{"took":69,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":48,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11290831","_score":22.982616,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"WESTLAKE FINANCIAL WESTLAKE PORTFOLIO MANAGEM XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX Inaccurate reporting and or misleading information on consumers credit report Overview You have 100 % left to pay on this loan. \n\nBalance {$0.00} Highest Balance No Info Monthly payment {$0.00} Opened XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX yrs, XXXX mos ) Term 29 months Payment History Youve made 88 % of payments for this account on time. \n\nPayment history table, broken down by month J F M A M J J A S O N D XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Current Late Unknown Last payment XXXX. XXXX, XXXX Current Payment Status Charge-off Worst Payment Status Charge-off Account Details Account status Paid Type Auto Responsibility Individual Account. \nRemarks Account paid for less than full balance Paid charge off Times 30/60/90XX/XX/XXXX days late XXXX Closed XXXX. XXXX, XXXX This company inaccurately reporting to credit bureaus Double inaccurate entries of account not mine WESTLAKE FINANCIAL Reported : XXXX XXXX, XXXX Overview You have 100 % left to pay on this loan. \n\nBalance {$0.00} Highest Balance No Info Monthly payment {$0.00} Opened XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX yrs, XXXX mos ) Term 12 months Payment History Youve made 97 % of payments for this account on time. \n\nPayment history table, broken down by month J F M A M J J A S O N D XXXX XXXX XXXX Current Late Unknown Last payment XXXX XXXX, XXXX Current Payment Status Charge-off Worst Payment Status Charge-off Account Details Account status Transferred Type Unsecured Responsibility Individual Account. \nRemarks Charged off account Times 30/60/90 days late XXXX Closed XXXX XXXX, XXXX This information is inaccurate reporting and misleading information of consumer accounts","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-26T09:48:26.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"30350","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11290831","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Westlake Services, LLC","date_received":"2024-12-26T08:48:39.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Payment history table, broken down by month J F M A M J J A S O N D XXXX XXXX XXXX Current Late Unknown Last payment XXXX XXXX, XXXX Current Payment Status Charge-off Worst Payment Status Charge-off Account Details Account status Transferred Type Unsecured Responsibility Individual Account. \nRemarks Charged off account Times 30/60/90 days late XXXX Closed XXXX XXXX, XXXX This information is inaccurate reporting and misleading information of consumer accounts"],"issue":["Incorrect information on your report"]},"sort":[22.982616,"11290831"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7893716","_score":22.167988,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I Have been disputing these accounts for several months and this credit bureau is not taking the proper measures to Fix the inaccuracies on my credit report which is tarnishing my good name and credit. First I want to start off by listing the Accounts that I have been trying to get dispute and removed due to many inaccuracies. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX - Account # : XXXX XXXX XXXX - Account # : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Account # XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX All of these account are reporting a lot of inaccuracies Account Number XXXX The following is reporting inaccurate on my credit report with these accounts listed above -Account Status is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Open Date is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Last Activity is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Type is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Responsibility is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Remarks is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Times 30/60/90 Days Late is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Month 's Reviewed is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Term Source Type is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -High Balance is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -High Credit is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Monthly Payment is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Current Payment Status is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Amount Past Due is reporting inaccurate/ misleading This is a violation of FRCA laws and Metro 2 Compliance. All information needs to be 100 % Accurate My name is Also reporting inaccurate and my address as well. The only name I should have on File is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX exactly as spelled. My current and only address is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX I will attach my most recent dispute letter and most recent credit report.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-22T18:05:54.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33014","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7893716","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-11-22T17:33:11.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["inaccurate/ misleading -Remarks is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Times 30/60/90 Days Late is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Month 's Reviewed is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Term Source Type is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -High Balance is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -High Credit is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Monthly Payment is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Current Payment Status is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Amount Past Due is reporting inaccurate/ misleading"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[22.167988,"7893716"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7891748","_score":22.153158,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I Have been disputing these accounts for several months and this credit bureau is not taking the proper measures to Fix the inaccuracies on my credit report which is tarnishing my good name and credit. First I want to start off by listing the Accounts that I have been trying to get dispute and removed due to too many inaccuracies. XXXX XXXX XXXX - Account # : XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX : XXXX. All of these account are reporting a lot of inaccuracies Account Number XXXX The following is reporting inaccurate on my credit report with these accounts listed above -Account Status is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Open Date is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Last Activity is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Type is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Responsibility is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Remarks is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Times XXXX Days Late is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Month 's Reviewed is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Term Source Type is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -High Balance is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -High Credit is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Monthly Payment is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Current Payment Status is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Amount Past Due is reporting inaccurate/ misleading This is a violation of FRCA laws and Metro 2 Compliance. All information needs to be 100 % Accurate My name is Also reporting inaccurate and my address as well. The only name I should have on File is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX exactly as spelled. My current and only address is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX I will attach my most recent dispute letter and most recent credit report.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-22T18:19:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33014","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7891748","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-11-22T18:13:26.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["All of these account are reporting a lot of inaccuracies Account Number XXXX The following is reporting inaccurate on my credit report with these accounts listed above -Account Status is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Open Date is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Last Activity is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Type is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Responsibility is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Remarks is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Times XXXX Days Late is reporting inaccurate"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[22.153158,"7891748"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7893746","_score":21.291092,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I Have been disputing these accounts for several months and this credit bureau is not taking the proper measures to Fix the inaccuracies on my credit report which is tarnishing my good name and credit. First I want to start off by listing the Accounts that I have been trying to get dispute and removed due to many inaccuracies. XXXX XXXX XXXX - Account # : XXXX XXXX XXXX - Account # : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Account # XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX All of these account are reporting a lot of inaccuracies The following is reporting inaccurate on my credit report with these accounts listed above -Account Status is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Open Date is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Last Activity is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Type is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Responsibility is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Remarks is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Times 30/60/90 Days Late is reporting inaccurate/ misleading XXXXMonth 's Reviewed is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Term Source Type is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -High Balance is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -High Credit is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Monthly Payment is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Current Payment Status is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Amount Past Due is reporting inaccurate/ misleading This is a violation of FRCA laws and Metro 2 Compliance. All information needs to be 100 % Accurate My name is Also reporting inaccurate and my address as well. The only name I should have on File is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX exactly as spelled. My current and only address is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX I will attach my most recent dispute letter and most recent credit report.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-22T18:12:44.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33014","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7893746","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-11-22T18:06:35.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["misleading -Remarks is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Times 30/60/90 Days Late is reporting inaccurate/ misleading XXXXMonth 's Reviewed is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Term Source Type is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -High Balance is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -High Credit is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Monthly Payment is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Current Payment Status is reporting inaccurate/ misleading -Amount Past Due is reporting inaccurate/ misleading This"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[21.291092,"7893746"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10719794","_score":19.049917,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This letter serves as a formal dispute regarding the inaccurate and inconsistent reporting of the XXXX account with account number ending in XXXX. Upon review of my credit report, I have identified multiple discrepancies and possible violations of the XXXX XXXX reporting guidelines. These violations compromise the accuracy of my credit report and are in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which mandates the highest standards of accuracy in reporting consumer information. \nSpecific XXXX XXXX Noncompliance Violations XXXX. Inconsistent Account Classification The account is reported under varying creditor types across bureaus : \" Student Loans, '' \" Miscellaneous Finance, '' and \" Government Student Loans. '' The XXXX XXXX guidelines require consistent classification across all reporting agencies, especially for a federallybacked student loan. \nXXXX. Discrepancy in Dispute Status The \" Dispute Status '' field inconsistently reports whether the account is in dispute. \nXXXX marks the account as \" Account Disputed, '' while other bureaus do not. This inconsistency is misleading and fails to comply with FCRA Section 611, which mandates clarity and uniformity across all reported information.\n\n3. Inaccurate Creditor Remarks The remark Subscriber Reports Dispute Resolved - Consumer Disagrees is present on some reports, while similar but varying comments are seen on others. XXXX XXXX standards require uniform remarks if the same dispute status and resolution have been applied across bureaus. This inconsistency is confusing and does not meet XXXX XXXX guidelines. \nXXXX. Inaccurate Late Payment Status Reporting The report indicates \" 90 Days Late 7 Times '' without providing specific months and years for each instance. The FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines require precise documentation of each late payment instance to ensure the consumer is accurately informed. The vague reporting of lateness without dates is an unacceptable practice and could result in consumer harm due to misinterpretation. \nLegal Basis for Dispute Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), particularly Sections 611 and 623, credit bureaus and furnishers are required to ensure that all information is \" complete and accurate. '' The inaccuracies noted in the XXXX account reporting constitute a clear violation of these requirements and demonstrate potential negligence in the handling of consumer information.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-06T17:09:26.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"631XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10719794","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-11-06T17:09:23.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Inaccurate Late Payment Status Reporting The report indicates \" 90 Days Late 7 Times '' without providing specific months and years for each instance. The FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines require precise documentation of each late payment instance to ensure the consumer is accurately informed. The vague reporting of lateness without dates is an unacceptable practice and could result in consumer harm due to misinterpretation."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect information on your report"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"]},"sort":[19.049917,"10719794"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10702970","_score":19.036802,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This letter serves as a formal dispute regarding the inaccurate and inconsistent reporting of the XXXX account with account number ending in XXXX. Upon review of my credit report, I have identified multiple discrepancies and possible violations of the XXXX XXXX reporting guidelines. These violations compromise the accuracy of my credit report and are in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which mandates the highest standards of accuracy in reporting consumer information. \nSpecific XXXX XXXX Noncompliance Violations XXXX. Inconsistent Account Classification The account is reported under varying creditor types across bureaus : \" Student Loans, '' \" Miscellaneous Finance, '' and \" Government Student Loans. '' The XXXX XXXX guidelines require consistent classification across all reporting agencies, especially for a federallybacked student loan.\n\n2. Discrepancy in Dispute Status The \" Dispute Status '' field inconsistently reports whether the account is in dispute.\n\nExperian marks the account as \" Account Disputed, '' while other bureaus do not. This inconsistency is mislead\ning and fails to comply with FCRA Section 611, which mandates clarity and uniformity across all reported information.\n\n3. Inaccurate Creditor Remarks The remark Subscriber Reports Dispute Resolved - Consumer Disagrees is present on some reports, while similar but varying comments are seen on others. XXXX XXXX standards require uniform remarks if the same dispute status and resolution have been applied across bureaus. This inconsistency is confusing and does not meet XXXX XXXX guidelines. \nXXXX. Inaccurate Late Payment Status Reporting The report indicates \" 90 Days Late 7 Times '' without providing specific months and years for each instance. The FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines require precise documentation of each late payment instance to ensure the consumer is accurately informed. The vague reporting of lateness without dates is an unacceptable practice and could result in consumer harm due to misinterpretation. \nLegal Basis for Dispute Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), particularly Sections 611 and 623, credit bureaus and furnishers are required to ensure that all information is \" complete and accurate. '' The inaccuracies noted in the XXXX account reporting constitute a clear violation of these requirements and demonstrate potential negligence in the handling of consumer information.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-06T17:09:11.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"631XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10702970","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-11-06T17:05:59.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Inaccurate Late Payment Status Reporting The report indicates \" 90 Days Late 7 Times '' without providing specific months and years for each instance. The FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines require precise documentation of each late payment instance to ensure the consumer is accurately informed. The vague reporting of lateness without dates is an unacceptable practice and could result in consumer harm due to misinterpretation."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect information on your report"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"]},"sort":[19.036802,"10702970"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15362015","_score":17.7558,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX TransUnion LLC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, PA XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Subject : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TransUnion Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am filing this complaint against TransUnion for their ongoing failure to accurately report, correct, and delete erroneous credit information in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Regulation F, and other applicable federal and state consumer protection laws. \nDespite providing TransUnion with dispute documentation, evidence, and formal notices well beyond the XXXX and additional XXXX reinvestigation periods allowed under XXXX XXXX. XXXX and XXXX XXXX. XXXX, TransUnion has failed to remove or correct the following accounts and inquiries, which remain inaccurate, unverifiable, or reported in bad faith. \nAccounts to be Disputed : XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Bank Credit Card, Individual responsibility. \n- Status : Open ( XXXX days late ) - Limit : {$300.00} | Balance : {$60.00} | Monthly Payment : {$30.00} | Utilization : 20 % - Opened : XX/XX/XXXX - Late Payments : XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX days late ) - Amount Past Due : {$25.00} | Last Payment : XX/XX/XXXX - Remarks : Derogatory - Creditor Address : XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NV XXXX - Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Individual responsibility. \n- Status : Open ( XXXX days late ) - Highest Balance : {$1700.00} | Current Balance : {$1900.00} | Monthly Payment : {$57.00} - Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Term : 46 months - Late in XXXX : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX days late ) - Last Payment : XX/XX/XXXX - Times Late : XX/XX/XXXX - Remarks : Derogatory XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Individual responsibility. \n- Status : Open ( XXXX days late ) - Highest Balance : {$1700.00} | Current Balance : {$1900.00} | Monthly Payment : {$57.00} - Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Term : XXXX months - Late in XXXX : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX days late ) - Last Payment : XX/XX/XXXX - Times Late : XXXX - Remarks : Derogatory Bankruptcy Reporting Issue : TransUnion is reporting a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filed on XX/XX/XXXX, and dismissed on XX/XX/XXXX. A dismissed bankruptcy is not a completed adjudication of debt and holds no legal effect under the Bankruptcy XXXX. \nReporting a dismissedbankruptcy as if it were a valid negative item is misleading, constitutes inaccurate reporting, and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ) and XXXX, which require maximum possible accuracy and prompt correction of errors. This item must be permanently deleted. \nLegal Violations and Basis for Deletion : - XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation within XXXX days. \n- XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) Failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy. \n- XXXX U.S.C. XXXX Failure to validate debts before continued collection activity. \n- XXXX U.S.C. XXXX Lack of permissible purpose for reporting certain accounts. \n- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Unauthorized access to a consumers credit report without a permissible purpose constitutes a concrete injury under the FCRA, and the burden is on the furnisher to prove permissible purpose. \n- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) Credit reporting agencies must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) Continued reporting of disputed debts without marking them as disputed violates the FCRA. \n- XXXX XXXX Trans Union XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) Reinvestigation must be independent and genuine, not just a repetition of the furnishers response. \n- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Liability for failing to delete information after the furnisher admits it can not verify the debt. \n- Regulation F Prohibition of false or misleading credit information. \nXXXX Requested : I request that the CFPB compel TransUnion to : XXXX. Delete the above-referenced accounts and inquiries in their entirety. \nXXXX. Delete the dismissed bankruptcy from my credit file. \nXXXX. Provide written confirmation of the deletions within 15 days. \nThe continued reporting of these inaccurate, unverifiable, and misleading accounts places TransUnion in legal jeopardy under XXXX XXXX. XXXX for willful noncompliance and XXXX XXXX. XXXX for negligent noncompliance. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-18T08:57:52.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"95835","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15362015","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-18T08:38:37.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["- Status : Open ( XXXX days late ) - Highest Balance : {$1700.00} | Current Balance : {$1900.00} | Monthly Payment : {$57.00} - Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Term : XXXX months - Late in XXXX : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX days late ) - Last Payment : XX/XX/XXXX - Times Late : XXXX - Remarks : Derogatory Bankruptcy Reporting Issue : TransUnion is reporting a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filed on XX/XX/XXXX, and dismissed on XX/XX/XXXX."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Investigation took more than 30 days"]},"sort":[17.7558,"15362015"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13950068","_score":16.891207,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Rebuttal to XXXX CFPB Complaint Response New Complaint in Connection with CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX Connected FDIC Complaint XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Please allow this complaint ( written as a rebuttal to the previous CFPB complaint ) to serve as a new CFPB complaint against XXXX. Based on the new information and evidence provided by XXXX in its response, the defenses stated by the company are all willful acknowledgements that the company remains in noncompliance of Federal consumer protection laws. \n\nThis complaint is written as a rebuttal to XXXX reply to my CFPB complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX. The CFPB case number connected to this new complaint is : XXXX. Under federal law, XXXX is restricted from derogatory reporting unless an account is at least 30 days or more past due and proper notice has been issued of derogatory reporting. XXXX procedures are permitted to continue internally at XXXX when under 30 days past due, however I have never been lawfully in a derogatory status ( I have not once been 30 days or more past due since opening this account in XX/XX/XXXX ). Therefore, XXXX remains in willful violation with XXXX law for every instance it has placed and continues to maintain a derogatory XXXX XXXX XXXX Suspended remark on my credit file for any period of time in all of XXXX. \n\nIn XXXX CFPB response, the fintech company shockingly admitted to willful noncompliance with federal law. Each instance of this violation is up to a {$1000.00} statutory penalty, before punitive damages are assessed. The longer XXXX remains in willful violation, the higher the penalty XXXX become. \n\nIn addition, on XX/XX/XXXX, an FDIC complaint was filed against XXXX Bank, XXXX banking partner, for failure to oversee and correct willful consecutive violations of federal consumer protection laws through its third-party partner, XXXX. The FDIC XXXX XXXX is for this complaint is : XXXX. \n\n________________________________________ To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : This letter is in response to XXXX XXXX reply to my CFPB complaint regarding their ongoing practice of furnishing CLS ( Credit Line Suspended ) remarks on my credit reports. Their response not only fails to justify its actions, but it also actually admits to engaging in unlawful and deceptive credit reporting practices in violation of federal consumer protection laws. \nXXXX, a fintech company operating in partnership with XXXX XXXX, is leveraging this bank partnership not for consumer benefit, but as a shield to exploit exemptions from state usury laws and evade compliance and strict oversight of federal consumer protection laws. As XXXX willingly admits in its CFPB complaint response, in every instance of the disputed CLS reporting, XXXX remains in willful violation with federal law. XXXX has designed this mechanism of adding the derogatory CLS remark, as a coercive tactic, under the radar or understanding of the CRAs, to suppress consumers creditworthiness and circumvent Federal limits for how and when a furnisher can report derogatory information on a consumers credit file.\n\nUnder federal law, no derogatory information may be furnished to a credit reporting agency unless a consumer is at least 30 days late on a credit obligation and has been notified of such reporting. This principle is codified in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which mandates that furnishers must report data accurately and not punitively. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly and admittedly reported \" Credit Line Suspended '' ( CLS ) remarks, on my tradeline under circumstances where I was not 30 days or more late, thereby unlawfully creating a derogatory status for a fully compliant account that should be reported as in good standing. In the following sections, I will outline specific circumstances surrounding XXXX defenses, therefore proving blatant violation of FCRA. As a result, I will demand immediate resolution from XXXX by removing CLS past and present remarks from my credit files. XXXX failure to comply will result in my seeking statutory and punitive damages in Federal Court. \nThe Derogatory Nature of the CLS Remark Since the opening of this account in XXXX, I have never been 30 days past duenot once. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly reported CLS derogatory remarks, damaging my creditworthiness in violation of federal and Florida law. I first unsuccessfully disputed this code in XX/XX/XXXX, when applying for a car loan and receiving this feedback from the bank, and again several times with the furnisher since XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis practice has had real-world consequences : In XX/XX/XXXX, I was denied credit by XXXX XXXX due solely to the presence of the XXXX remark which was due to an active credit report dispute I filed with XXXX. \nAfter over 30 days with no resolution following a dispute I submitted to XXXX, I was forced to withdraw my dispute simply to get the CLS remark removed. \nImmediately after the CLS remark was removed, I was approved for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, proving that the CLS was the sole derogatory factor. \nXXXX has utilized its CLS internal designation as a weaponized credit suppression tactic against consumers, unlawfully penalizing me when my account is in good standing for reasons of disputing inaccuracies, being less than 30 days past due, or having no available creditas a result of its unconscionable fees rate not usage though my account was fully complaint under federal law and should have been reported as in good standing. \nCRAs themselves have acknowledged the XXXX remark as being the reason for the adverse designation. Notably : TransUnion confirms the CLS remark alone causes the account to be flagged as derogatory, by listing it as an Adverse Action Account. TransUnion specifically places this account in a separate listing of accounts and flags the remarks as the only item that is causing the account to report derogatorily. \nXXXX, upon removing the CLS remark from a dispute I filed directly with the CRA, reclassified the account as positive ( in green ) and in good standing, which was previously flagged in red as derogatory prior to the removal of the CLS remark.\n\nSeparate and apart from the CLS remark itself being a direct violation of the FCRA, XXXX would still be in violation of federal law for its failure to notify me, the consumer, prior to furnishing negative information to the credit reporting agencies. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the CLS remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law. \nIn reviewing XXXX response to my CFPB complaint, the below highlights ( XXXX ) statements made by XXXX written reply which openly admits to willful violations of federal law in every instance a CLS remark has been reported on my credit file since the opening of this account in XX/XX/XXXX. These statements are as follows : ________________________________________ Statement 1 : CLS Reporting for Non-Delinquent, Non-Negative Accounts \" A Line of Credit can be reported as suspended if a customer is unable to request a cash draw. If a customer does not have available credit, has a past due balance, or is disputing information on their credit report as of the report date, the line of credit will be reported as suspended. '' XXXX 's response is a direct admission of wrongdoing. I have never been 30 days or more late on this account, yet XXXX admits to reporting the CLS remark for the following unlawful reaons : When I was less than 30 days past due When I was merely over the internal credit limit When I lawfully initiated a credit reporting dispute. \nXXXX has admitted to blatantly unlawful practices in each instance. \nApplicable Federal Law Violations : 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers must not report inaccurate or misleading information. CLS is clearly misleading and derogatory when the account is not lawfully delinquent.\n\n2. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) If a consumer account is disputed or under investigation, reporting adverse information and not clearly indicating it is disputed is a violation.\n\n3. FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) Federal law prohibits furnishing adverse data that is inaccurate or incomplete, especially before an account is 30 days delinquent.\n\n4. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) A furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the XXXX remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law XXXX. CFPB XXXX XXXX Lenders and furnishers are expected to avoid deceptive reporting and ensure that the data they provide does not mislead creditors or harm consumers unjustly. \nApplicable Florida State Law Violations : 1. Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ), Fla. Stat. 501.204 Furnishing misleading or derogatory information to CRAs about accounts not 30 days delinquent is both deceptive and unfair, especially when used to pressure consumers or restrict access to credit. \n2. Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ), Fla. Stat. 559.72 ( 9 ) It is illegal to assert the existence of a legal right that does not exist ( e.g., the right to report derogatory data based on internal suspension policies when no delinquency exists ). \n________________________________________ Statement 2 : CLS Reporting For Lawful Disputes Initiated by the Consumer \" On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX contacted XXXX to dispute information on their credit report. The dispute remained open when the XX/XX/XXXX report was sent to the credit reporting agencies, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended. In XX/XX/XXXX XXXX addressed XXXX concerns. '' This is patently false. XXXX did not resolve my concerns. \nIn reality : After initiating the dispute in XX/XX/XXXX, I engaged in a lengthy, unresolved call with a XXXX supervisor. \nOver 30 days passed with no resolution. \nI was ultimately forced to withdraw my dispute just to have the damaging CLS remark removed. \nOnce the CLS remark was finally removed from my Experian report, I was immediately approved for an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nThis statement by XXXX admits to the unlawful use of CLS remarks when a consumer exercises their federal right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete information on their credit report. In this instance, I was simply requesting that the account type be corrected to report the account as Line of Credit account, instead of the incorrect reporting as an overdraft checking account. Instead of placing a neutral and legally required remark indicating that the account is under investigation, XXXX furnished a CLS remark, which is treated by CRAs as a derogatory flag, causing adverse action outcomes. \nInstead of following these procedures, XXXX used the CLS remark as a punitive mechanism. This coercive action was designed to suppress my lawful dispute rights. I was not 30 days or more late at any time since account opening. XXXX use of CLS in response to a lawful dispute constitutes a willful and retaliatory violation of consumer protection laws. \nAdditional Violations : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) : Furnishers are required to indicate that an item is under dispute and not penalize the consumer. Reporting derogatory data during a dispute without labeling the data as disputed is a direct violation. \nFCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) : Requires data be corrected or removed when a dispute is not resolvedNetCredit instead chose to continue to validate the inaccurate information, harming my credit file until I capitulated.\n\nFCRA 1681e ( b ) : Reasonable procedures must be followed to ensure maximum possible accuracy ; a derogatory status due to an active investigation is inaccurate by definition.\n\nRetaliation for Exercising Legal Rights : No federal or Florida law allows furnishers to retaliate against consumers for initiating lawful disputes. XXXX use of derogatory remarks to compel withdrawal is coercive and unlawful. \n________________________________________ Statement 3 : CLS Reporting for Internal Credit Limit Exceedance \" Since Nadias account balance exceeded her credit limit, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended in the XX/XX/XXXX report to the consumer reporting agencies. '' Once again, XXXX justifies the use of a derogatory remark based solely on internal credit limitsnot legal delinquency. My account was not 30 days late. My balance exceeded the limit due to accrual of fees or interestnot late payments or spending. No statute supports that this condition justifies a derogatory status. \nIn fact, a consumers credit utilization is reflected by balance-to-limit ratios and does not warrant suspension remarks unless the account is delinquent. \nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, I have paid {$2200.00} in fees for the year on this account in just XXXX months, and my cash advance balance was {$3600.00}. As of XX/XX/XXXX, I had paid {$4100.00} in fees for the year, with a year-end cash advance balance of {$1800.00}. These excessive feesfor a {$4000.00} line of credit -- paired with derogatory reporting on a current accountare not only unlawful, but unconscionable. \nApplicable Violations : FCRA 1681s-2 and CFPB Reporting Guidelines Reporting a derogatory CLS notation when the account is not in default is misleading and unlawful.\n\nFDUTPA Reporting such remarks based on arbitrary triggers like being slightly over a limit is patently unfair and abusive under Florida law. \n________________________________________ XXXX XXXX Model : Evading State Usury Laws XXXX operates its Line of Credit product through a third-party arrangement with XXXX XXXX XXXX using its Utah-based charter to circumvent Floridas consumer protection laws. Without XXXX XXXX, XXXX fees and interest model would clearly violate : Florida Statutes 687.03 : Usury limits for loans under {$25000.00} capped at 30 %. \nFees far exceeding 100 % APR, disguised as draw or origination charges or advance fee, compound the exploitative nature of the product. In my case, I paid over {$6300.00} in fees in under 18 months for a {$4000.00} line of credit, a product that yielded far less in principal. \nThis model is increasingly identified as a \" rent-a-bank '' scheme and is currently under immense scrutiny by the CFPB, FDIC, and OCC and the State of Florida.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-07T17:22:17.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"334XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13950068","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-07T17:21:47.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) Federal law prohibits furnishing adverse data that is inaccurate or incomplete, especially before an account is 30 days delinquent.\n\n4. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) A furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[16.891207,"13950068"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13950880","_score":16.875296,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Rebuttal to XXXX CFPB Complaint Response New Complaint in Connection with CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX Connected FDIC Complaint XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Please allow this complaint ( written as a rebuttal to the previous CFPB complaint ) to serve as a new CFPB complaint against XXXX Based on the new information and evidence provided by XXXX in its response, the defenses stated by the company are all willful acknowledgements that the company remains in noncompliance of Federal consumer protection laws. \n\nThis complaint is written as a rebuttal to XXXX reply to my CFPB complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX. The CFPB case number connected to this new complaint is : XXXX. Under federal law, XXXX is restricted from derogatory reporting unless an account is at least 30 days or more past due and proper notice has been issued of derogatory reporting. Collection procedures are permitted to continue internally at XXXX when under 30 days past due, however I have never been lawfully in a derogatory status ( I have not once been 30 days or more past due since opening this account in XX/XX/XXXX ). Therefore, XXXX remains in willful violation with Federal law for every instance it has placed and continues to maintain a derogatory XXXX XXXX XXXX Suspended remark on my credit file for any period of time in all of XXXX. \n\nIn XXXX CFPB response, the fintech company shockingly admitted to willful noncompliance with federal law. Each instance of this violation is up to a {$1000.00} statutory penalty, before punitive damages are assessed. The longer XXXX remains in willful violation, the higher the penalty may become. \n\nIn addition, on XX/XX/XXXX, an FDIC complaint was filed against XXXX XXXX, XXXX banking partner, for failure to oversee and correct willful consecutive violations of federal consumer protection laws through its third-party partner, XXXX. The FDIC Case Number is for this complaint is : XXXX. \n\n________________________________________ To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : This letter is in response to XXXX s reply to my CFPB complaint regarding their ongoing practice of furnishing CLS ( Credit Line Suspended ) remarks on my credit reports. Their response not only fails to justify its actions, but it also actually admits to engaging in unlawful and deceptive credit reporting practices in violation of federal consumer protection laws. \nXXXX, a fintech company operating in partnership with XXXXXXXX XXXX, is leveraging this bank partnership not for consumer benefit, but as a shield to exploit exemptions from state usury laws and evade compliance and strict oversight of federal consumer protection laws. As XXXX willingly admits in its CFPB complaint response, in every instance of the disputed CLS reporting, XXXX remains in willful violation with federal law. XXXX has designed this mechanism of adding the derogatory CLS remark, as a coercive tactic, under the radar or understanding of the CRAs, to suppress consumers creditworthiness and circumvent Federal limits for how and when a furnisher can report derogatory information on a consumers credit file.\n\nUnder federal law, no derogatory information may be furnished to a credit reporting agency unless a consumer is at least 30 days late on a credit obligation and has been notified of such reporting. This principle is codified in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which mandates that furnishers must report data accurately and not punitively. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly and admittedly reported \" Credit Line Suspended '' ( CLS ) remarks, on my tradeline under circumstances where I was not 30 days or more late, thereby unlawfully creating a derogatory status for a fully compliant account that should be reported as in good standing. In the following sections, I will outline specific circumstances surrounding XXXX defenses, therefore proving blatant violation of FCRA. As a result, I will demand immediate resolution from XXXX by removing CLS past and present remarks from my credit files. XXXX failure to comply will result in my seeking statutory and punitive damages in Federal Court. \nThe Derogatory Nature of the CLS Remark Since the opening of this account in XXXX, I have never been 30 days past duenot once. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly reported CLS derogatory remarks, damaging my creditworthiness in violation of federal and Florida law. I first unsuccessfully disputed this code in XX/XX/XXXX, when applying for a car loan and receiving this feedback from the bank, and again several times with the furnisher since XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis practice has had real-world consequences : In XX/XX/XXXX, I was denied credit by XXXX XXXX due solely to the presence of the CLS remark which was due to an active credit report dispute I filed with XXXX \nAfter over 30 days with no resolution following a dispute I submitted to XXXX I was forced to withdraw my dispute simply to get the CLS remark removed. \nImmediately after the CLS remark was removed, I was approved for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, proving that the CLS was the sole derogatory factor. \nXXXX has utilized its CLS internal designation as a weaponized credit suppression tactic against consumers, unlawfully penalizing me when my account is in good standing for reasons of disputing inaccuracies, being less than 30 days past due, or having no available creditas a result of its unconscionable fees rate not usage though my account was fully complaint under federal law and should have been reported as in good standing. \nCRAs themselves have acknowledged the CLS remark as being the reason for the adverse designation. Notably : XXXX confirms the CLS remark alone causes the account to be flagged as derogatory, by listing it as an Adverse Action Account. XXXX specifically places this account in a separate listing of accounts and flags the remarks as the only item that is causing the account to report derogatorily. \nXXXX, upon removing the CLS remark from a dispute I filed directly with the CRA, reclassified the account as positive ( in green ) and in good standing, which was previously flagged in red as derogatory prior to the removal of the CLS remark.\n\nSeparate and apart from the CLS remark itself being a direct violation of the FCRA, XXXX would still be in violation of federal law for its failure to notify me, the consumer, prior to furnishing negative information to the credit reporting agencies. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the CLS remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law. \nIn reviewing XXXX response to my CFPB complaint, the below highlights ( XXXX ) statements made by XXXX written reply which openly admits to willful violations of federal law in every instance a CLS remark has been reported on my credit file since the opening of this account in XX/XX/XXXX. These statements are as follows : ________________________________________ Statement 1 : CLS Reporting for Non-Delinquent, Non-Negative Accounts \" A Line of Credit can be reported as suspended if a customer is unable to request a cash draw. If a customer does not have available credit, has a past due balance, or is disputing information on their credit report as of the report date, the line of credit will be reported as suspended. '' XXXX 's response is a direct admission of wrongdoing. I have never been 30 days or more late on this account, yet XXXX admits to reporting the CLS remark for the following unlawful reaons : When I was less than 30 days past due When I was merely over the internal credit limit When I lawfully initiated a credit reporting dispute. \nXXXX has admitted to blatantly unlawful practices in each instance. \nApplicable Federal Law Violations : 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers must not report inaccurate or misleading information. CLS is clearly misleading and derogatory when the account is not lawfully delinquent.\n\n2. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) If a consumer account is disputed or under investigation, reporting adverse information and not clearly indicating it is disputed is a violation.\n\n3. FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) Federal law prohibits furnishing adverse data that is inaccurate or incomplete, especially before an account is 30 days delinquent.\n\n4. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) A furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the CLS remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law 5. CFPB XXXX XXXX Lenders and furnishers are expected to avoid deceptive reporting and ensure that the data they provide does not mislead creditors or harm consumers unjustly. \nApplicable Florida State Law Violations : 1. Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ), Fla. Stat. 501.204 Furnishing misleading or derogatory information to CRAs about accounts not 30 days delinquent is both deceptive and unfair, especially when used to pressure consumers or restrict access to credit.\n\n2. Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ), Fla. Stat. 559.72 ( 9 ) It is illegal to assert the existence of a legal right that does not exist ( e.g., the right to report derogatory data based on internal suspension policies when no delinquency exists ).\n\n________________________________________ Statement 2 : CLS Reporting For Lawful Disputes Initiated by the Consumer \" On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX contacted XXXX to dispute information on their credit report. The dispute remained open when the XX/XX/XXXX report was sent to the credit reporting agencies, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended. In XX/XX/XXXX XXXX addressed XXXX concerns. '' This is patently false. XXXX did not resolve my concerns. \nIn reality : After initiating the dispute in XX/XX/XXXX, I engaged in a lengthy, unresolved call with a XXXX supervisor. \nOver 30 days passed with no resolution. \nI was ultimately forced to withdraw my dispute just to have the damaging CLS remark removed. \nOnce the CLS remark was finally removed from my Experian report, I was immediately approved for an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nThis statement by XXXX admits to the unlawful use of CLS remarks when a consumer exercises their federal right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete information on their credit report. In this instance, I was simply requesting that the account type be corrected to report the account as Line of Credit account, instead of the incorrect reporting as an overdraft checking account. Instead of placing a neutral and legally required remark indicating that the account is under investigation, XXXX furnished a CLS remark, which is treated by CRAs as a derogatory flag, causing adverse action outcomes. \nInstead of following these procedures, XXXX used the CLS remark as a punitive mechanism. This coercive action was designed to suppress my lawful dispute rights. I was not 30 days or more late at any time since account opening. XXXX use of CLS in response to a lawful dispute constitutes a willful and retaliatory violation of consumer protection laws.\n\nAdditional Violations : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) : Furnishers are required to indicate that an item is under dispute and not penalize the consumer. Reporting derogatory data during a dispute without labeling the data as disputed is a direct violation. \nFCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) : Requires data be corrected or removed when a dispute is not resolvedXXXX instead chose to continue to validate the inaccurate information, harming my credit file until I capitulated. \nFCRA 1681e ( b ) : Reasonable procedures must be followed to ensure maximum possible accuracy ; a derogatory status due to an active investigation is inaccurate by definition. \nRetaliation for Exercising Legal Rights : No federal or Florida law allows furnishers to retaliate against consumers for initiating lawful disputes. XXXX use of derogatory remarks to compel withdrawal is coercive and unlawful. \n________________________________________ Statement XXXX : CLS Reporting for Internal Credit Limit Exceedance \" Since XXXX account balance exceeded her credit limit, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended in the XX/XX/XXXX report to the consumer reporting agencies. '' Once again, XXXXt justifies the use of a derogatory remark based solely on internal credit limitsnot legal delinquency. My account was not 30 days late. My balance exceeded the limit due to accrual of fees or interestnot late payments or spending. No statute supports that this condition justifies a derogatory status. \nIn fact, a consumers credit utilization is reflected by balance-to-limit ratios and does not warrant suspension remarks unless the account is delinquent. \nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, I have paid {$2200.00} in fees for the year on this account in just five months, and my cash advance balance was {$3600.00}. As of XX/XX/XXXX, I had paid {$4100.00} in fees for the year, with a year-end cash advance balance of {$1800.00}. These excessive feesfor a {$4000.00} line of credit -- paired with derogatory reporting on a current accountare not only unlawful, but unconscionable. \nApplicable Violations : FCRA 1681s-2 and CFPB Reporting Guidelines Reporting a derogatory CLS notation when the account is not in default is misleading and unlawful.\n\nFDUTPA Reporting such remarks based on arbitrary triggers like being slightly over a limit is patently unfair and abusive under Florida law. \n________________________________________ XXXX XXXX Model : Evading State Usury Laws XXXX operates its Line of Credit product through a third-party arrangement with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX its Utah-based charter XXXX circumvent Floridas consumer protection laws. Without XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX fees and interest model would clearly violate : Florida Statutes XXXX : XXXX limits for loans under {$25000.00} capped at 30 %. \nFees far exceeding 100 % APR, disguised as draw or origination charges or advance fee, compound the exploitative nature of the product. In my case, I paid over {$6300.00} in fees in under 18 months for a {$4000.00} line of credit, a product that yielded far less in principal. \nThis model is increasingly identified as a \" rent-a-bank '' scheme and is currently under immense scrutiny by the CFPB, FDIC, and XXXX and the State of Florida.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-07T17:22:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"334XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13950880","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ENOVA INTERNATIONAL, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-07T16:43:08.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) Federal law prohibits furnishing adverse data that is inaccurate or incomplete, especially before an account is 30 days delinquent.\n\n4. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) A furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[16.875296,"13950880"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13950067","_score":16.870844,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Rebuttal to XXXX CFPB Complaint Response New Complaint in Connection with CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX Connected FDIC Complaint Filing Against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Please allow this complaint ( written as a rebuttal to the previous CFPB complaint ) to serve as a new CFPB complaint against XXXX. Based on the new information and evidence provided by XXXX in its response, the defenses stated by the company are all willful acknowledgements that the company remains in noncompliance of Federal consumer protection laws. \n\nThis complaint is written as a rebuttal to XXXX reply to my CFPB complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX. The CFPB case number connected to this new complaint is : XXXX. Under federal law, XXXX is restricted from derogatory reporting unless an account is at least 30 days or more past due and proper notice has been issued of derogatory reporting. Collection procedures are permitted to continue internally at XXXX when under 30 days past due, however I have never been lawfully in a derogatory status ( I have not once been 30 days or more past due since opening this account in XX/XX/XXXX ). Therefore, XXXX remains in willful violation with XXXX law for every instance it has placed and continues to maintain a derogatory XXXX XXXX XXXX Suspended remark on my credit file for any period of time in all of XXXX. \n\nIn XXXX CFPB response, the fintech company shockingly admitted to willful noncompliance with federal law. Each instance of this violation is up to a {$1000.00} statutory penalty, before punitive damages are assessed. The longer XXXX remains in willful violation, the higher the penalty may become. \n\nIn addition, on XX/XX/XXXX, an FDIC complaint was filed against XXXX XXXX, XXXX banking partner, for failure to oversee and correct willful consecutive violations of federal consumer protection laws through its third-party partner, XXXX. The FDIC XXXX XXXX is for this complaint is : XXXX. \n\n________________________________________ To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : This letter is in response to XXXX XXXX reply to my CFPB complaint regarding their ongoing practice of furnishing CLS ( Credit Line Suspended ) remarks on my credit reports. Their response not only fails to justify its actions, but it also actually admits to engaging in unlawful and deceptive credit reporting practices in violation of federal consumer protection laws. \nXXXX, a fintech company operating in partnership with XXXX XXXX, is leveraging this bank partnership not for consumer benefit, but as a shield to exploit exemptions from state usury laws and evade compliance and strict oversight of federal consumer protection laws. As XXXX willingly admits in its CFPB complaint response, in every instance of the disputed CLS reporting, XXXX remains in willful violation with federal law. XXXX has designed this mechanism of adding the derogatory CLS remark, as a coercive tactic, under the radar or understanding of the CRAs, to suppress consumers creditworthiness and circumvent XXXX limits for how and when a furnisher can report derogatory information on a consumers credit file. \nUnder federal law, no derogatory information XXXX be furnished to a credit reporting agency unless a consumer is at least 30 days late on a credit obligation and has been notified of such reporting. This principle is codified in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which mandates that furnishers must report data accurately and not punitively. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly and admittedly reported \" XXXX XXXX Suspended '' ( XXXX ) remarks, on my tradeline under circumstances where I was not 30 days or more late, thereby unlawfully creating a derogatory status for a fully compliant account that should be reported as in good standing. In the following sections, I will outline specific circumstances surrounding XXXX defenses, therefore proving blatant violation of FCRA. As a result, I will demand immediate resolution from XXXX by removing XXXX past and present remarks from my credit files. XXXX failure to comply will result in my seeking statutory and punitive damages in XXXX XXXX. \nThe Derogatory Nature of the CLS Remark Since the opening of this account in XXXX, I have never been 30 days past duenot once. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly reported XXXX derogatory remarks, damaging my creditworthiness in violation of federal and Florida law. I first unsuccessfully disputed this code in XX/XX/XXXX, when applying for a car loan and receiving this feedback from the bank, and again several times with the furnisher since XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis practice has had real-world consequences : In XX/XX/XXXX, I was denied credit by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to the presence of the XXXX remark which was due to an active credit report dispute I filed with XXXX. \nAfter over 30 days with no resolution following a dispute I submitted to XXXX, I was forced to withdraw my dispute simply to get the CLS remark removed. \nImmediately after the XXXX remark was removed, I was approved for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, proving that the XXXX was the sole derogatory factor. \nXXXX has utilized its XXXX internal designation as a weaponized credit suppression tactic against consumers, unlawfully penalizing me when my account is in good standing for reasons of disputing inaccuracies, being less than 30 days past due, or having no available creditas a result of its unconscionable fees rate not usage though my account was fully complaint under federal law and should have been reported as in good standing. \nCRAs themselves have acknowledged the XXXX remark as being the reason for the adverse designation. Notably : TransUnion confirms the XXXX remark alone causes the account to be flagged as derogatory, by listing it as an Adverse Action Account. TransUnion specifically places this account in a separate listing of accounts and flags the remarks as the only item that is causing the account to report derogatorily. \nXXXX, upon removing the XXXX remark from a dispute I filed directly with the CRA, reclassified the account as positive ( in green ) and in good standing, which was previously flagged in red as derogatory prior to the removal of the XXXX remark. \nSeparate and apart from the XXXX remark itself being a direct violation of the FCRA, XXXX would still be in violation of federal law for its failure to notify me, the consumer, prior to furnishing negative information to the credit reporting agencies. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) ( i ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the XXXX remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law. \nIn reviewing XXXX response to my CFPB complaint, the below highlights ( XXXX ) statements made by XXXX written reply which openly admits to willful violations of federal law in every instance a XXXX remark has been reported on my credit file since the opening of this account in XX/XX/XXXX. These statements are as follows : ________________________________________ Statement XXXX : XXXX Reporting for Non-Delinquent, Non-Negative Accounts \" A Line of Credit can be reported as suspended if a customer is unable to request a cash draw. If a customer does not have available credit, has a past due balance, or is disputing information on their credit report as of the report date, the line of credit will be reported as suspended. '' XXXX 's response is a direct admission of wrongdoing. I have never been 30 days or more late on this account, yet XXXX admits to reporting the XXXX remark for the following unlawful reaons : When I was less than 30 days past due When I was merely over the internal credit limit When I lawfully initiated a credit reporting dispute. \nXXXX has admitted to blatantly unlawful practices in each instance. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Violations : XXXX. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Furnishers must not report inaccurate or misleading information. CLS is clearly misleading and derogatory when the account is not lawfully delinquent. \nXXXX. FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) If a consumer account is disputed or under investigation, reporting adverse information and not clearly indicating it is disputed is a violation. \nXXXX. FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Federal law prohibits furnishing adverse data that is inaccurate or incomplete, especially before an account is 30 days delinquent. \nXXXX. FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) ( i ) A furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the XXXX remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law XXXX. CFPB XXXX XXXX Lenders and furnishers are expected to avoid deceptive reporting and ensure that the data they provide does not mislead creditors or harm consumers unjustly. \nXXXX Florida XXXX XXXX Violations : XXXX. Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX Furnishing misleading or derogatory information to CRAs about accounts not 30 days delinquent is both deceptive and unfair, especially when used to pressure consumers or restrict access to credit. \nXXXX. Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) It is illegal to assert the existence of a legal right that does not exist ( e.g., the right to report derogatory data based on internal suspension policies when no delinquency exists ). \n________________________________________ Statement XXXX : XXXX Reporting For Lawful Disputes Initiated by the Consumer \" On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX contacted XXXX to dispute information on their credit report. The dispute remained open when the XX/XX/XXXX report was sent to the credit reporting agencies, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended. In XX/XX/XXXX XXXX addressed XXXX concerns. '' This is patently false. XXXX did not resolve my concerns. \nIn reality : After initiating the dispute in XX/XX/XXXX, I engaged in a lengthy, unresolved call with a XXXX supervisor. \nOver 30 days passed with no resolution. \nI was ultimately forced to withdraw my dispute just to have the damaging CLS remark removed. \nOnce the XXXX remark was finally removed from my Experian report, I was immediately approved for an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nThis statement by XXXX admits to the unlawful use of CLS remarks when a consumer exercises their federal right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete information on their credit report. In this instance, I was simply requesting that the account type be corrected to report the account as XXXX of XXXX account, instead of the incorrect reporting as an overdraft checking account. Instead of placing a neutral and legally required remark indicating that the account is under investigation, XXXX furnished a CLS remark, which is treated by CRAs as a derogatory flag, causing adverse action outcomes. \nInstead of following these procedures, XXXX used the XXXX remark as a punitive mechanism. This coercive action was designed to suppress my lawful dispute rights. I was not 30 days or more late at any time since account opening. XXXX use of XXXX in response to a lawful dispute constitutes a willful and retaliatory violation of consumer protection laws. \nAdditional Violations : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) : Furnishers are required to indicate that an item is under dispute and not penalize the consumer. Reporting derogatory data during a dispute without labeling the data as disputed is a direct violation. \nFCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) : Requires data be corrected or removed when a dispute is not resolvedNetCredit instead chose to continue to validate the inaccurate information, harming my credit file until I capitulated. \nFCRA XXXX ( b ) : Reasonable procedures must be followed to ensure maximum possible accuracy ; a derogatory status due to an active investigation is inaccurate by definition. \nRetaliation for Exercising Legal Rights : No federal or Florida law allows furnishers to retaliate against consumers for initiating lawful disputes. XXXX use of derogatory remarks to compel withdrawal is coercive and unlawful. \n________________________________________ Statement XXXX : XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \" Since Nadias account balance exceeded her credit limit, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended in the XX/XX/XXXX report to the consumer reporting agencies. '' Once again, XXXX justifies the use of a derogatory remark based solely on internal credit limitsnot legal delinquency. My account was not 30 days late. My balance exceeded the limit due to accrual of fees or interestnot late payments or spending. No statute supports that this condition justifies a derogatory status. \nIn fact, a consumers credit utilization is reflected by balance-to-limit ratios and does not warrant suspension remarks unless the account is delinquent. \nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, I have paid {$2200.00} in fees for the year on this account in just XXXX months, and my cash advance balance was {$3600.00}. As of XX/XX/XXXX, I had paid {$4100.00} in fees for the year, with a year-end cash advance balance of {$1800.00}. These excessive feesfor a {$4000.00} line of credit -- paired with derogatory reporting on a current accountare not only unlawful, but unconscionable. \nApplicable Violations : FCRA XXXX and CFPB Reporting Guidelines Reporting a derogatory CLS notation when the account is not in default is misleading and unlawful. \nXXXX XXXX such remarks based on arbitrary triggers like being slightly over a limit is patently unfair and abusive under Florida law. \n________________________________________ XXXX XXXX Model : Evading State Usury Laws XXXX operates its Line of Credit product through a third-party arrangement with XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX its Utah-based charter XXXX circumvent Floridas consumer protection laws. Without XXXX Bank, XXXX fees and interest model would clearly violate : Florida Statutes XXXX : XXXX limits for loans under {$25000.00} capped at 30 %. \nFees far exceeding 100 % APR, disguised as draw or origination charges or advance fee, compound the exploitative nature of the product. In my case, I paid over {$6300.00} in fees in under 18 months for a {$4000.00} line of credit, a product that yielded far less in principal. \nThis model is increasingly identified as a \" rent-a-bank '' scheme and is currently under immense scrutiny by the CFPB, FDIC, and XXXX and XXXX State of Florida.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-07T17:22:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"334XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13950067","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-07T17:21:47.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Federal law prohibits furnishing adverse data that is inaccurate or incomplete, especially before an account is 30 days delinquent. \nXXXX. FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) ( i ) A furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[16.870844,"13950067"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15074868","_score":15.97657,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal complaint regarding the inaccurate and misleading reporting by MOBILOANSLLC on my credit reports. The payment history for this account reflects 33 % of payments made on time, which suggests severe delinquency and damages my overall credit profile. \n\nHowever, the same tradeline reports XXXX for XXXX late payments, indicating there have been no late payments whatsoever. This is a material inconsistency that violates the accuracy requirement under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( a ), which mandates that furnishers of information report only accurate and complete data to consumer reporting agencies.\n\nThis contradictory data misrepresents my payment behavior and causes undue harm to my financial reputation, access to credit, and current interest rates. The information is misleading by omission and implication, violating FCRA 1681e ( b ) which requires credit reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. \n\nI am requesting immediate action to : Investigate and resolve this discrepancy, Correct or permanently remove this account from all credit reporting agencies due to the violation of federal consumer law, and Provide written confirmation of the resolution. \n\nShould this issue remain unresolved, I reserve the right to escalate by seeking legal remedy under FCRA 1681n and 1681o, which allow for damages resulting from negligent or willful noncompliance. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX See attached information as reported on my report from XX/XX/XXXX below : XXXX Reported : XXXX XXXX, XXXX {$3000.00} Closed Overview You have 0 % left to pay on this loan. \n\nBalance $ XXXX Monthly payment No Info Opened XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX yr, XXXX mos ) Payment History Youve made 33 % of payments for this account on time. \n\nPayment history table, broken down by month XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Derogatory Last payment No Info Current Payment Status Charge-off Worst Payment Status Charge-off Account Details Account status Derogatory Type Line of Credit Responsibility Individual Remarks Profit and loss write-off Profit and loss write-off Times XXXX days late XXXX Closed XXXX XXXX, XXXX Creditor Information MOBILOANSLLC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, LA XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-04T16:27:35.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32259","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15074868","timely":"No","company_response":"Untimely response","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Mobiloans, LLC","date_received":"2025-08-04T15:45:08.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am filing a formal complaint regarding the inaccurate and misleading reporting by MOBILOANSLLC on my credit reports. The payment history for this account reflects 33 % of payments made on time, which suggests severe delinquency and damages my overall credit profile. \n\nHowever, the same tradeline reports XXXX for XXXX late payments, indicating there have been no late payments whatsoever."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect information on your report"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"]},"sort":[15.97657,"15074868"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14802841","_score":15.775822,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Request for Reinvestigation and Full Compliance Review under FCRA, TILA, FCBA, FDCPA, and XXXX XXXX To Whom It May Concern : This is a formal Reinvestigation Request and Notice of Dispute regarding the information your company is furnishing to the credit reporting agencies under my consumer file.\n\nPursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ), and the Fair Credit Billing Act, you are required to conduct a reasonable investigation upon receiving notice of a dispute. I am hereby demanding a reinvestigation of the item ( s ) listed below, and a comprehensive review of your reporting under XXXX XXXX compliance guidelines, including all data fields and condition codes. \n\nAccount Name/Number : BRIGIT/XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX The Date of Last Activity is inconsistent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and XXXX XXXX Field XXXX ( inaccurate and misleading reporting of aging ) Nature of Dispute : XXXX XXXX Data Inconsistency : have XXXX different month late, remarks, times of days late, and date of last activity differs from the data reported to other bureaus, indicating a reporting failure. \nThe creditor must validate these missed payments or update all bureaus for accuracy. \n\nThe charge-off date is suspiciously aged : Last activity in XXXX vs. XXXX XXXX indicate artificial account extension Possible violation of FCBA and TILA, which govern aging and accurate charge-off practices This may indicate either : The debt is unverifiable and thus omitted by other CRAs. \nThe data furnisher failed to report uniformly, leading to incomplete data transmission in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ).","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-01T16:30:15.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"92394","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14802841","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bridge IT, Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-22T18:36:56.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Account Name/Number : BRIGIT/XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX The Date of Last Activity is inconsistent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and XXXX XXXX Field XXXX ( inaccurate and misleading reporting of aging ) Nature of Dispute : XXXX XXXX Data Inconsistency : have XXXX different month late, remarks, times of days late, and date of last activity differs from the data reported to other bureaus, indicating a reporting failure"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[15.775822,"14802841"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3860222","_score":15.404157,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX when Covid hit : We requested Wells Fargo place our student loans into forbearance due to Covid-19 impact. They placed both student loans into forbearance which we understood was for 90 days starting when we requested it. Wells Fargo then reported incorrectly to credit bureaus that our loan was past due in XXXX and XXXX even though we have letters confirming the loan was placed into forbearance due to Covid-19 ( see letters with vague information on end dates ). Their system was temporarily unavailable for months as we were trying to confirm interest rate on the loans. We have requested that they remove their remarks on our credit report and provided documentation to them of their misleading communication. My credit score dropped over 100 points from XXXX on XXXX due to Wells Fargos inaccurate reporting and failure to communicate with their own customers properly or provide online access to our accounts until we filed a case with the executive office. What bank doesnt give their customers access to their own accounts? \n\nReceived Wells Fargo letter XX/XX/XXXX that the loan was in forbearance until the below end date, yet no end date was listed on the letter ( this was confirmed by XXXX in the executive offices at Wells Fargo, he admitted when he read the letter later that this was \" crazy making '' and apologized for Wells Fargo letters and the poor communication ). \n\nSeveral Wells Fargo representatives told each of us that the loan was in forbearance for 90 days yet could not confirm the same end date. Once we found out forbearance had ended our son put the loan in forbearance for an additional 90 days and we received a letter XX/XX/XXXX that the forbearance was processed and the forbearance would end at the date listed below once again no end date was listed on the letter. \n\nWe tried to access our accounts online several times over several months and their system was \" temporarily unavailable '' for over 4 months until we filed a case ID in the executive office to investigate our issues.\n\nWe spoke to several people in the Wells Fargo executive office and in customer service and received different answers from each person regarding the status of our accounts some showed payments missed others confirmed the loans were in forbearance. These conversations are documented and attached here. \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX in customer service, Wells Fargo AZ location, said there were no late payments, even though the online account showed a late payment and I was told by XXXX in customer service to ignore the system as it was incorrect. I told XXXX ( customer service in AZ for Wells Fargo ) what the XXXX XXXX representatives told us about next payment due XX/XX/XXXX which was different than what she was telling us that it was due XX/XX/XXXX and she said our account was in good standing with no late payments and she would send me a letter stating this. I told her we dont know who to believe at Wells Fargo and she assured me we should believe her and consented to me recording her statement on a digital recorder. You can listen to the recording of our conversation XX/XX/XXXX. I did this because I did not trust that I would receive a letter having had so many experiences in the last six months with Wells Fargos mixed messages from a long list of representatives even in the same executive office ( XXXX XXXX and XXXX ) and all of their vague communication via mail. \nIt is no surprise that Wells Fargo had an F rating by the XXXX XXXX XXXX and are no longer accredited by the XXXX. I have never had such poor customer service, mixed messages from employees in the executive office, broken online systems and misleading information from a bank in my entire life. How are they still in business? Research their history of complaints and please protect consumers from Wells Fargo. Please investigate their business practices and misleading customer communication ( see examples attached ).","date_sent_to_company":"2020-09-28T14:05:24.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Private student loan","zip_code":"875XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3860222","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2020-09-22T20:26:18.000Z","state":"NM","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We have requested that they remove their remarks on our credit report and provided documentation to them of their misleading communication. My credit score dropped over 100 points from XXXX on XXXX due to Wells Fargos inaccurate reporting and failure to communicate with their own customers properly or provide online access to our accounts until we filed a case with the executive office. What bank doesnt give their customers access to their own accounts?"]},"sort":[15.404157,"3860222"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5334949","_score":14.77737,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I started in the Fall of XXXX to go through my credit reports and compare them to find inaccuracies. At first I disputed inaccuracies and inconsistencies by stating the Creditor name, the account number showing on my report and then briefly what was inaccurate or inconsistent between credit bureaus. ( i.e. Inconsistent date of last payment or something similar. ) I did this a few times for each account depending on the bureau. All Bureaus did to fix issues so then I got VERY specific and compared everything the last two times in depth. Every time I have asked them to make it accurate and consistent or delete the account from my report. I have gotten sick of hearing that it was always someone else either being another bureau or the original creditor that is wrong. Even when I clearly state issues they have chosen to ignore me or have done a poor job investigating. It never came back 100 % accurate or consistent and it wasnt deleted. I want these items deleted from my account because you have repeatedly not taken care of this and you have MORE than enough chances. This is just a summary and I can dig deeper. All the issues are written in red after the item disputed when I checked the results of the investigation. \n\nFirst my name Experian has a misspelling of my name. Ive already had creditors tell me this inconsistent name makes me a lending risk when I was looking to prequalify. I have disputed this twice now and pertains to results from XXXX report # XXXX and report dated XXXX report # XXXX. \n\nThere is a notice stating that my address is associated with a car repair business. We have lived here 10 years and there has been no car repair business. Please get rid of this notice it is on the reports and not accurate. \n\nBelow are the accounts Ive disputed from these two reports and what is still wrong or what wasnt fixed. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX The payment history shows XXXX for JXXXX of XXXX. I have a letter from XXXX and have disputed this at least once and sent the letter from XXXX stating the account was charged off on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nMy last dispute I stated that you were missing the balance history for XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX. I asked that it be reported so it can be verified for accuracy. Instead all the balance history was deleted and now there is no way to verify the accuracy of this account because the payment statuses you show cant be checked against a balance history. \n\nTwo disputes ago I disputed the date of last payment and that it was different among the 3 bureaus. Instead of checking it for accuracy it was deleted. If there is no date of last payment I can understand why there is no longer a date that it should come off my report? Was it re-aged indefinitely since you removed this date? \n\nI disputed a few times the balance. If the amount owed was {$1800.00} and they wrote off {$1300.00} where did the {$550.00} difference go and how does that affect the reporting of this account? \n\nAs Ive disputed a couple times also, how can the Recent Payment be {$0.00}. If {$0.00} was paid then there would be no payment made. It wasnt changed and this is very misleading. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX This is the collection account from the XXXX account listed above. \n\nThe first issue and Ive disputed this multiple times is that the balance is reported as {$1800.00} but only {$1300.00} was written off. This just doesnt add up and seems like all the right numbers are in the right places. \n\nIt is showing Collection in the payment history remarks. The problem as Ive stated in my disputes was that the account was opened on XXXX but the first payment remark doesnt show up until XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe last item that stands out without doing a deep dive is the date it will be removed. As far as I understand this is based on the date of first delinquency. If this is the case my last okay remark on my XXXX card was XXXX of XXXX and my first 30 days late was XXXX of XXXX. Seven years from there are not the dates each bureau is reporting. \n\nXXXX is reporting XX/XX/XXXX as the date of first delinquency so removal would be XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting removal of XX/XX/XXXX Experian is reporting removal of XX/XX/XXXX That would mean all 3 have a wrong date of first delinquency being reported to them. I disputed this on both dispute letters. \n\nXXXX XXXX Experian chose not to investigate this account on the results from XXXX. \n\nThe biggest issue was the balance in the balance history went up and down and then back up again. That doesnt make sense on a collection account when no payments were made. I disputed this and the results from XXXX showed no change After the first investigation the status updated date said invalid date. \n\nThe date opened is listed as XXXX but doesnt start reporting payment history until XXXX. Incomplete information cant be verified as accurate. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Again Experian chose not to investigate this account on the results from XXXX. \n\nThe date opened is listed as XXXX but doesnt start reporting payment history until XXXX. Incomplete information cant be verified as accurate. \n\nIt lists the original creditor as XXXX XXXX. I still cant find any Creditor that is known as XXXX XXXX. I do know of a few creditors that issue XXXX XXXX to customers but there are a few like I said. I have disputed this in both of these disputes mentioned and at least one other time before these. \n\nXXXX Experian chose not to investigate this account on the results from XXXX. \n\nAgain Experian reported a recent payment of {$0.00}. How can this be? If nothing was paid it wouldnt be a payment. I disputed this on both disputes. \n\nAll of the XXXX history is missing after the first dispute, which I disputed in the second dispute. How can any of the payment history remarks be verified as accurate without this? I find the payment history remarks suspect because it never was 180 days late before it was charged off. Im not saying it has to be but it normally is. \n\nLast account would be XXXX XXXX higher education. \n\nSimply put and straight to the point it is missing 23 Payment remarks. The problem is when they were there, they started out going from an okay payment status remark one month to 60 or 90 days late the next. If the underlying information is flawed to where this cant report accurately, it should be removed. Missing 23 can really mess up the on time payment calculation. \n\nI have kept scans of everything I have sent them from these accounts including scans of the original disputes, a copy of the signature confirmation of them receiving disputes, the results and the next report following the investigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-03-17T19:43:34.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"535XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5334949","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2022-03-17T19:19:29.000Z","state":"WI","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":["Simply put and straight to the point it is missing 23 Payment remarks. The problem is when they were there, they started out going from an okay payment status remark one month to 60 or 90 days late the next. If the underlying information is flawed to where this cant report accurately, it should be removed. Missing 23 can really mess up the on time payment calculation."],"product":["Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[14.77737,"5334949"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17322109","_score":14.529954,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Type : Auto Loan Account Status : Charge Off / Collection/Charge-off Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$21000.00} Amount Past Due : {$21000.00} High Balance : {$30000.00} Months Reviewed : XXXX Payment History : No history is available You are simultaneously reporting this account as Collection/Charge-off with a large past due balance, while showing 0 months reviewed and no payment history available. This is internally inconsistent and fails to provide a complete, accurate, and properly documented history, which directly violates your duty of maximum possible accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ), 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ).\n\nAn account can not be accurately characterized as a serious derogatory ( charge-off/collection ) while at the same time containing no supporting payment history and XXXX months reviewed. This makes the tradeline incomplete, potentially misleading, and not reliably verifiable. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Account The report shows a charged-off account with XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Type : Other Status : Charge Off / Collection/Charge-off Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$29000.00} High Balance : {$29000.00} Remarks : Account Information Disputed by Consumer Unpaid Balance Reported as a Loss by XXXX XXXX Multiple entries showing open and closed statuses with the same account number, and conflicting activity dates. \nThis reporting is internally inconsistent and incomplete : It appears the same alleged obligation is being reported in multiple ways, including a closed status and a separate open charge-off / collection status, both with the same balance and account number. \nYou are showing Account Information Disputed by Consumer, confirming that I have previously disputed this tradeline, yet the account is still being reported in a derogatory status without evidence that a proper reinvestigation was completed. \nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ), you must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. Under FCRA 623 ( b ), the furnisher ( XXXX XXXX ) must investigate and verify any disputed information and must not continue to report information it knows or should know is inaccurate. \n\nXXXX XXXX Charged-Off Account The report shows a derogatory tradeline for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Type : Unsecured Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$1300.00} Status : Charge Off / Collection/Charge-off Times XX/XX/XXXX Days Late : XXXX Remarks : Unpaid Balance Reported As A Loss By XXXX XXXX, Account Information Disputed By Consumer Again, your own report confirms that this account has already been disputed, yet it is still reporting multiple severe delinquencies ( XX/XX/XXXX days late ) and a charge-off without any visible, complete payment history or documentation presented to me as the consumer. \nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ) and 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ), I am entitled to : A reasonable reinvestigation ; A full description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of disputed information ; The name, address, and telephone number of each furnisher contacted in connection with your reinvestigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-18T23:27:42.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"361XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17322109","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-18T23:27:19.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Account The report shows a derogatory tradeline for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Type : Unsecured Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$1300.00} Status : Charge Off / Collection/Charge-off Times XX/XX/XXXX Days Late : XXXX Remarks : Unpaid Balance Reported As A Loss By XXXX XXXX, Account Information Disputed By Consumer Again, your own report confirms that this account has already been disputed, yet it is still reporting multiple"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Improper use of your report"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Reporting company used your report improperly"]},"sort":[14.529954,"17322109"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17322442","_score":14.5258,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Type : Auto Loan Account Status : Charge Off / Collection/Charge-off Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$21000.00} Amount Past Due : {$21000.00} High Balance : {$30000.00} Months Reviewed : XXXX Payment History : No history is available You are simultaneously reporting this account as Collection/Charge-off with a large past due balance, while showing 0 months reviewed and no payment history available. This is internally inconsistent and fails to provide a complete, accurate, and properly documented history, which directly violates your duty of maximum possible accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ), 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ).\n\nAn account can not be accurately characterized as a serious derogatory ( charge-off/collection ) while at the same time containing no supporting payment history and XXXX months reviewed. This makes the tradeline incomplete, potentially misleading, and not reliably verifiable. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Account The report shows a charged-off account with XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Type : Other Status : Charge Off / Collection/Charge-off Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$29000.00} High Balance : {$29000.00} Remarks : Account Information Disputed by Consumer Unpaid Balance Reported as a Loss by XXXX XXXX Multiple entries showing open and closed statuses with the same account number, and conflicting activity dates. \nThis reporting is internally inconsistent and incomplete : It appears the same alleged obligation is being reported in multiple ways, including a closed status and a separate open charge-off / collection status, both with the same balance and account number. \nYou are showing Account Information Disputed by Consumer, confirming that I have previously disputed this tradeline, yet the account is still being reported in a derogatory status without evidence that a proper reinvestigation was completed. \nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ), you must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. Under FCRA 623 ( b ), the furnisher ( XXXX XXXX ) must investigate and verify any disputed information and must not continue to report information it knows or should know is inaccurate. \n\nXXXX XXXX Charged-Off Account The report shows a derogatory tradeline for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Type : Unsecured Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$1300.00} Status : Charge Off / Collection/Charge-off Times XX/XX/XXXX Days Late : XXXX Remarks : Unpaid Balance Reported As A Loss By XXXX XXXX, Account Information Disputed By Consumer Again, your own report confirms that this account has already been disputed, yet it is still reporting multiple severe delinquencies ( XX/XX/XXXX days late ) and a charge-off without any visible, complete payment history or documentation presented to me as the consumer. \nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ) and 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ), I am entitled to : A reasonable reinvestigation ; A full description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of disputed information ; The name, address, and telephone number of each furnisher contacted in connection with your reinvestigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-18T23:27:42.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"361XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17322442","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-18T22:38:41.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Account The report shows a derogatory tradeline for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Type : Unsecured Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$1300.00} Status : Charge Off / Collection/Charge-off Times XX/XX/XXXX Days Late : XXXX Remarks : Unpaid Balance Reported As A Loss By XXXX XXXX, Account Information Disputed By Consumer Again, your own report confirms that this account has already been disputed, yet it is still reporting multiple"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Improper use of your report"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Reporting company used your report improperly"]},"sort":[14.5258,"17322442"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14742461","_score":14.182506,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : This letter is a formal dispute regarding the major inconsistencies found in the reporting of my XXXX XXXX XXXX credit account. The information presented on my credit report is contradictory and demonstrates inaccurate reporting by the data furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and the consumer reporting agencies. \nKey Findings and Discrepancies * Contradictory Account Status : Open vs. Charged Off * The current details of my account ( Image XXXX ) present it as open and active. It shows a current balance of {$63.00}, a credit limit of {$1200.00}, and recent payment history for XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The primary alert states, \" You have missed a payment on this account. '' * However, a recent change to my report ( Image XXXX ) explicitly states that between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, a remark for \" Charged off account '' was removed. \n* Discrepancy : These XXXX statuses are mutually exclusive. An account can not be both open and actively reporting monthly payments while also being \" charged off. '' The fact that my account was reported as charged off just days ago is in direct conflict with its current presentation as an open, active account. This strongly suggests that the reporting is fundamentally inaccurate. \n* Inaccurate Reporting Following My Consumer Dispute * My credit report shows that a remark was recently added to the account : \" Consumer disputes- reinvestigation in progress '' ( Image XXXX ). This is correct, as I did initiate a dispute. \n* Following my dispute, the \" Charged off account '' remark was removed ( Image XXXX ). \n* Analysis : While a change was made as a result of my dispute, the outcome is still inaccurate. Instead of correcting the account to show a {$0.00} balance and closed status or deleting the account entirely, it has been modified to appear as a standard open account with simple delinquencies. The underlying negative information remains, but in a new, equally confusing and inaccurate context. \n* Violation of \" Maximum Possible Accuracy '' * The FCRA requires that CRAs follow \" reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy '' of the information in reports. \n* The combination of conflicting information ( open vs. charged off ), the confusing changes made after my dispute, and the remaining delinquencies creates a misleading picture of my account 's actual status and history. An account that was severe enough to be charged off should not suddenly appear as a standard open account with a couple of late payments. This reporting fails the standard of maximum possible accuracy. \n* Potential Mathematical Inaccuracy in Payment History * The account details ( Image XXXX ) state, \" You've made 75 % of payments on time. '' * My account was opened in XX/XX/XXXX, which is a XXXX period. The visible history for XXXX shows XXXX on-time payments and XXXX missed payments. \n* To achieve 75 % on-time payments over XXXX months, I would need approximately 6.75 on-time payments ( XXXX \\times 0.75 ). Even if my first XXXX payments were on time, that would be XXXX on-time payments out of XXXX total, which is 77.8\\ %. If only XXXX of the first XXXX were on time, that would be XXXX out of XXXX, or 66.7\\ %. The 75 % figure appears arbitrary and is another example of inaccurate data being reported on my account. \nLegal Framework : My Rights Under The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) My rights in this situation are protected by the FCRA. The key provisions are : * 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( FCRA 611 ) : This grants me the right to dispute inaccurate information on my credit report. The CRA must then conduct a \" reasonable reinvestigation '' within 30 days.\n\n* 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( FCRA 623 ) : This places duties on the furnisher of the information ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). Once notified of my dispute by a CRA, they must conduct their own investigation. If they find the information is inaccurate, incomplete, or can not be verified, they must notify all CRAs to which they reported to permanently delete or modify the information.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-18T18:43:18.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"75050","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14742461","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-18T18:42:49.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["* Inaccurate Reporting Following My Consumer Dispute * My credit report shows that a remark was recently added to the account : \" Consumer disputes- reinvestigation in progress '' ( Image XXXX ). This is correct, as I did initiate a dispute. \n* Following my dispute, the \" Charged off account '' remark was removed ( Image XXXX ). \n* Analysis : While a change was made as a result of my dispute, the outcome is still inaccurate."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[14.182506,"14742461"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14749216","_score":14.182278,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : This letter is a formal dispute regarding the major inconsistencies found in the reporting of my XXXX XXXX XXXX credit account. The information presented on my credit report is contradictory and demonstrates inaccurate reporting by the data furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and the consumer reporting agencies. \nKey Findings and Discrepancies * Contradictory Account Status : Open vs. Charged Off * The current details of my account ( Image XXXX ) present it as open and active. It shows a current balance of {$63.00}, a credit limit of {$1200.00}, and recent payment history for XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The primary alert states, \" You have missed a payment on this account. '' * However, a recent change to my report ( Image XXXX ) explicitly states that between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, a remark for \" Charged off account '' was removed. \n* Discrepancy : These XXXX statuses are mutually exclusive. An account can not be both open and actively reporting monthly payments while also being \" charged off. '' The fact that my account was reported as charged off just days ago is in direct conflict with its current presentation as an open, active account. This strongly suggests that the reporting is fundamentally inaccurate. \n* Inaccurate Reporting Following My Consumer Dispute * My credit report shows that a remark was recently added to the account : \" Consumer disputes- reinvestigation in progress '' ( Image XXXX ). This is correct, as I did initiate a dispute. \n* Following my dispute, the \" Charged off account '' remark was removed ( Image XXXX ). \n* Analysis : While a change was made as a result of my dispute, the outcome is still inaccurate. Instead of correcting the account to show a {$0.00} balance and closed status or deleting the account entirely, it has been modified to appear as a standard open account with simple delinquencies. The underlying negative information remains, but in a new, equally confusing and inaccurate context. \n* Violation of \" Maximum Possible Accuracy '' * The FCRA requires that CRAs follow \" reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy '' of the information in reports. \n* The combination of conflicting information ( open vs. charged off ), the confusing changes made after my dispute, and the remaining delinquencies creates a misleading picture of my account 's actual status and history. An account that was severe enough to be charged off should not suddenly appear as a standard open account with a couple of late payments. This reporting fails the standard of maximum possible accuracy. \n* Potential Mathematical Inaccuracy in Payment History * The account details ( Image XXXX ) state, \" You've made 75 % of payments on time. '' * My account was opened in XX/XX/XXXX, which is a XXXX period. The visible history for XXXX shows XXXX on-time payments and XXXX missed payments. \n* To achieve 75 % on-time payments over XXXX months, I would need approximately 6.75 on-time payments ( XXXX \\times 0.75 ). Even if my first XXXX payments were on time, that would be XXXX on-time payments out of XXXX total, which is 77.8\\ %. If only XXXX of the first XXXX were on time, that would be XXXX out of XXXX, or 66.7\\ %. The 75 % figure appears arbitrary and is another example of inaccurate data being reported on my account. \nLegal Framework : My Rights Under The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) My rights in this situation are protected by the FCRA. The key provisions are : * 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( FCRA 611 ) : This grants me the right to dispute inaccurate information on my credit report. The CRA must then conduct a \" reasonable reinvestigation '' within 30 days.\n\n* 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( FCRA 623 ) : This places duties on the furnisher of the information ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). Once notified of my dispute by a CRA, they must conduct their own investigation. If they find the information is inaccurate, incomplete, or can not be verified, they must notify all CRAs to which they reported to permanently delete or modify the information.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-18T18:43:19.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"75050","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14749216","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-18T18:42:49.000Z","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":["* Inaccurate Reporting Following My Consumer Dispute * My credit report shows that a remark was recently added to the account : \" Consumer disputes- reinvestigation in progress '' ( Image XXXX ). This is correct, as I did initiate a dispute. \n* Following my dispute, the \" Charged off account '' remark was removed ( Image XXXX ). \n* Analysis : While a change was made as a result of my dispute, the outcome is still inaccurate."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[14.182278,"14749216"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14740714","_score":14.182278,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : This letter is a formal dispute regarding the major inconsistencies found in the reporting of my XXXX XXXX XXXX credit account. The information presented on my credit report is contradictory and demonstrates inaccurate reporting by the data furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and the consumer reporting agencies. \nKey Findings and Discrepancies * Contradictory Account Status : Open vs. Charged Off * The current details of my account ( Image XXXX ) present it as open and active. It shows a current balance of {$63.00}, a credit limit of {$1200.00}, and recent payment history for XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The primary alert states, \" You have missed a payment on this account. '' * However, a recent change to my report ( Image XXXX ) explicitly states that between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, a remark for \" Charged off account '' was removed. \n* Discrepancy : These XXXX statuses are mutually exclusive. An account can not be both open and actively reporting monthly payments while also being \" charged off. '' The fact that my account was reported as charged off just days ago is in direct conflict with its current presentation as an open, active account. This strongly suggests that the reporting is fundamentally inaccurate. \n* Inaccurate Reporting Following My Consumer Dispute * My credit report shows that a remark was recently added to the account : \" Consumer disputes- reinvestigation in progress '' ( Image XXXX ). This is correct, as I did initiate a dispute. \n* Following my dispute, the \" Charged off account '' remark was removed ( Image XXXX ). \n* Analysis : While a change was made as a result of my dispute, the outcome is still inaccurate. Instead of correcting the account to show a {$0.00} balance and closed status or deleting the account entirely, it has been modified to appear as a standard open account with simple delinquencies. The underlying negative information remains, but in a new, equally confusing and inaccurate context. \n* Violation of \" Maximum Possible Accuracy '' * The FCRA requires that CRAs follow \" reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy '' of the information in reports. \n* The combination of conflicting information ( open vs. charged off ), the confusing changes made after my dispute, and the remaining delinquencies creates a misleading picture of my account 's actual status and history. An account that was severe enough to be charged off should not suddenly appear as a standard open account with a couple of late payments. This reporting fails the standard of maximum possible accuracy. \n* Potential Mathematical Inaccuracy in Payment History * The account details ( Image XXXX ) state, \" You've made 75 % of payments on time. '' * My account was opened in XX/XX/XXXX, which is a XXXX period. The visible history for XXXX shows XXXX on-time payments and XXXX missed payments. \n* To achieve 75 % on-time payments over XXXX months, I would need approximately 6.75 on-time payments ( XXXX \\times 0.75 ). Even if my first XXXX payments were on time, that would be XXXX on-time payments out of XXXX total, which is 77.8\\ %. If only XXXX of the first XXXX were on time, that would be XXXX out of XXXX, or 66.7\\ %. The 75 % figure appears arbitrary and is another example of inaccurate data being reported on my account. \nLegal Framework : My Rights Under The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) My rights in this situation are protected by the FCRA. The key provisions are : * 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( FCRA 611 ) : This grants me the right to dispute inaccurate information on my credit report. The CRA must then conduct a \" reasonable reinvestigation '' within 30 days.\n\n* 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( FCRA 623 ) : This places duties on the furnisher of the information ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). Once notified of my dispute by a CRA, they must conduct their own investigation. If they find the information is inaccurate, incomplete, or can not be verified, they must notify all CRAs to which they reported to permanently delete or modify the information.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-18T18:43:23.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"75050","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14740714","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-18T18:12:11.000Z","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":["* Inaccurate Reporting Following My Consumer Dispute * My credit report shows that a remark was recently added to the account : \" Consumer disputes- reinvestigation in progress '' ( Image XXXX ). This is correct, as I did initiate a dispute. \n* Following my dispute, the \" Charged off account '' remark was removed ( Image XXXX ). \n* Analysis : While a change was made as a result of my dispute, the outcome is still inaccurate."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[14.182278,"14740714"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14088561","_score":13.227563,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Formal Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting by PRO COLLECT FCRA/FDCPA Violation Dear CFPB Representative, I am filing a formal dispute concerning an account being reported on my credit file by PRO COLLECT, which appears to contain inconsistent, incomplete, and potentially unlawful credit reporting in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681, and possibly the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692, if XXXX XXXX is acting as a debt collector. \n\nAccount Information : Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Months Reviewed : XXXX Terms Count : XXXX Current Payment Status : Collection/Charge-Off Payment History : None Remarks : Account Information Disputed by Consumer Dispute Basis : This account is being reported as \" in good standing '', yet simultaneously listed as a \" charge-off/collection '', which is contradictory and misleading. Further, the reporting includes : XXXX late payments, yet the account is in charge-off status which typically requires a history of delinquency. \n\nNo payment history or terms reviewed, which prevents any verification of default. \n\nA balance of {$1000.00} due with 100 % of the loan left unpaid, yet no clear timeline or payment structure to justify the charge-off. \n\nMarked as disputed by consumer, yet there is no visible resolution or evidence of investigation as required by law. \n\nLegal Violations Cited : Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Furnishers must not report inaccurate or incomplete information.\n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : After being notified of a dispute, furnishers must conduct a reasonable investigation and correct or remove unverifiable information.\n\n1681e ( b ) : Requires reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information.\n\nUnder the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 1692e ( 8 ) : Prohibits reporting of false or misleading credit information, including failure to communicate that a debt is disputed.\n\n1692g : Requires debt collectors to provide debt validation upon request and to cease collection until validation is provided. \n\nRequested Action : I am requesting that the CFPB : Investigate the accuracy and completeness of the data reported by XXXX XXXX \n\nRequire that XXXX XXXX provide full documentation validating the debt, including original agreement, itemized charges, and history of communications. \n\nOrder removal of any inaccurate, unverifiable, or misleading information that does not comply with the FCRA and FDCPA. \n\nThis account, as currently reported, is harming my creditworthiness and appears to be maintained in violation of federal consumer protection laws. \n\nThank you for your time and attention to this matter. \n______________________________________________________________________ To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Dispute of Inaccurate Reporting by XXXX XXXX Violations Dear CFPB Representative, I am filing this complaint and formal dispute regarding an account being reported on my credit report by XXXX, which I believe is being reported inaccurately and inconsistently, and possibly in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. \n\nAccount Details : Creditor : XXXX Partial Account Number : XXXX Account Status : Charge-Off Balance : {$1000.00} Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Highest Balance : {$1000.00} High Credit : {$1000.00} Responsibility : Individual Current Payment Status : Collection/Charge-Off Amount Past Due : {$1000.00} Times XX/XX/XXXX Days Late : XXXX Months Reviewed : XXXX Terms Count : XXXX Payment History : Not Available Remarks : \" Account Information Disputed By Consumer '' Reasons for Dispute : The account is labeled as both \" in good standing '' and \" charge-off/collection '', which is contradictory and misleading. \n\nThe account shows no late payments ( XXXX ) and no reviewed months, which is inconsistent with a valid charge-off designation. \n\nThere is no payment history, yet the balance remains at 100 % and is considered in default. \n\nIt states that the account is \" disputed by consumer '', but no indication is given that a reinvestigation has occurred, nor has any documentation been provided in accordance with the FCRA. \n\nIf XXXX is acting as a third-party collector, they are legally required to validate the debt upon request and cease reporting or collecting until validation is provided. \n\nViolations of Applicable Law : Under the FCRA : 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Information furnished to consumer reporting agencies must be accurate and complete.\n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : Upon notice of a dispute, the furnisher must conduct a reasonable investigation and correct or delete any information that is inaccurate or can not be verified.\n\n1681e ( b ) : Consumer reporting agencies must ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information they include in credit reports. \n\nUnder the FDCPA ( if XXXX is a debt collector ) : 1692g : Consumers have the right to request debt validation, and collectors must cease collection efforts until verification is provided.\n\n1692e ( 8 ) : Prohibits furnishing of information that is known or should be known to be false, including failure to communicate that a debt is disputed. \n\nRequested Resolution : I am respectfully requesting that the CFPB : Investigate this accounts reporting for compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA. \n\nRequire XXXX to provide proper documentation verifying the debt, including original creditor agreement, itemization of the balance, and history of the account. \n\nDirect the removal of any data that is found to be inaccurate, incomplete, unverifiable, or misleading. \n\nI appreciate your help in resolving this matter that is having a negative and unjustified impact on my credit profile. \n______________________________________________________________________ To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Violations Dear CFPB Representative, I am submitting this formal complaint and dispute regarding a derogatory entry reported by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX that is being inaccurately and potentially unlawfully maintained on my credit report, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S. Code 1681 et seq., and possibly the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S. Code 1692 et seq., if XXXX XXXX XXXX is operating as a third-party debt collector. \n\nAccount Information : XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX Partial Account Number : XXXX Account Status : Charge-Off Balance : {$9000.00} Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Responsibility : Joint Contractual Liability Remarks : \" Unpaid Balance Reported As A Loss By Credit Grantor, Dispute Resolved - Consumer Disagrees '' High Credit/Balance : {$9000.00} Monthly Payment : {$0.00} Past Due Amount : {$9000.00} Late Payments : XXXX Payment History : Not Available Status : Collection/Charge-off Reporting Agency : Experian Dispute Basis : No late payments are recorded ( XXXX ), yet the account is listed as a charge-off, which is contradictory. Charge-offs typically result from significant delinquencies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n\nThe last activity date matches the open date ( XX/XX/XXXX ), indicating no payment activity and no verified debt aging process. \n\nThe account shows no payment history or terms, making it unverifiable and incomplete as required by FCRA 1681s-2. \n\nThe account is reported as Dispute Resolved Consumer Disagrees, which under FCRA 1681i ( b ) and 1681s-2 ( b ), triggers a requirement for reasonable investigation, yet no supporting documents or resolution evidence has been made available. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX XXXX is acting as a debt collector, they are obligated under FDCPA 809 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ) to validate the debt upon dispute and under 1692e ( 8 ) to refrain from reporting unverifiable or misleading information to credit reporting agencies. \n\nLegal Provisions Cited : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Duty to furnish accurate and complete information.\n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : Duty to investigate and correct inaccurate information once a dispute is filed.\n\n1681e ( b ) : CRA must ensure maximum possible accuracy.\n\n1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) : If the information can not be verified, it must be deleted.\n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 1692g ( b ) : Requires collectors to validate the debt and cease collection until validated.\n\n1692e ( 8 ) : Prohibits furnishing false or misleading credit information, including failing to indicate a debt is disputed. \n\nRequested Action : I respectfully request that the CFPB : Investigate the accuracy and legal compliance of the reporting practices by XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nRequire validation and documentation of this alleged debt, including the original signed agreement, breakdown of charges, and assignment history if the debt was sold. \n\nDirect Experian and the furnisher to remove the tradeline if the information is unverifiable, incomplete, or inconsistent with FCRA standards. \n\nThis inaccurate and outdated account is harming my credit and fails to meet the legal standards set forth by federal law. I appreciate your help in resolving this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-15T12:35:41.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30213","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14088561","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-15T12:34:56.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Account Details : Creditor : XXXX Partial Account Number : XXXX Account Status : Charge-Off Balance : {$1000.00} Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Highest Balance : {$1000.00} High Credit : {$1000.00} Responsibility : Individual Current Payment Status : Collection/Charge-Off Amount Past Due : {$1000.00} Times XX/XX/XXXX Days Late : XXXX Months Reviewed : XXXX Terms Count : XXXX Payment History : Not Available Remarks : \" Account Information Disputed By Consumer '' Reasons for Dispute"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"]},"sort":[13.227563,"14088561"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14086314","_score":13.227563,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Formal Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting by PRO COLLECT FCRA/FDCPA Violation Dear CFPB Representative, I am filing a formal dispute concerning an account being reported on my credit file by PRO COLLECT, which appears to contain inconsistent, incomplete, and potentially unlawful credit reporting in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681, and possibly the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692, if XXXX XXXX is acting as a debt collector. \n\nAccount Information : Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Months Reviewed : XXXX Terms Count : XXXX Current Payment Status : Collection/Charge-Off Payment History : None Remarks : Account Information Disputed by Consumer Dispute Basis : This account is being reported as \" in good standing '', yet simultaneously listed as a \" charge-off/collection '', which is contradictory and misleading. Further, the reporting includes : XXXX late payments, yet the account is in charge-off status which typically requires a history of delinquency. \n\nNo payment history or terms reviewed, which prevents any verification of default. \n\nA balance of {$1000.00} due with 100 % of the loan left unpaid, yet no clear timeline or payment structure to justify the charge-off. \n\nMarked as disputed by consumer, yet there is no visible resolution or evidence of investigation as required by law. \n\nLegal Violations Cited : Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Furnishers must not report inaccurate or incomplete information.\n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : After being notified of a dispute, furnishers must conduct a reasonable investigation and correct or remove unverifiable information.\n\n1681e ( b ) : Requires reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information.\n\nUnder the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 1692e ( 8 ) : Prohibits reporting of false or misleading credit information, including failure to communicate that a debt is disputed.\n\n1692g : Requires debt collectors to provide debt validation upon request and to cease collection until validation is provided. \n\nRequested Action : I am requesting that the CFPB : Investigate the accuracy and completeness of the data reported by XXXX XXXX \n\nRequire that XXXX XXXX provide full documentation validating the debt, including original agreement, itemized charges, and history of communications. \n\nOrder removal of any inaccurate, unverifiable, or misleading information that does not comply with the FCRA and FDCPA. \n\nThis account, as currently reported, is harming my creditworthiness and appears to be maintained in violation of federal consumer protection laws. \n\nThank you for your time and attention to this matter. \n______________________________________________________________________ To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Dispute of Inaccurate Reporting by XXXX XXXX Violations Dear CFPB Representative, I am filing this complaint and formal dispute regarding an account being reported on my credit report by XXXX, which I believe is being reported inaccurately and inconsistently, and possibly in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. \n\nAccount Details : Creditor : XXXX Partial Account Number : XXXX Account Status : Charge-Off Balance : {$1000.00} Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Highest Balance : {$1000.00} High Credit : {$1000.00} Responsibility : Individual Current Payment Status : Collection/Charge-Off Amount Past Due : {$1000.00} Times XX/XX/XXXX Days Late : XXXX Months Reviewed : XXXX Terms Count : XXXX Payment History : Not Available Remarks : \" Account Information Disputed By Consumer '' Reasons for Dispute : The account is labeled as both \" in good standing '' and \" charge-off/collection '', which is contradictory and misleading. \n\nThe account shows no late payments ( XXXX ) and no reviewed months, which is inconsistent with a valid charge-off designation. \n\nThere is no payment history, yet the balance remains at 100 % and is considered in default. \n\nIt states that the account is \" disputed by consumer '', but no indication is given that a reinvestigation has occurred, nor has any documentation been provided in accordance with the FCRA. \n\nIf XXXX is acting as a third-party collector, they are legally required to validate the debt upon request and cease reporting or collecting until validation is provided. \n\nViolations of Applicable Law : Under the FCRA : 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Information furnished to consumer reporting agencies must be accurate and complete.\n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : Upon notice of a dispute, the furnisher must conduct a reasonable investigation and correct or delete any information that is inaccurate or can not be verified.\n\n1681e ( b ) : Consumer reporting agencies must ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information they include in credit reports. \n\nUnder the FDCPA ( if XXXX is a debt collector ) : 1692g : Consumers have the right to request debt validation, and collectors must cease collection efforts until verification is provided.\n\n1692e ( 8 ) : Prohibits furnishing of information that is known or should be known to be false, including failure to communicate that a debt is disputed. \n\nRequested Resolution : I am respectfully requesting that the CFPB : Investigate this accounts reporting for compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA. \n\nRequire XXXX to provide proper documentation verifying the debt, including original creditor agreement, itemization of the balance, and history of the account. \n\nDirect the removal of any data that is found to be inaccurate, incomplete, unverifiable, or misleading. \n\nI appreciate your help in resolving this matter that is having a negative and unjustified impact on my credit profile. \n______________________________________________________________________ To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Violations Dear CFPB Representative, I am submitting this formal complaint and dispute regarding a derogatory entry reported by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX that is being inaccurately and potentially unlawfully maintained on my credit report, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S. Code 1681 et seq., and possibly the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S. Code 1692 et seq., if XXXX XXXX XXXX is operating as a third-party debt collector. \n\nAccount Information : XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX Partial Account Number : XXXX Account Status : Charge-Off Balance : {$9000.00} Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Responsibility : Joint Contractual Liability Remarks : \" Unpaid Balance Reported As A Loss By Credit Grantor, Dispute Resolved - Consumer Disagrees '' High Credit/Balance : {$9000.00} Monthly Payment : {$0.00} Past Due Amount : {$9000.00} Late Payments : XXXX Payment History : Not Available Status : Collection/Charge-off Reporting Agency : Experian Dispute Basis : No late payments are recorded ( XXXX ), yet the account is listed as a charge-off, which is contradictory. Charge-offs typically result from significant delinquencies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n\nThe last activity date matches the open date ( XX/XX/XXXX ), indicating no payment activity and no verified debt aging process. \n\nThe account shows no payment history or terms, making it unverifiable and incomplete as required by FCRA 1681s-2. \n\nThe account is reported as Dispute Resolved Consumer Disagrees, which under FCRA 1681i ( b ) and 1681s-2 ( b ), triggers a requirement for reasonable investigation, yet no supporting documents or resolution evidence has been made available. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX XXXX is acting as a debt collector, they are obligated under FDCPA 809 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ) to validate the debt upon dispute and under 1692e ( 8 ) to refrain from reporting unverifiable or misleading information to credit reporting agencies. \n\nLegal Provisions Cited : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Duty to furnish accurate and complete information.\n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : Duty to investigate and correct inaccurate information once a dispute is filed.\n\n1681e ( b ) : CRA must ensure maximum possible accuracy.\n\n1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) : If the information can not be verified, it must be deleted.\n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 1692g ( b ) : Requires collectors to validate the debt and cease collection until validated.\n\n1692e ( 8 ) : Prohibits furnishing false or misleading credit information, including failing to indicate a debt is disputed. \n\nRequested Action : I respectfully request that the CFPB : Investigate the accuracy and legal compliance of the reporting practices by XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nRequire validation and documentation of this alleged debt, including the original signed agreement, breakdown of charges, and assignment history if the debt was sold. \n\nDirect Experian and the furnisher to remove the tradeline if the information is unverifiable, incomplete, or inconsistent with FCRA standards. \n\nThis inaccurate and outdated account is harming my credit and fails to meet the legal standards set forth by federal law. I appreciate your help in resolving this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-15T12:35:37.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30213","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14086314","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-15T12:16:04.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Account Details : Creditor : XXXX Partial Account Number : XXXX Account Status : Charge-Off Balance : {$1000.00} Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Highest Balance : {$1000.00} High Credit : {$1000.00} Responsibility : Individual Current Payment Status : Collection/Charge-Off Amount Past Due : {$1000.00} Times XX/XX/XXXX Days Late : XXXX Months Reviewed : XXXX Terms Count : XXXX Payment History : Not Available Remarks : \" Account Information Disputed By Consumer '' Reasons for Dispute"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"]},"sort":[13.227563,"14086314"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14088560","_score":13.193564,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Formal Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting by PRO COLLECT FCRA/FDCPA Violation Dear CFPB Representative, I am filing a formal dispute concerning an account being reported on my credit file by PRO COLLECT, which appears to contain inconsistent, incomplete, and potentially unlawful credit reporting in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681, and possibly the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692, if XXXX XXXX is acting as a debt collector. \n\nAccount Information : Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Months Reviewed : XXXX Terms Count : XXXX Current Payment Status : Collection/Charge-Off Payment History : None Remarks : Account Information Disputed by Consumer Dispute Basis : This account is being reported as \" in good standing '', yet simultaneously listed as a \" charge-off/collection '', which is contradictory and misleading. Further, the reporting includes : XXXX late payments, yet the account is in charge-off status which typically requires a history of delinquency. \n\nNo payment history or terms reviewed, which prevents any verification of default. \n\nA balance of {$1000.00} due with 100 % of the loan left unpaid, yet no clear timeline or payment structure to justify the charge-off. \n\nMarked as disputed by consumer, yet there is no visible resolution or evidence of investigation as required by law. \n\nLegal Violations Cited : Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Furnishers must not report inaccurate or incomplete information.\n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : After being notified of a dispute, furnishers must conduct a reasonable investigation and correct or remove unverifiable information.\n\n1681e ( b ) : Requires reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information.\n\nUnder the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 1692e ( 8 ) : Prohibits reporting of false or misleading credit information, including failure to communicate that a debt is disputed.\n\n1692g : Requires debt collectors to provide debt validation upon request and to cease collection until validation is provided. \n\nRequested Action : I am requesting that the CFPB : Investigate the accuracy and completeness of the data reported by XXXX XXXX \n\nRequire that XXXX XXXX provide full documentation validating the debt, including original agreement, itemized charges, and history of communications. \n\nOrder removal of any inaccurate, unverifiable, or misleading information that does not comply with the FCRA and FDCPA. \n\nThis account, as currently reported, is harming my creditworthiness and appears to be maintained in violation of federal consumer protection laws. \n\nThank you for your time and attention to this matter. \n______________________________________________________________________ To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Dispute of Inaccurate Reporting by XXXX XXXX Violations Dear CFPB Representative, I am filing this complaint and formal dispute regarding an account being reported on my credit report by XXXX, which I believe is being reported inaccurately and inconsistently, and possibly in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. \n\nAccount Details : Creditor : XXXX Partial Account Number : XXXX Account Status : Charge-Off Balance : {$1000.00} Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Highest Balance : {$1000.00} High Credit : {$1000.00} Responsibility : Individual Current Payment Status : Collection/Charge-Off Amount Past Due : {$1000.00} Times XX/XX/XXXX Days Late : XXXX Months Reviewed : XXXX Terms Count : XXXX Payment History : Not Available Remarks : \" Account Information Disputed By Consumer '' Reasons for Dispute : The account is labeled as both \" in good standing '' and \" charge-off/collection '', which is contradictory and misleading. \n\nThe account shows no late payments ( XXXX ) and no reviewed months, which is inconsistent with a valid charge-off designation. \n\nThere is no payment history, yet the balance remains at 100 % and is considered in default. \n\nIt states that the account is \" disputed by consumer '', but no indication is given that a reinvestigation has occurred, nor has any documentation been provided in accordance with the FCRA. \n\nIf XXXX is acting as a third-party collector, they are legally required to validate the debt upon request and cease reporting or collecting until validation is provided. \n\nViolations of Applicable Law : Under the FCRA : 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Information furnished to consumer reporting agencies must be accurate and complete.\n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : Upon notice of a dispute, the furnisher must conduct a reasonable investigation and correct or delete any information that is inaccurate or can not be verified.\n\n1681e ( b ) : Consumer reporting agencies must ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information they include in credit reports. \n\nUnder the FDCPA ( if XXXX is a debt collector ) : 1692g : Consumers have the right to request debt validation, and collectors must cease collection efforts until verification is provided.\n\n1692e ( 8 ) : Prohibits furnishing of information that is known or should be known to be false, including failure to communicate that a debt is disputed. \n\nRequested Resolution : I am respectfully requesting that the CFPB : Investigate this accounts reporting for compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA. \n\nRequire XXXX to provide proper documentation verifying the debt, including original creditor agreement, itemization of the balance, and history of the account. \n\nDirect the removal of any data that is found to be inaccurate, incomplete, unverifiable, or misleading. \n\nI appreciate your help in resolving this matter that is having a negative and unjustified impact on my credit profile. \n______________________________________________________________________ To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Violations Dear CFPB Representative, I am submitting this formal complaint and dispute regarding a derogatory entry reported by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX that is being inaccurately and potentially unlawfully maintained on my credit report, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S. Code 1681 et seq., and possibly the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S. Code 1692 et seq., if XXXX XXXX XXXX is operating as a third-party debt collector. \n\nAccount Information : XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX Partial Account Number : XXXX Account Status : Charge-Off Balance : {$9000.00} Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Responsibility : Joint Contractual Liability Remarks : \" Unpaid Balance Reported As A Loss By Credit Grantor, Dispute Resolved - Consumer Disagrees '' High Credit/Balance : {$9000.00} Monthly Payment : {$0.00} Past Due Amount : {$9000.00} Late Payments : XXXX Payment History : Not Available Status : Collection/Charge-off Reporting Agency : Experian Dispute Basis : No late payments are recorded ( XXXX ), yet the account is listed as a charge-off, which is contradictory. Charge-offs typically result from significant delinquencies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n\nThe last activity date matches the open date ( XX/XX/XXXX ), indicating no payment activity and no verified debt aging process. \n\nThe account shows no payment history or terms, making it unverifiable and incomplete as required by FCRA 1681s-2. \n\nThe account is reported as Dispute Resolved Consumer Disagrees, which under FCRA 1681i ( b ) and 1681s-2 ( b ), triggers a requirement for reasonable investigation, yet no supporting documents or resolution evidence has been made available. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX XXXX is acting as a debt collector, they are obligated under FDCPA 809 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ) to validate the debt upon dispute and under 1692e ( 8 ) to refrain from reporting unverifiable or misleading information to credit reporting agencies. \n\nLegal Provisions Cited : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Duty to furnish accurate and complete information.\n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : Duty to investigate and correct inaccurate information once a dispute is filed.\n\n1681e ( b ) : CRA must ensure maximum possible accuracy.\n\n1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) : If the information can not be verified, it must be deleted.\n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 1692g ( b ) : Requires collectors to validate the debt and cease collection until validated.\n\n1692e ( 8 ) : Prohibits furnishing false or misleading credit information, including failing to indicate a debt is disputed. \n\nRequested Action : I respectfully request that the CFPB : Investigate the accuracy and legal compliance of the reporting practices by XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nRequire validation and documentation of this alleged debt, including the original signed agreement, breakdown of charges, and assignment history if the debt was sold. \n\nDirect Experian and the furnisher to remove the tradeline if the information is unverifiable, incomplete, or inconsistent with FCRA standards. \n\nThis inaccurate and outdated account is harming my credit and fails to meet the legal standards set forth by federal law. I appreciate your help in resolving this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-15T12:35:38.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30213","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14088560","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-15T12:34:56.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Account Details : Creditor : XXXX Partial Account Number : XXXX Account Status : Charge-Off Balance : {$1000.00} Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Highest Balance : {$1000.00} High Credit : {$1000.00} Responsibility : Individual Current Payment Status : Collection/Charge-Off Amount Past Due : {$1000.00} Times XX/XX/XXXX Days Late : XXXX Months Reviewed : XXXX Terms Count : XXXX Payment History : Not Available Remarks : \" Account Information Disputed By Consumer '' Reasons for Dispute"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"]},"sort":[13.193564,"14088560"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14909898","_score":13.139539,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Subject : Complaint Regarding Inaccurate Late Payments and Missed Payments on Credit Report Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally file a complaint regarding the inaccurate reporting of late payments and missed payments on my credit report, which is negatively impacting my credit score. Upon reviewing my credit report from [ Credit Reporting Agency ] dated [ Date of Report ], I have identified several entries that I believe are inaccurate, misleading, and in violation of my rights under federal law.\n\nDetails of Inaccuracies : Account Name : Ally Financial Account Number : XXXX Date ( s ) of Inaccurate Report : It continuously shows 60 to 89 days past due with 20 missed payments. But my payments are up to date and not delinquent. Next payment is due XX/XX/XXXX and the payment is {$510.00}. \n\nReported Late Payment/Missed Payment : It continuously shows 60 to 89 days past due with 20 missed payments. As of today XX/XX/XXXX this account is up to date. \n\nThese entries do not reflect the accurate history of my payments and account management. To the best of my knowledge and record-keeping, I have not missed any payments, nor have I made payments that were late as reported. These inaccuracies appear to be a result of a system error, processing delay, or incorrect reporting from the creditor Ally Financial. \n\nLegal Basis for My Complaint : I am invoking my rights under the following federal laws and regulations : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681, credit reporting agencies and furnishers of credit information are legally required to ensure that the information they report is accurate, complete, and up-to-date. The FCRA further mandates that if a consumer disputes an item on their credit report, the credit reporting agency must investigate the dispute and resolve it within 30 days.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Requires that consumer reporting agencies maintain and report information that is accurate and fair to ensure the credit report is an accurate reflection of the consumer 's credit history.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Ensures that any consumer dispute regarding inaccurate information is investigated within 30 days by the credit reporting agency and the information is corrected or removed if it is found to be inaccurate.\n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) If these late payments are being reported by a third-party debt collector, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692, prohibits collectors from reporting false information to credit bureaus.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ) : States that debt collectors are prohibited from communicating false information about the status of any debt, including information related to late payments, missed payments, or non-payment.\n\nConsumer Credit Protection Act ( CCPA ) Under Section 602 of the CCPA, all consumer reporting agencies must comply with requirements to report accurate data, and creditors are held accountable for providing accurate data to credit bureaus.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) : Creditors must ensure that the information they provide to credit reporting agencies is accurate and must investigate any disputes regarding inaccuracies in their reporting.\n\nRequested Actions : I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate the inaccuracies on my credit report. Specifically, I am asking that : The disputed entries related to late payments and missed payments be reviewed for accuracy and, if found to be incorrect, promptly removed or corrected.\n\nThe credit reporting agencies take immediate corrective action, including updating my credit report with accurate payment history.\n\nA full investigation be conducted into any discrepancies with the reporting by my creditors, and any errors be rectified in accordance with the FCRA, FDCPA, and CCPA.\n\nI have attached the relevant documentation to support my claim, including copies of my credit report, payment history, and any correspondence with the creditor ( s ) in question. Please confirm receipt of this complaint and keep me informed about the progress of your investigation.\n\nThank you for your attention to this important matter. I trust that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will take appropriate action to ensure that my rights under federal law are protected. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Attachments : Payment History Youve made 38 % of payments for this account on time.\n\nPayment history table, broken down by month XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning XXXX Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning XXXX Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning XXXX Warning Warning Warning Current Warning Late Warning Unknown Warning Derogatory Last payment XXXX. XXXX, XXXX Current Payment Status 30-59 Days Late Worst Payment Status 90-119 Days Late Account Details Account status Derogatory Type Automobile Responsibility Contractually liable Remarks Repossession ; redeemed Repossession ; redeemed Times 30/60/90+ days late XXXX Closed No Info Creditor Information ALLY FINCL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-27T17:30:48.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78244","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14909898","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","date_received":"2025-07-27T16:22:30.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX, XXXX Current Payment Status 30-59 Days Late Worst Payment Status 90-119 Days Late Account Details Account status Derogatory Type Automobile Responsibility Contractually liable Remarks Repossession ; redeemed Repossession ; redeemed Times 30/60/90+ days late XXXX Closed No Info Creditor Information ALLY FINCL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect information on your report"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"]},"sort":[13.139539,"14909898"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14910552","_score":13.1354885,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Subject : Complaint Regarding Inaccurate Late Payments and Missed Payments on Credit Report Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally file a complaint regarding the inaccurate reporting of late payments and missed payments on my credit report, which is negatively impacting my credit score. Upon reviewing my credit report from [ Credit Reporting Agency ] dated [ Date of Report ], I have identified several entries that I believe are inaccurate, misleading, and in violation of my rights under federal law. \n\nDetails of Inaccuracies : Account Name : XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Date ( s ) of Inaccurate Report : It continuously shows XXXX to 89 days past due with 20 missed payments. But my payments are up to date and not delinquent. Next payment is due XX/XX/XXXX and the payment is {$510.00}. \n\nReported Late Payment/Missed Payment : It continuously shows 60 to 89 days past due with 20 missed payments. As of today XX/XX/XXXX this account is up to date. \n\nThese entries do not reflect the accurate history of my payments and account management. To the best of my knowledge and record-keeping, I have not missed any payments, nor have I made payments that were late as reported. These inaccuracies appear to be a result of a system error, processing delay, or incorrect reporting from the creditor XXXX XXXX. \n\nLegal Basis for My Complaint : I am invoking my rights under the following federal laws and regulations : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681, credit reporting agencies and furnishers of credit information are legally required to ensure that the information they report is accurate, complete, and up-to-date. The FCRA further mandates that if a consumer disputes an item on their credit report, the credit reporting agency must investigate the dispute and resolve it within 30 days.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Requires that consumer reporting agencies maintain and report information that is accurate and fair to ensure the credit report is an accurate reflection of the consumer 's credit history.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Ensures that any consumer dispute regarding inaccurate information is investigated within 30 days by the credit reporting agency and the information is corrected or removed if it is found to be inaccurate.\n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) If these late payments are being reported by a third-party debt collector, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692, prohibits collectors from reporting false information to credit bureaus.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ) : States that debt collectors are prohibited from communicating false information about the status of any debt, including information related to late payments, missed payments, or non-payment.\n\nConsumer Credit Protection Act ( CCPA ) Under Section 602 of the CCPA, all consumer reporting agencies must comply with requirements to report accurate data, and creditors are held accountable for providing accurate data to credit bureaus.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) : Creditors must ensure that the information they provide to credit reporting agencies is accurate and must investigate any disputes regarding inaccuracies in their reporting.\n\nRequested Actions : I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate the inaccuracies on my credit report. Specifically, I am asking that : The disputed entries related to late payments and missed payments be reviewed for accuracy and, if found to be incorrect, promptly removed or corrected.\n\nThe credit reporting agencies take immediate corrective action, including updating my credit report with accurate payment history.\n\nA full investigation be conducted into any discrepancies with the reporting by my creditors, and any errors be rectified in accordance with the FCRA, FDCPA, and CCPA.\n\nI have attached the relevant documentation to support my claim, including copies of my credit report, payment history, and any correspondence with the creditor ( s ) in question. Please confirm receipt of this complaint and keep me informed about the progress of your investigation.\n\nThank you for your attention to this important matter. I trust that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will take appropriate action to ensure that my rights under federal law are protected. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Attachments : Payment History Youve made 38 % of payments for this account on time.\n\nPayment history table, broken down by month XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning XXXX Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning 2023 Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning Warning XXXX Warning Warning Warning Current Warning Late Warning Unknown Warning Derogatory Last payment XXXX. XXXX, XXXX Current Payment Status 30-59 Days Late Worst Payment Status 90-119 Days Late Account Details Account status Derogatory Type Automobile Responsibility Contractually liable Remarks Repossession ; redeemed Repossession ; redeemed Times 30/60/90+ days late XXXX Closed No Info Creditor Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-27T17:30:48.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78244","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14910552","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CL Holdings LLC","date_received":"2025-07-27T17:30:23.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX, XXXX Current Payment Status 30-59 Days Late Worst Payment Status 90-119 Days Late Account Details Account status Derogatory Type Automobile Responsibility Contractually liable Remarks Repossession ; redeemed Repossession ; redeemed Times 30/60/90+ days late XXXX Closed No Info Creditor Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect information on your report"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"]},"sort":[13.1354885,"14910552"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12666640","_score":12.6736355,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Rebuttal to Truist Banks Inadequate Response to Dispute Over Inaccurate Credit Reporting ( Complaint ID : XXXX ) Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX am writing to formally and firmly rebut Truist Banks wholly unsatisfactory response to my dispute concerning their erroneous reporting of a charged-off credit card account to XXXX. Truists letter, dated XX/XX/XXXX, provides new details, such as the charge-off date of XX/XX/XXXX, and a payment of {$79.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, yet they persist in reporting glaring inaccuracies that defy both logic and law. The evidence I submitted, comprising three detailed screenshots of my credit report ( Images 0, 1, and 2 ), unequivocally substantiates my claims, yet Truists response fails to address these issues with the seriousness they demand.\n\nThis is not a mere oversight ; it is a blatant violation of my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). I will not tolerate such negligence, and I urge the CFPB to compel Truist to rectify these errors or delete the account from all credit bureau reporting forthwith. Below, I outline the specific discrepancies, supported by the attached evidence and Truists own admissions, and explain why their reporting remains unacceptable : 1. Ongoing Reporting of Late Payments After Account Charge-Off Truist confirms the account was charged off on XX/XX/XXXX, with an amount owed of {$1300.00}. However, the screenshots ( Image XXXX ) show late payments marked with red \" X '' XXXX ( indicating \" Not current '' ) from XX/XX/XXXX through XXXX XXXX beyond the charge-off date. This is factually impossible, as no payments can be due or delinquent after an account is charged off. Reporting late payments post-charge-off falsely suggests ongoing delinquency where none exists, unjustly damaging my credit profile. This violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2, which mandates accurate reporting by furnishers. Truist must cease this erroneous reporting immediately.\n\n2. Missing Payment History for Over One Year Truist states the account was opened in XX/XX/XXXX, yet the payment history in Images XXXX and XXXX shows \" No data '' for every month from XX/XX/XXXX through XXXX XXXX full year of missing information. This omission is indefensible. If the account was active, Truist is obligated to report payment activity accurately and completely. Their failure to provide data for over a year while reporting the account as open breaches their duty under the FCRA to ensure accurate reporting. This gap raises serious doubts about the reliability of their records and must be corrected.\n\n3. Inconsistent Payment Reporting Truists letter specifies a payment of {$79.00} credited on XX/XX/XXXX, with an adjustment on XX/XX/XXXX. Yet, the screenshots ( Images XXXX and XXXX ) list the \" Last payment '' as XX/XX/XXXX, and Image 0 shows XX/XX/XXXX with a red \" X '' ( not current ), despite this being the alleged payment period. The payment history further muddies the waters, showing \" No data '' or \" Not current '' for XX/XX/XXXX. These contradictionsbetween Truists stated payment dates and the reported statusundermine the credibility of their reporting process and violate the FCRAs accuracy mandate. Such discrepancies demand immediate correction.\n\n4. Illogical Late Payment Frequency Truists reporting of late payment frequency is absurd. Image 1 shows the account was late by 30 days twice, 60 days once, and 90 days 28 times. This defies logic : an account can not be late by 90 days more often than by 60 days, as delinquencies progress sequentially ( 30, then 60, then 90 days ). This illogical reporting, circled in red in Image 1, suggests a fundamental error in Truists data processing and further questions the accuracy of their records. Truists letter offers no explanation, and this must be rectified without delay.\n\n5. Improper Past Due Amount on a Charged-Off Account Truist confirms the charge-off amount as {$1300.00}, yet the screenshots ( Images 0, 1, and 2 ) report an \" Amount past due '' of {$1300.00}. This is misleading and improper. A charged-off account, confirmed by the \" Profit and Loss Write-off '' remark in Image 0 and Truists letter, has its balance written off by the creditor. Reporting it as \" past due '' misrepresents the accounts status and risks unfairly harming my credit standing. This error, highlighted with red circles and question marks in the images, contravenes standard credit reporting practices and must be removed.\n\n6. Inadequate Previous Investigation and Lack of Transparency Truist references a prior investigation tied to CFPB Case XXXX, yet these egregious errors persist on my credit report. This proves their investigation was insufficient, failing to meet 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), which requires a reasonable investigation and correction of inaccuracies. Their letter also lacks any explanation of their verification process, offering only a dismissive remark : \" I understand this is not the resolution you are seeking from Truist. '' This condescension, paired with their refusal to provide transparency, is unacceptable and suggests a lack of accountability. Their continued reporting of these errors reflects a clear disregard for my rights.\n\n7. \" Cease and Desist '' Notation and Refusal to Correct Reporting Truist notes a \" cease and desist '' notation on the account, yet insists they \" must continue to report this account accurately '' without further documentation. This position is untenable. The evidence Ive providedboth in my original complaint and this rebuttaldemonstrates their reporting is not accurate. Their refusal to correct these errors, despite confirming the charge-off and payment details, violates their FCRA obligations. I demand they either fix these inaccuracies or delete the account from all credit bureau reporting.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-26T16:31:16.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"223XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12666640","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-03-26T16:04:05.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["These contradictionsbetween Truists stated payment dates and the reported statusundermine the credibility of their reporting process and violate the FCRAs accuracy mandate. Such discrepancies demand immediate correction.\n\n4. Illogical Late Payment Frequency Truists reporting of late payment frequency is absurd. Image 1 shows the account was late by 30 days twice, 60 days once, and 90 days 28 times."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect information on your report"],"sub_product":["Credit reporting"]},"sort":[12.6736355,"12666640"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":48,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":48}]}},"product":{"doc_count":48,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":33,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":33}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":11,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":10},{"key":"Credit repair services","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":48,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":18,"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":14},{"key":"Was not notified of investigation status or results","doc_count":3},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":11,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":8},{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":9,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":4},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":3},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was paid","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with customer service","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":48,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":46},{"key":"No","doc_count":2}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":48,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":38},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":9},{"key":"Untimely response","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":48,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":48}]}},"company":{"doc_count":48,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":14},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":11},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":8},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":4},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bridge IT, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CL Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"ENOVA INTERNATIONAL, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Global Lending Services LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mobiloans, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"VW Credit","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"Westlake Services, LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":48,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":12},{"key":"TX","doc_count":9},{"key":"FL","doc_count":7},{"key":"GA","doc_count":7},{"key":"NC","doc_count":3},{"key":"AL","doc_count":2},{"key":"MO","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"NM","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":48,"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":25},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":48,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":4},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":4}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[12.66929,"12666640"]}}}