus Returned Generic Verified as Accurate Responses Despite the detailed and legally supported dispute, each bureau responded with nearly the same language : We have verified the information and it will remain on your credit file. \n\nHowever, the bureaus failed to : Provide a method of verification Provide documentation Identify the source Provide the procedures used Provide a copy of the public record Provide any indication the court was contacted These responses make clear that the reinvestigation was not reasonable, as required under the FCRA, and that the bureaus relied on automated systems rather than original legal documents. \n\nXXXX. The Reinvestigation Was Conducted Using Automated Data Instead of Human Review Most credit bureaus rely on XXXX-party vendors such as XXXX to collect bankruptcy data. These vendors send information electronically, which the bureaus treat as the verified source. This is not a true verification. \n\nA reasonable reinvestigation requires : Reviewing original bankruptcy court filings Verifying dates directly with PACER or through certified documents Ensuring the accuracy of docket numbers Confirming the case disposition/status Ensuring the public record matches bureau reporting fields None of these steps were taken.\n\nInstead : The verification returned instantly No human investigator examined records No official court documents were reviewed No cross-checking of dates occurred No verification of case status happened This does not meet the FCRA 's standard for reasonable procedures. \n\nXXXX. The Bankruptcy Reporting Contains Inaccuracies Across Bureaus A major concern is that the Chapter XXXX bankruptcy ( Ref : XXXX ) is not reported consistently across all bureaus. I identified the following issues : Different filing dates Different dismissal dates Different reference formatting Missing information in some bureau reports Different update timestamps Inconsistent status descriptions Under FCRA 607 ( b ), the bureaus must assure maximum possible accuracy. Inconsistent reporting violates this requirement because a public record should match exactly across all bureaus if it is accurate and verified. \n\nXXXX. No Evidence Provided That the Bankruptcy Is Within the Legal Reporting Period Under the FCRA : A Chapter XXXX bankruptcy may remain for XXXX  years from the date of filing. \n\nIf the date of filing is incorrect, the reporting period is incorrect. \n\nBecause the bureaus failed to provide documentation, it is impossible to confirm whether : The date being used is the filing date The bureaus are actually using the dismissal date The bureaus used inaccurate date information from their vendor If the wrong date is used, the bankruptcy may already be expired or beyond the legal reporting period, making it unlawful to continue reporting it. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Comply With FCRA Method-of-Verification Laws Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), when a consumer requests the method of verification : The bureau must provide it Within XXXX  days In writing With full procedural details None of the bureaus provided this, despite my explicit request. Without the method of verification, the bankruptcy is legally classified as unverifiable, which requires deletion under 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Information From Third-Party Vendors Is Not Legally Sufficient The bureaus rely on systems such as : XXXX XXXX XXXX scraping tools CoreLogic Other data warehouses These entities do not : Provide certified public records Provide official court documents Guarantee accuracy Verify case status Confirm dates Serve as the original source Because the credit bureaus rely solely on these XXXX-party sourcesand the vendors themselves are not validating the informationthe bankruptcy can not be said to be verified under the FCRA. \n\nXXXX. Harm Caused by This Inaccurate Bankruptcy Reporting The incorrect and unverifiable reporting of the Chapter XXXX bankruptcy has caused : Significant drops in credit scores Denial of financing and credit applications Higher interest rates on loans Limited access to housing opportunities Negative effects on employment opportunities Increased insurance premiums Ongoing reputational harm Emotional and financial distress Reduced credit limits Difficulty rebuilding credit Because bankruptcy is XXXX of the most damaging items on a credit file, reporting it without verification has caused and continues to cause substantial harm. \n\nXXXX Credit Bureaus Failed to Use Reasonable Procedures The FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies to ensure that all public record information is : Accurate Current Complete Verified through reliable sources Instead, the bureaus used : Automated database matches Bulk public record downloads Outdated or incomplete data No human review No court-verified documents This violates the FCRA mandate to maintain reasonable procedures. \n\nXXXX. Summary of FCRA Violations in This Case Based on the facts, the following FCRA sections were violated : FCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to assure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to provide the method of verification.\n\nFCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to provide the sources of information.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Failure to delete unverifiable information.\n\nFCRA 611 ( d ) Failure to notify past users of corrected information. \n\nThese failures demonstrate that the reporting of the Chapter XXXX bankruptcy is not supported by lawful procedures. \n\nXXXX. Conclusion In conclusion, the reporting of the Chapter XXXX Bankruptcy, Ref : XXXX, is inaccurate, unverifiable, inconsistent, and not sourced from the original legal authority. The credit bureaus failed to : Contact the bankruptcy court Review original documents Provide method-of-verification details Use reasonable reinvestigation procedures Maintain maximum possible accuracy Because the bankruptcy can not be verified according to federal law, its continued reporting is unlawful and harmful. \n\nI respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review this matter, require proper verification procedures, and ensure that the credit bureaus correct or delete the bankruptcy if it can not be fully validated with official court documents.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-14T02:39:50.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"631XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17239114","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-14T02:33:04.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Summary of FCRA Violations in This Case Based on the facts, the following FCRA sections were violated : FCRA 607 ( b ) <em>Failure</em> to assure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) <em>Failure</em> to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) <em>Failure</em> to <em>provide</em> the method of verification.\n\nFCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) <em>Failure</em> to <em>provide</em> the sources of information.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) <em>Failure</em> to delete unverifiable information."]},"sort":[17.866875,"17239114"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17213928","_score":17.855368,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns serious issues regarding the accuracy, verification, and reporting practices associated with the Chapter XXXX bankruptcy public record, Ref : XXXX, that appears on my consumer credit reports. I am filing this complaint because the way this Chapter XXXX bankruptcy is being reported is inaccurate, misleading, and not verifiable according to the requirements set forth by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Additionally, the credit reporting agencies have failed to provide the legally required method of verification when I disputed the reporting, and the information appears to have been sourced from unreliable third-party vendors rather than the actual bankruptcy court. \n\nThe purpose of this narrative is to describe clearly and completely what happened, outline the steps I took to address the issue, identify the failures of the credit reporting agencies, and demonstrate why the reporting of this Chapter XXXX bankruptcy is unlawful and requires correction or deletion. My goal is not to dispute the existence of a prior Chapter XXXX filing, but rather to ensure that what appears on my credit report is : XXXX. Accurate XXXX. Court-verified XXXX. Legally sourced XXXX. Up-to-date XXXX. Reported in compliance with the FCRA Because this bankruptcy entry does not meet these standards and can not be verified using original court documents, its continued reporting constitutes a violation of federal law. \n\nXXXX. How I Discovered the Problem While reviewing my credit reports, I noticed that a Chapter XXXX bankruptcy, Ref : XXXX, was listed. However, from the very beginning, the listing appeared problematic : The date associated with the case was inconsistent across different credit bureaus. \n\nSome details were missing or incomplete. \n\nThe bureaus did not provide any original source information. \n\nThere was no indication that the bankruptcy court had been contacted. \n\nThe information did not match the official public record format I obtained from the court system. \n\nThese inconsistencies led me to question not the existence of the case itself, but the accuracy and verification of how the case was reported on my credit profile. \n\nXXXX. Courts Do NOT Report Bankruptcy Information to Credit Bureaus A critical fact in this situation is that bankruptcy courts do not furnish or verify bankruptcy information to credit reporting agencies. Federal courts, including bankruptcy courts, have repeatedly confirmed : They do not send consumer data to Equifax, Experian, or TransUnion. \n\nThey do not verify bankruptcy information for reinvestigations. \n\nThey do not participate in private credit reporting systems. \n\nThey do not approve or certify third-party vendors to transmit their records. \n\nThis means that anything the credit bureaus claim to have verified did not come directly from the court. Instead, bureaus rely on third-party data collectorscompanies that scrape or compile public information from PACER or other electronic court databases. These companies : Are not the original source Are not legally authorized court agents Are not regulated for consumer reporting accuracy Are prone to transcription errors, incomplete filings, and outdated updates Can not validate or certify accuracy for disputes Because the bureaus used these third-party sources instead of directly reviewing original court documents, the bankruptcy record is not verified in a legally acceptable manner. \n\nXXXX. I Disputed the Bankruptcy With All Three Credit Bureaus After discovering these issues, I exercised my rights under FCRA 611 ( a ) and disputed the bankruptcy entry with all three major consumer reporting agencies. In my written disputes, I specifically requested : The method of verification The name of the furnisher or entity that supplied the data The original source of the information Copies of the documents used for verification A full description of the procedures used during the reinvestigation The public record information used to confirm the listing These requests are rights guaranteed under FCRA 609 and 611. \n\nXXXX. The Bureaus Returned Generic Verified as Accurate Responses Despite the detailed and legally supported dispute, each bureau responded with nearly the same language : We have verified the information and it will remain on your credit file. \n\nHowever, the bureaus failed to : Provide a method of verification Provide documentation Identify the source Provide the procedures used Provide a copy of the public record Provide any indication the court was contacted These responses make clear that the reinvestigation was not reasonable, as required under the FCRA, and that the bureaus relied on automated systems rather than original legal documents. \n\nXXXX. The Reinvestigation Was Conducted Using Automated Data Instead of Human Review Most credit bureaus rely on third-party vendors such as XXXX to collect bankruptcy data. These vendors send information electronically, which the bureaus treat as the verified source. This is not a true verification. \n\nA reasonable reinvestigation requires : Reviewing original bankruptcy court filings Verifying dates directly with XXXX  or through certified documents Ensuring the accuracy of docket numbers Confirming the case disposition/status Ensuring the public record matches bureau reporting fields None of these steps were taken.\n\nInstead : The verification returned instantly No human investigator examined records No official court documents were reviewed No cross-checking of dates occurred No verification of case status happened This does not meet the FCRA 's standard for reasonable procedures. \n\nXXXX. The Bankruptcy Reporting Contains Inaccuracies Across Bureaus A major concern is that the Chapter XXXX bankruptcy ( Ref : XXXX ) is not reported consistently across all bureaus. I identified the following issues : Different filing dates Different dismissal dates Different reference formatting Missing information in some bureau reports Different update timestamps Inconsistent status descriptions Under FCRA 607 ( b ), the bureaus must assure maximum possible accuracy. Inconsistent reporting violates this requirement because a public record should match exactly across all bureaus if it is accurate and verified. \n\nXXXX. No Evidence Provided That the Bankruptcy Is Within the Legal Reporting Period Under the FCRA : A Chapter XXXX bankruptcy may remain for XXXX  years from the date of filing. \n\nIf the date of filing is incorrect, the reporting period is incorrect. \n\nBecause the bureaus failed to provide documentation, it is impossible to confirm whether : The date being used is the filing date The bureaus are actually using the dismissal date The bureaus used inaccurate date information from their vendor If the wrong date is used, the bankruptcy may already be expired or beyond the legal reporting period, making it unlawful to continue reporting it. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Comply With FCRA Method-of-Verification Laws Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), when a consumer requests the method of verification : The bureau must provide it Within XXXX days In writing With full procedural details None of the bureaus provided this, despite my explicit request. Without the method of verification, the bankruptcy is legally classified as unverifiable, which requires deletion under 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Information From XXXX-Party Vendors Is Not Legally Sufficient The bureaus rely on systems such as : XXXX XXXX XXXX scraping tools CoreLogic Other data warehouses These entities do not : Provide certified public records Provide official court documents Guarantee accuracy Verify case status Confirm dates Serve as the original source Because the credit bureaus rely solely on these XXXX-party sourcesand the vendors themselves are not validating the informationthe bankruptcy can not be said to be verified under the FCRA. \n\nXXXX. Harm Caused by This Inaccurate Bankruptcy Reporting The incorrect and unverifiable reporting of the Chapter XXXX bankruptcy has caused : Significant drops in credit scores Denial of financing and credit applications Higher interest rates on loans Limited access to housing opportunities Negative effects on employment opportunities Increased insurance premiums Ongoing reputational harm Emotional and financial distress Reduced credit limits Difficulty rebuilding credit Because bankruptcy is XXXX of the most damaging items on a credit file, reporting it without verification has caused and continues to cause substantial harm. \n\nXXXX Credit Bureaus Failed to Use Reasonable Procedures The FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies to ensure that all public record information is : Accurate Current Complete Verified through reliable sources Instead, the bureaus used : Automated database matches Bulk public record downloads Outdated or incomplete data No human review No court-verified documents This violates the FCRA mandate to maintain reasonable procedures. \n\nXXXX. Summary of FCRA Violations in This Case Based on the facts, the following FCRA sections were violated : FCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to assure maximum possible accuracy. \n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to provide the method of verification.\n\nFCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to provide the sources of information.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Failure to delete unverifiable information.\n\nFCRA 611 ( d ) Failure to notify past users of corrected information. \n\nThese failures demonstrate that the reporting of the Chapter XXXX bankruptcy is not supported by lawful procedures. \n\nXXXX. Conclusion In conclusion, the reporting of the Chapter XXXX Bankruptcy, Ref : XXXX, is inaccurate, unverifiable, inconsistent, and not sourced from the original legal authority. The credit bureaus failed to : Contact the bankruptcy court Review original documents Provide method-of-verification details Use reasonable reinvestigation procedures Maintain maximum possible accuracy Because the bankruptcy can not be verified according to federal law, its continued reporting is unlawful and harmful. \n\nI respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review this matter, require proper verification procedures, and ensure that the credit bureaus correct or delete the bankruptcy if it can not be fully validated with official court documents.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-14T02:51:47.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"631XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17213928","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-14T02:44:30.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Summary of FCRA Violations in This Case Based on the facts, the following FCRA sections were violated : FCRA 607 ( b ) <em>Failure</em> to assure maximum possible accuracy. \n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) <em>Failure</em> to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) <em>Failure</em> to <em>provide</em> the method of verification.\n\nFCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) <em>Failure</em> to <em>provide</em> the sources of information.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) <em>Failure</em> to delete unverifiable information."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[17.855368,"17213928"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17904182","_score":17.666643,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, CA XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Equifax Information Services LLC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, GA XXXX Re : Dispute of Inaccurate Information on Credit Report Confirmation # : XXXX Social Security Number : XXXX Date of Birth : XX/XX/XXXX Dear Equifax Dispute Department : I am writing to formally dispute several inaccurate items on my Equifax credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Confirmation XXXX XXXXXXXX ), pursuant to my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. I request that you conduct a reasonable investigation into these matters within XXXX  days, as required by FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ), and delete or correct any unverifiable or inaccurate information. If you fail to complete the investigation within the statutory timeframe ( extendable to XXXX  days only if additional information is provided by me ), the disputed items must be deleted under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nPlease note that under FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ), you must forward this dispute to the furnishers of the information ( listed below ) and require them to investigate and verify the accuracy of the reported data. If the information can not be verified as accurate, complete, and current, it must be removed from my report. I have enclosed copies of supporting documentation, including my credit report excerpts, and I am sending copies of this letter to the furnishers via certified mail. \nThe disputed items are as follows : * XXXX XXXX  Services Account ( XXXX ) Reported Details : Status : Charge Off ; Balance : {$1900.00} ; Amount Past Due : {$1900.00} ; Date of XXXX Delinquency : XX/XX/XXXX ; Narrative Codes : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. \nGrounds for Dispute : This account is inaccurately reported as a charge-off with an outstanding past due balance. Under FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ), furnishers must report accurate and complete information. The status may not reflect any post-charge-off payments or settlements, violating the requirement for up-to-date reporting. Additionally, the delinquency dates appear re-aged or inconsistent with my records, in violation of FCRA 1681c ( a ), which prohibits reporting delinquencies older than XXXX  years from the original date. Narrative code XXXX ( XXXX  days past due ) conflicts with the charge-off status if the account was closed without resolution. This information is unverifiable and should be deleted if not confirmed within XXXX XXXXFurnisher : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, DE XXXX. \n\n* Department of Education Account ( XXXX ) Reported Details : Status : Over XXXX  Days Past Due ; Amount Past Due : {$190.00} ; Scheduled Payment : {$38.00} ; Date of XXXX Delinquency : XX/XX/XXXX ; Narrative Codes : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. \nGrounds for Dispute : The status is inaccurate due to conflicting narrative codes. Code XXXX indicates \" XXXX XXXX deferred, '' yet it is reported as past due, violating FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) for inaccurate reporting. Codes XXXX and XXXX suggest prior disputes resolved by the furnisher, but the current delinquency does not reflect this resolution, breaching FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) for failure to note resolved disputes. Code XXXX marks it as \" previously in disputenow resolved, '' making the ongoing past due status incomplete and unverifiable. Federal student loans in deferment should not show delinquencies ; this error must be corrected or deleted if not verified within XXXX  days. \nFurnisher : Department of Education, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. \n\n* Department of Education Account ( XXXX ) Reported Details : Status : Over XXXX  Days Past Due ; Amount Past Due : {$350.00} ; Scheduled Payment : {$70.00} ; Date of XXXX Delinquency : XX/XX/XXXX ; Narrative Codes : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. \nGrounds for Dispute : Identical issues as Account XXXX XXXX. The deferred status ( code XXXX ) conflicts with the past due reporting, violating FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( XXXX ). Resolved dispute markers ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) are not reflected in the current status, per FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ). This appears to be a systemic reporting error for student loans ; delete if unverifiable within 30 days. \nFurnisher : Department of Education, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX  Department of Education Account ( XXXX ) Reported Details : Status : Over 120 Days Past Due ; Amount Past Due : {$32.00} ; Scheduled Payment : {$6.00} ; Date of XXXX Delinquency : XX/XX/XXXX ; Narrative Codes : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. \nGrounds for Dispute : Same violations as above. Deferment code XXXX invalidates the delinquency reporting under FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ). Unresolved dispute indicators ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) require update or deletion per FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ). Remove if not verified within 30 days. \nFurnisher : Department of Education, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. \n\n\nThese inaccuracies are harming my credit score and ability to obtain credit. Please provide me with the results of your investigation, including descriptions of the procedures used, in writing within XXXX  days of completion, as required by FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ). If any items are deleted, send an updated credit report to me and all parties who have inquired about my credit in the past XXXX  months ( or XXXX  years for employment purposes ). \nFailure to comply may result in a complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and potential legal action for willful noncompliance under FCRA 1681n, including statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. \nThank you for your prompt attention. I look forward to your response. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Enclosures : Copy of Equifax Credit Report ( excerpts ) Copy of Identification ( Driver 's License or Utility Bill ) Any relevant payment records or deferment confirmations ( attach if available ) cc : XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DE XXXX Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-10T00:22:35.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90631","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17904182","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-10T00:12:32.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Please <em>provide</em> me with the results of your <em>investigation</em>, including <em>descriptions</em> of the <em>procedures</em> used, in writing within XXXX  days of completion, as required by FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ). If any items are deleted, send an updated credit report to me and all parties who have inquired about my credit in the past XXXX  months ( or XXXX  years for employment purposes )."]},"sort":[17.666643,"17904182"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17214024","_score":16.981058,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns a long-standing and unresolved issue involving the reporting of an account furnished by Navy Federal Credit Union ( Navy FCU ) that continues to appear on my consumer credit files as a charge-off or collection account despite being reported as paid. I have made repeated and lawful efforts under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) to obtain full validation and procedural verification of this account. To date, neither the credit bureaus nor Navy FCU have produced documentation demonstrating that the information being furnished is accurate, current, or lawfully verifiable.\n\nThe purpose of this complaint is to document what occurred, outline the actions I have taken to resolve the matter, describe how the company and the credit reporting agencies have responded, and request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) ensure compliance with federal consumer-protection statutes.\n\n1. Background and Discovery of the Issue When reviewing my credit reports in XXXX and again in XXXX, I discovered that Navy FCU was furnishing an account listed as a charge-off or collection with a XXXX balance. The account was shown as paid but still categorized under derogatory status. This classification misleads lenders and affects my creditworthiness because it implies ongoing delinquency or loss to the creditor even though no debt remains outstanding. \n\nThe first instance of discovery occurred in XXXX, when I noticed inconsistent reporting among the three credit bureaus. One bureau showed the account as a collection/charge-off paid, another as closed derogatory, and the third as paid/closed. The reporting dates also varied by several months, suggesting that the information may have been transmitted through automated systems rather than verified manually. \n\nBecause the FCRA requires credit reporting agencies to maintain procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy, I immediately began the formal dispute process to determine how Navy FCUs information had been verified. \n\nXXXX. Steps I Took to Resolve the Issue Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted multiple written disputes to each of the major credit bureausXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Each dispute requested a full procedural investigation and validation of the Navy FCU account pursuant to FCRA 609 ( a ) and 611 ( a ). Specifically, I asked for : A description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information. \n\nThe name, address, and telephone number of the furnisher ( Navy FCU ) that provided or verified the data. \n\nCopies of all documents Navy FCU supplied during the reinvestigation process. \n\nThe method used to verify the informationmanual review, electronic verification via XXXX, or third-party submission. \n\nThe date of the last verification and the data source consulted. \n\nI also sent a direct validation request to Navy FCU under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) and FDCPA 809 ( b ), asking the institution to provide documentary evidence showing : The original signed credit agreement or contract.\n\nComplete payment history demonstrating the alleged delinquency or charge-off event. \n\nWritten authorization or policy permitting continued reporting of a paid charge-off. \n\nEvidence that the information transmitted to the credit bureaus was verified by a responsible employee rather than through automated batch processing.\n\nEach letter was sent via certified mail with proof of delivery to preserve an audit trail.\n\n3. Responses from Credit Bureaus and Navy FCU The credit bureaus each replied with standard form letters stating that the information had been verified as accurate. None provided any description of the verification procedure as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). When I requested the specific documentation used to confirm the Navy FCU account, I received no documentsonly generic statements claiming that the furnisher confirmed the data.\n\nNavy FCU did not provide copies of a signed agreement, charge-off notice, or payment ledger. Instead, the institution issued a brief correspondence stating that the account was reported accurately. The response did not include the original contract or payment history demonstrating the legitimacy of the charge-off notation. \n\nAt no point was I given access to the documentation that would confirm how the account was validated or what evidence supported the continued derogatory reporting. \n\n4. Why This Reporting Is Inaccurate and Misleading The disputed Navy FCU account presents multiple compliance problems under federal law : Contradictory Reporting : The account is marked paid yet still coded as a charge-off or collection. A paid account can not simultaneously represent an unpaid loss. This dual coding misleads creditors and violates FCRA 607 ( b ), which requires maximum possible accuracy. \n\nLack of Current Balance Verification : Since the account shows a XXXX balance, continued derogatory classification implies an ongoing default without factual basis. \n\nFailure to Verify Documentation : No original account documents or payment records have been produced. Without such verification, the information is legally unverifiable under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) and must be deleted.\n\nImproper Furnishing After Settlement or Charge-Off : If Navy FCU no longer owns the account or has closed it as paid, continued reporting as a charge-off violates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they knowor should knowto be inaccurate. \n\nProcedural Negligence by Credit Bureaus : The bureaus reliance on automated electronic responses through the XXXX system constitutes a failure to perform a reasonable reinvestigation, as required by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), where the court ruled that a bureau can not rely blindly on a furnishers response. \n\nViolation of FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) : If any collection notation remains, it falsely represents the legal status of the debt.\n\nIn essence, the current reporting conveys a misleading narrative to creditors : that I once defaulted and that the account remains derogatory, when in fact it has been resolved and carries no outstanding balance.\n\n5. How This Situation Has Affected Me The inaccurate reporting by Navy FCU and the failure of the bureaus to correct it have caused ongoing harm, including : Lower credit scores across all three bureaus.\n\nDenial or less favorable terms on credit applications.\n\nDifficulty obtaining housing and insurance at fair rates.\n\nReputational harm through dissemination of misleading financial data.\n\nEmotional distress from repeated disputes yielding no transparency.\n\nEach month the erroneous derogatory entry remains, it is re-published to lenders and third parties, compounding the damage.\n\n6. Lack of Compliance with FCRA Timelines and Obligations Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), a credit bureau must complete a reinvestigation within 30 days. All three bureaus closed their investigations within approximately 10 days of receiving my disputean interval too short for meaningful document reviewsuggesting that only an automated verification occurred.\n\nMoreover, FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) requires that, upon completion of a reinvestigation, the bureau provide a description of the procedure used to determine accuracy. None of the bureaus complied with this obligation.\n\nUnder FCRA 623 ( b ), a furnisher like Navy FCU must conduct its own investigation upon receiving notice of a dispute from a bureau, review relevant information, and report back accurately. The absence of supporting documents implies that no substantive investigation occurred. \n\nXXXX. The Evidence Gap and Procedural Deficiencies The heart of this issue is the complete absence of an evidence trail. Neither Navy FCU nor the credit bureaus have provided : A copy of the original credit application or loan agreement.\n\nAccount statements or transaction history verifying the alleged default.\n\nDocumentation of the charge-off decision or date.\n\nA record showing that the account remains within the statute of limitations for reporting.\n\nAny correspondence demonstrating consumer notification of the charge-off.\n\nWithout this information, no party can claim that the data is accurate or verifiable. Continuing to publish the information without proof constitutes reckless disregard for truth and violates FCRA 616 and 617, which impose civil liability for willful or negligent noncompliance.\n\n8. Applicable Statutes and Legal Precedents Several provisions of federal law govern this dispute : FCRA 602 ( a ) : Establishes Congresss intent to ensure fairness, accuracy, and privacy in credit reporting.\n\nFCRA 607 ( b ) : Mandates reasonable procedures for maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) : Requires reinvestigation and correction or deletion of inaccurate data.\n\nFCRA 623 ( a ) : Imposes a duty on furnishers to provide accurate information.\n\nFCRA 623 ( b ) : Requires furnishers to investigate upon receiving disputes.\n\nFDCPA 809 ( b ) : Requires debt collectors to validate debts before continuing collection or reporting. \n\nIn addition, court decisions such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank affirm that cursory or automated verification procedures fail to satisfy the FCRAs standard of reasonable investigation. \n\nXXXX. Pattern of Systemic Deficiency This dispute highlights a broader systemic problem affecting consumers : the over-reliance on automated dispute resolution systems by both furnishers and credit bureaus. When a consumer submits a dispute, the credit bureau typically assigns a two-digit code through e-OSCAR, which is sent electronically to the furnisher. The furnisher often responds with a one-word status such as verified without attaching documentation. The bureau then updates the consumers file as verified.\n\nIn this case, Navy FCU appears to have confirmed the account electronically without providing evidence, and the bureaus accepted that response without scrutiny. This process fails the reasonableness test required under federal law and effectively denies consumers a genuine reinvestigation.\n\n10. Continued Harm and Attempts to Resolve After receiving unsatisfactory responses, I again disputed the account in early 2025, enclosing copies of prior correspondence and highlighting the contradictory reporting. The results were identical : each bureau marked the item as verified.\n\nI also attempted to reach Navy FCUs credit reporting department directly by phone and through written correspondence. My requests for documentation went unanswered or were redirected to the bureaus. As of this filing, no party has provided validation or evidence.\n\nBecause all internal remedies have been exhausted, I am submitting this complaint to the CFPB to request oversight and enforcement.\n\n11. Why the Current Situation Violates Federal Standards The current handling of this dispute violates multiple federal standards : Failure to provide procedural details as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ).\n\nFailure to delete unverifiable data as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\nFailure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ).\n\nFailure of the furnisher to conduct a meaningful investigation under FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ).\n\nFailure to provide validation prior to continued reporting under FDCPA 809 ( b ).\n\nThese combined failures represent systemic non-compliance rather than an isolated clerical error.\n\n12. Requested CFPB Involvement I am asking the CFPB to ensure that Navy FCU and the credit bureaus : Conduct a full reinvestigation with documentation.\n\nProvide the consumer with copies of all verification records.\n\nRemove or correct any unverifiable or inaccurate data.\n\nReview internal dispute procedures for compliance with federal law.\n\nImplement policy changes preventing similar failures in the future.\n\nThis oversight is necessary because individual consumers lack access to the internal records and technical systems that would reveal how the disputed information was verified.\n\n13. Broader Impact and Policy Considerations The Navy FCU case illustrates a larger issue within the credit-reporting ecosystem : consumers bear the burden of proof while furnishers and bureaus rely on automated confirmation loops that lack transparency. The CFPB has documented this problem in multiple bulletins, emphasizing that furnishers must provide substantive documentation when responding to disputes.\n\nEnsuring that this case receives a thorough, documented reinvestigation will help reinforce best practices across the industry and protect other consumers from similar procedural negligence.\n\n14. Expected Corrective Actions Based on the facts and the law, the following corrective actions would constitute a fair resolution : Immediate deletion of the Navy FCU charge-off or collection entry if documentation can not be produced.\n\nWritten certification from Navy FCU affirming that any remaining information is complete and accurate.\n\nDelivery of the procedural description and evidence used during reinvestigation.\n\nUpdated credit reports reflecting correction or deletion within 30 days.\n\nNotification to all recent credit report recipients under FCRA 611 ( d ) that corrections have been made.\n\n15. Ongoing Monitoring and Prevention To prevent recurrence, Navy FCU and the credit bureaus should : Train staff to distinguish between paid accounts and true charge-offs.\n\nRequire original documentation for verification rather than accepting automated confirmations.\n\nAudit furnishers with high dispute rates.\n\nProvide consumers with online access to reinvestigation logs and supporting files.\n\nThese actions would bring the institutions into full compliance with federal law and rebuild consumer trust.\n\n16. Summary In summary, this complaint arises because Navy FCU continues to furnish an account that is reported inconsistently and inaccurately across multiple credit bureaus, with contradictory coding that simultaneously labels it paid and derogatory. Despite numerous disputes and validation requests, neither the bureaus nor Navy FCU have produced evidence proving that the data is accurate or verifiable. \n\nThe FCRA and FDCPA require transparency, documentation, and fairness in credit reporting. Those standards have not been met. The ongoing dissemination of unverifiable information constitutes a violation of federal law and has caused tangible harm. \n\n17. Conclusion I am requesting CFPB assistance to ensure that Navy FCU and the credit bureaus fulfill their legal duties to investigate thoroughly, validate with documentation, and correct or delete any information that can not be verified. I also ask that the CFPB monitor their compliance to prevent future recurrence.\n\nConsumers have a right to accurate, complete, and verifiable information in their credit files. That right has been denied in this case. A fair resolution requires a transparent reinvestigation, production of supporting records, and correction or deletion of the disputed entry.\n\nI appreciate the Bureaus attention to this matter and its continued efforts to enforce consumer-protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-14T01:42:20.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"631XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17214024","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-11-14T01:36:31.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Failure</em> to maintain reasonable <em>procedures</em> to ensure accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ).\n\n<em>Failure</em> of the furnisher to conduct a meaningful <em>investigation</em> under FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ).\n\n<em>Failure</em> to <em>provide</em> validation prior to continued reporting under FDCPA 809 ( b ).\n\nThese combined <em>failures</em> represent systemic non-compliance rather than an isolated clerical error.\n\n12."]},"sort":[16.981058,"17214024"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17256118","_score":16.680439,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint to report serious issues regarding the accuracy, validity, and continued reporting of a derogatory collection account furnished by LMMINC. This account appears on my consumer credit reports as a collection or charge-off with an alleged past-due balance of approximately {$880.00}. I am disputing the presence, accuracy, and legitimacy of this account because the furnisher has failed to provide any documentation proving its validity, ownership, or lawful authority to report it. Additionally, the credit reporting agencies have failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation into my disputes, instead responding with automated form letters that provide no substantive justification for continuing to publish the derogatory account. This narrative outlines what has occurred, why this reporting is unlawful, and the harm that it has caused. \n\n1. Discovery of the LMMINC Account I first became aware of the LMMINC collection account during a routine review of my credit reports. The account did not match any financial obligation I recognized, nor was there any memory of having received notices from LMMINC prior to the account appearing on my credit file. The account appeared with vague, incomplete, and inconsistent information across the different credit reporting agencies. Some agencies listed the balance differently ; others displayed incomplete dates or failed to identify the original creditor. This lack of clarity raised immediate concerns about the accuracy and legitimacy of the information being reported. \n\nThe LMMINC entry was marked as derogatory and had a significant negative impact on my credit score. Because credit reports influence loan approvals, interest rates, insurance premiums, rental opportunities, and even employment screenings, discovering an unexplained and unvalidated negative account was alarming. For these reasons, I began the dispute process under the rights granted to me by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n\n2. Initial Disputes Sent to Credit Reporting Agencies As soon as I identified the LMMINC entry, I initiated written disputes with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. I drafted separate dispute letters for each bureau, sent via certified mail, clearly identifying the LMMINC account and requesting a full investigation. In each letter, I cited the account as inaccurate, incomplete, and unverified. I also requested the following information : The specific method of verification used to confirm the LMMINC account Identification of the documents provided by LMMINC The date and system used to verify the information Whether verification was done through XXXX, manual review, or another process Evidence of the data transfer and chain of custody The legal authority permitting continued reporting of an account that had not been validated with original documentation My dispute letters were thorough, detailed, and fully compliant with FCRA 611 ( a ). Each letter provided more than enough information for the bureaus to conduct a meaningful reinvestigation. These disputes were mailed with tracking numbers and return receipts confirming delivery.\n\n3. Validation Request Sent to LMMINC Under FDCPA In addition to disputing the information with the bureaus, I also sent a debt validation request directly to LMMINC under FDCPA 809 ( b ). In this letter, I made clear that I was not refusing to pay any legitimate debt ; instead, I was exercising my legal right to request verification. \n\nI asked LMMINC to provide : A copy of the original signed contract or agreement The identity and contact information of the original creditor An itemized list of all charges, payments, fees, and interest claimed Documentation showing assignment or transfer of the alleged account to LMMINC Proof that LMMINC is legally authorized to collect or report the debt Evidence showing how the account was verified when reporting to credit bureaus This request was sent via certified mail, and delivery was confirmed.\n\n4. Inadequate or Non-Existent Responses Over the following weeks, I received responses from the credit bureaus. Unfortunately, every response was a generic form letter stating that the information was verified as accurate. None of the bureaus provided any explanation of the procedural steps taken during the reinvestigation. None identified the source of verification, the documents reviewed, or the method used. These responses failed to comply with the requirements of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), which obligates consumer reporting agencies to provide a description of the procedure used during reinvestigation when requested by the consumer. \n\nEven more concerning, LMMINC never provided any validation. They did not send a signed contract, billing statements, proof of ownership, or any document whatsoever. They simply ignored the debt validation request while continuing to report the account to the credit bureaus. Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), this is unlawful. A debt collector must cease collection activityincluding furnishing information to credit reporting agenciesuntil validation is provided.\n\nBy failing to respond, LMMINC effectively admitted they do not possess documentation to validate the account. \n\n5. Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act The FCRA establishes strict obligations for credit reporting agencies and furnishers when a consumer disputes information. Based on the events described, the following likely violations occurred : FCRA 602 Accuracy and Fairness Congress emphasized the need for accurate credit reporting because unfair reporting damages consumers. The continued reporting of unverifiable information violates this foundational principle. \n\nFCRA 607 ( b ) Maximum Possible Accuracy Credit bureaus must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy. Accepting unverifiable information conflicts with this responsibility.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) Reasonable Reinvestigation Credit bureaus must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes an account. A reasonable reinvestigation requires reviewing original documentationnot just receiving an automated data confirmation from a furnisher.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Description of Procedure The bureaus must provide a procedural description upon request. They did not.\n\nFCRA 623 ( b ) Furnisher Duty to Investigate LMMINC must conduct its own investigation and delete or correct unverifiable data. Its failure to provide validation shows noncompliance.\n\nThe combined failures from both the bureaus and LMMINC indicate systemic disregard for legally mandated verification procedures. \n\n6. Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Under the FDCPA : FDCPA 809 ( b ) Failure to Validate LMMINC was legally required to cease reporting until it provided validation. It did not.\n\nFDCPA 807 False or Misleading Representations Continuing to report a debt without validating its accuracy is misleading.\n\nFDCPA 807 ( 8 ) Communicating False Credit Information Publishing unverified information constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice.\n\nThe FDCPA was designed to prevent exactly this kind of abusive reporting strategy. \n\n7. Systemic Problems with the Verification Process A deeper issue likely contributed to this outcome : the use of automated systems such as XXXX. Research indicates that credit bureaus routinely convert disputes into two- or three-digit codes representing simplified issues, ignoring detailed written explanations from consumers. The furnisher then responds electronically, often by clicking a box indicating the account is verified, without reviewing documentation.\n\nIf this automated process was used in my case, it would explain the vague responses from the credit bureaus. It would also demonstrate why the bureaus were unable to provide detailed reinvestigation proceduresthey did not perform them in the first place. \n\nSuch systems result in superficial investigations that completely undermine the FCRA. \n\n8. Evidence Suggesting the LMMINC Account Is Unverifiable Based on my research and the absence of documentation, several indicators suggest that the LMMINC account can not be legitimately verified : No original creditor is listed No contract or agreement exists No payment or billing history accompanies the account The account may be beyond the statute of limitations The furnisher failed to respond to a lawful validation request The bureaus provided no verification details Data inconsistencies exist across reports These red flags collectively indicate that the account may be erroneous, outdated, sold multiple times without proper documentation, or otherwise invalid.\n\n9. Harm Caused by the Continued Reporting The presence of this unvalidated LMMINC account has caused substantial harm. Because collection accounts are weighted heavily in credit scoring models, the derogatory report has lowered my credit standing. This affects : Credit card approvals Loan interest rates Housing applications Insurance rates Employment screenings Additionally, the emotional burden of dealing with unvalidated negative information is significant. I have spent time, money, and energy sending letters, tracking disputes, and dealing with the stress of inaccurate financial reporting. \n\nConsumers should not be penalized for exercising their rights. The harm caused by negligent reporting is both financial and emotional. \n\n10. Follow-Up Attempts Made After Initial Disputes After receiving insufficient responses from the bureaus, I continued submitting follow-up disputes, again requesting procedural information and validation. The credit bureaus refused to provide anything beyond generic statements. LMMINC remained unresponsive.\n\nThe lack of cooperation from the companies involved demonstrates a systemic problem that requires regulatory oversight. \n\n11. Why CFPB Intervention Is Necessary The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exists to ensure compliance with federal law, protect consumers, and promote fairness in the financial system. The circumstances of this case reflect a failure of both the bureaus and the furnisher to meet their legal obligations.\n\nCFPB intervention is necessary because : Furnishers must be held accountable for unvalidated reporting Credit bureaus must be held accountable for inadequate reinvestigations Automated systems like XXXX must be examined for FCRA compliance Consumers must be protected from unfair and inaccurate reporting Unresponsive furnishers must not be allowed to continue damaging consumers Without CFPB involvement, the harm will continue and the systemic issues will persist.\n\n12. Documents Available to Support This Complaint I have records of : All dispute letters sent to the bureaus All validation letters sent to LMMINC Certified mail receipts and tracking confirmations All credit bureau responses Copies of credit reports showing the disputed account These documents demonstrate that I acted in good faith, followed proper legal procedures, and received inadequate, non-compliant responses in return.\n\n13. Requested Relief I respectfully request that the CFPB require : The deletion of the LMMINC account unless original documentation is produced A procedural description of the reinvestigation performed by each bureau Verification of whether XXXX or automation was used Production of the original contract or documentation from LMMINC Immediate cessation of reporting during validation Permanent prevention of reinsertion unless fully validated Corrections to be shared with all bureaus and third-party data resellers This requested relief aligns with FCRA and FDCPA requirements and ensures accuracy and fairness.\n\n14. Conclusion This complaint concerns more than a single accountit highlights a systemic failure of the credit reporting and debt collection ecosystem. When furnishers fail to maintain documentation, and when credit bureaus rely on automated processes rather than genuine reinvestigation, consumers are left vulnerable to harm. I have made every effort to resolve this matter on my own. The companies involved have not complied with their legal obligations.\n\nI request the CFPBs assistance in ensuring lawful documentation, accurate reporting, and accountability. The continued reporting of an unvalidated debt by LMMINC is unjust, unlawful, and harmful. A fair and lawful resolution requires regulatory intervention.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-14T18:31:09.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"33025","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17256118","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-14T18:10:38.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) <em>Description</em> of <em>Procedure</em> The bureaus must <em>provide</em> a procedural <em>description</em> upon request. They did not.\n\nFCRA 623 ( b ) Furnisher Duty to <em>Investigate</em> LMMINC must conduct its own <em>investigation</em> and delete or correct unverifiable data. Its <em>failure</em> to <em>provide</em> validation shows noncompliance.\n\nThe combined <em>failures</em> from both the bureaus and LMMINC indicate systemic disregard for legally mandated verification <em>procedures</em>. \n\n6."]},"sort":[16.680439,"17256118"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18320852","_score":15.944027,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Below is the complete, consolidated submission with everything integrated cleanly and professionally, including the expanded narrative, full timeline, statutory analysis, requested relief, closing statement, and the evidentiary explanation. I want to express my appreciation in regards to the CFPB for always doing an amazing job via protecting consumer rights. \n\nI have preserved a regulator tone throughout and avoided em dashes entirely. \n\n\n\nEXPANDED COMPLAINT NARRATIVE Company : Avant Credit Cards, issued by XXXX Summary This complaint concerns repeated statutory violations arising from Avant Credit Cards failure to honor a written cease and desist notice, failure to provide debt verification, and continued collection communication and credit reporting after notice. These actions constitute violations of federal law, Minnesota law, and Utah law governing debt collection and consumer protection. \n\nWhat follows is a full and complete chronological description of events, followed by an explanation of why this conduct violates controlling statutes. \n\n\n\nChronological Timeline of Events XX/XX/year> I transmitted a written cease and desist notice to Avant Credit Cards, issued by XXXX. \nThe notice explicitly demanded that all collection communication cease as permitted by law and requested full verification and documentation of the alleged account. \nOn the same date, Avant responded via email from Avant Data Requests, acknowledging receipt and requesting categorization of my relationship with Avant. \nThis response confirms receipt of the notice and internal awareness of both the dispute and the cease and desist request. \n\nXX/XX/year> Avant sent an email confirming receipt of a payment related to the account while the cease and desist and verification request were already pending. \nThis communication occurred after Avant had actual notice that the account was disputed and that further communication was restricted by law. \n\nXX/XX/year> An ACH payment attempt failed due to a bank account issue. \nThis operational issue later became the subject of further electronic communication initiated by Avant. \n\nXX/XX/year> Avant sent an electronic communication titled Update Your Bank Account Today. \nThe message instructed me to log in and provide new payment information or call a phone number to discuss payment methods. \nThis message constitutes continued collection related communication after receipt of a written cease and desist. \n\nXX/XX/year> USPS Informed Delivery records show incoming physical mail from Avant. \nScanned envelopes confirm that Avant continued to send first class mail correspondence after XX/XX/year>. \nAt no point prior to this mailing did Avant provide the requested verification or documentation of the alleged account. \n\n\n\nWhy This Conduct Violates Consumer Protection Statutes Violation of FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) Once a debt collector receives a written cease and desist notice, it may not communicate further with the consumer except for narrow statutory exceptions. None of those exceptions apply here. \n\nDespite actual notice, Avant continued to : Send electronic communications regarding payment methods. \nSend physical mail confirmed by USPS records.\n\nThese actions constitute prohibited communication under 1692c ( c ).\n\nViolation of FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) When a consumer disputes a debt and requests verification, the collector must cease all collection activity until verification is provided.\n\nAvant : Failed to provide any verification or documentation of the alleged account.\n\nContinued collection related communication and account activity while verification remained outstanding.\n\nThis constitutes continued collection activity without validation.\n\nViolation of FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692f By continuing to treat the account as collectible and engaging in payment related communication while the debt was disputed and unverified, Avant used deceptive and unfair means to collect a debt.\n\nOperational or automated systems do not excuse these violations. The statute imposes strict compliance once notice is received.\n\nViolation of FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) and 1681i Following a dispute, furnishers must conduct a reasonable investigation and may not continue reporting unverified information as accurate.\n\nAvant failed to : Provide evidence of a reasonable investigation.\n\nSuspend reporting or collection activity pending verification.\n\nMinnesota State Law Violations Minnesota Statutes Chapter 332.37 Minn. Stat. 332.37 ( 8 ) Attempting to collect or collecting a debt without first complying with validation requirements.\n\nMinn. Stat. 332.37 ( 12 ) Engaging in conduct that violates the FDCPA.\n\nMinnesota Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. 325F.69 Prohibits deceptive practices in connection with the collection of consumer debts.\n\nMinnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. 325D.44 Prohibits misleading representations regarding legal rights and obligations.\n\nAvant Credit Cards conduct occurred with knowledge that the consumer is located in Minnesota and that Minnesota consumer protection laws apply.\n\nUtah State Law Violations ( XXXX XXXX ) Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, Utah Code 13-11-1 et seq.\n\nUtah Code 13-11-4 Prohibits deceptive, misleading, or unconscionable acts in consumer transactions.\n\nContinued collection communication after lawful notice and failure to provide requested documentation constitutes an unconscionable practice under Utah law.\n\nSystemic Compliance Failure This is not a clerical error or a single stray message. The timeline demonstrates : Actual receipt and acknowledgment of a cease and desist.\n\nContinued automated and manual communication afterward.\n\nAbsence of legally required verification.\n\nOngoing treatment of the account as collectible.\n\nThe persistence of communication after notice reflects a systemic compliance failure rather than an isolated oversight. Consumer protection statutes place the burden on the collector to stop all collection activity immediately upon receipt of a lawful cease and desist. Internal delays, automated workflows, or incomplete routing of notices do not suspend statutory obligations.\n\nRequested Regulatory Action I respectfully request that the CFPB require Avant Credit Cards and XXXX to : 1. Immediately cease all collection communication regarding the disputed account. \n2. Remove the account from all credit reporting agencies unless and until proper verification is produced.\n\n3. Provide written confirmation that the cease and desist has been honored. \n4. Conduct an internal compliance review of cease and desist handling procedures.\n\n5. Ensure future compliance with FDCPA, FCRA, Minnesota law, and Utah law.\n\nClosing Statement This matter is not a billing disagreement, a customer service issue, or an isolated clerical error. It reflects a documented failure to comply with clear statutory obligations after formal notice was provided. Avant Credit Cards and XXXX were given an opportunity to cure these violations by honoring a lawful cease and desist and by providing verification. They did neither. \n\nThe continuation of collection communication and account activity after notice demonstrates a breakdown in compliance controls that places consumers at risk and undermines the protections guaranteed under federal and state law. Regulatory oversight is necessary to ensure that cease and desist requests are treated as binding legal directives rather than optional administrative inputs.\n\nI respectfully request that the CFPB treat this complaint as a compliance matter requiring corrective action, not merely a response, and ensure that Avant Credit Cards and XXXX are brought into full adherence with their obligations under the FDCPA, FCRA, Minnesota law, and Utah law.\n\nP.S. Explanation of Attached XXXX Evidence The attached XXXX consolidates contemporaneous documentary evidence establishing the timeline of events described above, including written cease and desist transmission, Avant Credit Cards acknowledgment and data request response confirming receipt and internal awareness, USPS Informed Delivery records and scanned envelopes demonstrating continued first class mail after notice, and subsequent electronic communications regarding account activity. These materials are provided to demonstrate receipt, knowledge, and continuity of conduct, and to ensure the record accurately reflects that the violations described were not speculative, isolated, or the result of misunderstanding, but verifiable through objective documentation. \n\n\n\nIf you want next steps, I can : Compress this to CFPB character limits without losing force Reformat it for a Minnesota AG or Utah regulator filing Or prepare a litigation ready affidavit version with exhibits labeled A through F","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-27T20:06:54.000Z","issue":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"55408","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18320852","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Avant Holding Company, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-27T19:38:06.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Contacted you after you asked them to stop"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["EXPANDED <em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> Company : Avant Credit Cards, issued by XXXX Summary This <em>complaint</em> concerns repeated statutory violations arising from Avant Credit Cards <em>failure</em> to honor a written cease and desist notice, <em>failure</em> to <em>provide</em> debt verification, and continued collection communication and credit reporting after notice. These actions constitute violations of federal law, Minnesota law, and Utah law governing debt collection and consumer protection."]},"sort":[15.944027,"18320852"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18032791","_score":15.913379,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX VIA CERTIFIED MAIL and CFPB PORTAL Equifax Information Service LLC XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, Georgia XXXX Re : Formal FCRA dispute and demand for correction of inaccurate and fraudulent credit reporting To Whom It May Concern : This correspondence is a formal dispute of inaccurate and fraudulent information appearing in my consumer report and a demand for correction, deletion, and full compliance with federal consumer protection laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX U.S.C. XXXX et seq., its implementing Regulation V, the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) regulations and guidance, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) guidance governing the investigation of credit reporting disputes and identity theft. \n\nBackground And Nature Of Dispute My consumer report currently reflects XXXX or more accounts, tradelines, or derogatory items that do not belong to me and/or are the result of identity theft, as detailed in the attached list and documentation. I did not open, authorize, or benefit from these accounts or transactions, and I have already filed an identity theft report with the appropriate authorities and with the FTC, and I am providing copies of my FTC Identity Theft Report, police report ( if applicable ), and proof of identity. \n\nThese inaccurate entries are causing substantial harm, including damage to my credit reputation, denial or less favorable terms of credit, and other financial and personal injuries. You are now on notice that this information is disputed and that I assert my rights as an identity theft victim and as a consumer under federal law. \n\nFCRA Duties To Assure Accuracy And Conduct A Reasonable Investigation Under the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report about consumers, and must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information when notified by a consumer. This includes the duty to review all relevant information provided by the consumer, to communicate the dispute to the furnisher of the information, and to delete or correct information that can not be verified as accurate. \n\nCFPB supervisory guidance and circulars reiterate that both consumer reporting agencies and furnishers can face liability under the FCRA when they fail to conduct reasonable investigations of consumer disputes or create barriers to the submission of disputes. Federal regulators have emphasized that you must not ignore, summarily reject, or parrot verify disputed information without a genuine, reasonable investigation that considers the evidence submitted by the consumer. \n\nIdentity Theft and FCRA 605B Blocking Rights Because the disputed information results from identity theft, I am invoking my rights under FCRA 605B ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c2 ), which provides that a consumer reporting agency must block the reporting of information that the consumer identifies as resulting from identity theft when the consumer submits : ( XXXX ) appropriate proof of identity, ( XXXX ) a copy of an identity theft report, and ( XXXX ) an identification of the fraudulent information. Section 605B requires the credit reporting agency to block this information within a short timeframe after receiving the required documentation and to notify the furnisher that the information has been blocked due to identity theft. \n\nYour failure to promptly block and remove these identitytheftrelated items after receiving proper documentation would constitute a violation of FCRA 605B and related FTC and CFPB guidance for identity theft victims. Courts have recognized that identity theft victims have a private right of action against furnishers and reporting agencies that fail to conduct a reasonable investigation and continue reporting fraudulent accounts, and regulators have supported consumers in such actions. \n\nCase Law Regarding Failure To Investigate And Identity Theft Federal courts have repeatedly held that when a consumer disputes items on a credit report, the FCRA requires furnishers and agencies to conduct a reasonable investigation, and failure to do so can give rise to liability for actual, statutory, and punitive damages. In recent appellate decisions involving allegations of identity theft, courts have focused on whether the furnisher and agencies reasonably investigated the consumers identity theft claim and whether they deleted or corrected information that could not be verified as belonging to the consumer. These decisions make clear that ignoring consumerprovided identity theft affidavits and supporting evidence, or simply confirming the debt with the original furnisher without deeper inquiry, is insufficient. \n\nBy persisting in reporting fraudulent information after clear notice of identity theft and a dispute, and by failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, a credit reporting agency and any involved furnisher violate their statutory duties under 15 U.S.C. 1681i and 1681s2 and can be held liable in a private civil action. \n\nFraudulent, Unverified Accounts or Inaccurate XXXX XXXX Closed ( Unverified/Fraudulent ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX / Account type : Credit card ( revolving ) Charge Off / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : XXXX dollars ( credit limit ) Amount in default : chargeoff amount XXXX dollars ; current balance XXXX ; amount past due XXXX Status / notes : Charge Off ; date of XXXX delinquency XX/XX/XXXX ; consumer disputes this account ( code 166 ) ; narrative codes XXXX ( chargedoff ), XXXX ( credit card ), XXXX ( high credit is credit limit ). \n\nXXXX XXXX Closed ( Unverified/Fraudulent ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account type : Credit card ( revolving ) Charge Off / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : XXXX dollars ( credit limit ) Amount in default : chargeoff amount XXXX dollars ; current balance XXXX ; amount past due XXXX Status / notes : Charge Off ; date of XXXX delinquency XX/XX/XXXX ; date closed XX/XX/XXXX ; narrative codes XXXX ( chargedoff ), XXXX ( credit card ), XXXX ( high credit is credit limit ), XXXX ( high credit is original chargeoff amount ). \n\nXXXX XXXX Closed ( Unverified/Fraudulent ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account type : Credit card ( revolving ) Charge Off / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : XXXX dollars ( credit limit ) Amount in default : chargeoff amount XXXX dollars ; current balance XXXX ; amount past due XXXX Status / notes : Charge Off ; date of XXXX delinquency XX/XX/XXXX ; date closed XX/XX/XXXX ; activity designator Closed by credit grantor ; narrative codes XXXX ( chargedoff ), XXXX ( account closed by credit grantor ), XXXX ( fixed rate ). \n\nXXXX XXXX Co / Collection agency : CREDIT COLLECTIONS ( Unverified/Fraudulent ) Account type : Collection Insurance / Original creditor : XXXX SECURE CO XXXX Date assigned : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : None reported ( Last Payment Date : None ) Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX ( collection reported and status Unpaid as of that date ) Original limit / original amount : Not stated as original amount ; collection amount and balance are XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( unpaid collection balance ) Status / notes : Individual account ; creditor classification Insurance ; date of XXXX delinquency XX/XX/XXXX ; status Unpaid ; no additional narrative notes. \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : DEPT OF XXXX / Account type : Education Loan ( student loan ) / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars ( original principal ) Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; amount past due XXXX ; no chargeoff ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; narrative XXXX ( consumer disputes after resolution ), XXXX ( student loan payment deferred ), XXXX ( student loan ), XXXX ( previously in dispute and resolved ), XXXX ( affected by natural or declared disaster on certain months ). \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; narrative XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX as above. \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative pattern ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ). \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : DEPT OF XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; narrative XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set. \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : DEPT OF XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set. \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set ( including affected by natural or declared disaster for some months ). \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set. \n\n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set. \n\nXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set. \n\nXXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Account type : Education Loan / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX / Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; payment deferred; same narrative set. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Inaccurate/Never Late ) Creditor : XXXX XXXX  XXXX / Account type : Education Loan ( prior servicer ) / Date opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date last paid : XX/XX/XXXX / Date of most recent update : XX/XX/XXXX / Original limit : High credit XXXX dollars Amount in default : XXXX dollars ( balance XXXX ; past due XXXX ; no chargeoff ) Status / notes : Pays As Agreed ; transferred/sold XX/XX/XXXX ; narrative codes XXXX ( account transferred or sold ) and XXXX ( student loan ). \n\nViolations Alleged To the extent you have failed to : I. XXXX a reasonable reinvestigation of my dispute, XXXX. Review all relevant information that I have provided, XXXX. Communicate my dispute accurately to the furnisher ( XXXX ), XXXX. XXXX identitytheftrelated information after receiving the required documentation, and/or V. Delete or correct information that can not be verified as accurate, You are in violation of the FCRA, XXXX but not limited to XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ), XXXX, and XXXX, as well as applicable CFPB and FTC regulations and guidance. Continued reporting of fraudulent and inaccurate information after notice of identity theft also constitutes willful or negligent noncompliance with the FCRA, exposing you to civil liability. \n\nDemands For Correction And Specific Relief Accordingly, I demand that you : I. XXXX a thorough, reasonable reinvestigation of each disputed item listed in my attached schedule, including review of all documents I have provided. \nXXXX. XXXX, delete, and permanently remove from my consumer report all tradelines, accounts, inquiries, or derogatory items that are the result of identity theft or can not be verified as accurate as to me. \nXXXX. Provide me with an updated copy of my consumer report showing the removal or correction of all disputed items. \nIV. Provide a written description of the procedures used in your reinvestigation, including the entities you contacted, information reviewed, and the basis for your conclusions, as permitted under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( XXXX ). \nXXXX XXXX from reinserting any deleted items in my file unless you fully comply with the FCRAs reinsertion requirements, including proper notice. \n\nThese actions should be completed within the statutory reinvestigation period, generally 30 days from your receipt of this dispute ( or shorter blocking timelines as applicable under XXXX ), and you should provide written confirmation to me at the address above. \n\nNotice Of Potential Litigation And Damages Please treat this letter as both a dispute under the FCRA and a prelitigation demand. If you fail to comply with the obligations described above, continue to report inaccurate or identitytheftrelated information, or otherwise refuse to correct and block the disputed items, you XXXX be liable for : I. Actual damages, including but not limited to credit denials, higher interest rates, and emotional distress. \nXXXX. Statutory damages for willful violations under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. \nXXXX. XXXX fees and costs. \nIV. Punitive damages where appropriate, particularly for reckless or knowing disregard of consumer rights. \n\nFederal regulators, including the CFPB and FTC, have expressly warned that consumer reporting agencies and furnishers can face enforcement actions and civil liability for failure to reasonably investigate disputes and properly address identity theftrelated information. If you do not resolve this matter within the time provided by law, I reserve all rights to pursue legal remedies in court, including filing suit against you and any furnishers involved in these inaccuracies for violations of the FCRA and related consumer protection statutes. \n\nDocuments enclosed I am enclosing the following, and you must review each item as part of your investigation : Copy of governmentissued identification Proof of current address Copy of my FTC Identity Theft Report A list of each disputed tradeline, including creditor name, account number ( redacted ), and why the item is inaccurate or fraudulent Any additional supporting documentation showing that the accounts or transactions are not mine Please confirm in writing, at the address listed above, that you have received this dispute, initiated a reinvestigation, blocked and removed any identitytheftrelated information pursuant to FCRA XXXX, and corrected all inaccurate information. Retain this letter and all attachments in your files, as they will be used as evidence of your notice and your response in any future regulatory complaint or civil litigation. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-15T05:00:24.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30909","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18032791","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-15T04:53:20.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Case Law Regarding <em>Failure</em> To <em>Investigate</em> And Identity Theft Federal courts have repeatedly held that when a consumer <em>disputes</em> items on a credit report, the FCRA requires furnishers and agencies to conduct a reasonable <em>investigation</em>, and <em>failure</em> to do so can give rise to liability for actual, statutory, and punitive damages."]},"sort":[15.913379,"18032791"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16960695","_score":15.514202,"_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":["Experian could not <em>provide</em> it on the phone ; Equifaxs statement that nothing negative is reporting conflicts with the XXXX drop. \n<em>Failure</em> to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation/ <em>provide</em> <em>procedure</em> used CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and, upon request, <em>provide</em> a <em>description</em> of the <em>procedure</em> used including the business name, address, and phone number of each furnisher contacted. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii )."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[15.514202,"16960695"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16960684","_score":15.514202,"_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":["Experian could not <em>provide</em> it on the phone ; Equifaxs statement that nothing negative is reporting conflicts with the XXXX drop. \n<em>Failure</em> to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation/ <em>provide</em> <em>procedure</em> used CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and, upon request, <em>provide</em> a <em>description</em> of the <em>procedure</em> used including the business name, address, and phone number of each furnisher contacted. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii )."]},"sort":[15.514202,"16960684"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16960683","_score":15.514202,"_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":["Experian could not <em>provide</em> it on the phone ; Equifaxs statement that nothing negative is reporting conflicts with the XXXX drop. \n<em>Failure</em> to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation/ <em>provide</em> <em>procedure</em> used CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and, upon request, <em>provide</em> a <em>description</em> of the <em>procedure</em> used including the business name, address, and phone number of each furnisher contacted. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii )."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[15.514202,"16960683"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12998671","_score":13.900695,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"FollowUp Dispute Verification Failure to Comply with FCRA & TILA ( XXXX evidence datedXX/XX/XXXX attached; please DELETE the Equifax accounts listed below ) Your last response stated the accounts below were verified as accurate. \nThe attached screenshots show fresh, material conflicts that violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 611, the Fair Credit Debt Reporting Act ( FCDRA ), and the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). \n\n# # 1Accounts to Be Deleted from Equifax 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 XXXX XXXX Inaccuracies Still Unresolved Balances & XXXX XXXX Equifax lists {$0.00} limits or balances that contradict the other CRAs ( e.g., XXXX XXXX $ XXXX vs. $ XXXX ). \n\nHighCredit & PastDue Dollaramount gaps of thousands ( XXXX high credit $ XXXX vs. $ XXXX ). \n\nLastReported / DateLastActive XXXX lastreported XXXX vs. XXXX. \n\nPaymentHistory Grids Equifax shows OK codes where the other bureaus display continuous CO ( chargeoff ) lines. \n\nComment Codes Account previously in disputenow resolved by data furnisher ( XXXX, XXXX ) vs. Charged off as bad debt ( TU ). \n\n\n# # 3Legal Basis for Immediate Deletion 15U.S.C.1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) Equifax has not supplied the required written description of its investigation within 15days.\n\n609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Verification must rely on physical review of original signed contracts or chargeoff ledgers, not automated eOSCAR data. \n\n607 ( b ) Equifax has failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. \n\n1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) Information that can not be verified must be deleted. \n\n1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers must report only accurate data ; Equifaxs publication of conflicting figures facilitates their violation. \n\nTILA15U.S.C.1601 Credit disclosures must be truthful and transparent ; these tradelines fail that standard. \n\n# # 4Required Actions ( 15Day Deadline ) DELETE the six Equifax accounts unless you can produce : Original, fully executed credit agreements ; Complete payment histories & chargeoff worksheets ; Written certification from each furnisher attesting to accuracy. \n\nPROVIDE a full narrative of every verification step, naming each furnisher and contact person. \n\nISSUE an updated Equifax credit report reflecting all deletions or corrections. \n\n# # 5Consequences of NonCompliance If Equifax fails to comply within 15calendar days, I will : File complaints with the FTC, and my State Attorney General. \n\nSeek statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15U.S.C.1681n and actual damages under 1681o. \n\nPursue civil action for defamation, negligence, and willful noncompliance. \n\nThank you for your immediate attention. I expect written confirmation within the timeframe mandated by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-16T03:15:15.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33126","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12998671","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-16T03:06:46.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>PROVIDE</em> a full <em>narrative</em> of every verification step, naming each furnisher and contact person. \n\nISSUE an updated Equifax credit report reflecting all deletions or corrections. \n\n# # 5Consequences of NonCompliance If Equifax fails to comply within 15calendar days, I will : File <em>complaints</em> with the FTC, and my State Attorney General. \n\nSeek statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15U.S.C.1681n and actual damages under 1681o."]},"sort":[13.900695,"12998671"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12998672","_score":13.8677635,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"FollowUp Dispute Verification Failure to Comply with FCRA & TILA ( XXXX evidence datedXX/XX/XXXX attached; please DELETE the Equifax accounts listed below ) Your last response stated the accounts below were verified as accurate. \nThe attached screenshots show fresh, material conflicts that violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 611, the Fair Credit Debt Reporting Act ( FCDRA ), and the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). \n\n# # 1Accounts to Be Deleted from Equifax 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 XXXX XXXX Inaccuracies Still Unresolved Balances & XXXX XXXX Equifax lists {$0.00} limits or balances that contradict the other CRAs ( e.g., XXXX XXXX $ XXXX vs. $ XXXX ). \n\nHighCredit & PastDue Dollaramount gaps of thousands ( XXXX high credit $ XXXX vs. $ XXXX ). \n\nLastReported / DateLastActive XXXX lastreported XXXX vs. XXXX. \n\nPaymentHistory Grids Equifax shows OK codes where the other bureaus display continuous CO ( chargeoff ) lines. \n\nComment Codes Account previously in disputenow resolved by data furnisher ( XXXX, XXXX ) vs. Charged off as bad debt ( TU ). \n\n\n# # 3Legal Basis for Immediate Deletion 15U.S.C.1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) Equifax has not supplied the required written description of its investigation within 15days.\n\n609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Verification must rely on physical review of original signed contracts or chargeoff ledgers, not automated eOSCAR data. \n\n607 ( b ) Equifax has failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. \n\n1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) Information that can not be verified must be deleted. \n\n1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers must report only accurate data ; Equifaxs publication of conflicting figures facilitates their violation. \n\nTILA15U.S.C.1601 Credit disclosures must be truthful and transparent ; these tradelines fail that standard. \n\n# # 4Required Actions ( 15Day Deadline ) DELETE the six Equifax accounts unless you can produce : Original, fully executed credit agreements ; Complete payment histories & chargeoff worksheets ; Written certification from each furnisher attesting to accuracy. \n\nPROVIDE a full narrative of every verification step, naming each furnisher and contact person. \n\nISSUE an updated Equifax credit report reflecting all deletions or corrections. \n\n# # 5Consequences of NonCompliance If Equifax fails to comply within 15calendar days, I will : File complaints with the FTC, and my State Attorney General. \n\nSeek statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15U.S.C.1681n and actual damages under 1681o. \n\nPursue civil action for defamation, negligence, and willful noncompliance. \n\nThank you for your immediate attention. I expect written confirmation within the timeframe mandated by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-16T03:15:09.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33126","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12998672","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-16T03:06:46.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>PROVIDE</em> a full <em>narrative</em> of every verification step, naming each furnisher and contact person. \n\nISSUE an updated Equifax credit report reflecting all deletions or corrections. \n\n# # 5Consequences of NonCompliance If Equifax fails to comply within 15calendar days, I will : File <em>complaints</em> with the FTC, and my State Attorney General. \n\nSeek statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15U.S.C.1681n and actual damages under 1681o."]},"sort":[13.8677635,"12998672"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13024985","_score":13.865883,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"FollowUp Dispute Verification Failure to Comply with FCRA & TILA ( XXXX evidence datedXX/XX/XXXX attached; please DELETE the Equifax accounts listed below ) Your last response stated the accounts below were verified as accurate. \nThe attached screenshots show fresh, material conflicts that violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 611, the Fair Credit Debt Reporting Act ( FCDRA ), and the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). \n\n# # 1Accounts to Be Deleted from Equifax 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 XXXX XXXX Inaccuracies Still Unresolved Balances & XXXX XXXX Equifax lists {$0.00} limits or balances that contradict the other CRAs ( e.g., XXXX XXXX $ XXXX vs. $ XXXX ). \n\nHighCredit & PastDue Dollaramount gaps of thousands ( XXXX high credit $ XXXX vs. $ XXXX ). \n\nLastReported / DateLastActive XXXX lastreported XXXX vs. XXXX. \n\nPaymentHistory Grids Equifax shows OK codes where the other bureaus display continuous CO ( chargeoff ) lines. \n\nComment Codes Account previously in disputenow resolved by data furnisher ( XXXX, XXXX ) vs. Charged off as bad debt ( TU ). \n\n\n# # 3Legal Basis for Immediate Deletion 15U.S.C.1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) Equifax has not supplied the required written description of its investigation within 15days.\n\n609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Verification must rely on physical review of original signed contracts or chargeoff ledgers, not automated eOSCAR data. \n\n607 ( b ) Equifax has failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. \n\n1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) Information that can not be verified must be deleted. \n\n1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers must report only accurate data ; Equifaxs publication of conflicting figures facilitates their violation. \n\nTILA15U.S.C.1601 Credit disclosures must be truthful and transparent ; these tradelines fail that standard. \n\n# # 4Required Actions ( 15Day Deadline ) DELETE the six Equifax accounts unless you can produce : Original, fully executed credit agreements ; Complete payment histories & chargeoff worksheets ; Written certification from each furnisher attesting to accuracy. \n\nPROVIDE a full narrative of every verification step, naming each furnisher and contact person. \n\nISSUE an updated Equifax credit report reflecting all deletions or corrections. \n\n# # 5Consequences of NonCompliance If Equifax fails to comply within 15calendar days, I will : File complaints with the FTC, and my State Attorney General. \n\nSeek statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15U.S.C.1681n and actual damages under 1681o. \n\nPursue civil action for defamation, negligence, and willful noncompliance. \n\nThank you for your immediate attention. I expect written confirmation within the timeframe mandated by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-16T03:15:12.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33126","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13024985","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-16T02:54:43.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>PROVIDE</em> a full <em>narrative</em> of every verification step, naming each furnisher and contact person. \n\nISSUE an updated Equifax credit report reflecting all deletions or corrections. \n\n# # 5Consequences of NonCompliance If Equifax fails to comply within 15calendar days, I will : File <em>complaints</em> with the FTC, and my State Attorney General. \n\nSeek statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15U.S.C.1681n and actual damages under 1681o."]},"sort":[13.865883,"13024985"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15154425","_score":13.498844,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : CFPB Complaint Misclassification and Utilization Distortion of Closed XXXX XXXX XXXX  by Equifax Institution Address : Equifax XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This formal complaint is submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) regarding Equifaxs handling of a closed credit card account issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), Account No. [ REDACTED ]. Despite the account being closed by the creditor on XX/XX/XXXX, Equifax continues to report it as an open revolving tradeline with a Narrative code description of XXXX ( XXXX Closed by Credit Grantor , XXXX Card ) and a balance of {$17000.00} as of XX/XX/XXXX. This reporting is factually inaccurate, materially misleading, and legally noncompliant with FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681s-2, and industry-standard Metro 2 Format .\n\nThis complaint is now being submitted directly to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), supplementing two ( 2 ) original dispute letters already filed with Equifax ( Exhibit 66 ), along with Equifaxs dispute results issued on August 4, 2025 ( Exhibit 67 ) and August 5, 2025 ( Exhibit 68 ). I have also preserved documentation for further escalation to the Minnesota Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission if corrective action is not taken.\n\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) ( Exhibit 901 ) o ID FOR COMPLAINT : XXXX o Filed XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nNational Credit Union Administration ( NCUA ) Consumer Assistance Center ( Exhibit XXXX ) o Case Number : XXXX o Filed : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. Chronology and Reporting Misconduct 1.1. Equifax XXXX XXXX Credit Scores Reporting The historical record obtained directly from Equifaxs consumer disclosure confirms that from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, the account in question was reported with a Narrative Code Description of XXXX ( XXXX-Credit Card ) every month, indicating current, paying or paid as agreed. There were no balances, no past due amounts, no missed payments, and no derogatory remarks during this period. This pattern held for 49 consecutive months, clearly establishing a positive and compliant payment history in accordance with FCRA 1681e ( b ) ( Exhibit XXXX ). \n\nBeginning in or about XX/XX/XXXX, after the creditor closed the account, Equifax began appending the Narrative code description of XXXX ( XXXX Closed by Credit Grantor , XXXXCredit Card ) while continuing to rate the Account Status : PAYS_AS_AGREED and report scheduled payments, an open balance, and a full credit limit. The insertion of \" XXXX '' confirms acknowledgment of creditor-initiated closure, yet Equifax failed to reclassify the account type, zero out the credit limit, or remove it from revolving utilization calculations. This reporting contradiction has caused measurable damage to my credit profile and is entirely attributable to Equifaxs post-closure handling. The legal and factual record makes clear that the consumer was not at fault, and that Equifax 's ongoing misreporting constitutes a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Metro 2 Format guidelines. \n\nThis XXXX drop occurred despite no derogatory payment behavior or consumer-initiated changes and is traceable to Equifaxs ongoing treatment of the XXXX account as an open revolving tradeline rather than a closed, non-utilized account. As the supporting Equifax files show ( Exhibit XXXX, Exhibit XXXX, and Exhibit XXXX ), the bureau continues to report a full balance, active monthly payment, and unadjusted credit limit more than a year after closure, all of which misstate the true nature of the account and inflate risk modeling inputs. \n\nXXXX. Equifax XXXX XXXX Credit Scores Damage Equifax Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ) Equifax Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ) XXXX. Equifax FICO XXXX via XXXX Credit Scores Reporting Beginning in XX/XX/XXXX, Equifax FICO XXXX via XXXX  Report shows my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account as an Account type : Revolving with a Status : Pays account as agreed and Comments : Account closed by credit grantor. As of XX/XX/XXXX, the account still reflects an active credit limit of {$27000.00} and a reported balance of {$17000.00}, and a Credit Usage : 65 %, despite being closed by the creditor on XX/XX/XXXX, and no longer offering credit access ( Exhibit XXXX ). \n\nWhen clicking inside Equifax FICO XXXX via XXXX Credit Reporting from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, Equifaxs reporting continued to list this account as open, current, and revolving. The Remarks field shows an active check mark up to XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ), which misrepresents the account as a functional revolving line of credit in good standing. Nevertheless, the Comments section says Account closed by credit grantor, this misclassification artificially inflates my revolving utilization, directly suppressing my credit score and presenting a false risk profile to lenders. \n\nXXXX. Equifax FICO XXXX via XXXX Credit Scores Damage Equifax Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ) Equifax Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ) Equifax Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ) Equifax Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ) Equifax Credit Score XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ) Equifax Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ) XXXX. Legal Violations 2.1. Failure to Reclassify Under Metro 2 Format and FCRA Standards FCRA 1681e ( b ) requires consumer reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the data furnished. Equifaxs continued classification of this account as revolving violates this standard. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) prohibits the reporting of information a bureau knows or has reason to believe is inaccurate.\n\nMetro 2 Format provides clear instruction that once a revolving credit account is closed and the consumer is no longer able to access the line, the account must be recoded to reflect its true nature. This includes : 2.1.1. Changing the account type to Closed-End or Installment ( not Revolving ) 2.1.2. Setting the available credit and credit limit to zero 2.1.3. Ensuring that Remarks codes such as CBG or CLO are not contradicted by an open revolving status 2.1.4. Properly populating the Date Closed field 2.1.5. Removing the account from revolving utilization scoring logic 2.1.6. By failing to implement these changes, Equifax is propagating misleading data in violation of Metro 2 data logic and credit reporting accuracy obligations.\n\n2.2. Suppression Required During Statutory Reinvestigation Window Under FCRA 1681i, Equifax is obligated to conduct a reinvestigation of disputed information and complete its resolution within 30 days. During this window, the disputed tradeline must not be allowed to influence credit scoring algorithms or generate further adverse effects. Any updates to this tradeline that affect utilization, available credit, or payment history must be immediately suppressed until the dispute is resolved and accurate data is confirmed.\n\nEquifaxs failure to suppress score-impacting activity related to this account during the reinvestigation period would constitute a separate violation under 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\n2.3. Impact on Credit Score and Financial Standing The continued treatment of this closed tradeline as an active revolving account has artificially inflated my utilization ratio and damaged my credit score. This impact is quantifiable. As shown in score simulations submitted to federal regulators, a {$55000.00} reduction in revolving credit lines, including this account, caused a utilization spike from XXXX percent to over XXXX percent. This resulted in score drops across all major credit bureaus, including Equifax ( Exhibit XXXX and Exhibit XXXX ). \n\nFrom XX/XX/XXXX, my Equifax XXXX score had fallen from XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ) to XXXX by XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ), despite continued on-time payments and reduced balances. From XX/XX/XXXX, my Equifax FICO XXXX score via XXXX fell from XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ) to XXXX by XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ). By XX/XX/XXXX it had only partially recovered to XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ), despite continued on-time payments and reduced balances. \nThe historical reporting data confirms that this account was rated OK with no late payments, delinquencies, or derogatory marks for more than five years prior to the closure, from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX and Exhibit XXXX ). This record further supports that the issue lies entirely in post-closure bureau handling, not consumer behavior. \n\n3. Required Corrective Action Accordingly, I demand that Equifax take the following actions : 3.1. Reclassify the account type from Revolving to Closed-End or Installment.\n\n3.2. Set the available credit and credit limit to zero.\n\n3.3. Ensure the Remarks code is either CBG or CLO ( not both ), and consistent with a closed account. \n3.4. Populate the Date Closed field as XX/XX/XXXX. \n3.5. Suppress all score-affecting activity for this tradeline during and after the dispute resolution process.\n\n3.6. Provide written confirmation detailing the outcome of the reinvestigation and specifying all corrections made to this tradeline, as required under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ).\n\n3.7. Regulatory Notice : Pursuant to FCRA 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ), I also request a copy of the tradeline as it appears in your file at the time of reinvestigation completion, including all data fields submitted by the furnisher and any alterations made by Equifaxs internal Metro 2 parsing system.\n\n3.8. Should XXXX ( the creditor ) independently choose to reopen this account in the future, whether in response to ongoing investigations by the CFPB or NCUA, that development does not eliminate Equifaxs duty to correct prior misreporting or its legal obligations under FCRA 1681e ( b ) and 1681i.\n\nEquifax has an affirmative legal obligation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) to ensure maximum possible accuracy of consumer credit data. Failure to fully and promptly correct the reporting errors identified in this dispute may result in further regulatory action and legal proceedings for damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. I request a complete and itemized response confirming the outcome of your reinvestigation and the specific corrective actions taken.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-07T05:26:52.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"554XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15154425","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-07T05:09:42.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Beginning in or about XX/XX/XXXX, after the creditor closed the account, Equifax began appending the <em>Narrative</em> code <em>description</em> of XXXX ( XXXX Closed by Credit Grantor , XXXXCredit Card ) while continuing to rate the Account Status : PAYS_AS_AGREED and report scheduled payments, an open balance, and a full credit limit."]},"sort":[13.498844,"15154425"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12989688","_score":13.261438,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"FollowUp Dispute Verification Failure to Comply with FCRA & TILA ( Proof attached; please DELETE the following TransUnion accounts immediately ) I am writing to formally COMPLAIN about the accuracy of information that still appears on my TransUnion credit report. Your previous response stated these tradelines were verified ; however, the attached XXXX screenshots datedXXXX clearly prove multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 611, the Fair Credit Debt Reporting Act ( FCDRA ), and the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). \n\nXXXX-ACCOUNTS TO BE REMOVED XXXX. XXXX Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX Acct # XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX Acct # XXXX XXXX. XXXX Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX XXXX SPECIFIC INACCURACIES STILL UNRESOLVED * Balances/ Credit Limits : TransUnion shows {$0.00} balances or positive creditlimits that do not match XXXX or XXXX. \n* HighCredit & PastDue Figures : Wide dollaramount discrepancies exist across the three bureaus for every tradeline listed above. \n* Last Reported & DateLastActive Fields : TransUnion dates conflict with the dates reported by XXXX and/or XXXXindicating unreliable datafurnishing. \n* PaymentHistory Grids : TransUnion displays continuous CO ( chargeoff ) codes, while the other bureaus alternate between XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. \n* Comment Codes : Notes such as Charged off as bad debt ( TU ) versus Account in disputereported by subscriber ( XXXX ) reveal that verification was not based on original documentation. \n\nXXXX LEGAL BASIS FOR REMOVAL XXXX. 15U.S.C.1681i ( 7 ) You must supply a written description of your investigation within 15days ; you have failed to do so. \nXXXX. 15U.S.C.609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Verification must rely on physical review of the original signed contracts or chargeoff ledgers, not automated eOSCAR replies. \nXXXX. 15U.S.C.1681e ( b ) TransUnion must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy; conflicting data proves noncompliance. \nXXXX. 15U.S.C.1681i ( 5 ) Information that can not be verified must be deleted. \nXXXX. 15U.S.C.1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers must report only accurate information ; by continuing to publish their conflicting figures, TransUnion is facilitating their violation. \nXXXX. TILA15U.S.C.1601 Credit information must be transparent and accurate ; these tradelines fail that standard. \n\nXXXX REQUESTED ACTIONS ( WITHIN15CALENDARDAYS ) XXXX  DELETE the XXXX tradelines and any related hard inquiries immediately, unless you can produce the original signed contracts, complete account ledgers, and chargeoff worksheets for each account. \n* PROVIDE the full narrative of every verification step you performed, including the name and contact information of each furnisher consulted. \n* ISSUE an updated TransUnion credit report showing the deletions or corrections. \n\nXXXX CONSEQUENCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE If you do not comply within the 15day timeframe, I will : * File complaints with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and my State Attorney General.\n\n* Seek statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15U.S.C.1681n, plus actual damages under 1681o. \n* Pursue civil action for defamation, negligence, and willful noncompliance. \nThank you for your immediate attention to this matter. I expect your written confirmation within the period prescribed by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-15T04:13:53.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33126","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12989688","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-15T04:13:29.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FollowUp <em>Dispute</em> Verification <em>Failure</em> to Comply with FCRA & TILA ( Proof attached; please DELETE the following TransUnion accounts immediately ) I am writing to formally COMPLAIN about the accuracy of information that still appears on my TransUnion credit report."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[13.261438,"12989688"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13011076","_score":13.256998,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"FollowUp Dispute Verification Failure to Comply with FCRA & TILA ( New XXXX evidence XXXX enclosed; please DELETE the Experian accounts listed below ) Your last response claimed the accounts below were verified as accurate.The attached screenshots prove otherwise and show Experian is violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 611, the Fair Credit Debt Reporting Act ( FCDRA ), and the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ).\n\n1Accounts to Be Deleted from Experian 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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Inaccuracies Still Unresolved * Balances & Credit Limits Experian lists {$0.00} limits or balances that conflict with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n* HighCredit & PastDue Dollaramount gaps of thousands ( XXXX high XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). \n* LastReported / DateLastActive XXXX lastreported XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. \n* PaymentHistory Grids Experian shows alternating XXXX codes while the other bureaus differ or show continuous XXXX \n* Comment Codes Account in disputereported by subscriber ( XXXX ) versus Charged off as bad debt ( XXXX  ) shows Experian relied on inconsistent data. \n* Omission ( XXXX ) Experian alone reports this chargeoff ; neither XXXX  nor XXXX lists it, proving lack of crossbureau verification. \n\n3Legal Basis for Immediate Deletion 1. 15U.S.C.1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) Experian has not supplied the required written description of its investigation within 15days.\n\n2. 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Verification must rely on physical review of original signed contracts or chargeoff ledgers, not automated eOSCAR data.\n\n3. 607 ( b ) Experian has failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. \n4. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) Information that can not be verified must be deleted.\n\n5. 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers must report only accurate data ; Experians publication of conflicting figures facilitates their violation.\n\n6. TILA15U.S.C.1601 Credit disclosures must be truthful and transparent ; these tradelines fail that standard. \n\n4Required Actions ( 15Day Deadline ) * DELETE the seven Experian accounts unless you can produce : * Original, fully executed credit agreements; * Complete payment histories & chargeoff worksheets; * Written certification from each furnisher attesting to accuracy. \n* PROVIDE a full narrative of every verification step, naming each furnisher and contact person. \n* ISSUE an updated Experian credit report reflecting all deletions or corrections. \n\n5Consequences of NonCompliance If Experian fails to comply within 15calendar days, I will : 1. File complaints with the FTC, and my State Attorney General.\n\n2. Seek statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15U.S.C.1681n and actual damages under 1681o. \n3. Pursue civil action for defamation, negligence, and willful noncompliance. \nThank you for your immediate attention. I expect written confirmation within the timeframe mandated by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-16T02:54:27.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33126","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13011076","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-04-16T02:54:02.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["* <em>PROVIDE</em> a full <em>narrative</em> of every verification step, naming each furnisher and contact person. \n* ISSUE an updated Experian credit report reflecting all deletions or corrections. \n\n5Consequences of NonCompliance If Experian fails to comply within 15calendar days, I will : 1. File <em>complaints</em> with the FTC, and my State Attorney General.\n\n2. Seek statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15U.S.C.1681n and actual damages under 1681o. \n3."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[13.256998,"13011076"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12989718","_score":13.228125,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"FollowUp Dispute Verification Failure to Comply with FCRA & TILA ( Proof attached; please DELETE the following TransUnion accounts immediately ) I am writing to formally COMPLAIN about the accuracy of information that still appears on my TransUnion credit report. Your previous response stated these tradelines were verified ; however, the attached XXXX screenshots datedXXXX clearly prove multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 611, the Fair Credit Debt Reporting Act ( FCDRA ), and the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). \n\nXXXX-ACCOUNTS TO BE REMOVED XXXX. XXXX Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX Acct # XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX Acct # XXXX XXXX. XXXX Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX XXXX SPECIFIC INACCURACIES STILL UNRESOLVED * Balances/ Credit Limits : TransUnion shows {$0.00} balances or positive creditlimits that do not match XXXX or XXXX. \n* HighCredit & PastDue Figures : Wide dollaramount discrepancies exist across the three bureaus for every tradeline listed above. \n* Last Reported & DateLastActive Fields : TransUnion dates conflict with the dates reported by XXXX and/or XXXXindicating unreliable datafurnishing. \n* PaymentHistory Grids : TransUnion displays continuous CO ( chargeoff ) codes, while the other bureaus alternate between XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. \n* Comment Codes : Notes such as Charged off as bad debt ( TU ) versus Account in disputereported by subscriber ( XXXX ) reveal that verification was not based on original documentation. \n\nXXXX LEGAL BASIS FOR REMOVAL XXXX. 15U.S.C.1681i ( 7 ) You must supply a written description of your investigation within 15days ; you have failed to do so. \nXXXX. 15U.S.C.609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Verification must rely on physical review of the original signed contracts or chargeoff ledgers, not automated eOSCAR replies. \nXXXX. 15U.S.C.1681e ( b ) TransUnion must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy; conflicting data proves noncompliance. \nXXXX. 15U.S.C.1681i ( 5 ) Information that can not be verified must be deleted. \nXXXX. 15U.S.C.1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers must report only accurate information ; by continuing to publish their conflicting figures, TransUnion is facilitating their violation. \nXXXX. TILA15U.S.C.1601 Credit information must be transparent and accurate ; these tradelines fail that standard. \n\nXXXX REQUESTED ACTIONS ( WITHIN15CALENDARDAYS ) XXXX  DELETE the XXXX tradelines and any related hard inquiries immediately, unless you can produce the original signed contracts, complete account ledgers, and chargeoff worksheets for each account. \n* PROVIDE the full narrative of every verification step you performed, including the name and contact information of each furnisher consulted. \n* ISSUE an updated TransUnion credit report showing the deletions or corrections. \n\nXXXX CONSEQUENCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE If you do not comply within the 15day timeframe, I will : * File complaints with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and my State Attorney General.\n\n* Seek statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15U.S.C.1681n, plus actual damages under 1681o. \n* Pursue civil action for defamation, negligence, and willful noncompliance. \nThank you for your immediate attention to this matter. I expect your written confirmation within the period prescribed by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-15T04:13:55.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33126","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12989718","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-15T03:59:56.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FollowUp <em>Dispute</em> Verification <em>Failure</em> to Comply with FCRA & TILA ( Proof attached; please DELETE the following TransUnion accounts immediately ) I am writing to formally COMPLAIN about the accuracy of information that still appears on my TransUnion credit report."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[13.228125,"12989718"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12989707","_score":13.225824,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"FollowUp Dispute Verification Failure to Comply with FCRA & TILA ( Proof attached; please DELETE the following TransUnion accounts immediately ) I am writing to formally COMPLAIN about the accuracy of information that still appears on my TransUnion credit report. Your previous response stated these tradelines were verified ; however, the attached XXXX screenshots datedXXXX clearly prove multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 611, the Fair Credit Debt Reporting Act ( FCDRA ), and the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). \n\nXXXX-ACCOUNTS TO BE REMOVED XXXX. XXXX Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX Acct # XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX Acct # XXXX XXXX. XXXX Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX XXXX SPECIFIC INACCURACIES STILL UNRESOLVED * Balances/ Credit Limits : TransUnion shows {$0.00} balances or positive creditlimits that do not match XXXX or XXXX. \n* HighCredit & PastDue Figures : Wide dollaramount discrepancies exist across the three bureaus for every tradeline listed above. \n* Last Reported & DateLastActive Fields : TransUnion dates conflict with the dates reported by XXXX and/or XXXXindicating unreliable datafurnishing. \n* PaymentHistory Grids : TransUnion displays continuous CO ( chargeoff ) codes, while the other bureaus alternate between XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. \n* Comment Codes : Notes such as Charged off as bad debt ( TU ) versus Account in disputereported by subscriber ( XXXX ) reveal that verification was not based on original documentation. \n\nXXXX LEGAL BASIS FOR REMOVAL XXXX. 15U.S.C.1681i ( 7 ) You must supply a written description of your investigation within 15days ; you have failed to do so. \nXXXX. 15U.S.C.609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Verification must rely on physical review of the original signed contracts or chargeoff ledgers, not automated eOSCAR replies. \nXXXX. 15U.S.C.1681e ( b ) TransUnion must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy; conflicting data proves noncompliance. \nXXXX. 15U.S.C.1681i ( 5 ) Information that can not be verified must be deleted. \nXXXX. 15U.S.C.1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers must report only accurate information ; by continuing to publish their conflicting figures, TransUnion is facilitating their violation. \nXXXX. TILA15U.S.C.1601 Credit information must be transparent and accurate ; these tradelines fail that standard. \n\nXXXX REQUESTED ACTIONS ( WITHIN15CALENDARDAYS ) XXXX  DELETE the XXXX tradelines and any related hard inquiries immediately, unless you can produce the original signed contracts, complete account ledgers, and chargeoff worksheets for each account. \n* PROVIDE the full narrative of every verification step you performed, including the name and contact information of each furnisher consulted. \n* ISSUE an updated TransUnion credit report showing the deletions or corrections. \n\nXXXX CONSEQUENCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE If you do not comply within the 15day timeframe, I will : * File complaints with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and my State Attorney General.\n\n* Seek statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15U.S.C.1681n, plus actual damages under 1681o. \n* Pursue civil action for defamation, negligence, and willful noncompliance. \nThank you for your immediate attention to this matter. I expect your written confirmation within the period prescribed by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-15T04:13:55.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33126","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12989707","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-15T04:13:29.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FollowUp <em>Dispute</em> Verification <em>Failure</em> to Comply with FCRA & TILA ( Proof attached; please DELETE the following TransUnion accounts immediately ) I am writing to formally COMPLAIN about the accuracy of information that still appears on my TransUnion credit report."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[13.225824,"12989707"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":37,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":37}]}},"product":{"doc_count":37,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":28,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":27},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":5},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":37,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":13,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":13}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":6},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":3},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":4,"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":4}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","doc_count":1,"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":1}]}},{"key":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Contacted you after you asked them to stop","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":37,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":37}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":37,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":20},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":17}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":37,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":37}]}},"company":{"doc_count":37,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":15},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":7},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":5},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Avant Holding Company, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":37,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":12},{"key":"NY","doc_count":8},{"key":"PA","doc_count":6},{"key":"MO","doc_count":3},{"key":"CA","doc_count":2},{"key":"GA","doc_count":2},{"key":"MN","doc_count":2},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"DE","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":37,"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":14},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":37,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[13.226854,"12989707"]}}}