{"took":208,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":19,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20131938","_score":26.792707,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint because OneMain Financial is reporting inaccurate, incomplete, and contradictory information about this account on my credit report. I previously disputed the account with the credit bureaus, but OneMain verified the information without providing documentation or correcting the errors. \n\nThere are multiple issues with the reporting : XXXX. The account does not list a Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ), which is required for any account that went into charge-off. Without the DOFD, the reporting period can not be determined. \n\nXXXX. The payment history is contradictory and impossible. The report shows 30180 day late payments through XX/XX/XXXX, but then shows ND No Data for all of XXXX. Despite having no payment data for the entire year, OneMain still reported a charge-off in XX/XX/XXXX. This is inconsistent and suggests inaccurate or incomplete reporting. \n\nXXXX. Several required fields are missing, including Date Closed, Highest Balance, Balance Updated Date, and Recent Payment. These omissions make the account incomplete and unverifiable. \n\nXXXX. The loan terms do not match the delinquency timeline. The account shows a XXXX term beginning in XX/XX/XXXX, which should have ended around XX/XX/XXXX. However, the delinquency timeline extends into late XXXX, followed by a full year of missing data, and then a charge-off in XXXX. This raises concerns about possible reaging of the account. \n\nXXXX. The account is listed as Paid in settlement with {$380.00} written off, but the balance fields are blank and no balance update date is provided. A settled account should show a {$0.00} balance and a clear date when the balance was updated. \n\nXXXX. OneMain reported 12 months of ND No Data while the account was still open, which violates XXXX XXXX reporting standards requiring continuous monthly reporting. \n\nI am requesting that OneMain Financial provide : - All documentation used to verify this account, - A full investigation into the inaccuracies, - Correction of all incomplete or contradictory information, - Or deletion of the account if it can not be verified with proper records. \n\nThe current reporting is incomplete, inaccurate, and not verifiable, and it does not comply with FCRA XXXX, XXXX ( b ), XXXX, or XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ).","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-10T16:37:31.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Installment loan","zip_code":"794XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20131938","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"OneMain Finance Corporation","date_received":"2026-03-10T16:16:04.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Without the <em>DOFD</em>, the reporting period can not be determined. \n\nXXXX. The <em>payment</em> history is contradictory and impossible. The report shows 30180 day late <em>payments</em> through XX/XX/XXXX, but then shows ND No Data for all of XXXX. Despite having no <em>payment</em> data for the entire year, OneMain still reported a charge-off in XX/XX/XXXX. This is inconsistent and suggests <em>inaccurate</em> or incomplete reporting. \n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[26.792707,"20131938"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11440907","_score":25.00116,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I dispute the accuracy of multiple accounts and unauthorized inquiries listed on my Experian credit report. Despite submitting two rounds of dispute letters with detailed evidence of inaccuracies, Experian has failed to properly investigate or provide sufficient documentation of their verification process, violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Below are the details : Disputed Accounts : XXXX XXXX Account 1 : Listed as \" Paid, Closed '' but simultaneously shows \" Charge Off '' in XXXX, conflicting statuses that violate 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ).\n\nThe account lacks a clear Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ), making it impossible to verify compliance with the 7-year reporting limit under 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ). \nXXXX XXXX Account 2 : Reports monthly \" Charge Off '' statuses from XXXX, which suggests unlawful re-aging of debt, a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ).\n\nNo DOFD is provided, making it unclear if this account has exceeded the reporting timeframe. \nXXXX XXXX Account 3 : Incorrect balance updates and delinquency reporting without a clear XXXX or chain of title, as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681s2 ( a ). \nSelf Lender Account ( XXXX ) : Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX ; Balance : {$0.00} ; Account Status : Closed ; Remarks : Paid as Agreed. \nMetro 2 Issue : The \" 30/60/90 days late '' statuses are inaccurately reported and do not reflect actual payment history. \nA large portion of the payment history is missing, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). \nNo DOFD is listed, hindering proper validation of reporting limits. \nXXXX Non-Compliance : Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), Experian is required to disclose the name, address, and contact information of the entity used to verify these accounts. Despite repeated requests, no such disclosure was provided.\n\nThe accounts contain contradictory and misleading information that has not been corrected after investigation, violating the FCRAs requirement for maximum accuracy under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). \nDocumentation Provided : I have submitted factual evidence, including my dispute letters dated [ insert dates ], highlighting clear errors in reporting. Experian failed to address these issues adequately or provide verifiable evidence. \nHarm Suffered : These inaccuracies have caused significant harm to my creditworthiness and ability to access financial services.\n\nDesired Resolution : Immediate removal of all disputed accounts and unauthorized inquiries from my credit report if Experian can not provide verifiable documentation to support their inclusion.\n\nDisclosure of the method used for verification, including the name, address, and contact information of the verifying entity.\n\nCorrection or deletion of any accounts that lack a DOFD or exceed the FCRAs 7-year reporting window.\n\nCompensation for damages caused by their negligence, if applicable","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-09T01:00:02.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33055","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11440907","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-08T23:27:56.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The account lacks a <em>clear</em> Date of <em>First</em> Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ), making it impossible to verify compliance with the 7-year reporting limit under 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ). \nXXXX XXXX Account 2 : Reports <em>monthly</em> \" Charge Off '' statuses from XXXX, which suggests unlawful re-aging of debt, a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ).\n\nNo <em>DOFD</em> is provided, making it unclear if this account has exceeded the reporting timeframe."]},"sort":[25.00116,"11440907"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14663546","_score":23.648285,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint due to multiple accounts that continue to be reported inaccurately and in violation of federal consumer protection laws, specifically the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and XXXX XXXX compliance standards. Despite disputing these items multiple times over several months with all three credit bureaus, some bureaus have corrected or deleted the accounts, while others continue to report them with inconsistent, incomplete, or outright false information. \n\nThe following accounts are the subject of this dispute : XXXX CARD # XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$0.00} ) still reporting as delinquent with conflicting dates and activity history, despite no balance. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX  N.A. ) # XXXX Reporting as a collection but lacks accurate Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and continues to report balances post-settlement attempts ; this violates FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) and FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ). \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge-off reporting with multiple discrepancies in status, balance, and last activity date. \n\nXXXX Bank # XXXX Charge-off still reports as updating monthly with derogatory remarks and a balance, though account was closed long ago and contains conflicting data across bureaus. \n\nXXXX XXXX # XXXX Charge-off with inconsistencies in DOFD, charge-off date, and payment history ; this makes the reporting materially misleading. \n\nThese tradelines violate several sections of FCRA, including : 1681e ( b ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to properly investigate disputes within 30 days 1681s-2 ( b ) Furnishers failing to correct or delete inaccurate information after being notified Additionally, these furnishers appear to be in violation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting format, as required for accurate, standardized reporting. Missing or incorrect charge-off dates, inconsistent payment histories, and balances on {$0.00} charge-off accounts are not XXXX XXXX compliant. \n\nThis pattern of behavior is not only negligent but borders on willful noncompliance under FCRA 1681n, which permits statutory damages for knowing violations. It is clear that some bureaus are not applying the same level of investigation or accuracy standards.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-15T21:30:00.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"02895","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14663546","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-15T21:29:25.000Z","state":"RI","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":["XXXX Bank # XXXX Charge-off still reports as updating <em>monthly</em> with derogatory remarks and a balance, though account was closed long ago and contains conflicting data across bureaus. \n\nXXXX XXXX # XXXX Charge-off with inconsistencies in <em>DOFD</em>, charge-off date, and <em>payment</em> history ; this makes the reporting materially misleading."]},"sort":[23.648285,"14663546"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14663739","_score":23.560455,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint due to multiple accounts that continue to be reported inaccurately and in violation of federal consumer protection laws, specifically the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and XXXX XXXX compliance standards. Despite disputing these items multiple times over several months with all three credit bureaus, some bureaus have corrected or deleted the accounts, while others continue to report them with inconsistent, incomplete, or outright false information. \n\nThe following accounts are the subject of this dispute : XXXX CARD # XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$0.00} ) still reporting as delinquent with conflicting dates and activity history, despite no balance. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX  N.A. ) # XXXX Reporting as a collection but lacks accurate Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and continues to report balances post-settlement attempts ; this violates FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) and FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ). \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge-off reporting with multiple discrepancies in status, balance, and last activity date. \n\nXXXX Bank # XXXX Charge-off still reports as updating monthly with derogatory remarks and a balance, though account was closed long ago and contains conflicting data across bureaus. \n\nXXXX XXXX # XXXX Charge-off with inconsistencies in DOFD, charge-off date, and payment history ; this makes the reporting materially misleading. \n\nThese tradelines violate several sections of FCRA, including : 1681e ( b ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to properly investigate disputes within 30 days 1681s-2 ( b ) Furnishers failing to correct or delete inaccurate information after being notified Additionally, these furnishers appear to be in violation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting format, as required for accurate, standardized reporting. Missing or incorrect charge-off dates, inconsistent payment histories, and balances on {$0.00} charge-off accounts are not XXXX XXXX compliant. \n\nThis pattern of behavior is not only negligent but borders on willful noncompliance under FCRA 1681n, which permits statutory damages for knowing violations. It is clear that some bureaus are not applying the same level of investigation or accuracy standards.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-15T21:29:51.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"02895","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14663739","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-15T21:15:00.000Z","state":"RI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX Bank # XXXX Charge-off still reports as updating <em>monthly</em> with derogatory remarks and a balance, though account was closed long ago and contains conflicting data across bureaus. \n\nXXXX XXXX # XXXX Charge-off with inconsistencies in <em>DOFD</em>, charge-off date, and <em>payment</em> history ; this makes the reporting materially misleading."]},"sort":[23.560455,"14663739"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14661922","_score":23.553911,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint due to multiple accounts that continue to be reported inaccurately and in violation of federal consumer protection laws, specifically the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and XXXX XXXX compliance standards. Despite disputing these items multiple times over several months with all three credit bureaus, some bureaus have corrected or deleted the accounts, while others continue to report them with inconsistent, incomplete, or outright false information. \n\nThe following accounts are the subject of this dispute : XXXX CARD # XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$0.00} ) still reporting as delinquent with conflicting dates and activity history, despite no balance. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX  N.A. ) # XXXX Reporting as a collection but lacks accurate Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and continues to report balances post-settlement attempts ; this violates FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) and FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ). \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge-off reporting with multiple discrepancies in status, balance, and last activity date. \n\nXXXX Bank # XXXX Charge-off still reports as updating monthly with derogatory remarks and a balance, though account was closed long ago and contains conflicting data across bureaus. \n\nXXXX XXXX # XXXX Charge-off with inconsistencies in DOFD, charge-off date, and payment history ; this makes the reporting materially misleading. \n\nThese tradelines violate several sections of FCRA, including : 1681e ( b ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to properly investigate disputes within 30 days 1681s-2 ( b ) Furnishers failing to correct or delete inaccurate information after being notified Additionally, these furnishers appear to be in violation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting format, as required for accurate, standardized reporting. Missing or incorrect charge-off dates, inconsistent payment histories, and balances on {$0.00} charge-off accounts are not XXXX XXXX compliant. \n\nThis pattern of behavior is not only negligent but borders on willful noncompliance under FCRA 1681n, which permits statutory damages for knowing violations. It is clear that some bureaus are not applying the same level of investigation or accuracy standards.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-15T21:29:56.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"02895","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14661922","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-15T21:29:25.000Z","state":"RI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX Bank # XXXX Charge-off still reports as updating <em>monthly</em> with derogatory remarks and a balance, though account was closed long ago and contains conflicting data across bureaus. \n\nXXXX XXXX # XXXX Charge-off with inconsistencies in <em>DOFD</em>, charge-off date, and <em>payment</em> history ; this makes the reporting materially misleading."]},"sort":[23.553911,"14661922"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15314240","_score":22.972788,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This is a follow-up to my CFPB complaint regarding LVNV Funding LLCs reporting of the above-referenced account. After reviewing LVNVs XX/XX/XXXX response and comparing it to my actual credit report data, I have identified multiple discrepancies and clear evidence of re-aging in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\n1. Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) Discrepancy LVNV claims the DOFD is XX/XX/XXXX. However, my credit reports ( attached ) show no recorded late payments before XXXX, and my delinquency occurred well before that date when the account was still with XXXX XXXX XXXX By assigning a DOFD nearly five years after the accounts origination, LVNV is artificially extending the 7-year reporting period a textbook case of re-aging prohibited under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\n2. Missing Historical Payment Data The credit reports display Data Unavailable for all months prior to XX/XX/XXXX, omitting the full delinquency history from XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX This selective deletion of payment history while retaining only the collection status distorts the accounts age and status, which is misleading to creditors and violates FCRA 607 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) the duty to maintain maximum possible accuracy.\n\n3. Misleading Open Date Reporting LVNV reports the Date Opened as XX/XX/XXXX, which is the date they purchased the debt. This appears in the Opened field of my credit report, making it appear as a new derogatory account in XXXX instead of a XXXX account. While LVNV claims this is industry standard, it is materially misleading to creditors and artificially damages my credit standing.\n\n4. Inconsistent Charge-Off Timeline LVNV claims the account was charged-off by XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. However, my credit report shows no charge-off or collection status for XXXX XXXX, only starting in XX/XX/XXXX. This gap in reporting undermines their claim of accuracy and indicates data manipulation or incomplete transmission to the credit bureaus.\n\n5. Required Documentation That LVNV Can not Provide Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), a furnisher must not report information if it knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. To verify accuracy here, LVNV would be required to produce complete account-level documentation from origination to present, including : Original signed credit application from XXXX XXXX XXXX Complete payment history from account opening in XX/XX/XXXX through charge-off in XX/XX/XXXX Original creditor monthly statements for all months Internal charge-off ledger from XXXX XXXX XXXX showing balance calculations Original creditors recorded Date of First Delinquency as transmitted to credit bureaus at time of charge-off LVNV, as a debt buyer, did not originate this account and has already demonstrated that it does not have full historical records ( Data Unavailable on my reports ). If they can not provide this documentation, continued reporting constitutes a knowing violation of the FCRA. In such cases, deletion of the tradeline is the only compliant resolution. \n\nRequested Resolution : Given these documented inconsistencies, I am requesting that the CFPB take enforcement action to ensure LVNV Funding LLC : Immediately deletes the tradeline from all consumer reporting agencies, as the reported data is demonstrably inaccurate and unverifiable. \n\nProvides written confirmation of deletion within 15 days. \n\nCeases reporting the account unless and until it can be supported by complete and original source documentation as outlined above. \n\nThis is not a matter of difference of opinion the credit reports and LVNVs own written statements contradict each other, proving a violation of federal law. The continued reporting of this account in its current form is knowingly inaccurate, misleading, and harmful. \n\nAttachments : LVNV/Resurgent XX/XX/XXXX response letter XXXX credit report screenshots ( showing missing data, DOFD issue, misleading open date ) Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-15T15:21:16.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"27284","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15314240","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2025-08-15T15:17:28.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["After reviewing LVNVs XX/XX/XXXX response and comparing it to my actual credit report data, I have identified multiple discrepancies and <em>clear</em> evidence of re-aging in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\n1. Date of <em>First</em> Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) Discrepancy LVNV claims the <em>DOFD</em> is XX/XX/XXXX."]},"sort":[22.972788,"15314240"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15312808","_score":22.862648,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This is a follow-up to my CFPB complaint regarding XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting of the above-referenced account. After reviewing XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response and comparing it to my actual credit report data, I have identified multiple discrepancies and clear evidence of re-aging in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nXXXX. Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) Discrepancy XXXX claims the DOFD is XX/XX/XXXX. However, my credit reports ( attached ) show no recorded late payments before XXXX, and my delinquency occurred well before that date when the account was still with XXXX XXXX XXXX. By assigning a DOFD nearly XXXX years after the accounts origination, XXXX  is artificially extending the 7-year reporting period a textbook case of re-aging prohibited under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 5 ). \n\nXXXX. Missing Historical Payment Data The credit reports display Data Unavailable for all months prior to XX/XX/XXXX, omitting the full delinquency history from XXXX XXXX XXXX. This selective deletion of payment history while retaining only the collection status distorts the accounts age and status, which is misleading to creditors and violates FCRA 607 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) the duty to maintain maximum possible accuracy. \n\nXXXX. Misleading Open Date Reporting XXXX  reports the Date Opened as XX/XX/XXXX, which is the date they purchased the debt. This appears in the Opened field of my credit report, making it appear as a new derogatory account in XXXX instead of a XXXX account. While XXXX claims this is industry standard, it is materially misleading to creditors and artificially damages my credit standing. \n\nXXXX. Inconsistent Charge-Off Timeline XXXX  claims the account was charged-off by XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. However, my credit report shows no charge-off or collection status for XXXX XXXX, only starting in XX/XX/XXXX. This gap in reporting undermines their claim of accuracy and indicates data manipulation or incomplete transmission to the credit bureaus. \n\nXXXX. Required Documentation That XXXX Can not Provide Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), a furnisher must not report information if it knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. To verify accuracy here, XXXX would be required to produce complete account-level documentation from origination to present, including : Original signed credit application from XXXX XXXX XXXX Complete payment history from account opening in XX/XX/XXXX through charge-off in XX/XX/XXXX Original creditor monthly statements for all months Internal charge-off ledger from XXXX XXXX XXXX  showing balance calculations Original creditors recorded Date of First Delinquency as transmitted to credit bureaus at time of charge-off XXXX, as a debt buyer, did not originate this account and has already demonstrated that it does not have full historical records ( Data Unavailable on my reports ). If they can not provide this documentation, continued reporting constitutes a knowing violation of the FCRA. In such cases, deletion of the tradeline is the only compliant resolution. \n\nRequested Resolution : Given these documented inconsistencies, I am requesting that the CFPB take enforcement action to ensure XXXX XXXX XXXX : Immediately deletes the tradeline from all consumer reporting agencies, as the reported data is demonstrably inaccurate and unverifiable. \n\nProvides written confirmation of deletion within 15 days. \n\nCeases reporting the account unless and until it can be supported by complete and original source documentation as outlined above. \n\nThis is not a matter of difference of opinion the credit reports and XXXX  own written statements contradict each other, proving a violation of federal law. The continued reporting of this account in its current form is knowingly inaccurate, misleading, and harmful. \n\nAttachments : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX response letter TransUnion credit report screenshots ( showing missing data, DOFD issue, misleading open date ) Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-15T15:21:20.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"27284","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15312808","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-08-15T15:20:49.000Z","state":"NC","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":["After reviewing XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response and comparing it to my actual credit report data, I have identified multiple discrepancies and <em>clear</em> evidence of re-aging in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nXXXX. Date of <em>First</em> Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) Discrepancy XXXX claims the <em>DOFD</em> is XX/XX/XXXX. However, my credit reports ( attached ) show no recorded late <em>payments</em> before XXXX, and my delinquency occurred well before that date when the account was still with XXXX XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[22.862648,"15312808"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14722526","_score":20.815447,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Dispute & Request for Deletion XXXX XXXX  ( Acct. # XXXX ) Dear Experian Dispute Department, I am writing to formally dispute the reporting of the XXXX XXXX  account appearing on my Experian credit report. This tradeline is not only inaccurate and misleading, but it is also being re-reported after prior deletion in direct violation of the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ).\n\nViolations include but are not limited to : FCRA 1681s-2 : Furnishing materially inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete data to the credit bureaus. The account reflects both Repossession and Charge-Off without explanation or lawful justification.\n\nTruth in Lending Act ( TILA ) Violations : I was not properly informed that insurance products were bundled into my loan contract. I did not knowingly or voluntarily consent to these charges, and this constitutes material misrepresentation and a failure to clearly disclose the total finance charges, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.\n\nUCC 9-610 & 9-611 : No proper notice of default, no resale notification, and no post-sale accounting statement was ever sent. You can not claim a {$21000.00} deficiency without proving the sale of collateral and applying its proceeds. \n\nXXXX XXXX Format Compliance Failures : Reporting without an original creditor, no DOFD, no comments regarding repossession or deficiency sale, and missing payment data. \n\nFurthermore, if this account has been charged off, it may no longer be legally collectible. I am also investigating whether this debt has been sold or securitized, in which case I demand disclosure of the new creditor/owner.\n\nInconsistent status codes : The account is reported as both Repossession ( R ) and Charge-Off ( CO ), which is materially misleading.\n\nDeficiency balance of {$21000.00} is reported with no evidence of collateral resale, auction records, or consumer notification, violating both XXXX XXXX formatting standards and UCC 9-610 & 9-611.\n\nNo original creditor is listed, and key account information is missing or inaccurate, including : No monthly payment, No clear DOFD ( Date of First Delinquency ), Missing or fabricated months in the payment history.\n\nThis account was previously deleted or suppressed during an earlier dispute and is now being reinserted without proper notice, violating FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ( ii ).\n\nThis false and damaging tradeline has harmed my ability to secure funding for my small business, impacted my housing stability, and caused undue stress to my family.\n\nAdditionally, I have submitted two formal dispute letters regarding the XXXX XXXX tradeline within the last 60 to 90 days, both sent via Certified Mail with return receipt. Although your office received and signed for these lettersas confirmed by XXXX trackingno formal dispute was opened for this account, even though disputes were initiated for other tradelines I challenged in the same envelope. This constitutes a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which mandates that credit reporting agencies must \" conduct a reasonable reinvestigation '' upon receiving a consumer dispute. Furthermore, failure to provide acknowledgment of the dispute or its resolution violates 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and demonstrates willful negligence or noncompliance under 1681n and 1681o, for which I reserve the right to seek statutory, actual, and punitive damages. You have also failed to meet your obligations under FTC guidance on dispute handling and general principles of consumer protection under 42 U.S.C. 1983, as your failure has caused material harm to my business and personal finances.\n\nI reserve the right to pursue claims for statutory, actual, and punitive damages for negligent or willful noncompliance with the FCRA, XXXX XXXX standards, and re-reporting violations. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-17T05:54:19.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33313","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14722526","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-17T05:14:22.000Z","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":["No original creditor is listed, and key account information is <em>missing</em> or <em>inaccurate</em>, <em>including</em> : No <em>monthly</em> <em>payment</em>, No <em>clear</em> <em>DOFD</em> ( Date of <em>First</em> Delinquency ), <em>Missing</em> or fabricated months in the <em>payment</em> history.\n\nThis account was previously deleted or suppressed during an earlier dispute and is now being reinserted without proper notice, violating FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ( ii )."]},"sort":[20.815447,"14722526"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16423849","_score":20.312466,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"TransUnion, you are publishing : Account Type : Collection Installment Status : Refinanced Balance : {$10000.00} Placed for collection. That presentation is false, misleading, and non-Metro 2-conforming. \nViolations & Metro 2 breaches ( you must correct or delete ) : Misclassification : a third-party collection can not be coded as an installment loan. \nMetro 2 : Portfolio Type/Account Type. \nProhibited statuses/amounts : collections can not show Refinanced, Monthly Payment, or Amount Past Due ( must be {$0.00} ). \nMetro 2 : Account Status ; Scheduled Monthly Payment Amount ; Amount Past Due ; Payment History Profile ( blank for collections ).\n\nMissing/unclear FCRA Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and Original Creditor details. \nMetro 2 : FCRA Compliance/Date of First Delinquency ; Original Creditor Name.\n\nAll late months are disputed. Provide running statements/complete ledger proving, for each month coded XXXX, the contractual due date, date received, and posting date. \nMetro 2 codes are not proof.\n\nLaw : FCRA 607 ( b ) ( maximum possible accuracy ) ; 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) & 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ; Reg V 12 C.F.R. 1022.42.43 ; XXXX  v. TransUnion, 115 F.3d 220 ( independent verification required ). If you can not independently verify to XXXX  standards, you must delete the tradeline in full. \nIf not corrected within the FCRA timeline, I will file complaints with CFPB/FTC/State AG and pursue civil claims under 15 U.S.C. 616617. \nEnclosures : Govt ID ; proof of address ; highlighted TU report page showing this tradeline ; Exhibit D ( ledger demand ). \nXXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXt ) TU RE : Reinvestigation Demand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | TU Acct ( XXXX ) : [ XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ], [ XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ], plus an Untitled { CollectionOrChargeOff, Collection Installment } entry You are reporting multiple, duplicative, and mis-coded collection entries, including Refinanced and even Monthly Payment {$5.00} all impermissible for collections. \nCorrective points : One accurate collection entry only ; delete duplicates ( including the Untitled item ). \nRemove Refinanced status ; set Monthly Payment = {$0.00} ; Amount Past Due = {$0.00} ; PHP blank. \nMetro 2 : Account Status ; Scheduled Monthly Payment Amount ; Amount Past Due ; Payment History Profile. \nEnsure DOFD is furnished ; keep Original Creditor consistent.\n\nMetro 2 : FCRA DOFD ; Original Creditor Name. \nAll late months disputed ; running statements/ledger demanded ( codes proof ). Apply FCRA 607 ( b ), 611 ; Reg V ; XXXX. Delete unverifiable data ; otherwise expect CFPB/FTC/AG action and suit under 616617. \nEnclosures/CMRRR ( same as Letter XXXX ) XXXX ) XXXX XXXX TU RE : Reinvestigation XXXX XXXX | TU Acct : [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ] Collection is shown as Collection Installment Placed for collection Balance {$900.00} without clear DOFD and with loan-type presentation. \nFix : code strictly as collection, Past Due = {$0.00}, Monthly Payment = {$0.00}, PHP blank, and furnish DOFD.\n\nLaw/XXXX  as above. All late months disputed ; ledgers required. Delete if unverifiable. \nEnclosures/CMRRR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX + collector ) TU RE : Reinvestigation XXXX XXXX  XXXX TU Acct ( s ) : [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] You are showing OC and collector both with balances ( and Past Due {$1800.00} ), which is double-counting. \nMetro 2 : When placed/sold, OC must report {$0.00} balance and Sold/Transferred ; only the collector reports a balance ; collection must not show Past Due or a consumer PHP ; DOFD furnished XXXX \nLaw : FCRA 607 ( b ), 611, 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; Reg V ; XXXX. All lates disputed ; ledgers demanded ; delete if unverifiable. \nEnclosures/CMRRR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX charged-off CC ) TU RE : Reinvestigation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TU Acct XXXX [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] You show Charged off account Past Due : {$3000.00} and inconsistent High Credit/Credit Limit.\n\nMetro 2 : After CO, Amount Past Due must be {$0.00} ; use Charge-Off Amount/Current Balance ; reconcile Credit Limit/High Credit across bureaus ; no post-CO late coding. DOFD required. \nLaw/XXXX. All lates disputed ; ledgers required ; delete if unverifiable. \nEnclosures/CMRRR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Reinvestigation XXXX XXXX | TU Acct : [ XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] Charged-off account shows Past Due {$90.00} and multiple 90-day lates. Past Due must be {$0.00} post CO ; remove any post-CO lates ; furnish DOFD. All lates disputed ; ledgers demanded ; delete if unverifiable. \nLaw/Metro 2XXXX as above. \nXXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX TU Same CO past-due defect and inflated late counts. Correct or delete under 611XXXX. \nAll lates disputed ; ledgers demanded. \nEnclosures/CMRRR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  / XXXX ( duplicates, CO ) TU RE : Reinvestigation XXXX XXXX  | TU Acct ( s ) : [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] Youre publishing duplicate CO tradelines with Past Due {$95.00} post-CO. \nMetro 2 : consolidate to one accurate tradeline ; Past Due = {$0.00} ; DOFD furnished. \nAll lates disputed ; ledgers demanded ; delete if unverifiable. \nEnclosures/CMRRR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX duplicate COs ) TU RE : Reinvestigation XXXX | TU Acct ( s ) : [ XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] Duplicative CO entries and Past Due after CO. Consolidate ; Past Due = {$0.00} ; DOFD. All lates disputed ; ledgers demanded ; delete if unverifiable. \nEnclosures/CMRRR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( DepositRelated mis-coded + CO ) TU RE : Reinvestigation XXXX XXXX XXXX | TU Acct XXXX [ XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] Reported as Installment/DepositRelated with charge-off and Past Due. \nMetro 2 : correct Portfolio/Account Type ( do not display as consumer installment ), Past Due = {$0.00} post-CO ; DOFD.\n\nAll lates disputed ; ledgers demanded ; delete if unverifiable. \nEnclosures/CMRRR XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( two loans ) TU RE : Reinvestigation XXXX | TU Accts : [ XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] & [ XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] Each loan shows Balance greater than High Credit ( e.g., {$2200.00} vs High Credit {$1700.00} ; {$770.00} vs {$580.00} ), with long late histories inconsistent with Terms : XXXX. \nMetro 2 : Correct Original Loan Amount/High Credit, Payment Rating/PHP vs months reviewed XXXX furnish DOFD if defaulted. \nAll late months disputed ; provide complete running statements/forbearance/IDR/CARES relief records ; delete if unverifiable. \nLaw/XXXX  as above. \nEnclosures/CMRRR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( duplicate entries ) TU RE : Reinvestigation XXXX XXXX XXXX | Ref : XXXX You list three XXXX filings for the same reference number, with inconsistent court names and no Disposition Date. This is duplicative and inaccurate. \nAction : retain one accurate record only with correct court name, case number, filed date, disposition ; delete duplicates. Provide PACER docket.\n\nLaw : FCRA 607 ( b ), 611 ; XXXX. Non-compliance CFPB/FTC/AG XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-07T13:33:21.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"36116","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16423849","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-07T13:24:57.000Z","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":["Prohibited statuses/amounts : collections can not show Refinanced, <em>Monthly</em> <em>Payment</em>, or Amount Past Due ( must be {$0.00} ). \nMetro 2 : Account Status ; Scheduled <em>Monthly</em> <em>Payment</em> Amount ; Amount Past Due ; <em>Payment</em> History Profile ( blank for collections ).\n\n<em>Missing</em>/unclear FCRA Date of <em>First</em> Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) and Original Creditor details. \nMetro 2 : FCRA Compliance/Date of <em>First</em> Delinquency ; Original Creditor Name.\n\nAll late months are disputed."]},"sort":[20.312466,"16423849"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13062594","_score":19.827356,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer : XXXX XXXX Account in Dispute : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX Report Date : XX/XX/year> Reporting Agencies : TransUnion, Equifax, Experian Formal Dispute & Request for Immediate Deletion To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this formal dispute concerning the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( # XXXX ) reported across all three credit bureaus. After reviewing my credit file, I have found this account to contain multiple inconsistencies, reporting errors, and incomplete data, in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nUnder FCRA 611, I am exercising my right to dispute any account that is being reported inaccurately, incompletely, or without tangible verification. Based on the evidence outlined below, I am requesting immediate deletion of this account from TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian. \n\nKey Reporting Discrepancies XXXX. Conflicting Last Activity Dates TransUnion : XX/XX/year> Equifax : XX/XX/year> Experian : XX/XX/year> These are XXXX different last activity dates for the same account a clear violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) which mandates accurate reporting of account timing.\n\n2. Payment History is Inconsistent Across All Bureaus TransUnion : No payment history shown at all Equifax : 79 % on-time payments Experian : 70 % on-time payments XXXX separate profiles for one account violates FCRA 607 ( b ) and FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) requiring consistent and complete reporting.\n\n3. Late Payments Do Not Match TransUnion : XXXX late payments Equifax : XXXX Experian : XXXX These are material inconsistencies a single tradeline can not simultaneously reflect perfect payment history and XXXX missed payments. This discrepancy damages consumer accuracy rights under FCRA 602 and 623 ( a ).\n\n4. \" Term Source '' Field Is Blank on All 3 Reports Without term source, the structure of the account ( revolving, installment, terms ) can not be validated. This makes the account incomplete and unverifiable in its current form.\n\n5. Months Reviewed Is Either 0 or Missing TransUnion & Equifax : 0 Experian : 37 months There is no explanation for how one bureau has 37 months of activity and the others show 0. This is inaccurate and misleading.\n\n6. Monthly Payment Reported as {$0.00} All three bureaus report a monthly payment of {$0.00} on a revolving credit card account that was charged off.\n\nThis is a clear sign of incomplete data, as no revolving account should reflect zero monthly obligation during charge-off status.\n\n7. Missing Amount Past Due Across All Bureaus No past due amount is reported even though this is a charged-off account. If nothing is owed, it shouldnt be charged off and if something is owed, it must be disclosed.\n\n8. Inconsistent or Contradictory Remarks TransUnion : Account closed\nby credit grantor Equifax : Charged off account Experian : Unpaid balance reported as loss The remarks conflict one says closed, another says loss, another says charge-off. FCRA requires uniform and accurate remark reporting.\n\nWhat I Am Requesting Per FCRA 611, 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), and 611 ( a ) ( 7 ), I am formally requesting : The full Method of Verification ( MOV ) used to confirm this tradeline A copy of the original signed credit card application or agreement Documentation confirming the accurate Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) The complete payment history with dates and missed payments A breakdown of who at XXXX XXXX verified this account, including name, title, and department Proof of the legal basis for continued reporting with inconsistencies If Verification Can not Be Provided If this account can not be fully verified with accurate, documented evidence, then per FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ), it must be deleted in full from all three credit bureaus. Continuing to report unverifiable, conflicting information is a direct violation of the FCRA and may result in : A complaint to the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) Formal notification to the State Attorney General Potential legal action under FCRA 616617 for willful and negligent noncompliance Fair Resolution I am seeking the permanent deletion of this tradeline from TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian due to its unverifiable, inconsistent, and incomplete nature. If XXXX XXXX can not prove full accuracy, they can not legally report this account. \n\nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-18T15:50:26.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"07305","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13062594","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-18T15:30:49.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Months Reviewed Is Either 0 or <em>Missing</em> TransUnion & Equifax : 0 Experian : 37 months There is no explanation for how one bureau has 37 months of activity and the others show 0. This is <em>inaccurate</em> and misleading.\n\n6. <em>Monthly</em> <em>Payment</em> Reported as {$0.00} All three bureaus report a <em>monthly</em> <em>payment</em> of {$0.00} on a revolving credit card account that was charged off.\n\nThis is a <em>clear</em> sign of incomplete data, as no revolving account should reflect zero <em>monthly</em> obligation during charge-off status.\n\n7."]},"sort":[19.827356,"13062594"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13062512","_score":19.827356,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer : XXXX XXXX Account in Dispute : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX Report Date : XX/XX/year> Reporting Agencies : TransUnion, Equifax, Experian Formal Dispute & Request for Immediate Deletion To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this formal dispute concerning the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( # XXXX ) reported across all three credit bureaus. After reviewing my credit file, I have found this account to contain multiple inconsistencies, reporting errors, and incomplete data, in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nUnder FCRA 611, I am exercising my right to dispute any account that is being reported inaccurately, incompletely, or without tangible verification. Based on the evidence outlined below, I am requesting immediate deletion of this account from TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian. \n\nKey Reporting Discrepancies XXXX. Conflicting Last Activity Dates TransUnion : XX/XX/year> Equifax : XX/XX/year> Experian : XX/XX/year> These are XXXX different last activity dates for the same account a clear violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) which mandates accurate reporting of account timing.\n\n2. Payment History is Inconsistent Across All Bureaus TransUnion : No payment history shown at all Equifax : 79 % on-time payments Experian : 70 % on-time payments XXXX separate profiles for one account violates FCRA 607 ( b ) and FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) requiring consistent and complete reporting.\n\n3. Late Payments Do Not Match TransUnion : XXXX late payments Equifax : XXXX Experian : XXXX These are material inconsistencies a single tradeline can not simultaneously reflect perfect payment history and XXXX missed payments. This discrepancy damages consumer accuracy rights under FCRA 602 and 623 ( a ).\n\n4. \" Term Source '' Field Is Blank on All 3 Reports Without term source, the structure of the account ( revolving, installment, terms ) can not be validated. This makes the account incomplete and unverifiable in its current form.\n\n5. Months Reviewed Is Either 0 or Missing TransUnion & Equifax : 0 Experian : 37 months There is no explanation for how one bureau has 37 months of activity and the others show 0. This is inaccurate and misleading.\n\n6. Monthly Payment Reported as {$0.00} All three bureaus report a monthly payment of {$0.00} on a revolving credit card account that was charged off.\n\nThis is a clear sign of incomplete data, as no revolving account should reflect zero monthly obligation during charge-off status.\n\n7. Missing Amount Past Due Across All Bureaus No past due amount is reported even though this is a charged-off account. If nothing is owed, it shouldnt be charged off and if something is owed, it must be disclosed.\n\n8. Inconsistent or Contradictory Remarks TransUnion : Account closed\nby credit grantor Equifax : Charged off account Experian : Unpaid balance reported as loss The remarks conflict one says closed, another says loss, another says charge-off. FCRA requires uniform and accurate remark reporting.\n\nWhat I Am Requesting Per FCRA 611, 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), and 611 ( a ) ( 7 ), I am formally requesting : The full Method of Verification ( MOV ) used to confirm this tradeline A copy of the original signed credit card application or agreement Documentation confirming the accurate Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) The complete payment history with dates and missed payments A breakdown of who at XXXX XXXX verified this account, including name, title, and department Proof of the legal basis for continued reporting with inconsistencies If Verification Can not Be Provided If this account can not be fully verified with accurate, documented evidence, then per FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ), it must be deleted in full from all three credit bureaus. Continuing to report unverifiable, conflicting information is a direct violation of the FCRA and may result in : A complaint to the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) Formal notification to the State Attorney General Potential legal action under FCRA 616617 for willful and negligent noncompliance Fair Resolution I am seeking the permanent deletion of this tradeline from TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian due to its unverifiable, inconsistent, and incomplete nature. If XXXX XXXX can not prove full accuracy, they can not legally report this account. \n\nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-18T15:50:27.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"07305","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13062512","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-04-18T15:49:58.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Months Reviewed Is Either 0 or <em>Missing</em> TransUnion & Equifax : 0 Experian : 37 months There is no explanation for how one bureau has 37 months of activity and the others show 0. This is <em>inaccurate</em> and misleading.\n\n6. <em>Monthly</em> <em>Payment</em> Reported as {$0.00} All three bureaus report a <em>monthly</em> <em>payment</em> of {$0.00} on a revolving credit card account that was charged off.\n\nThis is a <em>clear</em> sign of incomplete data, as no revolving account should reflect zero <em>monthly</em> obligation during charge-off status.\n\n7."]},"sort":[19.827356,"13062512"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13062513","_score":19.788881,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer : XXXX XXXX Account in Dispute : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX Report Date : XX/XX/year> Reporting Agencies : TransUnion, Equifax, Experian Formal Dispute & Request for Immediate Deletion To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this formal dispute concerning the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( # XXXX ) reported across all three credit bureaus. After reviewing my credit file, I have found this account to contain multiple inconsistencies, reporting errors, and incomplete data, in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nUnder FCRA 611, I am exercising my right to dispute any account that is being reported inaccurately, incompletely, or without tangible verification. Based on the evidence outlined below, I am requesting immediate deletion of this account from TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian. \n\nKey Reporting Discrepancies XXXX. Conflicting Last Activity Dates TransUnion : XX/XX/year> Equifax : XX/XX/year> Experian : XX/XX/year> These are XXXX different last activity dates for the same account a clear violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) which mandates accurate reporting of account timing.\n\n2. Payment History is Inconsistent Across All Bureaus TransUnion : No payment history shown at all Equifax : 79 % on-time payments Experian : 70 % on-time payments XXXX separate profiles for one account violates FCRA 607 ( b ) and FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) requiring consistent and complete reporting.\n\n3. Late Payments Do Not Match TransUnion : XXXX late payments Equifax : XXXX Experian : XXXX These are material inconsistencies a single tradeline can not simultaneously reflect perfect payment history and XXXX missed payments. This discrepancy damages consumer accuracy rights under FCRA 602 and 623 ( a ).\n\n4. \" Term Source '' Field Is Blank on All 3 Reports Without term source, the structure of the account ( revolving, installment, terms ) can not be validated. This makes the account incomplete and unverifiable in its current form.\n\n5. Months Reviewed Is Either 0 or Missing TransUnion & Equifax : 0 Experian : 37 months There is no explanation for how one bureau has 37 months of activity and the others show 0. This is inaccurate and misleading.\n\n6. Monthly Payment Reported as {$0.00} All three bureaus report a monthly payment of {$0.00} on a revolving credit card account that was charged off.\n\nThis is a clear sign of incomplete data, as no revolving account should reflect zero monthly obligation during charge-off status.\n\n7. Missing Amount Past Due Across All Bureaus No past due amount is reported even though this is a charged-off account. If nothing is owed, it shouldnt be charged off and if something is owed, it must be disclosed.\n\n8. Inconsistent or Contradictory Remarks TransUnion : Account closed\nby credit grantor Equifax : Charged off account Experian : Unpaid balance reported as loss The remarks conflict one says closed, another says loss, another says charge-off. FCRA requires uniform and accurate remark reporting.\n\nWhat I Am Requesting Per FCRA 611, 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), and 611 ( a ) ( 7 ), I am formally requesting : The full Method of Verification ( MOV ) used to confirm this tradeline A copy of the original signed credit card application or agreement Documentation confirming the accurate Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) The complete payment history with dates and missed payments A breakdown of who at XXXX XXXX verified this account, including name, title, and department Proof of the legal basis for continued reporting with inconsistencies If Verification Can not Be Provided If this account can not be fully verified with accurate, documented evidence, then per FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ), it must be deleted in full from all three credit bureaus. Continuing to report unverifiable, conflicting information is a direct violation of the FCRA and may result in : A complaint to the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) Formal notification to the State Attorney General Potential legal action under FCRA 616617 for willful and negligent noncompliance Fair Resolution I am seeking the permanent deletion of this tradeline from TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian due to its unverifiable, inconsistent, and incomplete nature. If XXXX XXXX can not prove full accuracy, they can not legally report this account. \n\nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-18T15:50:26.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"07305","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13062513","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-18T15:49:58.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Months Reviewed Is Either 0 or <em>Missing</em> TransUnion & Equifax : 0 Experian : 37 months There is no explanation for how one bureau has 37 months of activity and the others show 0. This is <em>inaccurate</em> and misleading.\n\n6. <em>Monthly</em> <em>Payment</em> Reported as {$0.00} All three bureaus report a <em>monthly</em> <em>payment</em> of {$0.00} on a revolving credit card account that was charged off.\n\nThis is a <em>clear</em> sign of incomplete data, as no revolving account should reflect zero <em>monthly</em> obligation during charge-off status.\n\n7."]},"sort":[19.788881,"13062513"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20771899","_score":19.697924,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting IQ Data International To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally dispute inaccurate and inconsistent information being reported on my credit file by IQ Data International across all XXXX  major credit bureaus : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nAfter carefully reviewing my consumer reports, I have identified multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), as well as non-compliance with XXXX XXXX reporting standards. \n\nSummary of Dispute The account in question is being reported inconsistently and inaccurately across the credit bureaus : - XXXX  reports the account as an open account with no proper account classification, while simultaneously stating placed for collection in the comments section and providing no payment summary. \n- XXXX  reports the same account as a collection account, but does not include any comments, payment history, or required descriptive details. \n- XXXX  reports the account as a collection account and includes a balance updated date ( XX/XX/XXXX ), while the other bureaus do not report any such date and instead display incomplete or missing balance update fields. \n\nAdditionally, all three bureaus are reporting this account as being in collection status every month from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, which creates a misleading impression of ongoing delinquency activity. \n\nViolations Identified These discrepancies constitute clear violations of federal law and reporting standards, including but not limited to : FCRA Violations - 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.\n\n- 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing information known or reasonably believed to be inaccurate.\n\n- 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ) Failure to correct and update incomplete or inaccurate information.\n\n- 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) Failure to provide notice of dispute.\n\n- 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) Improper reporting practices affecting completeness and accuracy of consumer reports.\n\nFDCPA Violations - 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) False representation of the character, amount, or legal status of a debt.\n\n- 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ) Communicating credit information known to be false or failing to communicate that a debt is disputed.\n\n- 15 U.S.C. 1692f Use of unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. \n\nXXXX XXXX Compliance Violations- Failure to accurately report : - Account Status Codes- Payment Rating - Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) - Balance Updated Fields consistently across bureaus - Inconsistent reporting of account type ( open vs. collection ) violates XXXX XXXX XXXX Format Guidelines. \n\nXXXX ( Uniform Consumer Account Activity ) Compliance Issues - Misrepresentation of account status and activity cycles. \n- Improper repeated monthly reporting of collection status, creating a misleading rolling delinquency effect. \n\n\n\nDemand for Resolution Based on the above violations, I demand the following actions : XXXX. Provide method of verification/ Validate the debt or Cease reporting and Immediate deletion of this account from my credit file with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  due to unverifiable and inconsistent reporting ; OR, in the alternative : XXXX. A full and complete investigation, including : - Verification of the original signed contract or agreement ; - Documentation validating the accuracy of the reported account type ; - Proof of the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) ; - Complete and consistent XXXX XXXX compliant reporting across all bureaus. \n\nIf this information can not be verified with proper documentation and full compliance, it must be deleted immediately pursuant to federal law. \n\nNotice Please be advised that failure to correct or delete this inaccurate information within the XXXX investigation period will result in further action, including but not limited to complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX CFPB ) and potential legal remedies for willful noncompliance. \n\nI request written confirmation of the results of your investigation. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-30T15:19:28.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"85201","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20771899","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"T.S. Holdings","date_received":"2026-03-30T15:13:27.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Violations Identified These discrepancies constitute <em>clear</em> violations of federal law and reporting standards, <em>including</em> but not limited to : FCRA Violations - 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.\n\n- 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing information known or reasonably believed to be <em>inaccurate</em>.\n\n- 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ) Failure to correct and update incomplete or <em>inaccurate</em> information."]},"sort":[19.697924,"20771899"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14493657","_score":18.60635,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, UT XXXX Subject : Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting XXXX XXXX  Account # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Demand for Permanent Deletion and Compensation Dear Sir or Madam, Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I am submitting this Automated Credit Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) request to dispute inaccurate, unverifiable, and non-compliant information reported on my credit file for the above-referenced XXXX XXXX account. The reporting contains multiple violations of FCRA, FDCPA, Metro 2 standards, and potentially 18 U.S.C. 1343 ( wire fraud ). I demand the immediate investigation, correction, or permanent deletion of all inaccurate data, along with compensation for damages caused by these reporting errors, as authorized under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. \nAccount Information Account Number : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Type : Revolving, Credit Card Furnisher : XXXX XXXX XXXX Reported to : TransUnion, Experian, Equifax Identified Inaccuracies and Violations The following inaccuracies and violations are present in the credit reporting for this account across all three credit bureaus : XXXX. Incorrect Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) requires accurate reporting of the DOFD, which marks the start of the seven-year obsolescence period for derogatory accounts. The DOFD is inconsistently reported or unverifiable across bureaus : TransUnion : Not explicitly reported but implied via payment history ( first CO in XX/XX/XXXX ). \nExperian : Not explicitly reported but implied via payment history ( first CO in XX/XX/XXXX ). \nEquifax : Not explicitly reported but implied via payment history ( first CO in XX/XX/XXXX ). \nIssue : The DOFD must be consistent and verifiable under Metro 2 guidelines ( Field 35, Date of First Delinquency ). Inconsistent or missing DOFD reporting violates FCRA 1681e ( b ), which mandates reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. See Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. , 803 F. Supp. 2d 1108 ( N.D. Cal. 2011 ), where inaccurate DOFD reporting was deemed a violation of FCRA. \nDemand : Verify the exact DOFD with original account records. If unverifiable, delete the account per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\n2. Inaccurate Account Status and Payment History Violation : Metro 2 standards ( Consumer Data Industry Association, CDIA ) require accurate reporting of account status ( Field 17A ) and payment history ( Field 24 ). The reported statuses show discrepancies : TransUnion : Collection/Chargeoff with a balance of {$660.00}, despite a Charged off as bad debt comment and no monthly payment obligation. \nExperian : Collection/Chargeoff with a balance of {$660.00}, but a credit limit of {$500.00} and high credit of {$0.00}, which is inconsistent. \nEquifax : Charged off account with a credit limit of {$0.00} and high credit of {$660.00}, contradicting Metro 2 reporting standards for charged-off accounts. \nPayment history shows sporadic CO ( Charge Off ) and OK statuses without clear justification, violating Metro 2s requirement for consistent status updates ( e.g., a charged-off account should not revert to OK ). \nIssue : Inaccurate status reporting misleads creditors and violates 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). See Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 526 F.3d 142 ( 4th Cir. 2008 ), where failure to correct inaccurate status reporting resulted in liability for willful noncompliance. \nDemand : Provide documentation verifying the account status and payment history for each reported month. If unverifiable, delete per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\n3. Inconsistent Balance and Credit Limit Reporting Violation : Metro 2 Field 19 ( Current Balance ) and Field 20 ( Credit Limit ) must reflect accurate and consistent values. The reported data is inconsistent : TransUnion : Balance {$660.00}, Credit Limit {$500.00}, High Credit {$720.00}. \nExperian : Balance {$660.00}, Credit Limit {$500.00}, High Credit {$0.00}. \nEquifax : Balance {$660.00}, Credit Limit {$0.00}, High Credit {$660.00}. \nIssue : These discrepancies suggest a failure to follow reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). Additionally, reporting a balance on a charged-off account without a corresponding monthly payment obligation is misleading and violates FCRA. See Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., Inc. , 257 F.3d 409 ( 4th Cir. 2001 ). \nDemand : Verify the balance, credit limit, and high credit with original account records. If unverifiable, delete the account. \nXXXX. Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation Violation : Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), furnishers ( XXXX ) must conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed information, review all provided dispute information, and correct or delete unverifiable data. The XXXX systems automated handling of disputes often fails to meet this standard, as noted in Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853 ( 3d Cir. 2014 ), where reliance on automated systems without substantive review was deemed inadequate. \nIssue : The inconsistent and unverifiable data across bureaus suggests XXXX failed to conduct a proper investigation, violating FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nDemand : Conduct a manual investigation with original account records and provide proof of verification. If unverifiable, delete the account. \nXXXX. Potential Wire Fraud via XXXX Violation : Transmitting misleading or false information through XXXX an electronic system, may constitute wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343 if done with intent to deceive. The inconsistent DOFD, status, and balance reporting suggest reckless or intentional misrepresentation.\n\nIssue : False data transmitted electronically harms my creditworthiness and violates FCRAs accuracy requirements.\n\nDemand : Provide evidence that all reported data was verified with original records before transmission via XXXX If unverifiable, delete the account and investigate potential wire fraud violations. \nXXXX. FDCPA Violations Violation : If XXXX or a third-party collector reported this account, any misleading or harassing communication violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( FDCPA ), which prohibits false or misleading representations in debt collection. Reporting an unverifiable debt as a charge-off is deceptive. \nIssue : The inconsistent reporting across bureaus suggests an attempt to collect an unverifiable debt, violating FDCPA.\n\nDemand : Provide proof of debt validation under 15 U.S.C. 1692g. If unverifiable, cease collection and delete the account.\n\nLegal Basis for Dispute FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Requires reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. Inconsistent DOFD, status, and balance reporting violate this provision.\n\nFCRA 1681i ( a ) : Mandates a reasonable investigation of disputed information. Automated XXXX processing without manual verification is insufficient.\n\nFCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) : Furnishers must verify disputed data and correct or delete inaccuracies.\n\nFDCPA 1692e : Prohibits false or misleading representations in debt collection.\n\n18 U.S.C. 1343 : Transmitting false data electronically with intent to deceive may constitute wire fraud.\n\nMetro 2 Compliance : CDIA guidelines require consistent and accurate reporting of DOFD, account status, balance, and credit limit.\n\nCase Law : Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. ( 2011 ) : Inaccurate DOFD reporting violates FCRA .\n\nSaunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. ( 2008 ) : Failure to correct inaccurate status reporting is willful noncompliance.\n\nSeamans v. Temple Univ. ( 2014 ) : Automated dispute processing without substantive review violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nRequested Actions 1. Immediate Investigation : Conduct a manual investigation of the disputed account per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) and 1681s-2 ( b ). Provide copies of all original account records used to verify the reported data ( e.g., account agreement, payment records, charge-off documentation ). \nXXXX. Permanent Deletion : If any information ( DOFD, status, balance, credit limit, payment history ) can not be verified with original records, permanently delete the account from my credit file across all bureaus per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). \nXXXX. Compensation for Damages : The inaccurate reporting has caused financial and emotional harm, including potential credit denials and distress. I demand compensation for actual damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681o and statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15 U.S.C. 1681n for willful noncompliance. Additionally, I reserve the right to seek punitive damages for reckless reporting practices.\n\n4. Cease Collection : If this account is in collection, cease all collection activities until the debt is validated per 15 U.S.C. 1692g.\n\n5. Correct Metro 2 Reporting : Ensure all fields ( DOFD, status, balance, credit limit ) comply with Metro 2 standards and accurately reflect my role as an individual account holder.\n\n6. Provide Updated Credit Report : Send a corrected credit report reflecting the deletion or correction of the disputed account. Reservation of Rights I reserve all rights under UCC 1-308 ( Without Prejudice ) and will pursue legal action if this dispute is not resolved within 30 days, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ). Failure to comply may result in a complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and legal action for actual, statutory, and punitive damages XX/XX/XXXX Subject : Cease and Desist All XXXX  Account # [ Account Number, if known ] Dear [ Creditor/Debt Collector Name ], Under the authority of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692 ), I demand that you immediately cease all communication with me, including but not limited to phone calls, emails, text messages, letters, and credit reporting activities, regarding the alleged account referenced above. \nYour failure to properly verify the alleged debt, as required by FCRA 1681i and FDCPA 1692g, constitutes harassment and non-compliance with federal law. Pursuant to FDCPA 1692c ( c ), I hereby revoke any prior consent for communication. Any further contact or reporting of unverified information to credit reporting agencies violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) and will be considered willful non-compliance, subjecting you to liability under FCRA 1681n and FDCPA 1692k.\n\nThis letter serves as a formal dispute under the FCRA and an Automated Credit Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) request. You are required to : Cease all communication with me in any form. \nRemove any unverified or inaccurate information from my credit reports with all credit reporting agencies ( Equifax, Experian, TransUnion ). \nProvide proof of verification compliant with FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) if you claim the debt is valid. \nFailure to comply within XXXX  days will result in complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), as well as potential legal action for statutory damages. \nThis notice is sent in good faith and is OCRA-compliant ( Online Credit Repair Act principles ) to ensure fair and lawful treatment. Govern yourself accordingly. \nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-07T10:13:11.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"77373","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14493657","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-07T10:03:06.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Equifax : Not explicitly reported but implied via <em>payment</em> history ( <em>first</em> CO in XX/XX/XXXX ). \nIssue : The <em>DOFD</em> must be consistent and verifiable under Metro 2 guidelines ( Field 35, Date of <em>First</em> Delinquency ). Inconsistent or <em>missing</em> <em>DOFD</em> reporting violates FCRA 1681e ( b ), which mandates reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. See Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. , 803 F. Supp. 2d 1108 ( N.D."]},"sort":[18.60635,"14493657"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14486444","_score":18.310463,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Discover Financial Services XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, UT XXXX Subject : Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting Discover Card Account # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Demand for Permanent Deletion and Compensation Dear Sir or Madam, Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I am submitting this Automated Credit Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) request to dispute inaccurate, unverifiable, and non-compliant information reported on my credit file for the above-referenced Discover Card account. The reporting contains multiple violations of FCRA, FDCPA, Metro 2 standards, and potentially 18 U.S.C. 1343 ( wire fraud ). I demand the immediate investigation, correction, or permanent deletion of all inaccurate data, along with compensation for damages caused by these reporting errors, as authorized under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. \nAccount Information Account Number : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Type : Revolving, Credit Card Furnisher : Discover Financial Services Reported to : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Identified Inaccuracies and Violations The following inaccuracies and violations are present in the credit reporting for this account across all three credit bureaus : 1. Incorrect Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) requires accurate reporting of the DOFD, which marks the start of the seven-year obsolescence period for derogatory accounts. The DOFD is inconsistently reported or unverifiable across bureaus : XXXX : Not explicitly reported but implied via payment history ( XXXX XXXX  in XX/XX/XXXX ). \nXXXX  : Not explicitly reported but implied via payment history ( first CO  in XX/XX/XXXX ). \nXXXX  : Not explicitly reported but implied via payment history ( first CO  in XX/XX/XXXX ). \nIssue : The DOFD must be consistent and verifiable under Metro 2 guidelines ( Field 35, Date of First Delinquency ). Inconsistent or missing DOFD reporting violates FCRA 1681e ( b ), which mandates reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. See Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. , 803 F. Supp. 2d 1108 ( N.D. Cal. 2011 ), where inaccurate DOFD reporting was deemed a violation of FCRA. \nDemand : Verify the exact DOFD with original account records. If unverifiable, delete the account per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\n2. Inaccurate Account Status and Payment History Violation : Metro 2 standards ( Consumer Data Industry Association, CDIA ) require accurate reporting of account status ( Field 17A ) and payment history ( Field 24 ). The reported statuses show discrepancies : XXXX  : Collection/Chargeoff with a balance of {$660.00}, despite a Charged off as bad debt comment and no monthly payment obligation. \nXXXX  : Collection/Chargeoff with a balance of {$660.00}, but a credit limit of {$500.00} and high credit of {$0.00}, which is inconsistent. \nXXXX  : Charged off account with a credit limit of {$0.00} and high credit of {$660.00}, contradicting Metro 2 reporting standards for charged-off accounts. \nPayment history shows sporadic CO ( Charge Off ) and OK statuses without clear justification, violating Metro 2s requirement for consistent status updates ( e.g., a charged-off account should not revert to OK ). \nIssue : Inaccurate status reporting misleads creditors and violates 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). See Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 526 F.3d 142 ( 4th Cir. 2008 ), where failure to correct inaccurate status reporting resulted in liability for willful noncompliance. \nDemand : Provide documentation verifying the account status and payment history for each reported month. If unverifiable, delete per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\n3. Inconsistent Balance and Credit Limit Reporting Violation : Metro 2 Field 19 ( Current Balance ) and Field 20 ( Credit Limit ) must reflect accurate and consistent values. The reported data is inconsistent : XXXX : Balance {$660.00}, Credit Limit {$500.00}, High Credit {$720.00}. \nExperian : Balance {$660.00}, Credit Limit {$500.00}, High Credit {$0.00}. \nXXXX  : Balance {$660.00}, Credit Limit {$0.00}, High Credit {$660.00}. \nIssue : These discrepancies suggest a failure to follow reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). Additionally, reporting a balance on a charged-off account without a corresponding monthly payment obligation is misleading and violates FCRA. See Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., Inc. , 257 F.3d 409 ( 4th Cir. 2001 ). \nDemand : Verify the balance, credit limit, and high credit with original account records. If unverifiable, delete the account. \nXXXX. Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation Violation : Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), furnishers ( Discover ) must conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed information, review all provided dispute information, and correct or delete unverifiable data. The XXXX systems automated handling of disputes often fails to meet this standard, as noted in Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853 ( 3d Cir. 2014 ), where reliance on automated systems without substantive review was deemed inadequate. \nIssue : The inconsistent and unverifiable data across bureaus suggests Discover failed to conduct a proper investigation, violating FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nDemand : Conduct a manual investigation with original account records and provide proof of verification. If unverifiable, delete the account.\n\n5. Potential Wire Fraud via XXXX Violation : Transmitting misleading or false information through XXXX, an electronic system, may constitute wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343 if done with intent to deceive. The inconsistent DOFD, status, and balance reporting suggest reckless or intentional misrepresentation. \nIssue : False data transmitted electronically harms my creditworthiness and violates FCRAs accuracy requirements. \nDemand : Provide evidence that all reported data was verified with original records before transmission via XXXX. If unverifiable, delete the account and investigate potential wire fraud violations. \nXXXX. FDCPA Violations Violation : If Discover or a third-party collector reported this account, any misleading or harassing communication violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( FDCPA ), which prohibits false or misleading representations in debt collection. Reporting an unverifiable debt as a charge-off is deceptive. \nIssue : The inconsistent reporting across bureaus suggests an attempt to collect an unverifiable debt, violating FDCPA.\n\nDemand : Provide proof of debt validation under 15 U.S.C. 1692g. If unverifiable, cease collection and delete the account.\n\nLegal Basis for Dispute FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Requires reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. Inconsistent DOFD, status, and balance reporting violate this provision.\n\nFCRA 1681i ( a ) : Mandates a reasonable investigation of disputed information. Automated XXXX processing without manual verification is insufficient. \nFCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) : Furnishers must verify disputed data and correct or delete inaccuracies.\n\nFDCPA 1692e : Prohibits false or misleading representations in debt collection.\n\n18 U.S.C. 1343 : Transmitting false data electronically with intent to deceive may constitute wire fraud.\n\nMetro 2 Compliance : CDIA guidelines require consistent and accurate reporting of DOFD, account status, balance, and credit limit.\n\nCase Law : Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. ( 2011 ) : Inaccurate DOFD reporting violates FCRA .\n\nSaunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. ( 2008 ) : Failure to correct inaccurate status reporting is willful noncompliance.\n\nSeamans v. Temple Univ. ( 2014 ) : Automated dispute processing without substantive review violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nRequested Actions 1. Immediate Investigation : Conduct a manual investigation of the disputed account per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) and 1681s-2 ( b ). Provide copies of all original account records used to verify the reported data ( e.g., account agreement, payment records, charge-off documentation ). \nXXXX. Permanent Deletion : If any information ( DOFD, status, balance, credit limit, payment history ) can not be verified with original records, permanently delete the account from my credit file across all bureaus per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \nXXXX. Compensation for Damages : The inaccurate reporting has caused financial and emotional harm, including potential credit denials and distress. I demand compensation for actual damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681o and statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15 U.S.C. 1681n for willful noncompliance. Additionally, I reserve the right to seek punitive damages for reckless reporting practices.\n\n4. Cease Collection : If this account is in collection, cease all collection activities until the debt is validated per 15 U.S.C. 1692g.\n\n5. Correct Metro 2 Reporting : Ensure all fields ( DOFD, status, balance, credit limit ) comply with Metro 2 standards and accurately reflect my role as an individual account holder.\n\n6. Provide Updated Credit Report : Send a corrected credit report reflecting the deletion or correction of the disputed account. Reservation of Rights I reserve all rights under UCC 1-308 ( Without Prejudice ) and will pursue legal action if this dispute is not resolved within XXXX  days, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ). Failure to comply may result in a complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and legal action for actual, statutory, and punitive damages XX/XX/XXXX Subject : Cease and Desist All Communication Account # [ Account Number, if known ] Dear [ Creditor/Debt Collector Name ], Under the authority of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692 ), I demand that you immediately cease all communication with me, including but not limited to phone calls, emails, text messages, letters, and credit reporting activities, regarding the alleged account referenced above. \nYour failure to properly verify the alleged debt, as required by FCRA 1681i and FDCPA 1692g, constitutes harassment and non-compliance with federal law. Pursuant to FDCPA 1692c ( c ), I hereby revoke any prior consent for communication. Any further contact or reporting of unverified information to credit reporting agencies violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) and will be considered willful non-compliance, subjecting you to liability under FCRA 1681n and FDCPA 1692k.\n\nThis letter serves as a formal dispute under the FCRA and an Automated Credit Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) request. You are required to : Cease all communication with me in any form. \nRemove any unverified or inaccurate information from my credit reports with all credit reporting agencies ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX  ). \nProvide proof of verification compliant with FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( XXXX ) if you claim the debt is valid. \nFailure to comply within XXXX  days will result in complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), as well as potential legal action for statutory damages. \nThis notice is sent in good faith and is OCRA-compliant ( Online Credit Repair Act principles ) to ensure fair and lawful treatment. Govern yourself accordingly. \nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-07T10:01:21.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"77373","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14486444","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2025-07-07T09:54:31.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX  : Not explicitly reported but implied via <em>payment</em> history ( <em>first</em> CO  in XX/XX/XXXX ). \nIssue : The <em>DOFD</em> must be consistent and verifiable under Metro 2 guidelines ( Field 35, Date of <em>First</em> Delinquency ). Inconsistent or <em>missing</em> <em>DOFD</em> reporting violates FCRA 1681e ( b ), which mandates reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. See Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. , 803 F. Supp. 2d 1108 ( N.D. Cal. 2011 ), where <em>inaccurate</em> <em>DOFD</em> reporting was deemed a violation of FCRA."]},"sort":[18.310463,"14486444"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15312806","_score":17.99237,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This is a follow-up to my CFPB complaint regarding XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX reporting of the above-referenced account. After reviewing XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response and comparing it to my actual credit report data, I have identified multiple discrepancies and clear evidence of re-aging in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nXXXX. Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) Discrepancy XXXX  claims the XXXX  is XX/XX/XXXX. However, my credit reports ( attached ) show no recorded late payments before XXXX, and my delinquency occurred well before that date when the account was still with XXXX XXXX XXXX. By assigning a XXXX  nearly XXXX years after the accounts origination, XXXX is artificially extending the 7-year reporting period a textbook case of re-aging prohibited under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 5 ). \n\n2. Missing Historical Payment Data The credit reports display Data Unavailable for all months prior to XX/XX/XXXX, omitting the full delinquency history from XXXX XXXX XXXX. This selective deletion of payment history while retaining only the collection status distorts the accounts age and status, which is misleading to creditors and violates FCRA 607 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) the duty to maintain maximum possible accuracy. \n\nXXXX. Misleading Open Date Reporting XXXX  reports the Date Opened as XX/XX/XXXX, which is the date they purchased the debt. This appears in the Opened field of my credit report, making it appear as a new derogatory account in XXXX instead of a XXXX account. While XXXX claims this is industry standard, it is materially misleading to creditors and artificially damages my credit standing. \n\nXXXX. Inconsistent Charge-Off Timeline XXXX  claims the account was charged-off by XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. However, my credit report shows no charge-off or collection status for XXXX XXXX, only starting in XX/XX/XXXX. This gap in reporting undermines their claim of accuracy and indicates data manipulation or incomplete transmission to the credit bureaus. \n\nXXXX. Required Documentation That XXXX Can not Provide Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), a furnisher must not report information if it knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. To verify accuracy here, XXXX would be required to produce complete account-level documentation from origination to present, including : Original signed credit application from XXXX XXXX XXXX Complete payment history from account opening in XX/XX/XXXX through charge-off in XX/XX/XXXX Original creditor monthly statements for all months Internal charge-off ledger from XXXX XXXX XXXX showing balance calculations Original creditors recorded Date of First Delinquency as transmitted to credit bureaus at time of charge-off XXXX, as a debt buyer, did not originate this account and has already demonstrated that it does not have full historical records ( Data Unavailable on my reports ). If they can not provide this documentation, continued reporting constitutes a knowing violation of the FCRA. In such cases, deletion of the tradeline is the only compliant resolution. \n\nRequested Resolution : Given these documented inconsistencies, I am requesting that the CFPB take enforcement action to ensure XXXX XXXX XXXX : Immediately deletes the tradeline from all consumer reporting agencies, as the reported data is demonstrably inaccurate and unverifiable. \n\nProvides written confirmation of deletion within 15 days. \n\nCeases reporting the account unless and until it can be supported by complete and original source documentation as outlined above. \n\nThis is not a matter of difference of opinion the credit reports and XXXX  own written statements contradict each other, proving a violation of federal law. The continued reporting of this account in its current form is knowingly inaccurate, misleading, and harmful. \n\nAttachments : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX response letter TransUnion credit report screenshots ( showing missing data, XXXX  issue, misleading open date ) Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-15T15:21:20.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"27284","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15312806","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-15T15:20:49.000Z","state":"NC","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":["After reviewing XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response and comparing it to my actual credit report data, I have identified multiple discrepancies and <em>clear</em> evidence of re-aging in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nXXXX. Date of <em>First</em> Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) Discrepancy XXXX  claims the XXXX  is XX/XX/XXXX. However, my credit reports ( attached ) show no recorded late <em>payments</em> before XXXX, and my delinquency occurred well before that date when the account was still with XXXX XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[17.99237,"15312806"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14300728","_score":17.628727,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Experians Continued Reporting Violations for Closed XXXX  Account Date : XX/XX/XXXX Consumer : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX : Experian Furnisher : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX \nAccount Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Paid in Full / Closed : XX/XX/XXXX Status in Report : Paid, Closed. {$490.00} written off Disputes Filed : At least XXXX separate disputes submitted between late XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Summary of Complaint : Experian continues to materially misreport the above-referenced XXXX credit account in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Metro 2 standards, despite multiple formal disputes over the past 67 months. I have exhausted every normal resolution method, and Experian has refused to correct or delete inaccurate information demonstrating a pattern of willful noncompliance.\n\nSpecific Issues and Violations : 1. Status Misrepresentation : The account is still reported as Paid, Closed. {$490.00} written off even though it was paid in full on XX/XX/XXXX. This phrase implies a remaining loss or deficiency, which is false and misleading to creditors and violates FCRA 1681e ( b ) and Metro 2 guidelines on final account disposition.\n\n2. Improper Reporting of Charge-Off Months : Experian continues to reflect 50 consecutive months of CO ( Charge-Off ) status from early XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, even though payments were made in part throughout XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and the account was fully settled in XXXX. This is a clear distortion of my actual payment behavior. \nXXXX. Missing Payment Activity : Despite partial payments made in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, the reported balance remains unchanged ( {$490.00} ), with no reflection of payment activity violating the requirement under Metro 2 Field 17 ( Actual Payment Amount ) and FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\n4. Erroneous Transaction Notation : For both XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, the balance section says Paid on XX/XX/XXXX, which is irrelevant, incorrect, and confusing. This is either a data integration error or fabrication, and further undermines Experians credibility in dispute handling. \nXXXX. No DOFD Provided : Experian is reporting a charge-off without listing a Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ), which is mandatory under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ). This makes it impossible to verify or challenge the time-based accuracy of the derogatory reporting.\n\n6. Incomplete or Conflicting Data : The report omits basic required Metro 2 fields such as : Credit usage Monthly payment Terms Original creditor name Scheduled payments and reinvestigation notes that contradict each other Systemic Harm and Bad Faith Pattern : Experian has demonstrated a repeated and reckless failure to comply with its legal obligations to conduct meaningful investigations under FCRA 1681i, despite overwhelming documentary evidence. Its reliance on automated furnisher verifications without correcting obvious data violations constitutes gross negligence or willful intent.\n\nThis tradeline is actively suppressing my creditworthiness and preventing fair access to financial products. \n\n\n\nRequested Resolution : I demand : Permanent deletion of the XXXX account from my Experian file A written explanation of why these errors persisted after multiple disputes Confirmation of removal within 15 days Referral to regulatory counsel or third-party Metro 2 audit if Experian refuses to comply Notice of Legal Consequences : If Experian continues to report this account in violation of FCRA and Metro 2 , and fails to comply within 15 business days, I reserve the right to : Pursue a private right of action under FCRA 1681n and 1681o Seek statutory and actual damages, including for credit denials and reputational harm File formal complaints with the FTC, State Attorney General, and Congressional Consumer Protection Subcommittee Request a civil Metro 2 audit of Experians account-handling practices through a consumer rights attorney You are now formally on notice!","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-26T08:00:30.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"435XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14300728","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-26T05:55:49.000Z","state":"OH","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":["No <em>DOFD</em> Provided : Experian is reporting a charge-off without listing a Date of <em>First</em> Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ), which is mandatory under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ). This makes it impossible to verify or challenge the time-based accuracy of the derogatory reporting.\n\n6."]},"sort":[17.628727,"14300728"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14493922","_score":17.528463,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Subject : Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting XXXX Card Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Demand for Permanent Deletion and Compensation Dear Sir or Madam, Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I am submitting this Automated Credit Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) request to dispute inaccurate, unverifiable, and non-compliant information reported on my credit file for the above-referenced XXXX  Card account. The reporting contains multiple violations of FCRA, FDCPA, Metro 2 standards, and potentially 18 U.S.C. 1343 ( wire fraud ). I demand the immediate investigation, correction, or permanent deletion of all inaccurate data, along with compensation for damages caused by these reporting errors, as authorized under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. \nAccount Information Account Number : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Type : Revolving, Credit Card Furnisher : XXXX XXXX XXXX Reported to : XXXX, XXXX, Equifax Identified Inaccuracies and Violations The following inaccuracies and violations are present in the credit reporting for this account across all three credit bureaus : 1. Incorrect Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) requires accurate reporting of the DOFD, which marks the start of the seven-year obsolescence period for derogatory accounts. The DOFD is inconsistently reported or unverifiable across bureaus : TransUnion : Not explicitly reported but implied via payment history ( XXXX CO in XX/XX/XXXX ). \nXXXX  : Not explicitly reported but implied via payment history ( XXXX CO in XX/XX/XXXX ). \nEquifax : Not explicitly reported but implied via payment history ( XXXX CO in XX/XX/XXXX ). \nIssue : The DOFD must be consistent and verifiable under Metro 2 guidelines ( Field 35, Date of First Delinquency ). Inconsistent or missing DOFD reporting violates FCRA 1681e ( b ), which mandates reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. See Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. , 803 F. Supp. 2d 1108 ( N.D. Cal. 2011 ), where inaccurate DOFD reporting was deemed a violation of FCRA.\n\nDemand : Verify the exact DOFD with original account records. If unverifiable, delete the account per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\n2. Inaccurate Account Status and Payment History Violation : Metro 2 standards ( Consumer Data Industry Association, CDIA ) require accurate reporting of account status ( Field 17A ) and payment history ( Field 24 ). The reported statuses show discrepancies : XXXX  : Collection/Chargeoff with a balance of {$660.00}, despite a Charged off as bad debt comment and no monthly payment obligation.\n\nXXXX  : Collection/Chargeoff with a balance of {$660.00}, but a credit limit of {$500.00} and high credit of {$0.00}, which is inconsistent.\n\nEquifax : Charged off account with a credit limit of {$0.00} and high credit of {$660.00}, contradicting Metro 2 reporting standards for charged-off accounts.\n\nPayment history shows sporadic CO ( Charge Off ) and OK statuses without clear justification, violating Metro 2s requirement for consistent status updates ( e.g., a charged-off account should not revert to OK ).\n\nIssue : Inaccurate status reporting misleads creditors and violates 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). See Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 526 F.3d 142 ( 4th Cir. 2008 ), where failure to correct inaccurate status reporting resulted in liability for willful noncompliance.\n\nDemand : Provide documentation verifying the account status and payment history for each reported month. If unverifiable, delete per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\n3. Inconsistent Balance and Credit Limit Reporting Violation : Metro 2 Field 19 ( Current Balance ) and Field 20 ( Credit Limit ) must reflect accurate and consistent values. The reported data is inconsistent : XXXX  : XXXX {$660.00}, XXXX XXXX {$500.00}, XXXX XXXX {$720.00}. \nXXXX  : XXXX {$660.00}, XXXX XXXX {$500.00}, XXXX XXXX {$0.00}. \nEquifax : XXXX {$660.00}, XXXX XXXX {$0.00}, XXXX XXXX {$660.00}. \nIssue : These discrepancies suggest a failure to follow reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). Additionally, reporting a balance on a charged-off account without a corresponding monthly payment obligation is misleading and violates FCRA. See Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., Inc. , 257 F.3d 409 ( 4th Cir. 2001 ).\n\nDemand : Verify the balance, credit limit, and high credit with original account records. If unverifiable, delete the account.\n\n4. Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation Violation : Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), furnishers ( XXXX  ) must conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed information, review all provided dispute information, and correct or delete unverifiable data. The e-OSCAR systems automated handling of disputes often fails to meet this standard, as noted in Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853 ( 3d Cir. 2014 ), where reliance on automated systems without substantive review was deemed inadequate.\n\nIssue : The inconsistent and unverifiable data across bureaus suggests XXXX failed to conduct a proper investigation, violating FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nDemand : Conduct a manual investigation with original account records and provide proof of verification. If unverifiable, delete the account.\n\n5. Potential Wire Fraud via e-OSCAR Violation : Transmitting misleading or false information through e-OSCAR, an electronic system, may constitute wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343 if done with intent to deceive. The inconsistent DOFD, status, and balance reporting suggest reckless or intentional misrepresentation.\n\nIssue : False data transmitted electronically harms my creditworthiness and violates FCRAs accuracy requirements.\n\nDemand : Provide evidence that all reported data was verified with original records before transmission via e-OSCAR. If unverifiable, delete the account and investigate potential wire fraud violations.\n\n6. FDCPA Violations Violation : If XXXX or a third-party collector reported this account, any misleading or harassing communication violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( FDCPA ), which prohibits false or misleading representations in debt collection. Reporting an unverifiable debt as a charge-off is deceptive.\n\nIssue : The inconsistent reporting across bureaus suggests an attempt to collect an unverifiable debt, violating FDCPA.\n\nDemand : Provide proof of debt validation under 15 U.S.C. 1692g. If unverifiable, cease collection and delete the account.\n\nLegal Basis for Dispute FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Requires reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. Inconsistent DOFD, status, and balance reporting violate this provision.\n\nFCRA 1681i ( a ) : Mandates a reasonable investigation of disputed information. Automated e-OSCAR processing without manual verification is insufficient.\n\nFCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) : Furnishers must verify disputed data and correct or delete inaccuracies.\n\nFDCPA 1692e : Prohibits false or misleading representations in debt collection.\n\n18 U.S.C. 1343 : Transmitting false data electronically with intent to deceive may constitute wire fraud.\n\nMetro 2 Compliance : CDIA guidelines require consistent and accurate reporting of DOFD, account status, balance, and credit limit.\n\nCase Law : Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. ( 2011 ) : Inaccurate DOFD reporting violates FCRA .\n\nSaunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. ( 2008 ) : Failure to correct inaccurate status reporting is willful noncompliance.\n\nSeamans v. Temple Univ. ( 2014 ) : Automated dispute processing without substantive review violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nRequested Actions 1. Immediate Investigation : Conduct a manual investigation of the disputed account per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) and 1681s-2 ( b ). Provide copies of all original account records used to verify the reported data ( e.g., account agreement, payment records, charge-off documentation ).\n\n2. Permanent Deletion : If any information ( DOFD, status, balance, credit limit, payment history ) can not be verified with original records, permanently delete the account from my credit file across all bureaus per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\n3. Compensation for Damages : The inaccurate reporting has caused financial and emotional harm, including potential credit denials and distress. I demand compensation for actual damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681o and statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15 U.S.C. 1681n for willful noncompliance. Additionally, I reserve the right to seek punitive damages for reckless reporting practices.\n\n4. Cease Collection : If this account is in collection, cease all collection activities until the debt is validated per 15 U.S.C. 1692g.\n\n5. Correct Metro 2 Reporting : Ensure all fields ( DOFD, status, balance, credit limit ) comply with Metro 2 standards and accurately reflect my role as an individual account holder.\n\n6. Provide Updated Credit Report : Send a corrected credit report reflecting the deletion or correction of the disputed account. Reservation of Rights I reserve all rights under UCC 1-308 ( Without Prejudice ) and will pursue legal action if this dispute is not resolved within 30 days, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ). Failure to comply may result in a complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and legal action for actual, statutory, and punitive damages XX/XX/XXXX Subject : Cease and Desist All Communication Account # [ Account Number, if known ] Dear [ Creditor/Debt Collector Name ], Under the authority of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692 ), I demand that you immediately cease all communication with me, including but not limited to phone calls, emails, text messages, letters, and credit reporting activities, regarding the alleged account referenced above.\n\nYour failure to properly verify the alleged debt, as required by FCRA 1681i and FDCPA 1692g, constitutes harassment and non-compliance with federal law. Pursuant to FDCPA 1692c ( c ), I hereby revoke any prior consent for communication. Any further contact or reporting of unverified information to credit reporting agencies violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) and will be considered willful non-compliance, subjecting you to liability under FCRA 1681n and FDCPA 1692k.\n\nThis letter serves as a formal dispute under the FCRA and an Automated Credit Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) request. You are required to : Cease all communication with me in any form.\n\nRemove any unverified or inaccurate information from my credit reports with all credit reporting agencies ( Equifax, XXXX, XXXX  ).\n\nProvide proof of verification compliant with FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) if you claim the debt is valid.\n\nFailure to comply within 30 days will result in complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), as well as potential legal action for statutory damages.\n\nThis notice is sent in good faith and is OCRA-compliant ( Online Credit Repair Act principles ) to ensure fair and lawful treatment. Govern yourself accordingly. \nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-07T10:17:19.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"77373","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14493922","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-07T10:07:42.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Equifax : Not explicitly reported but implied via <em>payment</em> history ( XXXX CO in XX/XX/XXXX ). \nIssue : The <em>DOFD</em> must be consistent and verifiable under Metro 2 guidelines ( Field 35, Date of <em>First</em> Delinquency ). Inconsistent or <em>missing</em> <em>DOFD</em> reporting violates FCRA 1681e ( b ), which mandates reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. See Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. , 803 F. Supp. 2d 1108 ( N.D. Cal. 2011 ), where <em>inaccurate</em> <em>DOFD</em> reporting was deemed a violation of FCRA."]},"sort":[17.528463,"14493922"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14901496","_score":10.225409,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"RE : Formal Complaint and Rebuttal Oliphant USA LLC CFPB Case XXXX XXXXXXXX Account : Oliphant USA LLC XXXX XXXX ( originally XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this formal rebuttal to Oliphant USA LLCs response dated XX/XX/XXXX. Oliphant is currently reporting a debt to XXXX and XXXX  that I do not owe and that was previously deleted following a valid FTC Identity Theft Report. Their continued furnishing of this tradeline under a new name and number is unlawful and has caused me significant harm. Below I outline violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ), and FDUTPA.\n\n1. FCRA 1681e ( b ) Inaccurate Reporting Without Verification Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681e ( b ), any entity that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency must : Follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.\n\nOliphant failed to meet this requirement. In their response dated XX/XX/XXXX, they admitted they based their reporting on an email address match alone and did not verify critical personal identifiers, including my : Social Security number ( SSN ) Date of birth ( DOB ) Residential address Any signed agreement or contract They also ignored the identity theft documentation I previously submitted, which triggered a heightened legal duty to verify accuracy. \n\nBy reporting this account without confirming these key data points, Oliphant failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the information was accurate and belonged to me. Courts have consistently held that failure to verify personal identifiers especially in cases involving identity theft claims violates 1681e ( b ). This has resulted in real harm to me, including credit damage and emotional distress, and supports deletion of the tradeline and potential civil liability under 1681n ( willful ) and 1681o ( negligent ) violations.\n\n2. FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) - ( C ) Improper Reinsertion Without Required Notice or Certification Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ), onc\ne a consumer has successfully disputed and removed an account from their credit file, a furnisher or credit reporting agency may not reinsert that information unless they meet strict legal conditions : 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) : A deleted item may only be reinserted if the furnisher certifies \nthat the information is complete and accurate.\n\n1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( C ) : If an item is reinserted, the consumer reporting agency must notify the consumer within five ( 5 ) business days, disclosing the source of the information and informing the consumer of their right to dispute again.\n\nIn this case, I previously submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and supporting documentation, which led to the removal of the original XXXX XXXX tradeline from my credit report. \n\nLater, Oliphant USA LLC re-reported the same debt under : A new tradename ( Oliphant USA LLC ), A new account number ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ), and Without disclosing any relationship to the deleted XXXX XXXX account. \n\nThis was a functional reinsertion of the same disputed debt. However, neither Oliphant nor the consumer reporting agencies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fulfilled the following legal requirements : No certification that the reinserted information was complete and accurate ( as required by 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ).\n\nNo written notice sent to me within 5 business days of reinsertion ( as required by 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( C ) ). \n\nNo explanation that the new tradeline was connected to the previously deleted account. \n\nThis conduct is deceptive and unlawful. Rebranding the same invalid debt under a new name and account number appears to be an intentional attempt to evade FCRA reinsertion safeguards, effectively re-aging a disputed, time-barred, and fraudulent debt.\n\nBy failing to follow the required reinsertion protocol, Oliphant and the CRAs have violated the FCRA and contributed to contin\nued harm to my credit profile and financial standing. This supports my request for deletion of the account, investigation by the CFPB, and any relief available under FCRA 1681n and 1681o.\n\n3. FCRA 1681b No Permissible Purpose for Reporting or Accessing My Credit File Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681b, a person or entity may only obtain or furnish a consumer report for specific, lawful, and permissible purposes. These purposes include : A credit transaction initiated by the consumer Collection of a legitimate, valid debt Written authorization from the consumer A court order or applicable subpoena Oliphant USA LLC reported a derogatory tradeline to Experian and Equifax without satisfying any of these legal bases. I never initiated a transaction with Oliphant. I have no agreement, contract, or communication with them. I have never authorized them to access, use, or furnish my personal credit information. \n\nMoreover, the alleged debt they are reporting is : Fraudulent, as confirmed by my FTC Identity Theft Report Previously deleted by Experian after my dispute Still unvalidated by Oliphant, who admits they merely \" requested '' validation from the servicer Without a valid and verifiable creditorconsumer relationship, and in the face of unresolved identity theft claims, Oliphant had no permissible purpose under 1681b to furnish or verify this tradeline with any credit reporting agency.\n\nTheir continued credit reporting in this context constitutes a violation of FCRA 1681b ( f ), which states : A person shall not use or obtain a consumer report for any purpose unless the consumer report is obtained for a purpose for which the consumer report is authorized to be furnished under this section. By failing to meet this standard, Oliphant exposed m\ne to : False negative information on my credit report Lower credit scores and financial opportunity losses Emotional and reputational harm This violation supports my request for permanent deletion of the tradeline, regulatory investigation, and damages under FCRA 1681n and 1681o for willful or negligent violations.\n\n4. FDCPA 1692g ( b ) Reporting Without Validation Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 1692g ( b ), if a consumer disputes a debt in writing within 30 days of receiving notice, the debt collector must : Cease all collection activity, including reporting to credit bureaus, Until they have obtained verification of the debt, and Have mailed a copy of such verification to the consumer. \n\nThis is a mandatory requirement. The law does not permit a debt collector to continue attempting to collect directly or indirectly without first validating the debt in response to a written dispute. \n\nIn this case, I filed a formal identity theft dispute and submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and supporting documentation. Despite this, Oliphant continued reporting the account to XXXX and XXXX In their response dated XX/XX/XXXX, they admitted they only requested validation from the servicer ( XXXX XXXX ) and provided no confirmation that the debt had been verified nor did they send me any written validation. \n\nThis continued credit reporting constitutes a form of indirect debt collection. Courts have consistently recognized that furnishing or updating a tradeline with a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) is a collection activity under the FDCPA. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX where the court held that such reporting while a dispute is pending and before validation is provided violates 1692g ( b ).\n\nBecause Oliphant : Received a written dispute, Failed to validate the debt in writing, and Continued to report and maintain the tradeline, They have clearly violated FDCPA 1692g ( b ).\n\nThis violation : Justifies permanent deletion of the accoun\nt, Supports regulatory enforcement, and Entitles me to relief under FDCPA 1692k, including : Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} ), Actual damages for emotional or financial harm, Attorneys fees and costs, if pursued in court.\n\n5. FDCPA 1692g ( a ) Failure to Send Required I\nnitial Validation Notice Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 1692g ( a ), a debt collector must provide a written validation notice to the consumer within five ( 5 ) days of their initial communication. This notice must clearly include the following disclosures : The amount of the debt ; The name of the current creditor ; A statement of the consumers right to dispute the debt within 30 days ; A statement that the collector will provide verification or a judgment upon written request ; A statement that the collector will identify the original creditor upon request, if different.\n\nOliphant USA LLC failed to provide me with any such written notice. I was never sent a communicationby mail or otherwisecontaining these disclosures. I only learned of Oliphant 's involvement after discovering their derogatory tradeline on my credit report. \n\nCredit reporting itself is recognized as an initial communication for purposes of FDCPA compliance because it constitutes a collection attempt through reputational damage. Therefore, Oliphant had a legal obligation to send me a 1692g ( a ) notice within five days of reporting the debt to the CRAs. They did not.\n\nThis omission violated one of the most fundamental protections in the FDCPA. Without this notice : I was not informed of my dispute rights ; I had no idea who the alleged creditor was or what amount they claimed ; I was deprived of my right to request validation or the name of the original creditor ( XXXX XXXX ). \n\nThis violation is not merely proceduralit caused real harm by allowing Oliphant to furnish negative credit data while withholding my statutory right to contest the debt.\n\nThis violation of 1692g ( a ) supports : My request for deletion of the account, Regulatory enforcement by the CFPB, and My right to seek damages under FDCPA 1692k, including statutory damages, actual harm, and attorneys fees if pursued in court.\n\n6. FDCPA 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) Misrepresenting the Character, Amount, or Legal Status of the Debt Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) prohibits a debt collector from falsely representing : The character of a debt, The amount of a debt, or The legal status of a debt.\n\nOliphant USA LLC has violated this provision by including court fees in the reported balance of a debt that h\nas never been the subject of a legal action or court judgment.\n\nTo my knowledge : I have never been sued by Oliphant USA LLC or XXXX XXXX XXXX have never received service of process, been summoned, or appeared in court regarding this matter, No judgment has been issued against me in connection with this alleged debt.\n\nDespite this, Oliphant reported an inflated balance that exceeds the original charge-off amount including what they identify as court fees. This falsely suggests that : A court has entered a judgment against me, The debt has been legally adjudicated, and The amount owed includes legally imposed costs.\n\nThis is a misrepresentation of both the amount and legal status of the debt under 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ).\n\nCourts have consistently held that the inclusion of court costs or legal fees without an actual lawsuit or judgment is a deceptive and unlawful practice under the FDCPA. In XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, the court ruled that representing attorneys fees or legal charges as part of a consumer debt without proper explanation or legal authority violated 1692e.\n\nHere, Oliphant : Failed to provide any legal justification or supporting contract showing their right to collect court fees, Offered no proof of legal proceedings to justify such charges, and Furnished this misleading information to credit reporting agencies, where it remains visible to lenders and the public. \n\nThis creates a false sense of legal finality and urgency, and damages my reputation and creditworthiness based on claims that are legally unfounded.\n\nThis violation of 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) supports my request for : Permanent deletion of the tradeline, Regulatory enforcement action, and Statutory and actual damages under FDCPA 1692k.\n\n7. FDCPA 1692f ( 1 ) Collection of Unauthorized A\nmounts Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 1692f ( 1 ), a debt collector may not attempt to collect : Any amount ( including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation ) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.\n\nIn this case, Oliphant USA LLC has added court fees to the balance of the alleged debt that they are reporting to XXXX and XXXX  However : I have never been served with a lawsuit, I have never appeared in court, No judgment has been entered against me, and Oliphant has never provided a copy of any contract or agreement authorizing court-related charges.\n\nWithout a court order or contractual basis, the inclusion of court fees is unlawful. These charges are neither authorized by the original XXXX XXXX agreement nor awarded by any legal proceeding. \n\nCourts have routinely found that the attempt to collect fees not authorized by a contract or permitted by law is a strict violation of 1692f ( 1 ). For example, in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, even the attempt to collect small unauthorized fees was found actionable. The FDCPA is a strict liability statute intent is not required. If an unauthorized amount is sought, a violation exists.\n\nBy inflating the balance of the alleged debt in this way, Oliphant is attempting to collect an amount that exceeds any legal or contractual authority. This conduct : Misleads CRAs and potential lenders, Exposes me to false financial liability, and Directly violates federal law. \n\nThis supports my demand for : Permanent deletion of the account, Regulatory enforcement under the FDCPA, and Damages under FDCPA 1692k, including statutory and actual damages.\n\n8. FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) Attempting to Enforce a Time-Barred Debt Under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ) 559.72 ( 9 ), it is unlawful for a debt collector to : Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist.\n\nIn this case, Oliphant USA LLC is attempting to collect and report a debt that is clearly time-barred under Florida Statutes 95.11 ( 2 ) ( b ), which sets a 5-year statute of limitations for actions based on written contracts. \n\nBased on my records and available credit history : The original XXXX XXXX account was charged off in XXXX or earlier, and No payments or acknowledgments have been made since that time to revive the debt, The tradeline appears to have been reinserted under Oliphants name after the statute of limitations had already expired.\n\nDespite the debt being legally unenforceable, Oliphant continues to : Report it to XXXX and XXXX Represent the amount as current and collectible, and Omit any disclosure that the debt is beyond Floridas statutory limitations period. \n\nThis is a clear attempt to enforce rights that no longer legally exist a direct violation of 559.72 ( 9 ).\n\nCourts interpreting this section of the FCCPA have consistently ruled that : Collectors must not misrepresent or attempt to enforce time-barred debts, Failing to disclose that a debt is unenforceable can itself be deceptive, Credit reporting is considered a form of collection activity.\n\nBy engaging in this conduct, Oliphant is misleading me, CRAs, and potential creditors into believing the debt is valid, recent, and legally enforceable when it is not. This deception has caused me real financial and reputational harm. \n\nAs such, I request : Immediate deletion of this tradeline from all CRAs, Investigation and enforcement by the CFPB and Florida Attorney General, and Relief under FCCPA 559.77, including damages, costs, and attorneys fees.\n\npayment history : 9. FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ) Missing or Misstated DOFD and Payment History ( Re-Aging Violation ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), furnishers are strictly required to report the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and last payment date accurately. These fields are essential for determining the reporting period of a negative account. Specifically : 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) prohibits reporting collection accounts more than seven years plus 180 days from the DOFD.\n\n1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) similarly restricts charged-off account reporting after that period. \n\nIn my case, the original XXXX XXXX account was charged off prior to XXXX, and the debt should therefore be nearing or already beyond the statutory reporting limit. However, Oliphant USA LLC : Reported an inaccurate open date of XX/XX/XXXX, Omitted or misstated the DOFD, Failed to include the last payment date, and Provided no documentation or XXXX XXXX-compliant data to support the legitimacy or age of the tradeline. \n\nThese omissions and alterations effectively re-age the account, making it appear newer and more damaging to my credit than it actually is. This tactic is illegal under the FCRA and has been the subject of multiple enforcement actions by the CFPB and FTC. \n\nFurnishers are also required to comply with XXXX XXXX credit reporting standards, which mandate proper furnishing of : Field XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Payment History Profile Field XXXX Account Status Field XXXX Special Comment Codes, including dispute, fraud, or identity theft flags ( e.g., XB, XH ) Oliphants failure to report these fields and their misrepresentation of the accounts age has likely caused my credit score to be lower than it would be with accurate reporting. Worse, it allows a time-barred and previously deleted debt to stay on my file longer than the law allows.\n\nThis conduct : Violates FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ), Circumvents the statute of limitations on credit reporting, Undermines the integrity of the credit system, and Constitutes an additional basis for deletion, regulatory enforcement, and damages. \nI request the CFPB investigate whether Oliphant improperly re-aged this account and failed to furnish the required DOFD and payment history fields in accordance with both FCRA and XXXX XXXX standards. \n10. XXXX XXXX and FCRA Violations Rebranding and Concealing a Previously Deleted Debt Oliphant USA LLC is furnishing data to Experian and Equifax regarding the same underlying account that was previously reported and deleted by XXXX XXXX. However, rather than identifying the debt properly, Oliphant has : Reported the debt under a new tradename ( Oliphant USA LLC ) and a new account number ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ), Failed to include any reference to the original creditor, Reported a misleading open date of XX/XX/XXXX, which is disconnected from the true Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ), Omitted required XXXX XXXX fields, including : Field XXXX XXXX, Field XXXX Payment History Profile, Field XXXX Accurate Account Status, and Field XXXX Dispute/Fraud Coding ( e.g., XB or XH ) These omissions and misrepresentations violate XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including : FCRA 1681e ( b ) failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy, FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) failure to correct or update inaccurate information after receiving notice of dispute, FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ) potential re-aging of obsolete information This conduct conceals the history of identity theft and prior deletion of the account and gives the misleading appearance that a new, legitimate account exists, when in fact it is the same previously removed debt rebranded, reinserted, and re-aged. \n\nThese tactics mislead credit reporting agencies, lenders, and other users of my credit file. I respectfully request that the CFPB investigate whether Oliphants reporting practices conform to XXXX XXXX standards and whether they violated their legal obligations under the FCRA by failing to furnish complete, accurate, and non-misleading data.\n\n11. FDCPA 1692c ( c ) Cease and Desist Notice and Enforcement This letter constitutes formal written notice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 1692c ( c ) that I refuse to pay the disputed debt and demand that Oliphant USA LLC immediately cease all further communication with me regarding this matter.\n\nPursuant to 1692c ( c ), once a consumer notifie\ns a debt collector in writing to cease communication, the collector may only contact the consumer : To confirm that further collection efforts will stop, or To inform the consumer of specific legal remedies that may be pursued Any further attempts to collect this alleged debt including but not limited to letters, calls, emails, or continued credit reporting will constitute a separate and actionable violation of the FDCPA. \n\nI dispute the validity and ownership of this debt in full. I have submitted an FTC Identity Theft Report and dispute documentation. I have no relationship with Oliphant, and I have received no proper validation. I will not engage in further communication unless required to defend myself in a legal forum.\n\nI am formally requesting that Oliphant : Cease all direct or indirect collection activities, including credit rep\norting, Mark the account as disputed and blocked due to identity theft, and Refrain from selling, transferring, or assigning the account to any third party Any failure to comply with this cease and desist notice will be considered willful noncompliance under the FDCPA and may give rise to further regulatory complaint and/or civil action.\n\n12. FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) & 1681s-2 ( b ) CRA and Furnisher Reinvestigation Failures Under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) and 1681s-2 ( b ), both consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) and furnishers of information have strict reinvestigation obligations when a consumer submits a dispute. \n\nWhen I disputed this account with XXXX  and XXXX  I included : A valid FTC Identity Theft Report, Written details outlining the fraudulent nature of the debt, and Evidence that the original tradeline had previously been removed from my credit file If Oliphant USA LLC responded to the CRA dispute by confirming the account without : Conducting a meaningful investigation, Reviewing the identity theft documentation I submitted, or Verifying the accuracy of fields such as XXXX, last payment, and original creditor information, then they violated FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nLikewise, if the CRAs failed to delete or correct unverifiable data within the 30-day period, they violated FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ).\n\nBoth the CRA and the furnisher are obligated to : Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, Review all relevant evidence submitted by the consumer, and Update or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable data A mere check-the-box confirmation without substantive review is legally insufficient. This failure has allowed false information to remain on my report, contributing to : Lower credit scores, Reputational harm, Credit denials, and Ongoing emotional distress These failures support my request for deletion of the tradeline, enforcement action by the CFPB, and relief under FCRA 1681n and 1681o. \n13. FDUTPA 501.204 Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Oliphant USA LLCs actions constitute clear violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ), Fla. Stat. 501.204, which prohibits any unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.\n\nSpecifically, Oliphant engaged in the following deceptive and unfair practices : Rebranding a previously deleted account ( originally from XXXX XXXX ) and furnishing it under a new tradename and number, without disclosing its origin, deletion history, or disputed status. \n\nAssigning a misleading open date of XX/XX/XXXX, while omitting the true Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and last payment date creating the false appearance of recency. \n\nAdding court fees to the balance despite there being no legal judgment, court action, or supporting contract. \n\nReporting a time-barred debt as if it were legally enforceable, without notifying me or the CRAs that the debt is beyond Floridas 5-year statute of limitations. \n\nFailing to apply the appropriate XXXX XXXX dispute and identity theft codes, such as XXXX or XXXX, misleading the credit bureaus into believing the account is undisputed and valid. \n\nContinuing to report and collect on this account without providing written validation or responding to identity theft documentation despite their obligations under both federal and Florida law. \n\nUnder FDUTPA : It is not necessary to prove intent only that the practice was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. \n\nThese acts and omissions were material, misleading, and harmful to me as a Florida consumer. \n\nFDUTPA covers any commercial conduct including debt collection and credit reporting that causes injury through deceptive methods. \n\nAs a result of these practices, I have suffered : Damage to my creditworthiness, Denial of financial opportunities, Emotional distress and reputational harm, and The cost of ongoing efforts to correct a re-aged, unlawful, and invalid tradeline. \n\nThis pattern of concealment, unauthorized charges, and failure to disclose essential account information is not merely technical it is deceptive and unlawful under Florida law. I respectfully request that the CFPB refer this matter to the Florida Attorney Generals Office, and that appropriate regulatory action be taken to hold Oliphant accountable under FDUTPA.\n\n14. Pattern of Abusive and Systemic Noncompliance The conduct exhibited by Oliphant USA LLC in my case is not an isolated event, but part of a well-documented pattern of abusive and unlawful practices affecting consumers nationwide. Numerous public complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB )XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and consumer rights organizations reveal systemic violations that mirror my own experience.\n\nConsumers consistently report that Oliphant : Attempts to collect debts that are not owed Re-ages or rebrands previously disputed or deleted accounts Continues reporting tradelines without proper validation Adds unauthorized fees to balances Fails to respond to identity theft disputes Harasses consumers despite cease and desist notices Examples of Public Consumer Complaints : Oliphant Financial , LLC is aggressively attempting to collect an alleged debt of {$5500.00} from me. I have sent a formal dispute letter via certified mail demanding full validation of this debt, as is my right under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Despite my dispute, their collection efforts constitute harassment. \nXXXX  Complaint ( bbb.org ) They are trying to collect on a debt that is over 10 years old and already settled. I never received any notice, and they just reported it to the credit bureau as if it were new. \nPublic Complaint Summary ( thelangelfirm.com ) I disputed the debt with Oliphant and they never responded, yet they continue to update the tradeline monthly, lowering my credit score. I provided identity theft documentation and still no response.\n\nPublic Legal Forum Report ( consumerlawfirmcenter.com ) Oliphant is using zombie debt collection practices. They placed a tradeline on my credit report for a debt I never heard of and never validated. This company is guilty of violating consumer notification before striking my credit.\n\nCFPB Public Complaint This pattern reveals a recurring\nfailure to comply with : FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681c FDCPA 1692g ( a ) - ( b ), 1692e, 1692f, 1692c ( c ) FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) FDUTPA 501.204 These repeated practices are not simple errors they reflect a business model that profits from the unlawful suppression of consumer rights and regulatory evasion. They demonstrate reckless or willful noncompliance, elevating the seriousness of Oliphants legal exposure under both federal and Florida law.\n\nI respectfully request that the CFPB : Recognize these acts as part of a larger pattern of abuse Refer the matter to the Florida Attorney Generals Office for further enforcement under FDUTPA Impose corrective measures, civil penalties, and require permanent deletion of the unlawful tradeline 15. Potential Improper Disclosure of Personal Identifying Information It appears that XXXX XXXX may have improperly disclosed my sensitive personal identifying information ( PII ) including my Social Security number, date of birth, address, and contact information to Oliphant USA LLC after I had submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and formally disputed the debt as fraudulent. \n\nIn Oliphants JXX/XX/XXXX response, they stated that XXXX XXXX declined the fraud claim due to an email match. However, Oliphant also admitted they had no signed contract, no account records, and no verified identity match. This strongly suggests that my full identity information was shared without my consent and without a permissible legal basis. \n\nThis raises potential violations of the following laws : FCRA 1681b ( f ) Use of consumer information without a valid, permissible purpose Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Unauthorized sharing of non-public personal information ( NPI ) between a financial institution and a non-affiliated third party If XXXX XXXX  shared my identity data with a third-party debt buyer after the account had been disputed, deleted, and identified as fraudulent, such sharing may constitute a breach of consumer privacy and data protection laws. \n\nI respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate whether XXXX XXXX or Oliphant violated federal privacy protections by disclosing or using my personal information after the debt had been flagged as fraudulent. Any findings should be referred to the FTC, appropriate privacy regulators, and state-level data protection authorities as warranted. \nPersonal Impact and Harm Statement In summary, the actions of Oliphant USA LLC have caused me serious and measurable harm. They have reported a debt I do not owe one that was previously removed from my credit reports after I submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and dispute documentation. They failed to provide validation, misrepresented the nature and age of the debt, added unauthorized fees, and reinserted the tradeline under a new account number without proper notice. These actions violate multiple provisions of the FCRA, FDCPA, FCCPA, and FDUTPA, as well as XXXX XXXX industry standards. \n\nBecause of Oliphants conduct, I have experienced : Significant and unjustified damage to my credit score Denial of credit and increased borrowing costs Emotional stress and frustration from repeatedly disputing a matter that had already been resolved A loss of confidence in the integrity of the credit reporting system The unauthorized use and possible disclosure of my personal information I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau take immediate action to : Require the permanent deletion of this account from all consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) Investigate and sanction Oliphant USA LLC for repeated and systemic violations of consumer protection laws Refer the matter to the Florida Attorney General for FDUTPA and FCCPA enforcement Require all data furnishers involved to comply with FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) and XXXX XXXX guidelines I reserve the ri","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-26T08:37:47.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"32824","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14901496","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Oliphant United, Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-26T06:46:11.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ) <em>Missing</em> or Misstated <em>DOFD</em> and <em>Payment</em> History ( Re-Aging Violation ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), furnishers are strictly required to report the Date of <em>First</em> Delinquency ( <em>DOFD</em> ) and last <em>payment</em> date accurately. These fields are essential for determining the reporting period of a negative account."]},"sort":[10.225409,"14901496"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":19,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":19}]}},"product":{"doc_count":19,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":13,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":13}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":19,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":10}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":19,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":19}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":19,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":12},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":7}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":19,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":19}]}},"company":{"doc_count":19,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":5},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"Oliphant United, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"OneMain Finance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"T.S. Holdings","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":19,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TX","doc_count":4},{"key":"FL","doc_count":3},{"key":"NC","doc_count":3},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":3},{"key":"RI","doc_count":3},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":19,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":10}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":19,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}},"_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":{}}}