{"took":231,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":191,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13472594","_score":26.306166,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint against TransUnion for continuing to report an account from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) that appears to be illegally re-aged and in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThis account was reported with a \" Date Last Active '' of XX/XX/year>, even though I have made no recent payment or activity. The original creditor ( XXXX ) no longer appears on my credit report, which strongly suggests the Date of First Delinquency ( DoFD ) is older than XXXX years. \n\nDuring my dispute, I requested TransUnion provide : The verified DoFD The estimated date of removal And confirmation that they conducted a reasonable reinvestigation and verified the DoFD with the original creditor. \n\nInstead, I was told by a TransUnion chat representative named XXXX, \" We dont verify these, we only do dispute. '' This is a direct admission that TransUnion is reporting the account without verifying a critical legal data point the DoFD which determines whether the debt is time-barred under FCRA 605 ( c ).\n\nThis failure to verify violates : FCRA 611 TransUnion did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.\n\nFCRA 623 TransUnion failed to verify the accuracy of the disputed information.\n\nFCRA 605 ( c ) TransUnion is reporting a time-barred collection.\n\nI am requesting : Immediate deletion of the XXXX XXXX account from my credit file. \n\nA full review of XXXX dispute handling and reinvestigation practices. \n\nThat this issue be escalated to their legal/compliance team and removed from reporting if it can not be verified.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-12T17:22:42.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"76543","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13472594","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-12T17:06:42.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>original</em> <em>creditor</em> ( XXXX ) no longer appears on my credit <em>report</em>, which strongly suggests the Date of First Delinquency ( <em>DoFD</em> ) is older than XXXX years. \n\nDuring my dispute, I requested TransUnion provide : The verified <em>DoFD</em> The estimated date of removal And confirmation that they conducted a reasonable reinvestigation and verified the <em>DoFD</em> with the <em>original</em> <em>creditor</em>."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[26.306166,"13472594"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17762826","_score":24.944374,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"FCRA 605 ( b ) DELETION DEMAND LETTER XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> Midland Credit Management XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX Re : Demand for Deletion Under FCRA 605 ( b ) To Whom It May Concern, This letter is a formal notice requiring compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically FCRA 605 ( b ), regarding the reporting of delinquent accounts. \nI am disputing the reporting of the following account : Creditor or Collection Agency : Midland Credit Management Account Number : XXXX XXXXXXXX Under FCRA 605 ( b ), a furnisher or credit reporting agency can not legally report a delinquent account unless it has certified and documented the exact Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ). \nThe information currently being reported is inconsistent, unverifiable, missing DOFD documentation, or appears to have been re-aged. Because of this, the information is prohibited from being reported and must be deleted immediately. \nYou are required to do the following : XXXX. Provide full documentation of the exact DOFD from the original creditor OR XXXX. Delete the account from my credit file because you can not certify the DOFD. \nFailure to remove unverifiable information constitutes : Willful non-compliance FCRA 616 Negligent non-compliance FCRA 617 Unauthorized reporting FCRA 605 ( b ) Violation of reasonable investigation requirements FCRA 611 ( a ) If you can not provide DOFD documentation within 30 days, you must delete this account and provide written confirmation. \nIf the account remains without proper DOFD certification, I will pursue CFPB enforcement, FTC complaint, Attorney General complaint, and civil remedies under FCRA 616 and 617. \nPlease confirm in writing : XXXX. The exact DOFD XXXX. The documents used to determine DOFD XXXX. Whether the information was verified, corrected, or deleted If you can not comply with FCRA 605 ( b ), you must remove the account entirely. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-05T04:29:18.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"90746","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17762826","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","date_received":"2025-12-05T04:23:29.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Because of this, the information is prohibited from being <em>reported</em> and must be deleted immediately. \nYou are required to do the following : XXXX. Provide full documentation of the exact <em>DOFD</em> from the <em>original</em> <em>creditor</em> OR XXXX. Delete the account from my credit file because you can not certify the <em>DOFD</em>."]},"sort":[24.944374,"17762826"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15254039","_score":23.609634,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against Equifax for failing to maintain accurate and verifiable information on my credit report, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). I have identified the following accounts containing inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable data : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX  XXXX - Incorrect charge-off and balance reporting ; DOFD conflicts with payment history ; possible inflated deficiency balance. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct # * XXXX - Incorrect DOFD that extends reporting period ; delinquency dates inconsistent with payment history. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Acct XXXX * XXXX - Reported 6089 days past due without verifiable evidence ; DOFD inconsistent with records. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Acct # * XXXX - No proof of debt validation ; questionable re-aging of account from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. \nFCRA Violations Include : - 605B Failure to block identity theft-related or fraudulent information. - 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to provide original creditor documentation upon request. - 611 ( a ) Failure to correct or delete inaccurate or unverifiable information after dispute. \nRequested Resolution : 1. Immediate removal of the above-listed accounts from my Equifax credit file due to inaccurate and/or unverifiable reporting. 2. Written confirmation from Equifax that these deletions have been completed and will not reappear unless fully verified with original documentation.\n\n3. Compliance with all FCRA timelines and obligations.\n\nI have attached a copy of my credit report with disputed items highlighted for reference. Please investigate and compel Equifax to correct these violations promptly","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-14T01:19:47.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"91601","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15254039","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-14T01:10:37.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FCRA Violations Include : - 605B <em>Failure</em> to block identity theft-related or fraudulent information. - 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) <em>Failure</em> to provide <em>original</em> <em>creditor</em> documentation upon request. - 611 ( a ) <em>Failure</em> to correct or delete inaccurate or unverifiable information after dispute. \nRequested Resolution : 1. Immediate removal of the above-listed accounts from my Equifax credit file due to inaccurate and/or unverifiable <em>reporting</em>. 2."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect information on your <em>report</em>"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"]},"sort":[23.609634,"15254039"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13722882","_score":22.949432,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I submitted multiple disputes to TransUnion regarding an account listed as XXXX XXXX, Account # XXXX. This is a closed and fully paid auto lease account with XXXX XXXX XXXX, yet TransUnion is inaccurately reporting the name and listing multiple 60-day late payments from XXXX and XXXX. \n\nI personally prepared and submitted my disputes, citing my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and referencing Metro 2 compliance standards. I requested a proper reinvestigation of the account and asked TransUnion to validate : A signed original lease or agreement, A full billing and payment history, A correct and verifiable Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) in compliance with FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ), Evidence that the account is being reported accurately under Metro 2 formatting, And correction of the furnisher name, which is currently inaccurate. \n\nI requested validation including a signed agreement, billing history, DOFD, and Metro 2 compliance, but the account was marked verified without providing any supporting documents or evidence.\n\nTo date, TransUnion has failed to provide any documentation, failed to correct the inaccurate creditor name, and continues to report derogatory late payments on a closed, paid-in-full account. This is both misleading and damaging to my credit profile.\n\nThe continued reporting violates : FCRA 1681e ( b ) failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy, FCRA 1681i ( a ) failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) no confirmed DOFD reported, Metro 2 standards inconsistent status/payment data and incorrect creditor name. \n\nThis also constitutes an unfair and deceptive act under the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) - ( B ). These types of systemic inaccuracies were directly addressed in CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX. \n\nRelevant case law such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reinforces that credit bureaus must investigate thoroughly and can not rely solely on automated responses or incorrect furnisher data.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-27T01:05:16.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"770XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13722882","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-27T01:01:33.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I requested validation including a signed agreement, billing history, <em>DOFD</em>, and Metro 2 <em>compliance</em>, but the account was marked verified <em>without</em> providing any supporting documents or evidence.\n\nTo date, TransUnion has failed to provide any documentation, failed to correct the inaccurate <em>creditor</em> name, and continues to <em>report</em> derogatory late payments on a closed, paid-in-full account. This is both misleading and damaging to my credit profile."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[22.949432,"13722882"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15254981","_score":22.488462,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, IL XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> Midland Credit Management , Inc . \nAttn : Chief Compliance Officer XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Re : Account # XXXX XXXX Compliance Request for Removal To Whom It May Concern : This letter serves as my formal notice of dispute regarding the reporting of the above-referenced account, pursuant to my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and the XXXX XXXX Credit Reporting Resource Guide ( CRRG ) standards for data furnishers.\n\nThe current reporting of this account contains factual and compliance errors under XXXX XXXX reporting standards and FCRA 623 ( a ), which require that all furnished information be accurate, complete, and in proper format. Specifically : Account Status Misreporting According to the XXXX XXXX CRRG, an account reported as Placed for Collection must reflect an accurate and verifiable Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ). The DOFD for this account has not been verified or disclosed to me as required under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nDuplicate Remarks The remark Account information disputed by consumer appears multiple times in the tradeline. XXXX XXXX standards prohibit redundant dispute coding and require the dispute condition code to be applied accurately and singularly ( Com\n\npliance Condition Code XB when in dispute ). This redundancy constitutes inaccurate reporting. Incomplete Original Creditor Identification The listing shows Original creditor name : Midland Credit Management Inc. However, Midland Credit Management is a debt buyer, not the original creditor. XXXX XXXX requires the actual original creditors name and identifying information. This is a compliance error under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). \n\nFailure to Update During Dispute Under XXXX XXXX standards and FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), a furnisher must report the account as in dispute and suppress certain data fields until the dispute is resolved. This tradeline reflects ongoing updates without the proper dispute coding structure, violating this standard. \n\nBecause these violations render the reporting of this account factually inaccurate and non-compliant with federal law and XXXX XXXX requirements, I am requesting immediate deletion of the tradeline from all consumer reporting agencies to avoid continued furnishing of inaccurate data. \n\nPlease provide : Written confirmation of deletion sent to me and all consumer reporting agencies to which you have furnished this account. \n\nThe name and contact information of the person responsible for handling XXXX XXXX compliance at Midland Credit Management. \n\nAll documentation you claim supports the current reporting, including the original creditor agreement and complete payment history from inception. \n\nIf Midland Credit Management continues to report this account without correcting the identified XXXX XXXX compliance failures, I will have no choice but to file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), my State Attorney General, and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and to pursue all available remedies under FCRA 616617.\n\nI expect your written response within 30 days of receipt of this letter, as required by law. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-13T22:34:43.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"60504","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15254981","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","date_received":"2025-08-13T22:30:53.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Incomplete <em>Original</em> <em>Creditor</em> Identification The listing shows <em>Original</em> <em>creditor</em> name : Midland Credit Management Inc. However, Midland Credit Management is a debt buyer, not the <em>original</em> <em>creditor</em>. XXXX XXXX requires the actual <em>original</em> <em>creditors</em> name and identifying information. This is a <em>compliance</em> error under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A )."]},"sort":[22.488462,"15254981"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14870086","_score":22.140432,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Re : Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Information Account Number : XXXXOriginal Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXConsumer Name : XXXX XXXXXXXX : XXXX Subject : Formal Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting under FCRA, FDCPA, and Metro 2 Compliance Standards Dear Sir or Madam, Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and Metro 2 compliance standards, I am disputing the accuracy of the above-referenced account appearing on my credit reports with XXXX XXXX, and Equifax. The reporting of this account contains multiple inaccuracies, violates federal and state regulations, and has caused me significant harm. I demand a thorough investigation, correction, or permanent deletion of this account, as well as compensation for damages caused by the furnishers and credit bureaus willful noncompliance. I invoke my rights Without Prejudice UCC 1-308, reserving all legal rights. \nInaccuracies and Violations Identified The following inaccuracies and statutory violations are present in the reporting of the account by XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with account number XXXX : 1. Incorrect Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) : * Violation : The Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) is not accurately reported, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( g ) and Metro 2 guidelines ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ). The DOFD must reflect the first date the account became delinquent and was not brought current. The reported DOFD is either missing or incorrect, leading to improper aging of the account and misleading credit reporting. \n* Case Law : In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that inaccurate reporting of delinquency dates violates FCRAs requirement for accurate reporting under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ).\n\n* Demand : Verify the DOFD with the original creditors records. If unverifiable, the account must be deleted per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\n2. Inaccurate Account Status and Payment History : * Violation : The account is reported with a status of Seriously past due/ assigned to collection and inconsistent payment history across bureaus ( e.g., CO on XXXX XXXX XXXX, but Unpaid on Equifax ). This violates Metro 2 compliance ( XXXX XXXX, Account XXXX XXXX ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires furnishers to ensure accurate and consistent reporting. The payment history shows no payments made, which is inconsistent with the reported Date of Last Payment ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \n* Case Law : In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court ruled that inconsistent or misleading reporting constitutes a violation of FCRAs accuracy requirements. \n* Demand : Correct the account status and payment history to reflect accurate payment records or delete the account if unverifiable. \n3. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation : * Violation : Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), furnishers are required to conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed information, review all relevant information provided by the consumer, and correct or delete unverifiable data. The continued reporting of this account without verification suggests a failure to comply with this obligation. \n* XXXX XXXX : In XXXX v. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), the court held that furnishers must conduct meaningful investigations, not merely rely on automated systems like e-OSCAR. \n* Demand : Provide evidence of a reasonable investigation, including documentation from the original creditor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX verifying the accounts status, balance, and DOFD.\n\n4. Misleading Electronic Communication ( Potential Wire Fraud ) : * Violation : The furnishers transmission of false or misleading data through the e-OSCAR system may constitute wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343, as it involves knowingly transmitting inaccurate information across state lines to harm my creditworthiness. \n* Demand : Cease all electronic reporting of this account until accuracy is verified, and provide proof of compliance with Metro 2 standards.\n\n5. Violation of FDCPA : * Violation : The furnishers reporting of this account as a collection without proper validation violates 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) of the FDCPA, which requires debt collectors to validate debts upon consumer request. Additionally, the misleading status codes and comments violate 15 U.S.C. 1692e, prohibiting false or deceptive representations. \n* Demand : Provide validation of the debt, including the original contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX , or delete the account. \n6. Non-Compliance with OCRA ( Oregon Consumer Reporting Act ) : * Violation : If applicable, the reporting of inaccurate information violates Oregons consumer protection laws, which align with FCRAs accuracy and investigation requirements.\n\n* Demand : Ensure compliance with state-specific regulations or delete the account.\n\nRequested Actions Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), you are required to conduct a reasonable investigation within 30 days of receiving this dispute. I demand the following : XXXX. Permanent Deletion : Delete the account from all credit reports if any information ( DOFD, status, balance, or payment history ) can not be verified with documented evidence from the original creditor. \nXXXX. Correction of Inaccuracies : If the account is verified, correct all inaccurate fields ( e.g., DOFD, status, payment history ) to comply with Metro 2 and FCRA 1681e ( b ).\n\n3. Cease Reporting : Immediately cease reporting this account to all credit bureaus until accuracy is verified.\n\n4. Compensation for Damages : Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n, I seek compensation for actual damages, statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per violation ), punitive damages, and attorneys fees ( if applicable ) due to willful noncompliance. The inaccurate reporting has caused financial harm, emotional distress, and damage to my creditworthiness.\n\n5. Proof of Investigation : Provide a detailed report of your investigation, including all communications with the furnisher and copies of documents used to verify the account. \n\n\n\nRe : Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Information Account Number : XXXX Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX.Furnisher : XXXX XXXX XXXXConsumer Name : XXXX XXXXXXXX : XXXX Subject : Formal Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting under FCRA, FDCPA, and Metro 2 Compliance Standards Dear Sir or Madam, Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and Metro 2 compliance standards, I am disputing the accuracy of the above-referenced account appearing on my credit reports with TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. The reporting of this account contains multiple inaccuracies, violates federal and state regulations, and has caused me significant harm. I demand a thorough investigation, correction, or permanent deletion of this account, as well as compensation for damages caused by the furnishers and credit bureaus willful noncompliance. I invoke my rights Without Prejudice UCC 1-308, reserving all legal rights. \nInaccuracies and Violations Identified The following inaccuracies and statutory violations are present in the reporting of the account by XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with account number XXXX : 1. Incorrect Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) : * Violation : The Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) is not accurately reported, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( g ) and Metro 2 guidelines ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ). The DOFD must reflect the first date the account became delinquent and was not brought current. The reported DOFD is either missing or incorrect, leading to improper aging of the account and misleading credit reporting. \n* Case Law : In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that inaccurate reporting of delinquency dates violates FCRAs requirement for accurate reporting under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ).\n\n* Demand : Verify the DOFD with the original creditors records. If unverifiable, the account must be deleted per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ). \n2. Inaccurate Account Status and Payment History : * Violation : The account is reported with a status of Seriously past due/ assigned to collection and inconsistent payment history across bureaus ( e.g., CO on TransUnion and Experian, but Unpaid on Equifax ). This violates Metro 2 compliance ( XXXX XXXX, Account XXXX XXXX ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires furnishers to ensure accurate and consistent reporting. The payment history shows no payments made, which is inconsistent with the reported Date of Last Payment ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \n* Case Law : In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court ruled that inconsistent or misleading reporting constitutes a violation of FCRAs accuracy requirements. \n* Demand : Correct the account status and payment history to reflect accurate payment records or delete the account if unverifiable. \n3. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation : * Violation : Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), furnishers are required to conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed information, review all relevant information provided by the consumer, and correct or delete unverifiable data. The continued reporting of this account without verification suggests a failure to comply with this obligation. \n* XXXX XXXX : In XXXX v. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), the court held that furnishers must conduct meaningful investigations, not merely rely on automated systems like e-OSCAR.\n\n* Demand : Provide evidence of a reasonable investigation, including documentation from the original creditor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX verifying the accounts status, balance, and DOFD.\n\n4. Misleading Electronic Communication ( Potential Wire Fraud ) : * Violation : The furnishers transmission of false or misleading data through the e-OSCAR system may constitute wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343, as it involves knowingly transmitting inaccurate information across state lines to harm my creditworthiness.\n\n* Demand : Cease all electronic reporting of this account until accuracy is verified, and provide proof of compliance with Metro 2 standards.\n\n5. Violation of FDCPA : * Violation : The furnishers reporting of this account as a collection without proper validation violates 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) of the FDCPA, which requires debt collectors to validate debts upon consumer request. Additionally, the misleading status codes and comments violate 15 U.S.C. 1692e, prohibiting false or deceptive representations. \n* Demand : Provide validation of the debt, including the original contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or delete the account.\n\n6. Non-Compliance with OCRA ( Oregon Consumer Reporting Act ) : * Violation : If applicable, the reporting of inaccurate information violates Oregons consumer protection laws, which align with FCRAs accuracy and investigation requirements. \n* Demand : Ensure compliance with state-specific regulations or delete the account. \nRequested Actions Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), you are required to conduct a reasonable investigation within 30 days of receiving this dispute. I demand the following : 1. Permanent Deletion : Delete the account from all credit reports if any information ( DOFD, status, balance, or payment history ) can not be verified with documented evidence from the original creditor.\n\n2. Correction of Inaccuracies : If the account is verified, correct all inaccurate fields ( e.g., DOFD, status, payment history ) to comply with Metro 2 and FCRA 1681e ( b ). \n3. Cease Reporting : Immediately cease reporting this account to all credit bureaus until accuracy is verified.\n\n4. Compensation for Damages : Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n, I seek compensation for actual damages, statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per violation ), punitive damages, and attorneys fees ( if applicable ) due to willful noncompliance. The inaccurate reporting has caused financial harm, emotional distress, and damage to my creditworthiness.\n\n5. Proof of Investigation : Provide a detailed report of your investigation, including all communications with the furnisher and copies of documents used to verify the account. \n\nNotice of Potential Legal Action Failure to comply with FCRA, FDCPA, and Metro 2 requirements may result in legal action for willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n or negligent noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681o. I reserve the right to pursue all available remedies, including actual, statutory, and punitive damages. Without Prejudice UCC 1-308","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-24T22:34:49.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"77433","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14870086","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-24T22:29:14.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["* Demand : Provide evidence of a reasonable investigation, including documentation from the <em>original</em> <em>creditor</em> XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX verifying the accounts status, balance, and <em>DOFD</em>.\n\n4."]},"sort":[22.140432,"14870086"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14870109","_score":22.065748,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Re : Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Information Account Number : XXXX Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX.Furnisher XXXX Source Receivables ManagementConsumer Name : XXXX XXXXXXXX SSN : XXXX Subject : Formal Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting under FCRA, FDCPA, and Metro 2 Compliance Standards Dear Sir or Madam, Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and Metro 2 compliance standards, I am disputing the accuracy of the above-referenced account appearing on my credit reports with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. The reporting of this account contains multiple inaccuracies, violates federal and state regulations, and has caused me significant harm. I demand a thorough investigation, correction, or permanent deletion of this account, as well as compensation for damages caused by the furnishers and credit bureaus willful noncompliance. I invoke my rights Without Prejudice UCC 1-308, reserving all legal rights.\n\nInaccuracies and Violations Identified The following inaccuracies and statutory violations are present in the reporting of the account by Source Receivables Management ( Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with account number XXXX : XXXX. Incorrect Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) : * Violation : The Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) is not accurately reported, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( g ) and Metro 2 guidelines ( Field 35, Base Segment ). The DOFD must reflect the first date the account became delinquent and was not brought current. The reported DOFD is either missing or incorrect, leading to improper aging of the account and misleading credit reporting.\n\n* Case Law : In Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853 ( 3d Cir. 2014 ), the court held that inaccurate reporting of delinquency dates violates FCRAs requirement for accurate reporting under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ).\n\n* Demand : Verify the DOFD with the original creditors records. If unverifiable, the account must be deleted per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\n2. Inaccurate Account Status and Payment History : * Violation : The account is reported with a status of Seriously past due/ assigned to collection and inconsistent payment history across bureaus ( e.g., CO on XXXX and XXXX, but Unpaid on XXXX  ). This violates Metro 2 compliance ( Field 17, Account Status Code ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires furnishers to ensure accurate and consistent reporting. The payment history shows no payments made, which is inconsistent with the reported Date of Last Payment ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \n* Case Law : In Cortez v. Trans Union , LLC, 617 F.3d 688 ( 3d Cir. 2010 ), the court ruled that inconsistent or misleading reporting constitutes a violation of FCRAs accuracy requirements.\n\n* Demand : Correct the account status and payment history to reflect accurate payment records or delete the account if unverifiable.\n\n3. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation : * Violation : Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), furnishers are required to conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed information, review all relevant information provided by the consumer, and correct or delete unverifiable data. The continued reporting of this account without verification suggests a failure to comply with this obligation.\n\n* Case Law : In Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426 ( 4th Cir. 2004 ), the court held that furnishers must conduct meaningful investigations, not merely rely on automated systems like e-OSCAR.\n\n* Demand : Provide evidence of a reasonable investigation, including documentation from the original creditor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX verifying the accounts status, balance, and DOFD. \nXXXX. Misleading Electronic Communication ( Potential Wire Fraud ) : * Violation : The furnishers transmission of false or misleading data through the e-OSCAR system may constitute wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343, as it involves knowingly transmitting inaccurate information across state lines to harm my creditworthiness.\n\n* Demand : Cease all electronic reporting of this account until accuracy is verified, and provide proof of compliance with Metro 2 standards.\n\n5. Violation of FDCPA : * Violation : The furnishers reporting of this account as a collection without proper validation violates 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) of the FDCPA, which requires debt collectors to validate debts upon consumer request. Additionally, the misleading status codes and comments violate 15 U.S.C. 1692e, prohibiting false or deceptive representations.\n\n* Demand : Provide validation of the debt, including the original contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or delete the account. \nXXXX. Non-Compliance with OCRA ( Oregon Consumer Reporting Act ) : * Violation : If applicable, the reporting of inaccurate information violates Oregons consumer protection laws, which align with FCRAs accuracy and investigation requirements.\n\n* Demand : Ensure compliance with state-specific regulations or delete the account.\n\nRequested Actions Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), you are required to conduct a reasonable investigation within 30 days of receiving this dispute. I demand the following : 1. Permanent Deletion : Delete the account from all credit reports if any information ( DOFD, status, balance, or payment history ) can not be verified with documented evidence from the original creditor. \nXXXX. Correction of Inaccuracies : If the account is verified, correct all inaccurate fields ( e.g., DOFD, status, payment history ) to comply with Metro 2 and FCRA 1681e ( b ).\n\n3. Cease Reporting : Immediately cease reporting this account to all credit bureaus until accuracy is verified.\n\n4. Compensation for Damages : Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n, I seek compensation for actual damages, statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per violation ), punitive damages, and attorneys fees ( if applicable ) due to willful noncompliance. The inaccurate reporting has caused financial harm, emotional distress, and damage to my creditworthiness.\n\n5. Proof of Investigation : Provide a detailed report of your investigation, including all communications with the furnisher and copies of documents used to verify the account. \n\nNotice of Potential Legal Action Failure to comply with FCRA, FDCPA, and Metro 2 requirements may result in legal action for willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n or negligent noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681o. I reserve the right to pursue all available remedies, including actual, statutory, and punitive damages. Without Prejudice UCC 1-308","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-24T22:12:04.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"77433","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14870109","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Source Receivables Management LLC","date_received":"2025-07-24T21:59:40.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["* Demand : Provide evidence of a reasonable investigation, including documentation from the <em>original</em> <em>creditor</em> XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX verifying the accounts status, balance, and <em>DOFD</em>. \nXXXX."]},"sort":[22.065748,"14870109"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17268878","_score":21.800947,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint because Experian has failed for over 60 days to properly reinvestigate and verify the accounts listed below. Instead of providing the documents I requested, Experian repeatedly sends me stall letters, copies of my credit report, and false statements claiming Im using a third-party company. None of this is verification under FCRA 1681i ( a ) or 1681e ( b ).\n\nBelow are the issues with each account : A. XXXX XXXX XXXX  Late Payment Acct # XXXX {$0.00} Balance Experian is reporting a late payment with a {$0.00} balance, which makes the tradeline hearsay without any payment-supporting documents.\n\nTo legally verify a late payment, Experian must obtain : The due date The date the payment was received The date the payment was posted Full payment ledger DOFD documentation Metro-2 compliant payment coding Experian has provided none of this. \nB. XXXX XXXX 3 VERSIONS OF THE SAME DEBT Experian is reporting a single XXXX XXXX XXXX  debt three different ways, which is illegal, misleading, and a major violation of FCRA.\n\n1. XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX {$1600.00} 2. XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX {$1600.00} 3. XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX {$1600.00} This is the same debt, but Experian is allowing : 2 different account numbers 2 different balances ( {$1600.00} and {$1600.00} ) 3 different company names Duplicate collection reporting Mixed data across multiple furnishers Inconsistent Metro-2 fields This violates : FCRA 1681e ( b ) accuracy FCRA 1681i ( a ) failure to reinvestigate FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) furnisher verification FDCPA 1692e false representation of amount/creditor FDCPA 1692g ( b ) continued collection without validation Metro-2 one account = one tradeline What is required to verify a collection : The original XXXX XXXX XXXX agreement A full payment/billing ledger Itemized balance calculation Proof of ownership/assignment DOFD Pre-reporting notice Metro-2 compliance Experian has none of these documents.\n\nThis duplicate listing is illegal.\n\nC. XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Acct # XXXX {$830.00} Medical Collection This is a medical collection, and Experian must obtain HIPAA-compliant validation.\n\nTo verify a medical debt, Experian must obtain : Original USAP billing records XXXX codes Dates of service Full itemized charges Proof of assignment to XXXX DOFD Metro-2 reporting fields None were provided.\n\nThis account has been in dispute, and the clock already started, but Experian did not obtain verification.\n\nD. XXXX XXXX TWO SEPARATE CHARGE-OFFS Acct # XXXX {$950.00} Charge-off Acct # XXXX {$780.00} Charge-off Both charge-offs require : Original signed contract Full payment history Charge-off ledger Itemized breakdown of past due balances, interest, fees DOFD Metro-2 verification Experian has provided zero documents.\n\nE. XXXX XXXX  Acct # XXXX {$1000.00} Charge-off To verify a charge-off, Experian must obtain : Contract Billing/payment ledger DOFD Charge-off worksheet Metro-2 fields Proof the balance is accurate None of this was provided.\n\nLEGAL VIOLATIONS BY EXPERIAN FCRA Violations 1681i ( a ) failure to reinvestigate disputes 1681e ( b ) failure to maintain maximum accuracy 1681s-2 ( b ) accepting unverified data from furnishers FDCPA Violations ( collection accounts ) 1692g ( b ) continued collection/reporting without validation 1692e false representation of amount, character, or creditor Metro-2 Violations Duplicate reporting Mixed account numbers Mixed creditor names Missing DOFD Missing required fields Inaccurate status codes Experian has never provided one page of supporting documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-16T00:35:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77042","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17268878","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-16T00:32:42.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>without</em> validation Metro-2 one account = one tradeline What is required to verify a collection : The <em>original</em> XXXX XXXX XXXX agreement A full payment/billing ledger Itemized balance calculation Proof of ownership/assignment <em>DOFD</em> Pre-<em>reporting</em> notice Metro-2 <em>compliance</em> Experian has none of these documents."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"]},"sort":[21.800947,"17268878"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15197341","_score":21.158394,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I will attach the companies response to a previous CFPB dispute. This response is unacceptable. They are still violating multiple FCRA statutes. \n\nFollow-Up CFPB Complaint Inaccurate and Incomplete Reporting, Failure to Validate Debt Parties : Furnisher : Source Receivables Management Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX  Summary : The companys prior CFPB response is inconsistent with their own records, fails to meet validation requirements under the FDCPA, and shows multiple FCRA violations. I am demanding immediate deletion of this account from my credit file.\n\nDetails of Violations : 1. Conflicting Account Dates Possible Illegal Re-Aging Company states account opened XX/XX/XXXX and closed XX/XX/XXXX. \nXXXX  lists Date Opened as XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX months after closure. \nThis makes the debt appear newer and extends reporting beyond the allowable period. \nViolates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) and 607 ( b ) ( accurate reporting ).\n\n2. Missing Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) Neither the company nor XXXX  has reported a DOFD, which is required for compliance with FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) and to enforce the 7-year reporting period under 605 ( a ).\n\nAbsence of DOFD makes the reporting incomplete and inaccurate.\n\n3. Failure to Provide Proper Validation of Debt Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), a debt collector must provide documentary evidence of the debt upon request. \nCompanys response provided only an internal narrative and the fact that my email matched their records this is not proof of any financial obligation.\n\nNo contract, billing statements, or payment history from the original creditor was produced.\n\n4. Incomplete and Inaccurate Reporting XXXX  shows no payment history, no Date of Last Payment, and incorrect Date Opened.\n\nThis violates FCRA 607 ( b ) and 623 ( a ) ( 1 ).\n\nThe companys response fails to correct cle\nar FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) and FDCPA 809 ( b ) violations, including missing DOFD, conflicting account dates suggesting illegal re-aging, and continued reporting without proper validation. Based on these violations, my estimated damages exposure for the company is {$2400.00} $ XXXX, and I am prepared to file federal suit against Source Receivables Management and XXXX  if this account is not deleted immediately.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-10T02:21:21.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"73112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15197341","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Source Receivables Management LLC","date_received":"2025-08-10T02:20:54.000Z","state":"OK","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This makes the debt appear newer and extends <em>reporting</em> beyond the allowable period. \nViolates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) and 607 ( b ) ( accurate <em>reporting</em> ).\n\n2. Missing Date of First Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) Neither the company nor XXXX  has <em>reported</em> a <em>DOFD</em>, which is required for <em>compliance</em> with FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) and to enforce the 7-year <em>reporting</em> period under 605 ( a ).\n\nAbsence of <em>DOFD</em> makes the <em>reporting</em> incomplete and inaccurate.\n\n3."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"]},"sort":[21.158394,"15197341"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17464072","_score":20.86916,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal complaint against Experian and XXXX XXXX  for reporting a medical collection account that is unverified, inaccurate, incomplete, and reported without required documentation, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ( FCRA ). \n\nThe account being disputed is : XXXX XXXX  Account No. : XXXX Amount : {$2000.00} Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Experian Reported On Record Until : XX/XX/year> FCRA Violations 1. Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Maximum Possible Accuracy Requirement Experian is reporting a medical debt without : Itemized billing Proof of insurance adjustments Proof I am financially responsible Evidence of a valid assignment Chain of custody of the alleged medical debt HIPAA-compliant documentation Experian can not demonstrate maximum possible accuracy, which is required by federal law.\n\n2. Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i Failure to Perform a Reasonable Reinvestigation Under the FCRA, Experian must obtain original documentation, not automated or electronic furnisher confirmations. \n\nExperian can not verify : The origin of the debt The true DOFD ( Date of First Delinquency ) My signed authorization for treatment Any HIPAA-permitted medical disclosure This means Experian is reporting a medical debt that can not be verified, which requires deletion.\n\n3. Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 Furnisher Responsibility Violations Accelerated Receivables is furnishing data that is : Missing required documentation Missing verification of consumer liability Not substantiated by original records Potentially re-aged or inaccurately dated This violates 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting inaccurate or unverifiable information.\n\n4. Medical Debt Compliance Violations CFPB 2023 Guidance CFPB requires CRAs to confirm : Patient responsibility after insurance Itemized medical billing No prohibited or unverified medical information Proof debt is legally reportable None of this was provided by Experian or Accelerated Receivables.\n\n5. DOFD Inaccuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c ) The on record until date may be inaccurate unless Experian can produce : The original delinquency date The original creditors charge-off timeline Without these documents, the reporting timeline is invalid.\n\nRequested CFPB Resolution I am requesting the CFPB to require : 1. Immediate deletion of this unverified medical collection from my Experian credit file.\n\n2. A formal explanation of why this account was reported without documentation.\n\n3. Full compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681, all subsections, and CFPB medical-debt guidance.\n\n4. Corrective action against the furnisher for failing to meet its legal obligations.\n\nThis item is unverifiable, inaccurate, incomplete, and reported improperly. \nI request permanent deletion.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-25T02:29:44.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48346","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17464072","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-25T02:20:17.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>DOFD</em> Inaccuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c ) The on record until date may be inaccurate unless Experian can produce : The <em>original</em> delinquency date The <em>original</em> <em>creditors</em> charge-off timeline <em>Without</em> these documents, the <em>reporting</em> timeline is invalid.\n\nRequested CFPB Resolution I am requesting the CFPB to require : 1. Immediate deletion of this unverified medical collection from my Experian credit file.\n\n2. A formal explanation of why this account was <em>reported</em> <em>without</em> documentation.\n\n3."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[20.86916,"17464072"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19132568","_score":20.545498,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this complaint against Midland Credit Management ( MCM ) regarding inaccurate and misleading credit reporting in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681, and the Metro 2 Credit Reporting Resource Guide.\n\nCreditor : Midland Credit ManagementAccount Number : XXXXReported Balance XXXX XXXX XXXXAccount Type : Debt BuyerDate Opened ( per report ) : XX/XX/year> Basis of Complaint Midland Credit Management is furnishing information to the credit reporting agencies that is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, and not verifiable, as detailed below : Improper Date Opened ReportingThe account is reported as opened on XX/XX/year>. As a debt buyer, Midland Credit Management did not originate this account. Under Metro 2 guidelines and FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ), a debt buyer must not re-age an account or report a new date opened that misrepresents the original delinquency timeline. This reporting materially misleads users of the report.\n\nFailure to Accurately Report Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) The tradeline fails to clearly and accurately reflect the original Date of First Delinquency as required under FCRA 1681c ( c ) and Metro 2 standards. Any omission or misrepresentation of DOFD unlawfully extends the reporting period and constitutes impermissible re-aging.\n\nInaccurate Payment History ReportingMidland Credit Management is reporting monthly collection statuses ( C ratings ) without evidence of a valid consumer obligation, contractual agreement, or documented payment history between myself and Midland. As a debt buyer, Midland can not fabricate a payment history that never existed, per Metro 2 compliance requirements.\n\nFailure to Demonstrate Permissible Purpose and AccuracyMidland Credit ManagemenXXXX has not provided evidence of a valid assignment, chain of title, or contractual authority establishing their right to report this account. Furnishing unverifiable information violates FCRA 1681e ( b ), which requires maximum possible accuracy.\n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require Midland Credit Management to : Conduct a lawful and complete investigation of this account Provide full documentation proving accuracy, ownership, and Metro 2 compliance Correct all inaccurate reporting immediately, or Delete the tradeline in its entirety if accuracy can not be fully substantiated Continued reporting of inaccurate or misleading information causes ongoing harm and constitutes willful noncompliance under the FCRA. \n\nThank you for your assistance in this matter. \n\nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-30T15:54:29.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"201XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19132568","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","date_received":"2026-01-30T15:31:40.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under Metro 2 guidelines and FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ), a debt buyer must not re-age an account or <em>report</em> a new date opened that misrepresents the <em>original</em> delinquency timeline. This <em>reporting</em> materially misleads users of the <em>report</em>.\n\n<em>Failure</em> to Accurately <em>Report</em> Date of First Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) The tradeline fails to clearly and accurately reflect the <em>original</em> Date of First Delinquency as required under FCRA 1681c ( c ) and Metro 2 standards."]},"sort":[20.545498,"19132568"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14750648","_score":20.13382,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"ssue Summary : I am filing this formal complaint against all three credit reporting agenciesExperian, Equifax, and TransUnionfor continued failure to investigate and correct multiple inaccurate, unverifiable, and duplicative derogatory tradelines on my credit reports. These actions are in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and CFPB compliance guidelines.\n\nDetailed Description of the Problem : Despite submitting disputes and requests for verification under FCRA 609 and 623, the credit bureaus have continued reporting multiple derogatory accounts without proper investigation, verification, or documentation. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Three collection accounts totaling over {$7000.00} No signed contract or original creditor documentation has been provided XXXX XXXX is reporting the same debts as charge-offs, resulting in duplicative and misleading reporting Possible re-aging and failure to provide breakdown of original balance vs fees/interest XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Three collection accounts with missing or conflicting details Two stem from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Payment history incomplete or missing No itemization of debt or proof of ownership XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX No documentation provided to prove debt ownership Data fields including Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) are missing Payment histories are inconsistent or unavailable No evidence of Metro 2 compliance 4. Charge-Offs from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Charged-off status continues to update with recent status dates, despite last activity being over 2 years ago XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX accounts appear to be re-aged in violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) Multiple charge-offs are also reflected in active collection tradelines, creating duplicative derogatory reporting 5. Cross-Bureau Inconsistencies Equifax reports many of these accounts as closed, while Experian and TransUnion report them as active collections Inconsistent status reporting violates FCRA 1681e ( b ), which requires data furnishers to maintain maximum possible accuracy These differences materially affect my credit score and creditworthiness Violations Identified : FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Failure to provide access to all documentation relied upon to report account FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Reporting inaccurate and duplicative tradelines FCRA 623 ( b ) : Failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation upon dispute FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) : Re-aging debts by updating status months or failing to report correct DOFD FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure accuracy of data across credit bureaus FDCPA 809 ( b ) : Debt buyers and collectors have not provided proper validation upon request","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-19T05:58:25.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"89002","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14750648","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-19T05:45:25.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX Three collection accounts totaling over {$7000.00} No signed contract or <em>original</em> <em>creditor</em> documentation has been provided XXXX XXXX is <em>reporting</em> the same debts as charge-offs, resulting in duplicative and misleading <em>reporting</em> Possible re-aging and <em>failure</em> to provide breakdown of <em>original</em> balance vs fees/interest XXXX."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[20.13382,"14750648"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18290194","_score":20.097885,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint because Harris & Harris Ltd is reporting a collection account for XXXX XXXX in a manner that is inaccurate, misleading, incomplete, and in violation of federal credit reporting laws. The following issues exist : 1. Illegal Past Due Reporting on a Collection Account The tradeline states : Collection account. {$440.00} past due as of XX/XX/year>. \n\nThis is not legally permitted under Metro 2 standards or federal law.\n\nCollections can not show a \" past-due '' amount because the debt has already been charged-off by the original creditor. \n\nThis violates : FCRA 607 ( b ) maximum accuracy FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) prohibition of reporting false or misleading information 2. Improper Date Opened & Possible Illegal Re-Aging The account lists Date Opened : XX/XX/year>, which is only the date the debt was assigned to Harris & Harris not the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ). \n\nFailure to report DOFD violates : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) FCRA 605 ( a ) 7-year reporting rule Using the collector 's date instead of the original delinquency date is considered re-aging, which artificially keeps the account on my credit file longer than legally allowed. \n\n3. Missing Required DOFD ( Date of First Delinquency ) Harris & Harris is REQUIRED to report the DOFD to the credit bureaus.\n\nNot reporting DOFD constitutes : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) violation CFPB & FTC guidance violation Without the DOFD, consumers can not verify the age, legitimacy, or reporting limits of the debt. \n\n4. Improper Monthly C Collection Codes The reporting includes : XXXX codes for XXXXXXXX XXXX Collections are not allowed to report ongoing monthly collection activity as if the account continues to become delinquent each month.\n\nThis violates : FCRA 607 ( b ) must be accurate and not misleading CFPB Metro 2 standards These codes artificially depress credit scores by simulating continued late payments after charge-off.\n\n5. No Validation Provided FDCPA Violations I have not received : any debt validation notice itemization of the alleged balance proof that XXXX XXXX  authorized this collection a right-to-dispute letter This violates : FDCPA 809 ( a ) & ( b ) validation of debts Regulation F ( 12 CFR Part 1006 ) itemization requirements Collectors must stop reporting until proper validation is provided. \n\n6. IRS 1099-C Concerns Debt Cancellation Reporting If XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the debt canceled the balance sold the account to a secondary market took a tax deduction recorded it in a write-off file They may have triggered IRS Form 1099-C requirements . \n\nUnder federal tax law : 26 U.S.C. 6050P Treasury Regulation 1.6050P-1 A creditor must issue a 1099-C when a debt is canceled or XXXX. \n\nI have never received a 1099-C from Harris & Harris or XXXX. \n\nThis raises IRS compliance concerns and questions about whether the balance is legally collectible.\n\n7. Consumer Harm Due to this inaccurate and illegal reporting, I have suffered : credit score reduction negative impact on loan approvals increased interest rates time and financial loss correcting inaccurate data","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-26T07:08:29.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Telecommunications debt","zip_code":"90017","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18290194","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Harris & Harris, Ltd.","date_received":"2025-12-26T07:01:59.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Failure</em> to <em>report</em> <em>DOFD</em> violates : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) FCRA 605 ( a ) 7-year <em>reporting</em> rule Using the collector 's date instead of the <em>original</em> delinquency date is considered re-aging, which artificially keeps the account on my credit file longer than legally allowed. \n\n3. Missing Required <em>DOFD</em> ( Date of First Delinquency ) Harris & Harris is REQUIRED to <em>report</em> the <em>DOFD</em> to the credit bureaus."]},"sort":[20.097885,"18290194"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14746063","_score":20.034914,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"ssue Summary : I am filing this formal complaint against all three credit reporting agenciesExperian, Equifax, and TransUnionfor continued failure to investigate and correct multiple inaccurate, unverifiable, and duplicative derogatory tradelines on my credit reports. These actions are in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and CFPB compliance guidelines.\n\nDetailed Description of the Problem : Despite submitting disputes and requests for verification under FCRA 609 and 623, the credit bureaus have continued reporting multiple derogatory accounts without proper investigation, verification, or documentation. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Three collection accounts totaling over {$7000.00} No signed contract or original creditor documentation has been provided XXXX XXXX is reporting the same debts as charge-offs, resulting in duplicative and misleading reporting Possible re-aging and failure to provide breakdown of original balance vs fees/interest XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Three collection accounts with missing or conflicting details Two stem from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Payment history incomplete or missing No itemization of debt or proof of ownership XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX No documentation provided to prove debt ownership Data fields including Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) are missing Payment histories are inconsistent or unavailable No evidence of Metro 2 compliance 4. Charge-Offs from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Charged-off status continues to update with recent status dates, despite last activity being over 2 years ago XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX accounts appear to be re-aged in violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) Multiple charge-offs are also reflected in active collection tradelines, creating duplicative derogatory reporting 5. Cross-Bureau Inconsistencies Equifax reports many of these accounts as closed, while Experian and TransUnion report them as active collections Inconsistent status reporting violates FCRA 1681e ( b ), which requires data furnishers to maintain maximum possible accuracy These differences materially affect my credit score and creditworthiness Violations Identified : FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Failure to provide access to all documentation relied upon to report account FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Reporting inaccurate and duplicative tradelines FCRA 623 ( b ) : Failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation upon dispute FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) : Re-aging debts by updating status months or failing to report correct DOFD FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure accuracy of data across credit bureaus FDCPA 809 ( b ) : Debt buyers and collectors have not provided proper validation upon request","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-19T05:58:22.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"89002","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14746063","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-19T05:57:50.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX Three collection accounts totaling over {$7000.00} No signed contract or <em>original</em> <em>creditor</em> documentation has been provided XXXX XXXX is <em>reporting</em> the same debts as charge-offs, resulting in duplicative and misleading <em>reporting</em> Possible re-aging and <em>failure</em> to provide breakdown of <em>original</em> balance vs fees/interest XXXX."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[20.034914,"14746063"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14754672","_score":20.027346,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"ssue Summary : I am filing this formal complaint against all three credit reporting agenciesExperian, Equifax, and TransUnionfor continued failure to investigate and correct multiple inaccurate, unverifiable, and duplicative derogatory tradelines on my credit reports. These actions are in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and CFPB compliance guidelines.\n\nDetailed Description of the Problem : Despite submitting disputes and requests for verification under FCRA 609 and 623, the credit bureaus have continued reporting multiple derogatory accounts without proper investigation, verification, or documentation. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Three collection accounts totaling over {$7000.00} No signed contract or original creditor documentation has been provided XXXX XXXX is reporting the same debts as charge-offs, resulting in duplicative and misleading reporting Possible re-aging and failure to provide breakdown of original balance vs fees/interest XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Three collection accounts with missing or conflicting details Two stem from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Payment history incomplete or missing No itemization of debt or proof of ownership XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX No documentation provided to prove debt ownership Data fields including Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) are missing Payment histories are inconsistent or unavailable No evidence of Metro 2 compliance 4. Charge-Offs from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Charged-off status continues to update with recent status dates, despite last activity being over 2 years ago XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX accounts appear to be re-aged in violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) Multiple charge-offs are also reflected in active collection tradelines, creating duplicative derogatory reporting 5. Cross-Bureau Inconsistencies Equifax reports many of these accounts as closed, while Experian and TransUnion report them as active collections Inconsistent status reporting violates FCRA 1681e ( b ), which requires data furnishers to maintain maximum possible accuracy These differences materially affect my credit score and creditworthiness Violations Identified : FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Failure to provide access to all documentation relied upon to report account FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Reporting inaccurate and duplicative tradelines FCRA 623 ( b ) : Failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation upon dispute FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) : Re-aging debts by updating status months or failing to report correct DOFD FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure accuracy of data across credit bureaus FDCPA 809 ( b ) : Debt buyers and collectors have not provided proper validation upon request","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-19T05:58:20.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"89002","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14754672","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-19T05:57:50.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX Three collection accounts totaling over {$7000.00} No signed contract or <em>original</em> <em>creditor</em> documentation has been provided XXXX XXXX is <em>reporting</em> the same debts as charge-offs, resulting in duplicative and misleading <em>reporting</em> Possible re-aging and <em>failure</em> to provide breakdown of <em>original</em> balance vs fees/interest XXXX."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[20.027346,"14754672"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11159949","_score":19.722088,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complainant has submitted multiple direct disputes to Transworld Systems , Inc. ( \" TSI '' ) and indirect disputes through credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) regarding an alleged collection account attributed to Complainant. TSI first responded to Complainant on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, providing a purported debt validation letter that listed an alleged balance of {$740.00}. However, the billing statement enclosed as \" validation evidence '' from the purported original creditor listed a different alleged balance of {$940.00}. The validation letter also stated that TSI had requested the account be marked as \" disputed '' with the CRAs.\n\nFollowing Complainant 's initial CFPB complaint ( Case No. XXXX ), TSI responded XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, asserting that the account had been placed in \" restrictive status '' to prevent further collection. TSI reiterated its validation efforts but did not address significant discrepancies in the information furnished to the CRAs, including : 1. Inconsistent Dates of First Delinquency ( \" DoFDs '' ) : TSI reported discordant DoFDs to the CRAs.\n\n2. Unsubstantiated Debt Balances : Continued to report the alleged {$740.00} balance, even though TSIs own validation evidencea billing statement from the purported original creditorlisted a different balance of {$940.00}, thereby rendering the furnished information for the account inaccurate and materially misleading under the FCRA ; and 3. Failure to Address Evidence Provided by Complainant : Complainant submitted evidence, including an image of a draft payment the original creditor failed to apply, further demonstrating the alleged balance was inaccurate.\n\nWhile the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ) requires validation limited to confirming the debt with the original creditor, the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) imposes more stringent duties on furnishers of information. Under the FCRA, TSI is required to : 1. Conduct a reasonable and independent investigation of disputes ; 2. Correct, delete, or block inaccurate or unverifiable information ; and 3. Ensure that furnished information is accurate and complete.\n\nTSI 's continued reliance on its FDCPA validation to justify the alleged debt fails to meet the investigatory standard required by the FCRA. Despite receiving direct disputes from Complainant and indirect disputes via the CRAs, TSI has : Verified each discordant DoFD as accurate with the respective CRA ; Continued to report the alleged {$740.00} balance without addressing the evidence provided; and Ignored documentation submitted by Complainant, which demonstrated that the balance was materially misleading due to the unprocessed draft payment.\n\nBy failing to meet its investigatory obligations under the FCRA, TSI has furnished materially inaccurate and incomplete information, causing harm to Complainants credit profile and violating federal law.\n\nBy failing to adhere to its statutory obligations under both the FDCPA and the FCRA, TSI has : 1. Failed to provide Complainant with a validation notice within five days of its initial communication, in violation of the FDCPA 809 ( a ), 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ).\n\n2. Continued to report information about the alleged collection account to CRAs after failing to verify the debt in response to Complainants validation request, in violation of the FDCPA 809 ( b ), 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ).\n\n3. Engaged in unfair and unconscionable means to collect the alleged debt, including furnishing inaccurate and misleading information to CRAs and failing to correct known inaccuracies, in violation of the FDCPA 808, 15 U.S.C. 1692f.\n\n4. Furnished information to CRAs about an alleged collection account it attributed to Complainant but failed to furnish consistent Dates of First Delinquency ( DoFDs ) for that account to the CRAs. This inconsistency constitutes a violation of the FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\n5. Failed to conduct reasonable investigations in response to Complainants direct disputes communicated to Respondent by Complainant, in violation of the FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ). Instead, Respondent substituted its investigatory obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) with its debt validation process under 15 U.S.C. 1692g, which is limited to confirming the debt with the original creditor and does not require an independent investigation into the accuracy or completeness of the information furnished to CRAs.\n\nThis conduct by TSI is not new, as it has a documented history of engaging in similar violations of consumer protection laws. Under the XXXX CFPB Consent Order ( In re Transworld Sys. , Inc., File No. XXXX ), TSI was found to have engaged in similar conduct involving systemic failures to comply with federal laws governing debt collection and credit reporting. Specifically, TSI : 1. Filed false or misleading affidavits in state and federal court proceedings to substantiate debt collection claims it could not verify.\n\n2. Provided inaccurate or incomplete testimony regarding the validity of debts it pursued.\n\n3. Attempted to collect debts without sufficient documentation or evidence to demonstrate the debts were owed.\n\n4. Engaged in practices that the CFPB explicitly deemed unfair and deceptive under federal law, including pursuing collection actions and reporting to CRAs based on unreliable or misleading information.\n\nThese violations demonstrate TSIs systemic disregard for legal obligations and highlight its continued reliance on deceptive practices to minimize its compliance burdens under the FDCPA and FCRA.\n\nTSIs actions in this case are consistent with its documented history of disregarding legal obligations and engaging in deceptive and unfair practices. Despite being subject to the CFPBs XXXX Consent Order, TSI has continued to furnish inaccurate and misleading information, failed to conduct reasonable investigations into disputes, and violated its obligations under the FDCPA and FCRA. This conduct has caused significant harm to the complainant, including financial instability and reputational damage, and has further undermined the integrity of the credit reporting system.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-16T06:43:51.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11159949","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC","date_received":"2024-12-16T06:43:46.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Inconsistent Dates of First Delinquency ( \" <em>DoFDs</em> '' ) : TSI <em>reported</em> discordant <em>DoFDs</em> to the CRAs.\n\n2. Unsubstantiated Debt Balances : Continued to <em>report</em> the alleged {$740.00} balance, even though TSIs own validation evidencea billing statement from the purported <em>original</em> creditorlisted a different balance of {$940.00}, thereby rendering the furnished information for the account inaccurate and materially misleading under the FCRA ; and 3."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[19.722088,"11159949"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11159997","_score":19.587029,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complainant has submitted multiple direct disputes to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ) and indirect disputes through credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) regarding an alleged collection account attributed to Complainant. XXXX first responded to Complainant on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, providing a purported debt validation letter that listed an alleged balance of {$740.00}. However, the billing statement enclosed as \" validation evidence '' from the purported original creditor listed a different alleged balance of {$940.00}. The validation letter also stated that XXXX had requested the account be marked as \" disputed '' with the CRAs. \nFollowing Complainant 's initial CFPB complaint ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), XXXX responded XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, asserting that the account had been placed in \" restrictive status '' to prevent further collection. XXXX reiterated its validation efforts but did not address significant discrepancies in the information furnished to the CRAs, including : XXXX. Inconsistent Dates of First Delinquency ( \" DoFDs '' ) : XXXX reported discordant DoFDs to the CRAs. \nXXXX. Unsubstantiated Debt Balances : Continued to report the alleged {$740.00} balance, even though TSIs own validation evidencea billing statement from the purported original creditorlisted a different balance of {$940.00}, thereby rendering the furnished information for the account inaccurate and materially misleading under the FCRA ; and XXXX. Failure to Address Evidence Provided by Complainant : Complainant submitted evidence, including an image of a draft payment the original creditor failed to apply, further demonstrating the alleged balance was inaccurate.\n\nWhile the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ) requires validation limited to confirming the debt with the original creditor, the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) imposes more stringent duties on furnishers of information. Under the FCRA, XXXX is required to : 1. Conduct a reasonable and independent investigation of disputes ; 2. Correct, delete, or block inaccurate or unverifiable information ; and 3. Ensure that furnished information is accurate and complete.\n\nTSI 's continued reliance on its FDCPA validation to justify the alleged debt fails to meet the investigatory standard required by the FCRA. Despite receiving direct disputes from Complainant and indirect disputes via the CRAs, XXXX has : Verified each discordant DoFD as accurate with the respective CRA ; Continued to report the alleged {$740.00} balance without addressing the evidence provided; and Ignored documentation submitted by Complainant, which demonstrated that the balance was materially misleading due to the unprocessed draft payment. \nBy failing to meet its investigatory obligations under the FCRA, XXXX has furnished materially inaccurate and incomplete information, causing harm to Complainants credit profile and violating federal law. \nBy failing to adhere to its statutory obligations under both the FDCPA and the FCRA, XXXX has : XXXX. Failed to provide Complainant with a validation notice within XXXX days of its initial communication, in violation of the FDCPA 809 ( a ), 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ).\n\n2. Continued to report information about the alleged collection account to CRAs after failing to verify the debt in response to Complainants validation request, in violation of the FDCPA 809 ( b ), 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ).\n\n3. Engaged in unfair and unconscionable means to collect the alleged debt, including furnishing inaccurate and misleading information to CRAs and failing to correct known inaccuracies, in violation of the FDCPA 808, 15 U.S.C. 1692f.\n\n4. Furnished information to CRAs about an alleged collection account it attributed to Complainant but failed to furnish consistent Dates of First Delinquency ( DoFDs ) for that account to the CRAs. This inconsistency constitutes a violation of the FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\n5. Failed to conduct reasonable investigations in response to Complainants direct disputes communicated to Respondent by Complainant, in violation of the FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ). Instead, Respondent substituted its investigatory obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) with its debt validation process under 15 U.S.C. 1692g, which is limited to confirming the debt with the original creditor and does not require an independent investigation into the accuracy or completeness of the information furnished to CRAs. \nThis conduct by XXXX is not new, as it has a documented history of engaging in similar violations of consumer protection laws. Under the XXXX CFPB Consent Order ( In re XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, File No. XXXX ), XXXX was found to have engaged in similar conduct involving systemic failures to comply with federal laws governing debt collection and credit reporting. Specifically, XXXX : 1. Filed false or misleading affidavits in state and federal court proceedings to substantiate debt collection claims it could not verify.\n\n2. Provided inaccurate or incomplete testimony regarding the validity of debts it pursued.\n\n3. Attempted to collect debts without sufficient documentation or evidence to demonstrate the debts were owed.\n\n4. Engaged in practices that the CFPB explicitly deemed unfair and deceptive under federal law, including pursuing collection actions and reporting to CRAs based on unreliable or misleading information.\n\nThese violations demonstrate TSIs systemic disregard for legal obligations and highlight its continued reliance on deceptive practices to minimize its compliance burdens under the FDCPA and FCRA.\n\nTSIs actions in this case are consistent with its documented history of disregarding legal obligations and engaging in deceptive and unfair practices. Despite being subject to the CFPBs XXXX Consent Order, XXXX has continued to furnish inaccurate and misleading information, failed to conduct reasonable investigations into disputes, and violated its obligations under the FDCPA and FCRA. This conduct has caused significant harm to the complainant, including financial instability and reputational damage, and has further undermined the integrity of the credit reporting system.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-16T06:43:51.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11159997","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-16T06:43:46.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Inconsistent Dates of First Delinquency ( \" <em>DoFDs</em> '' ) : XXXX <em>reported</em> discordant <em>DoFDs</em> to the CRAs. \nXXXX. Unsubstantiated Debt Balances : Continued to <em>report</em> the alleged {$740.00} balance, even though TSIs own validation evidencea billing statement from the purported <em>original</em> creditorlisted a different balance of {$940.00}, thereby rendering the furnished information for the account inaccurate and materially misleading under the FCRA ; and XXXX."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[19.587029,"11159997"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11749273","_score":19.10249,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Bridgecrest Financial has engaged in deceptive, inaccurate, and illegal credit reporting practices that violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Nevada UCC repossession laws. The company has failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, has reported inconsistent information across multiple bureaus, and has continued illegal collection activities even after repossessing and selling the vehicle. \n\nInconsistent Credit Reporting Across Bureaus Bridgecrest has reported different balances, payment histories, and account statuses across XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, violating FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ). Creditors are responsible for ensuring that the data they report is accurate and consistent. Bridgecrest must provide Metro 2 Compliance Data proving they submitted identical reporting to all three bureaus. If they can not, the tradeline must be deleted.\n\nFailure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation Under FCRA 1681i ( a ), furnishers must conduct a meaningful reinvestigation of disputes. Despite multiple disputes over the years, Bridgecrest has repeatedly verified the account without providing proof of a proper investigation. They must provide the exact E-OSCAR dispute codes and dispute verification records. If they can not, the account must be deleted. \n\nViolation of FCRA and CFPB Reporting Rules Due to Inaccurate Repossession Reporting - Bridgecrest has continued reporting the repossession monthly for over three years, even though the vehicle was repossessed and sold at auction. This violates FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) and CFPB guidelines, which prohibit creditors from re-aging debt or updating a charged-off account to make it appear newer than it really is. \n\nUnder FCRA, a repossession must be reported using the original Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and can not be updated monthly as if it is a new delinquency. \nUnder FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ), furnishers are prohibited from misleading credit reporting, including falsely extending the impact of a delinquency.\n\nBridgecrest must provide full Metro 2 Compliance data proving they have not illegally updated this account beyond the original DOFD. If they can not, this tradeline must be deleted for violating federal credit reporting laws. \n\nFailure to Provide Legally Required Repossession Notices Bridgecrest repossessed my vehicle and is reporting a deficiency balance but has failed to provide the required pre-sale and post-sale notices under Nevada UCC laws ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). Under Nevada law, the lender must send ( 1 ) a Notice of Intent to Sell before auction, ( 2 ) a post-sale Deficiency Letter explaining how the deficiency was calculated, and ( 3 ) an itemized breakdown of the auction sale proceeds. If they can not produce these documents, the deficiency balance is unenforceable and must be removed from my credit reports. \n\nMisrepresentation of Repossession Status Bridgecrest has falsely reported my repossession as \" involuntary '' when it was voluntary. This misrepresentation of account status is deceptive and materially misleading under FCRA. The account must either be corrected or deleted in full. \n\nBridgecrests Credit Reporting Violations Based on the Original Loan Agreement - Bridgecrest is the original creditor, meaning they are responsible for all credit reporting under FCRA 1681s-2. \nThe loan agreement does not state that they can update the repossession as an active balance after the vehicle was soldmaking their reporting deceptive. \nIf Bridgecrest has updated the repossession monthly for three years post-sale, this is a violation of FCRA and CFPB rules against misreporting charged-off accounts.\n\nBridgecrest may also be misleading credit bureaus by reporting false post-repo balances, violating FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ).\n\nPotential Unlawful Collection Activity Despite the vehicle being repossessed and sold, Bridgecrest has engaged in continued collection efforts without proving the legitimacy of the deficiency balance. Without proper documentation, these collection efforts violate FCRA and potentially FDCPA protections against deceptive collection practices. \n\nBridgecrest has been notified of these violations multiple times but has failed to correct them. I have already escalated this issue to the FTC, Nevada Attorney General, and XXXX. If Bridgecrest fails to comply, further legal action will be pursued.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-24T22:03:54.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"89113","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11749273","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","date_received":"2025-01-24T21:07:51.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under FCRA, a repossession must be <em>reported</em> using the <em>original</em> Date of First Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) and can not be updated monthly as if it is a new delinquency. \nUnder FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ), furnishers are prohibited from misleading credit <em>reporting</em>, including falsely extending the impact of a delinquency.\n\nBridgecrest must provide full Metro 2 <em>Compliance</em> data proving they have not illegally updated this account beyond the <em>original</em> <em>DOFD</em>."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[19.10249,"11749273"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11735315","_score":19.10249,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX has engaged in deceptive, inaccurate, and illegal credit reporting practices that violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Nevada UCC repossession laws. The company has failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, has reported inconsistent information across multiple bureaus, and has continued illegal collection activities even after repossessing and selling the vehicle. \n\nInconsistent Credit Reporting Across Bureaus XXXX  has reported different balances, payment histories, and account statuses across XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion, violating FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ). Creditors are responsible for ensuring that the data they report is accurate and consistent. XXXX must provide Metro 2 Compliance Data proving they submitted identical reporting to all three bureaus. If they can not, the tradeline must be deleted.\n\nFailure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation Under FCRA 1681i ( a ), furnishers must conduct a meaningful reinvestigation of disputes. Despite multiple disputes over the years, XXXX has repeatedly verified the account without providing proof of a proper investigation. They must provide the exact E-OSCAR dispute codes and dispute verification records. If they can not, the account must be deleted. \n\nViolation of FCRA and CFPB Reporting Rules Due to Inaccurate Repossession Reporting - XXXX has continued reporting the repossession monthly for over three years, even though the vehicle was repossessed and sold at auction. This violates FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) and CFPB guidelines, which prohibit creditors from re-aging debt or updating a charged-off account to make it appear newer than it really is. \n\nUnder FCRA, a repossession must be reported using the original Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and can not be updated monthly as if it is a new delinquency. \nUnder FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ), furnishers are prohibited from misleading credit reporting, including falsely extending the impact of a delinquency. \nXXXX must provide full Metro 2 Compliance data proving they have not illegally updated this account beyond the original DOFD. If they can not, this tradeline must be deleted for violating federal credit reporting laws. \n\nFailure to Provide Legally Required Repossession Notices XXXX repossessed my vehicle and is reporting a deficiency balance but has failed to provide the required pre-sale and post-sale notices under Nevada UCC laws ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). Under Nevada law, the lender must send ( 1 ) a Notice of Intent to Sell before auction, ( 2 ) a post-sale Deficiency Letter explaining how the deficiency was calculated, and ( 3 ) an itemized breakdown of the auction sale proceeds. If they can not produce these documents, the deficiency balance is unenforceable and must be removed from my credit reports. \n\nMisrepresentation of Repossession Status XXXX has falsely reported my repossession as \" involuntary '' when it was voluntary. This misrepresentation of account status is deceptive and materially misleading under FCRA. The account must either be corrected or deleted in full. \n\nXXXX XXXX Reporting Violations Based on the Original Loan Agreement - XXXXXXXX is the original creditor, meaning they are responsible for all credit reporting under FCRA 1681s-2.\n\nThe loan agreement does not state that they can update the repossession as an active balance after the vehicle was soldmaking their reporting deceptive. \nIf XXXX has updated the repossession monthly for XXXX years post-sale, this is a violation of FCRA and CFPB rules against misreporting charged-off accounts. \nXXXX may also be misleading credit bureaus by reporting false post-repo balances, violating FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ). \n\nPotential Unlawful Collection Activity Despite the vehicle being repossessed and sold, XXXX has engaged in continued collection efforts without proving the legitimacy of the deficiency balance. Without proper documentation, these collection efforts violate FCRA and potentially FDCPA protections against deceptive collection practices. \n\nXXXX has been notified of these violations multiple times but has failed to correct them. I have already escalated this issue to the FTC, Nevada Attorney General, and XXXX. If XXXX fails to comply, further legal action will be pursued.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-24T22:04:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"89113","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11735315","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-24T22:04:00.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under FCRA, a repossession must be <em>reported</em> using the <em>original</em> Date of First Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) and can not be updated monthly as if it is a new delinquency. \nUnder FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ), furnishers are prohibited from misleading credit <em>reporting</em>, including falsely extending the impact of a delinquency. \nXXXX must provide full Metro 2 <em>Compliance</em> data proving they have not illegally updated this account beyond the <em>original</em> <em>DOFD</em>."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[19.10249,"11735315"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17171008","_score":19.090773,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"This is a formal complaint and demand for immediate deletion of an unvalidated and unlawfully furnished collection account reported by Sunrise Credit Services , XXXX, allegedly owed to XXXX in the amount of {$440.00}, opened XX/XX/year>, and reported XX/XX/year>, as seen on my TransUnion report. \n\nAt no time did I receive a written debt validation notice or any form of communication before this tradeline was reported to consumer reporting agencies. \nThis failure to provide written notice before furnishing data is a direct violation of federal law, specifically 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) and 12 C.F.R. 1006.30 ( a ) ( CFPB Regulation F ).\n\nBecause Sunrise Credit Services furnished data without lawful notice or validation, this tradeline is invalid, unauthorized, and must be deleted immediately.\n\nII. FEDERAL VIOLATIONS FDCPA Violations 1. 1692g ( a ) Failure to provide written notice of debt within five days of initial communication.\n\n2. 1692g ( b ) Continuation of collection and reporting without debt validation.\n\n3. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) False representation of the character, amount, and legal status of the alleged debt.\n\n4. 1692f ( 1 ) Attempting to collect or report amounts not authorized by contract or by law.\n\nFCRA Violations 1. 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing information known or believed to be inaccurate.\n\n2. 1681s2 ( b ) Failure to investigate and correct after notice of dispute.\n\n3. 1681b No permissible purpose for obtaining or furnishing my consumer data.\n\nCFPB Regulation F Violations 1. 12 C.F.R. 1006.30 ( a ) Prohibits furnishing to a CRA before sending a written validation notice.\n\n2. 12 C.F.R. 1006.38 ( b ) Failure to retain proof of compliance documentation.\n\nMetro 2 Data Furnishing Violations Missing Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and required compliance indicators. \nMisreported Collection/Chargeoff status without validation or contract proof. \nViolation of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and 2.5 ( Data Integrity and Accuracy Standards ).\n\nIII. KEY FACTS Sunrise Credit Services never sent me a written debt notice before reporting.\n\nNo proof of ownership, assignment, or validation has been provided.\n\nI have no contractual relationship with XXXX or Sunrise Credit Services. \nThis reporting caused a drop in my credit score, denial of credit, and reputational harm.\n\nUnder FDCPA 809 ( b ) and FCRA 623, I demand Sunrise Credit Services produce all of the following before any further collection or reporting : 1. Copy of the original signed contract or agreement creating the alleged obligation.\n\n2. Complete accounting ledger from XXXX showing how the {$440.00} was calculated. \n3. Chain of title showing each transfer of ownership from XXXX to Sunrise.\n\n4. Notarized Bill of Sale or Purchase Agreement naming my specific account.\n\n5. Proof of consideration the purchase price Sunrise paid for this alleged account.\n\n6. Copy of the initial 1692g ( a ) debt validation notice and certified mailing record.\n\n7. Complete payment history from the original creditor.\n\n8. Verification of Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) reported to the CRAs.\n\n9. Copy of the data furnisher agreements between Sunrise and the CRAs.\n\n10. Name, license number, and bonding information of the collector or agent.\n\n11. Statement of permissible purpose under FCRA 1681b. \n12. Proof of XXXX authorization allowing Sunrise to report or collect.\n\n13. Copies of all prior correspondence allegedly sent to me. \n14. XXXX XXXX data file extract showing all mandatory compliance fields. \n15. Signed affidavit from a Sunrise executive attesting to data accuracy under penalty of perjury.\n\n16. Evidence that the alleged debt is not time-barred under state law.\n\n17. Record of all CRA disputes and Sunrises investigation results under 623 ( b ).\n\n18. List of all third-party vendors or data handlers involved with this account. \n19. Proof of internal compliance audits verifying XXXX XXXX data accuracy. \n20. Certified full chain-of-title documentation from the original creditor to Sunrise.\n\nIf Sunrise Credit Services can not produce every item listed above, the account is unverified and must be immediately deleted under FDCPA 809 ( b ) and FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ).","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-11T14:24:32.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"075XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17171008","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES, INC","date_received":"2025-11-11T14:15:07.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Complete payment history from the <em>original</em> <em>creditor</em>.\n\n8. Verification of Date of First Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) <em>reported</em> to the CRAs.\n\n9. Copy of the data furnisher agreements between Sunrise and the CRAs.\n\n10. Name, license number, and bonding information of the collector or agent.\n\n11. Statement of permissible purpose under FCRA 1681b. \n12. Proof of XXXX authorization allowing Sunrise to <em>report</em> or collect.\n\n13. Copies of all prior correspondence allegedly sent to me. \n14."]},"sort":[19.090773,"17171008"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11865666","_score":19.024097,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent certified dispute letters to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and the original creditor, XXXX XXXX, regarding two medical collection accounts that have been improperly reported on my credit report. The accounts include the following : Amount : {$670.00} & {$580.00} Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Status : Collection/Charge-off Despite my formal dispute and supporting documentation, these accounts remain on my credit report. This violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which requires credit bureaus and data furnishers to validate disputed debts and investigate disputes promptly. \n\nActions Taken by Me : XX/XX/XXXX Sent certified dispute letters to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX, demanding debt validation. \nXX/XX/XXXX Filed an identity theft affidavit and submitted dispute claims with Equifax, XXXX, and XXXX, requesting the removal of these fraudulent accounts. \nXX/XX/XXXX Received an inadequate response from Equifax, which stated that the accounts had been verified but failed to provide any supporting documentation proving the legitimacy of the debt. \nIssues with Equifaxs Response : Failure to Provide Full Debt Validation ( FCRA Violation 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) Equifax did not provide a signed contract, billing statements, or original creditor validation. \nInstead, they only stated that the accounts were verified, which does not satisfy the legal requirements under the FCRA. \nRequest : I demand complete verification documentation, or these accounts must be removed. \nHIPAA Violation Unauthorized Disclosure of Medical Debt The reporting of my medical debt without my consent violates HIPAA privacy regulations. \nEquifax must provide proof that XXXX XXXX authorized XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to report this debt. \nRequest : A HIPAA compliance report confirming authorization, or the account must be deleted. \nIdentity Theft Failure to Remove Fraudulent Accounts ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ) My personal information was used without my consent, and I filed an identity theft affidavit. \nUnder federal law, Equifax must block fraudulent collections upon receipt of my fraud report, but they have failed to do so. \nRequest : Immediate removal of fraudulent accounts as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2. \nXXXX XXXX Compliance Violations Improper Reporting of Charge-Offs The collection accounts were not properly reported according to XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nErrors include : Incorrect Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) Inaccurate balance and payment history Request : Full proof of compliance with XXXX XXXX reporting standards or immediate deletion.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-31T18:43:26.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Medical debt","zip_code":"32818","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11865666","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-31T18:28:38.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX <em>Compliance</em> Violations Improper <em>Reporting</em> of Charge-Offs The collection accounts were not properly <em>reported</em> according to XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nErrors include : Incorrect Date of First Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) Inaccurate balance and payment history Request : Full proof of <em>compliance</em> with XXXX XXXX <em>reporting</em> standards or immediate deletion."]},"sort":[19.024097,"11865666"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11748549","_score":19.002722,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX has engaged in deceptive, inaccurate, and illegal credit reporting practices that violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Nevada UCC repossession laws. The company has failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, has reported inconsistent information across multiple bureaus, and has continued illegal collection activities even after repossessing and selling the vehicle. \n\nInconsistent Credit Reporting Across Bureaus XXXX has reported different balances, payment histories, and account statuses across XXXX, Equifax, and XXXX, violating FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ). Creditors are responsible for ensuring that the data they report is accurate and consistent. XXXX must provide Metro 2 Compliance Data proving they submitted identical reporting to all three bureaus. If they can not, the tradeline must be deleted. \n\nFailure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation Under FCRA 1681i ( a ), furnishers must conduct a meaningful reinvestigation of disputes. Despite multiple disputes over the years, XXXX has repeatedly verified the account without providing proof of a proper investigation. They must provide the exact E-OSCAR dispute codes and dispute verification records. If they can not, the account must be deleted. \n\nViolation of FCRA and CFPB Reporting Rules Due to Inaccurate Repossession Reporting - XXXX has continued reporting the repossession monthly for over three years, even though the vehicle was repossessed and sold at auction. This violates FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( XXXX ) and CFPB guidelines, which prohibit creditors from re-aging debt or updating a charged-off account to make it appear newer than it really is. \n\nUnder FCRA, a repossession must be reported using the original Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and can not be updated monthly as if it is a new delinquency. \nUnder FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ), furnishers are prohibited from misleading credit reporting, including falsely extending the impact of a delinquency. \nXXXX must provide full Metro 2 Compliance data proving they have not illegally updated this account beyond the original DOFD. If they can not, this tradeline must be deleted for violating federal credit reporting laws. \n\nFailure to Provide Legally Required Repossession Notices XXXX repossessed my vehicle and is reporting a deficiency balance but has failed to provide the required pre-sale and post-sale notices under Nevada XXXX laws ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). Under Nevada law, the lender must send ( 1 ) a Notice of Intent to Sell before auction, ( 2 ) a post-sale Deficiency Letter explaining how the deficiency was calculated, and ( XXXX ) an itemized breakdown of the auction sale proceeds. If they can not produce these documents, the deficiency balance is unenforceable and must be removed from my credit reports. \n\nMisrepresentation of Repossession Status XXXX has falsely reported my repossession as \" involuntary '' when it was voluntary. This misrepresentation of account status is deceptive and materially misleading under FCRA. The account must either be corrected or deleted in full. \n\nXXXX XXXX Reporting Violations Based on the Original Loan Agreement - XXXX is the original creditor, meaning they are responsible for all credit reporting under FCRA 1681s-2. \nThe loan agreement does not state that they can update the repossession as an active balance after the vehicle was soldmaking their reporting deceptive. \nIf XXXX has updated the repossession monthly for XXXX years post-sale, this is a violation of FCRA and CFPB rules against misreporting charged-off accounts. \nXXXX XXXX also be misleading credit bureaus by reporting false post-repo balances, violating FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ). \n\nPotential Unlawful Collection Activity Despite the vehicle being repossessed and sold, XXXX has engaged in continued collection efforts without proving the legitimacy of the deficiency balance. Without proper documentation, these collection efforts violate FCRA and potentially FDCPA protections against deceptive collection practices. \n\nXXXX has been notified of these violations multiple times but has failed to correct them. I have already escalated this issue to the FTC, Nevada Attorney General, and XXXX  If XXXX fails to comply, further legal action will be pursued.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-24T22:04:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"89113","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11748549","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-24T22:04:00.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under FCRA, a repossession must be <em>reported</em> using the <em>original</em> Date of First Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) and can not be updated monthly as if it is a new delinquency. \nUnder FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ), furnishers are prohibited from misleading credit <em>reporting</em>, including falsely extending the impact of a delinquency. \nXXXX must provide full Metro 2 <em>Compliance</em> data proving they have not illegally updated this account beyond the <em>original</em> <em>DOFD</em>."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[19.002722,"11748549"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11748546","_score":19.002722,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX has engaged in deceptive, inaccurate, and illegal credit reporting practices that violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Nevada XXXX repossession laws. The company has failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, has reported inconsistent information across multiple bureaus, and has continued illegal collection activities even after repossessing and selling the vehicle. \n\nInconsistent Credit Reporting Across Bureaus XXXX has reported different balances, payment histories, and account statuses across Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, violating FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ). Creditors are responsible for ensuring that the data they report is accurate and consistent. XXXX  must provide Metro 2 Compliance Data proving they submitted identical reporting to all three bureaus. If they can not, the tradeline must be deleted.\n\nFailure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation Under FCRA 1681i ( a ), furnishers must conduct a meaningful reinvestigation of disputes. Despite multiple disputes over the years, XXXX has repeatedly verified the account without providing proof of a proper investigation. They must provide the exact E-OSCAR dispute codes and dispute verification records. If they can not, the account must be deleted. \n\nViolation of FCRA and CFPB Reporting Rules Due to Inaccurate Repossession Reporting - XXXX has continued reporting the repossession monthly for over three years, even though the vehicle was repossessed and sold at auction. This violates FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) and CFPB guidelines, which prohibit creditors from re-aging debt or updating a charged-off account to make it appear newer than it really is. \n\nUnder FCRA, a repossession must be reported using the original Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and can not be updated monthly as if it is a new delinquency. \nUnder FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ), furnishers are prohibited from misleading credit reporting, including falsely extending the impact of a delinquency. \nXXXX must provide full Metro 2 Compliance data proving they have not illegally updated this account beyond the original DOFD. If they can not, this tradeline must be deleted for violating federal credit reporting laws. \n\nFailure to Provide Legally Required Repossession Notices XXXX repossessed my vehicle and is reporting a deficiency balance but has failed to provide the required pre-sale and post-sale notices under Nevada XXXX laws ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). Under Nevada law, the lender must send ( 1 ) a Notice of Intent to Sell before auction, ( 2 ) a post-sale Deficiency Letter explaining how the deficiency was calculated, and ( 3 ) an itemized breakdown of the auction sale proceeds. If they can not produce these documents, the deficiency balance is unenforceable and must be removed from my credit reports. \n\nMisrepresentation of Repossession Status XXXX has falsely reported my repossession as \" involuntary '' when it was voluntary. This misrepresentation of account status is deceptive and materially misleading under FCRA. The account must either be corrected or deleted in full. \n\nXXXX Credit Reporting Violations Based on the Original Loan Agreement - XXXX is the original creditor, meaning they are responsible for all credit reporting under FCRA 1681s-2. \nThe loan agreement does not state that they can update the repossession as an active balance after the vehicle was soldmaking their reporting deceptive. \nIf XXXX has updated the repossession monthly for three years post-sale, this is a violation of FCRA and CFPB rules against misreporting charged-off accounts. \nXXXX may also be misleading credit bureaus by reporting false post-repo balances, violating FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ).\n\nPotential Unlawful Collection Activity Despite the vehicle being repossessed and sold, XXXX has engaged in continued collection efforts without proving the legitimacy of the deficiency balance. Without proper documentation, these collection efforts violate FCRA and potentially FDCPA protections against deceptive collection practices. \n\nXXXX has been notified of these violations multiple times but has failed to correct them. I have already escalated this issue to the FTC, Nevada Attorney General, and XXXX. If XXXX fails to comply, further legal action will be pursued.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-24T22:04:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"89113","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11748546","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-24T22:04:00.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under FCRA, a repossession must be <em>reported</em> using the <em>original</em> Date of First Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) and can not be updated monthly as if it is a new delinquency. \nUnder FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ), furnishers are prohibited from misleading credit <em>reporting</em>, including falsely extending the impact of a delinquency. \nXXXX must provide full Metro 2 <em>Compliance</em> data proving they have not illegally updated this account beyond the <em>original</em> <em>DOFD</em>."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[19.002722,"11748546"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18553799","_score":18.912163,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"PREDATORY COLLECTION, ILLEGAL INTEREST & LACK OF VALIDATION NOTICE I am filing this formal complaint against IQ Data International regarding a collection account for a rental debt. This agency is engaging in predatory practices by accruing unauthorized interest, furnishing false data, and failing to provide mandatory validation notices. \n\nXXXX. ILLEGAL BALANCE INFLATION & FAILURE TO NOTIFY ( FDCPA VIOLATIONS ) : The agency is reporting a balance of {$3400.00}, which exceeds the original creditor amount of {$2400.00} by nearly {$1000.00}. \n\nLack of Notice : The agency NEVER contacted me to explain this {$980.00} surcharge or provide an accounting of these fees. They simply placed this inflated debt on my credit report without sending the initial validation notice required by 15 U.S. Code 1692g. \n\nIllegal Interest : My XXXX  report proves the balance is increasing monthly ( e.g., {$3300.00} in XXXX to {$3400.00} in XX/XX/year> ). The agency has failed to produce the lease agreement authorizing recurring monthly interest. Without this proof, this accrual is federal fraud. \n\nXXXX. FALSE CERTIFICATION ( FCRA VIOLATION ) : On XX/XX/year>, the agency updated my XXXX  file with the remark : \" Account information disputed by consumer, meets FCRA requirements. '' THIS IS FALSE. Simultaneously, on my XXXX report, the mandatory XXXX XXXX field \" Date of XXXX Delinquency '' is reported as BLANK/MISSING. It is legally impossible for an account to \" meet FCRA requirements '' when it lacks the mandatory baseline date needed to calculate the Statute of Limitations. \n\nXXXX. WILLFUL NON-COMPLIANCE BY BUREAUS & FURNISHER : I previously disputed this account. Both the bureaus and IQ Data \" verified '' the debt as accurate without ever providing the contract or explaining the illegal balance increase. By verifying an account that lacks a DOFD and includes unauthorized hidden fees, they have willfully violated their duty to investigate. \n\nRESOLUTION : I demand the IMMEDIATE DELETION of this trade line from all credit bureaus due to unauthorized balance inflation, failure to notify/validate, and technical non-compliance.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-08T02:07:42.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Rental debt","zip_code":"30024","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18553799","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"T.S. Holdings","date_received":"2026-01-08T01:45:01.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["ILLEGAL BALANCE INFLATION & <em>FAILURE</em> TO NOTIFY ( FDCPA VIOLATIONS ) : The agency is <em>reporting</em> a balance of {$3400.00}, which exceeds the <em>original</em> <em>creditor</em> amount of {$2400.00} by nearly {$1000.00}. \n\nLack of Notice : The agency NEVER contacted me to explain this {$980.00} surcharge or provide an accounting of these fees. They simply placed this inflated debt on my credit <em>report</em> <em>without</em> sending the initial validation notice required by 15 U.S. Code 1692g."]},"sort":[18.912163,"18553799"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16432378","_score":18.901852,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Summary : This is an update and continuation of my previous CFPB complaints # XXXX and # XXXX. Despite prior filings and documented evidence of identity theft, Equifax continues to report inaccurate, unverifiable, and inconsistent revolving account data on my consumer credit file, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. \nBackground : Equifax has failed to correct or remove accounts previously disputed and identified as inaccurate. These items continue to harm my creditworthiness and cause ongoing damage, even after I submitted proof of identity theft, my drivers license, Social Security card, and FTC Identity Theft Report : Current Issues ( as of Report Date : XX/XX/XXXX ) : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct. ending XXXX Reported Balance : {$1200.00} | Credit Utilization : 349 % | Age : 3 yrs 10 mos Issue : Credit utilization exceeds any reasonable credit limit. Equifax has failed to verify or update the reported limit, resulting in materially misleading information. \n\n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Acct. ending XXXX Reported Balance : {$440.00} | Credit Utilization : 148 % | XXXX : XXXX yr XXXX mos Issue : Utilization ratio is mathematically impossible given the balance and account limit. Requesting verification of the reported credit limit and balance accuracy. \n\n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Acct. ending XXXX ( Closed / Charge-off ) Balance : {$2100.00} | Credit Limit : {$300.00} | Date of First Delinquency : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Issue : This account remains despite multiple disputes and Equifaxs failure to provide the original signed contract or any documentation verifying ownership or accuracy, violating FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 623 ( b ) ( 1 ). \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) Acct. ending XXXX ( Closed / Paid ) Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  | Balance : {$0.00} | DoFD : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Issue : Previously deleted account has reappeared, violating FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ), which prohibits reinsertion of deleted data without written notice to the consumer. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct. ending XXXX ( Collection ) Balance : {$540.00} | Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX | DoFD : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Equifax has failed to verify legal ownership or right to collect. No supporting contract, payment history, or assignment of debt has been provided. \n\n\nViolations and Requested Actions : Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ).\n\nReporting unverifiable or previously deleted information in violation of 611 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nWillful noncompliance under XXXX for knowingly retaining false or unverifiable data. \n\n\nFailure to maintain procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy under 607 ( b ).\n\nRequested Resolution : Immediate deletion of all unverifiable or previously deleted accounts.\n\nWritten confirmation of reinvestigation results, including the name and contact information of each furnisher. E-Oscar is not acceptable An updated Equifax report reflecting deletion or correction of the above accounts.\n\nReferral to the FTC and Florida Attorney General for review of potential FCRA and FDUTPA violations. \n\n\nExpedited handling within 5 business days due to ongoing harm and prior unresolved CFPB cases.\n\nAttachments ( available upon request ) : Proof of address and identity documents Identity Theft Report and prior CFPB submissions Equifax report from XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Summary Statement : Equifax continues to report inaccurate and unverifiable data despite two prior CFPB complaints and full documentation. I am requesting immediate enforcement action, deletion of unverifiable accounts, and compliance review under federal and Florida consumer protection statutes.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-08T02:18:02.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33020","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16432378","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-08T01:48:35.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) Acct. ending XXXX ( Closed / Paid ) <em>Original</em> <em>Creditor</em> : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  | Balance : {$0.00} | <em>DoFD</em> : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Issue : Previously deleted account has reappeared, violating FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ), which prohibits reinsertion of deleted data <em>without</em> written notice to the consumer."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect information on your <em>report</em>"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"]},"sort":[18.901852,"16432378"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":191,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":191}]}},"product":{"doc_count":191,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":135,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":134},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":55,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":39},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":6},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Telecommunications debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Medical debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rental debt","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}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":191,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":65,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":35},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":19},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":8},{"key":"Information is missing that should be on the report","doc_count":1},{"key":"Old information reappears or never goes away","doc_count":1},{"key":"Personal information incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":48,"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":40},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":6},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":32,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":32}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":23,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":21},{"key":"Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":13,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":9},{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":3},{"key":"Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged","doc_count":3},{"key":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":191,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":190},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":191,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":120},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":70},{"key":"Untimely response","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":191,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":191}]}},"company":{"doc_count":191,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":55},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":47},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":37},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":5},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"CL Holdings LLC","doc_count":3},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"HW Holding, Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"Oliphant United, Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Source Receivables Management LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"Amsher Collection Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bounce AI, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"CCS Financial Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Cedars Business Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Consumer Adjustment Company Incorporated","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"DreamSpring","doc_count":1},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Halsted Financial Services, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Harris & Harris, Ltd.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Johnson Mark LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Midwest Fidelity Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"National Credit Systems,Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"ONLINE Information Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"RentDebt Automated Collections, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Revco Management, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SECURITY FINANCE CORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES, INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Spring Oaks Capital, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Sunnova Energy Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"T.S. Holdings","doc_count":1},{"key":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Unisa, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":191,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TX","doc_count":57},{"key":"FL","doc_count":28},{"key":"GA","doc_count":22},{"key":"CA","doc_count":20},{"key":"NY","doc_count":11},{"key":"NV","doc_count":10},{"key":"IL","doc_count":7},{"key":"MI","doc_count":5},{"key":"MO","doc_count":5},{"key":"OH","doc_count":5},{"key":"WI","doc_count":5},{"key":"AR","doc_count":3},{"key":"TN","doc_count":3},{"key":"NC","doc_count":2},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"OK","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":191,"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":96},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2},{"key":"Company disputes the facts presented in the complaint","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":191,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":12},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-15T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-15T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16469162,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[18.90244,"16432378"],"3":[17.515785,"13559064"],"4":[16.813478,"18400167"],"5":[15.709593,"15254393"],"6":[14.918864,"16736292"],"7":[13.607365,"14913700"],"8":[11.415314,"11885753"]}}}