{"took":101,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":26,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19563147","_score":17.554338,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am a 100 % P & T XXXX Veteran. I hold an XXXX XXXX Rewards Visa Card ( issued by Chase ). On [ Date ], XXXX unilaterally deleted my login credentials, which are required to access and manage this credit card account. \nDenial of Access : By deleting the XXXX account, the merchant effectively \" bricked '' my access to manage my federal line of credit, view statements, or dispute transactions. This is a violation of the Truth in Lending Act ( Regulation Z ) regarding accessibility of account information. \nFinancial Harm : I was actively paying off a balance on this card. Removing my ability to log in and manage payments without due process or notice constitutes an \" Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Act or Practice '' ( UDAAP ). \nSecurity Negligence : Evidence shows this deletion was processed by an XXXX XXXX support team, despite my residence in XXXX. This indicates a security breach/identity theft that the financial institution ( Chase/Amazon ) failed to flag or investigate, instead choosing to sever the client relationship. \nState Failure : The XXXX  XXXX Attorney General closed my complaint ( # XXXX ) without resolution, citing \" informal '' limitations.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-17T19:01:39.000Z","issue":"Trouble using your card","sub_product":"Store credit card","zip_code":"60014","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19563147","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2026-02-17T18:50:51.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Can't use card to make purchases"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Security</em> <em>Negligence</em> : <em>Evidence</em> <em>shows</em> this <em>deletion</em> was processed by an XXXX XXXX support team, despite my residence in XXXX. This indicates a <em>security</em> breach/identity theft that the financial institution ( Chase/Amazon ) failed to flag or investigate, instead choosing to sever the client relationship. \nState Failure : The XXXX  XXXX Attorney General closed my complaint ( # XXXX ) without resolution, citing \" informal '' limitations."]},"sort":[17.554338,"19563147"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16786345","_score":14.203552,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against TransUnion LLC for continuing to report inaccurate and compromised tradelines that have already been deleted by both XXXX  and XXXX following verified investigations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). After TransUnions XXXX  data breach, my TransUnion credit report still shows multiple XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts and other negative items that have been confirmed as deleted by the other nationwide consumer reporting agencies. \n\nThe following accounts remain on my TransUnion file despite verified deletions elsewhere : a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX loan ending in XXXX, a secured credit card ending in XXXX, and another XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX all of which were confirmed deleted by XXXX  and XXXX. Additionally, my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) account ending in XXXX and my XXXX XXXX personal loan ending in XXXX were also deleted by XXXX, yet TransUnion continues to list them with derogatory or charge-off remarks. These tradelines were not only removed from the other bureaus systems, but also cited by XXXX as being deleted in connection with recent data security breach findings. \n\nTransUnions continued reporting of these unverifiable and inconsistent accounts violates multiple provisions of the FCRA, including 607 ( b ), which requires credit reporting agencies to maintain maximum possible accuracy, 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), which mandates deletion of unverifiable information, and 605B, which prohibits re-reporting of credit data compromised through breaches without consumer authorization. Because the same tradelines have been deleted by the other nationwide CRAs, TransUnions continued reporting demonstrates negligence or willful non-compliance with its federal obligations. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB compel TransUnion to immediately delete all inaccurate and unverifiable tradelines listed above, provide written confirmation of deletion, and supply a full description of the verification procedures used to justify their continued reporting. I also request that TransUnion send corrected reports to all parties who have accessed my credit file within the past six months.\n\nIf TransUnion fails to comply within thirty ( 30 ) days of this complaint, I will initiate civil legal action under FCRA 616 and 617 for negligent and willful violations and file additional complaints with my State Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ). \n\nI am attaching evidence showing that XXXX  and XXXX have already removed these accounts from their systems, including : My XXXX report dated XX/XX/year>, confirming deletion of XXXX XXXX accounts ending in XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ; and My XXXX  report dated XX/XX/year>, confirming deletion of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX accounts. \n\nTransUnions failure to remove the same items, despite clear evidence and breach implications, continues to harm my creditworthiness and violates the FCRAs requirements for fair and accurate consumer reporting. I respectfully request CFPB intervention to enforce full compliance and require TransUnion to delete these accounts immediately.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-23T08:45:42.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"96817","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16786345","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-23T08:23:28.000Z","state":"HI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am attaching <em>evidence</em> showing that XXXX  and XXXX have already removed these accounts from their systems, including : My XXXX report dated XX/XX/year>, confirming <em>deletion</em> of XXXX XXXX accounts ending in XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ; and My XXXX  report dated XX/XX/year>, confirming <em>deletion</em> of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX accounts."]},"sort":[14.203552,"16786345"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16486573","_score":14.200408,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is submitted on behalf of myself, XXXX XXXX, and my spouse, XXXX XXXX, who were co-tenants on the lease at XXXX XXXX. Fair Collections & Outsourcing ( XXXX ) is attempting to collect a fabricated and non-existent debt that was falsely reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The property was fully settled at move-out, with all balances paid and confirmed as closed by the property manager. Despite this, the landlord fabricated postmove-out charges for normal wear and tear and failed to return our {$500.00} security deposit as required by California Civil Code 1950.5.\n\nWithout ever providing written notice or validation, they reported a false balance of {$140.00} to XXXX nearly nine months later, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ). When questioned, the property manager falsely claimed the debt was related to unpaid utility charges from XXXX, but public records and the collection account clearly show that XXXXXXXX XXXXnot XXXXwas the source of the report. This demonstrates intentional misrepresentation and an effort to shift blame to avoid responsibility. \n\nWe have repeatedly requested verification of the alleged debt, including itemized statements, proof of assignment, and evidence of any legitimate balance, but neither XXXX nor XXXX XXXX  has provided any. Additionally, we have extensive email correspondence with the former property manager, XXXX XXXX, who acknowledged and discussed this matter in XXXX  yet failed to take corrective action. These communications, along with call records to the XXXX office seeking resolution, demonstrate clear bad faith and a pattern of negligence and deception. \n\nTheir false reporting has caused significant and ongoing harm, including damaged credit scores, increased borrowing costs, denial of rental housing opportunities, and emotional XXXX  resulting from being placed at risk of homelessness. We are requesting immediate investigation, deletion of the false collection record, refund of our security deposit, and written confirmation that all related data is permanently removed from all credit reporting systems and databases.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-22T13:45:56.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Rental debt","zip_code":"95123","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16486573","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-09T16:02:18.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was paid"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We are requesting immediate investigation, <em>deletion</em> of the false collection record, refund of our <em>security</em> deposit, and written confirmation that all related data is permanently removed from all credit reporting systems and databases."]},"sort":[14.200408,"16486573"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16925005","_score":13.263361,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"After submitting my initial disputes, I received responses from the credit bureaus that did not include any verification evidence or identifying details of the furnisher. Instead of resolving the inconsistencies, the accounts were simply marked as verified without documentation. Upon further review, I discovered that each bureau continues to show different and logically incompatible data for the same accounts. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX Equifax reports the account as Paid and Current with no past due balance. Experian and TransUnion, however, show Closed with 30-day delinquency and past due amounts. These differences violate Metro2 field alignment requirementsstatus, past due, and payment history can not conflict across bureaus. \n\nXXXX XXXX Account XXXX All three bureaus mark this account as Charge-off, yet Equifax lists a {$0.00} credit limit while Experian and TransUnion report {$1500.00}. High credit and date fields are inconsistent across reports. Reporting a {$0.00} limit alongside an active balance violates Metro2 logical field consistency, inflating my utilization and negatively impacting my FICO score. \n\nXXXX Account XXXX Equifax lists a XXXX credit limit but a high credit of {$5500.00}, while Experian lists a {$600.00} limit and {$0.00} high credit. TransUnion shows a {$600.00} limit with a {$5500.00} high credit. These contradictions create false risk indicators for utilization and recency, harming my credit profile. \n\nPersonal Identifiers There are conflicting versions of my name, address, and employer across the three bureaus, which I have disputed. These inaccuracies increase the risk of mixed-file errors and reinsertion of deleted data. \n\nUnauthorized Inquiries I disputed inquiries such as XXXX ( Equifax ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Experian ) because I do not recall authorizing them and requested documentary proof of permissible purpose under FCRA 604.\n\nData Breach Impact My concerns are further heightened by Equifaxs prior data breach, to which I was directly impacted ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  Impacted : YES ), and the XXXX  Breach ( XXXX  Breach Impacted : YES ). \nGiven these breaches, Equifax and other data furnishers have a heightened duty to ensure accuracy, safeguard personal data, and prevent identity-mixing or reinsertion of previously deleted items. Reporting such contradictory and unverifiable data after known data compromise constitutes negligence under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) and FACTA identity protection provisions. These inaccuracies could be the direct result of data mishandling post-breach and have caused additional financial harm and emotional distress, as my credit data appears to have been corrupted or mishandled following those breaches. \n\nPrior Bureau Responses and Harm Despite repeated written requests, I have not received a valid Method of Verification. Each bureau failed to provide the name, address, phone, or email of the verifying party and the actual documents used ( such as original applications or payment histories ). The ongoing inconsistencies continue to cause score suppression, denial of new credit, and emotional distress due to the ongoing reporting of false derogatory information. \n\nRequested Resolution Immediate Deletion of the XXXX disputed accounts ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) from all credit bureaus due to unverified and contradictory data. \n\nIn the alternative, remove all derogatory or charge-off notations and correct every Metro2 data field, ensuring that credit limit, balance, past due, status, and all date fields are uniform across bureaus. \n\nDelete unauthorized inquiries unless verifiable proof of permissible purpose with date, time, and authorization is produced. \n\nPermanently remove inaccurate personal identifiers and prevent reinsertion without written notice under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nProvide full Method of Verification detailsincluding the verifying partys contact info and all records used to verify the accounts.\n\nSummary Justification This case involves violations of FCRA 611 ( failure to conduct reasonable reinvestigation ), 607 ( b ) ( failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy ), and 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( failure to correct and update information ). The contradictory reporting across Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion clearly violates Metro2 standards for consistency and logical field alignment. Furthermore, the Equifax and XXXX data breaches increase the likelihood that my credit data has been mishandled, resulting in unreliable reinvestigations and corrupted records. \n\nGiven the pattern of non-compliance and the data security implications, I request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau require immediate deletion of all unverified accounts and corrective action by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion to restore the accuracy and integrity of my consumer file. \n\nRecommendation : Proceed with full deletion of the disputed accounts and file escalation with both the CFPB and the State Attorney General for enforcement of FCRA and FACTA compliance. The evidence shows systemic reinvestigation failures, post-breach negligence, and harm to my credit reputation that can not be cured by minor corrections.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-30T17:30:53.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"10034","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16925005","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-10-30T17:30:27.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>evidence</em> <em>shows</em> systemic reinvestigation failures, post-breach <em>negligence</em>, and harm to my credit reputation that can not be cured by minor corrections."]},"sort":[13.263361,"16925005"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16922638","_score":13.263361,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"After submitting my initial disputes, I received responses from the credit bureaus that did not include any verification evidence or identifying details of the furnisher. Instead of resolving the inconsistencies, the accounts were simply marked as verified without documentation. Upon further review, I discovered that each bureau continues to show different and logically incompatible data for the same accounts. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX Equifax reports the account as Paid and Current with no past due balance. Experian and TransUnion, however, show Closed with XXXX delinquency and past due amounts. These differences violate XXXX field alignment requirementsstatus, past due, and payment history can not conflict across bureaus. \n\nXXXX XXXX Account XXXX All three bureaus mark this account as Charge-off, yet Equifax lists XXXX {$0.00} credit limit while Experian and TransUnion report {$1500.00}. High credit and date fields are inconsistent across reports. Reporting a {$0.00} limit alongside an active balance violates XXXX logical field consistency, inflating my utilization and negatively impacting my XXXX score. \n\nXXXX Account XXXX Equifax lists a XXXX credit limit but a high credit of {$5500.00}, while Experian lists a {$600.00} limit and {$0.00} high credit. TransUnion shows a {$600.00} limit with a {$5500.00} high credit. These contradictions create false risk indicators for utilization and recency, harming my credit profile. \n\nPersonal Identifiers There are conflicting versions of my name, address, and employer across the XXXX bureaus, which I have disputed. These inaccuracies increase the risk of mixed-file errors and reinsertion of deleted data. \n\nUnauthorized Inquiries I disputed inquiries such as XXXX ( Equifax ), XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XXXX ( Experian ) because I do not recall authorizing them and requested documentary proof of permissible purpose under FCRA 604. \n\nData Breach Impact My concerns are further heightened by Equifaxs prior data breach, to which I was directly impacted ( EQ Data Breach Impacted : YES ), and the NPD Breach ( NPD Breach Impacted : YES ). \nGiven these breaches, Equifax and other data furnishers have a heightened duty to ensure accuracy, safeguard personal data, and prevent identity-mixing or reinsertion of previously deleted items. Reporting such contradictory and unverifiable data after known data compromise constitutes negligence under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) and FACTA identity protection provisions. These inaccuracies could be the direct result of data mishandling post-breach and have caused additional financial harm and emotional distress, as my credit data appears to have been corrupted or mishandled following those breaches. \n\nPrior Bureau Responses and Harm Despite repeated written requests, I have not received a valid Method of Verification. Each bureau failed to provide the name, address, phone, or email of the verifying party and the actual documents used ( such as original applications or payment histories ). The ongoing inconsistencies continue to cause score suppression, denial of new credit, and emotional distress due to the ongoing reporting of false derogatory information. \n\nRequested Resolution Immediate Deletion of the XXXX disputed accounts ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX ) from all credit bureaus due to unverified and contradictory data. \n\nIn the alternative, remove all derogatory or charge-off notations and correct every XXXX data field, ensuring that credit limit, balance, past due, status, and all date fields are uniform across bureaus. \n\nDelete unauthorized inquiries unless verifiable proof of permissible purpose with date, time, and authorization is produced. \n\nPermanently remove inaccurate personal identifiers and prevent reinsertion without written notice under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nProvide full Method of Verification detailsincluding the verifying partys contact info and all records used to verify the accounts.\n\nSummary Justification This case involves violations of FCRA 611 ( failure to conduct reasonable reinvestigation ), 607 ( b ) ( failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy ), and 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( failure to correct and update information ). The contradictory reporting across Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion clearly violates XXXX standards for consistency and logical field alignment. Furthermore, the Equifax and XXXX data breaches increase the likelihood that my credit data has been mishandled, resulting in unreliable reinvestigations and corrupted records. \n\nGiven the pattern of non-compliance and the data security implications, I request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau require immediate deletion of all unverified accounts and corrective action by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion to restore the accuracy and integrity of my consumer file. \n\nRecommendation : Proceed with full deletion of the disputed accounts and file escalation with both the CFPB and the State Attorney General for enforcement of FCRA and FACTA compliance. The evidence shows systemic reinvestigation failures, post-breach negligence, and harm to my credit reputation that can not be cured by minor corrections.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-30T17:24:42.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"10030","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16922638","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-30T17:16:10.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>evidence</em> <em>shows</em> systemic reinvestigation failures, post-breach <em>negligence</em>, and harm to my credit reputation that can not be cured by minor corrections."]},"sort":[13.263361,"16922638"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16920809","_score":13.263361,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"After submitting my initial disputes, I received responses from the credit bureaus that did not include any verification evidence or identifying details of the furnisher. Instead of resolving the inconsistencies, the accounts were simply marked as verified without documentation. Upon further review, I discovered that each bureau continues to show different and logically incompatible data for the same accounts. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX Equifax reports the account as Paid and Current with no past due balance. Experian and TransUnion, however, show Closed with 30-day delinquency and past due amounts. These differences violate Metro2 field alignment requirementsstatus, past due, and payment history can not conflict across bureaus. \n\nXXXX XXXX Account XXXX All three bureaus mark this account as Charge-off, yet Equifax lists a {$0.00} credit limit while Experian and TransUnion report {$1500.00}. High credit and date fields are inconsistent across reports. Reporting a {$0.00} limit alongside an active balance violates Metro2 logical field consistency, inflating my utilization and negatively impacting my FICO score. \n\nXXXX Account XXXX Equifax lists a XXXX credit limit but a high credit of {$5500.00}, while Experian lists a {$600.00} limit and {$0.00} high credit. TransUnion shows a {$600.00} limit with a {$5500.00} high credit. These contradictions create false risk indicators for utilization and recency, harming my credit profile. \n\nPersonal Identifiers There are conflicting versions of my name, address, and employer across the three bureaus, which I have disputed. These inaccuracies increase the risk of mixed-file errors and reinsertion of deleted data. \n\nUnauthorized Inquiries I disputed inquiries such as XXXX ( Equifax ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Experian ) because I do not recall authorizing them and requested documentary proof of permissible purpose under FCRA 604.\n\nData Breach Impact My concerns are further heightened by Equifaxs prior data breach, to which I was directly impacted ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  Impacted : YES ), and the XXXX  Breach ( XXXX  Breach Impacted : YES ). \nGiven these breaches, Equifax and other data furnishers have a heightened duty to ensure accuracy, safeguard personal data, and prevent identity-mixing or reinsertion of previously deleted items. Reporting such contradictory and unverifiable data after known data compromise constitutes negligence under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) and FACTA identity protection provisions. These inaccuracies could be the direct result of data mishandling post-breach and have caused additional financial harm and emotional distress, as my credit data appears to have been corrupted or mishandled following those breaches. \n\nPrior Bureau Responses and Harm Despite repeated written requests, I have not received a valid Method of Verification. Each bureau failed to provide the name, address, phone, or email of the verifying party and the actual documents used ( such as original applications or payment histories ). The ongoing inconsistencies continue to cause score suppression, denial of new credit, and emotional distress due to the ongoing reporting of false derogatory information. \n\nRequested Resolution Immediate Deletion of the XXXX disputed accounts ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) from all credit bureaus due to unverified and contradictory data. \n\nIn the alternative, remove all derogatory or charge-off notations and correct every Metro2 data field, ensuring that credit limit, balance, past due, status, and all date fields are uniform across bureaus. \n\nDelete unauthorized inquiries unless verifiable proof of permissible purpose with date, time, and authorization is produced. \n\nPermanently remove inaccurate personal identifiers and prevent reinsertion without written notice under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nProvide full Method of Verification detailsincluding the verifying partys contact info and all records used to verify the accounts.\n\nSummary Justification This case involves violations of FCRA 611 ( failure to conduct reasonable reinvestigation ), 607 ( b ) ( failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy ), and 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( failure to correct and update information ). The contradictory reporting across Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion clearly violates Metro2 standards for consistency and logical field alignment. Furthermore, the Equifax and XXXX data breaches increase the likelihood that my credit data has been mishandled, resulting in unreliable reinvestigations and corrupted records. \n\nGiven the pattern of non-compliance and the data security implications, I request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau require immediate deletion of all unverified accounts and corrective action by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion to restore the accuracy and integrity of my consumer file. \n\nRecommendation : Proceed with full deletion of the disputed accounts and file escalation with both the CFPB and the State Attorney General for enforcement of FCRA and FACTA compliance. The evidence shows systemic reinvestigation failures, post-breach negligence, and harm to my credit reputation that can not be cured by minor corrections.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-30T17:30:53.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"10034","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16920809","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-30T17:26:07.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>evidence</em> <em>shows</em> systemic reinvestigation failures, post-breach <em>negligence</em>, and harm to my credit reputation that can not be cured by minor corrections."]},"sort":[13.263361,"16920809"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16951751","_score":12.980507,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is being filed due to repeated failures by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion to conduct lawful and complete reinvestigations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Section 611, and due to continued reporting of two materially inaccurate and unverifiable accounts : XXXX XXXX ( Account ending XXXX ) XXXX  ( Account ending XXXX ) Despite multiple direct disputes and attached documentation, all three credit bureaus have verified these accounts without providing any tangible evidence, billing statements, or signed contracts confirming the alleged delinquencies. This has caused severe and ongoing harm to my XXXX profile and financial stability. \n\nXXXX. Violations of FCRA XXXX ( b ) Failure to Maintain Accuracy Each bureau continues to report contradictory and inconsistent information between XXXX another : XXXX XXXX : Equifax lists the account as Paid, Experian as Paid, and TransUnion as Closed, all with a XXXX balance. \n\nYet all three simultaneously show XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX late payments. \n\nIt is factually impossible for an account that has been paid and closed with a XXXX balance to carry active delinquencies. \n\nThis violates FCRA 15 USC 1681e ( b ) and XXXX Section 2.2.3, which prohibit contradictory or obsolete data reporting. \n\nXXXX : The account is simultaneously reported as Charged Off, Paid, and Closed, depending on the bureau. \n\nEquifax shows OK payment history through 2025, while Experian shows random late codes and TransUnion lists a charge-off. \n\nNo verifiable delinquency history or creditor-issued documentation has been provided. \n\nThese inconsistencies show a systemic failure to uphold the maximum possible accuracy standard required by law. \n\n2. Violations of FCRA 1681i Failure to Reinvestigate Each bureau issued a verified result despite being provided detailed evidence of reporting contradictions, without supplying any legally verifiable proof of accuracy such as : Original signed credit agreements Itemized payment ledgers Consumer billing notices as required under TILA 1666 ( b ) All disputes were processed through automated e-Oscar verification, which fails to satisfy the FCRAs reinvestigation requirement under Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). This constitutes a procedural violation and denial of the consumers right to a good-faith manual investigation.\n\n3. Violations of FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Furnisher Noncompliance The furnishers ( XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX have failed to : Investigate disputes received from the credit bureaus in a reasonable manner Correct or delete inaccurate information they can not verify Provide evidence of permissible purpose or consumer consent for continued reporting Under 1681s-2 ( b ), their failure to provide factual verification within 30 days constitutes willful noncompliance. Continuing to report unverifiable derogatories after a dispute is legally considered reckless disregard of the law, per FCRA 1681n.\n\n4. Data Security and Consumer Harm Equifaxs prior data breach settlement, which confirmed exposure of personal identifying information, raises serious concerns regarding their continued retention and use of my data. Given that Equifax confirmed my data was impacted by the breach, their refusal to correct unverifiable reporting further compounds their negligence and privacy violations. \n\nXXXX. Impact on Creditworthiness and Emotional Distress These reporting errors have resulted in lowered FICO scores, denial of new credit opportunities, and emotional distress due to persistent misrepresentation of my payment behavior. The continued verified results without lawful evidence have eroded trust in the integrity of the credit reporting process. \n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request the CFPBs direct intervention to enforce compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and XXXX reporting standards. Specifically : Immediate deletion of the following unverifiable accounts from all consumer reporting databases : XXXX XXXX Account ending XXXX XXXX Account ending XXXX Confirmation that each CRA has conducted a manual reinvestigation and obtained verifiable proof from the furnishers before certifying any data as accurate. \n\nReferral of this matter to the Federal Trade Commission and New York State Attorney General for further enforcement, if necessary. \n\nLegal Summary FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Inaccurate and inconsistent data reporting FCRA 1681i ( a ) : Failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) : Furnisher failure to verify or correct data FCRA 1681n & 1681o : Willful and negligent noncompliance TILA 1666 ( b ) : Lack of consumer billing notice before alleging delinquency XXXX Section 2.2.3 : Prohibition of contradictory or obsolete data Recommendation Proceed with CFPB escalation and deletion demand, not remark correction. \nBoth XXXX XXXX and XXXX display structural XXXX and FCRA violations, meaning partial updates ( such as Pays as agreed ) will not resolve the compliance breach. \nDeletion is the only corrective action that satisfies 15 USC 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) and preserves the consumers right to accurate reporting.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-31T17:11:33.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11714","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16951751","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-31T17:11:03.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Data <em>Security</em> and Consumer Harm Equifaxs prior data breach settlement, which confirmed exposure of personal identifying information, raises serious concerns regarding their continued retention and use of my data. Given that Equifax confirmed my data was impacted by the breach, their refusal to correct unverifiable reporting further compounds their <em>negligence</em> and privacy violations. \n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[12.980507,"16951751"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16949859","_score":12.978448,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is being filed due to repeated failures by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion to conduct lawful and complete reinvestigations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Section 611, and due to continued reporting of two materially inaccurate and unverifiable accounts : XXXX XXXX ( Account ending XXXX ) XXXX  ( Account ending XXXX ) Despite multiple direct disputes and attached documentation, all three credit bureaus have verified these accounts without providing any tangible evidence, billing statements, or signed contracts confirming the alleged delinquencies. This has caused severe and ongoing harm to my XXXX profile and financial stability. \n\nXXXX. Violations of FCRA XXXX ( b ) Failure to Maintain Accuracy Each bureau continues to report contradictory and inconsistent information between XXXX another : XXXX XXXX : Equifax lists the account as Paid, Experian as Paid, and TransUnion as Closed, all with a XXXX balance. \n\nYet all three simultaneously show XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX late payments. \n\nIt is factually impossible for an account that has been paid and closed with a XXXX balance to carry active delinquencies. \n\nThis violates FCRA 15 USC 1681e ( b ) and XXXX Section 2.2.3, which prohibit contradictory or obsolete data reporting. \n\nXXXX : The account is simultaneously reported as Charged Off, Paid, and Closed, depending on the bureau. \n\nEquifax shows OK payment history through 2025, while Experian shows random late codes and TransUnion lists a charge-off. \n\nNo verifiable delinquency history or creditor-issued documentation has been provided. \n\nThese inconsistencies show a systemic failure to uphold the maximum possible accuracy standard required by law. \n\n2. Violations of FCRA 1681i Failure to Reinvestigate Each bureau issued a verified result despite being provided detailed evidence of reporting contradictions, without supplying any legally verifiable proof of accuracy such as : Original signed credit agreements Itemized payment ledgers Consumer billing notices as required under TILA 1666 ( b ) All disputes were processed through automated e-Oscar verification, which fails to satisfy the FCRAs reinvestigation requirement under Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). This constitutes a procedural violation and denial of the consumers right to a good-faith manual investigation.\n\n3. Violations of FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Furnisher Noncompliance The furnishers ( XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX have failed to : Investigate disputes received from the credit bureaus in a reasonable manner Correct or delete inaccurate information they can not verify Provide evidence of permissible purpose or consumer consent for continued reporting Under 1681s-2 ( b ), their failure to provide factual verification within 30 days constitutes willful noncompliance. Continuing to report unverifiable derogatories after a dispute is legally considered reckless disregard of the law, per FCRA 1681n.\n\n4. Data Security and Consumer Harm Equifaxs prior data breach settlement, which confirmed exposure of personal identifying information, raises serious concerns regarding their continued retention and use of my data. Given that Equifax confirmed my data was impacted by the breach, their refusal to correct unverifiable reporting further compounds their negligence and privacy violations. \n\nXXXX. Impact on Creditworthiness and Emotional Distress These reporting errors have resulted in lowered FICO scores, denial of new credit opportunities, and emotional distress due to persistent misrepresentation of my payment behavior. The continued verified results without lawful evidence have eroded trust in the integrity of the credit reporting process. \n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request the CFPBs direct intervention to enforce compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and XXXX reporting standards. Specifically : Immediate deletion of the following unverifiable accounts from all consumer reporting databases : XXXX XXXX Account ending XXXX XXXX Account ending XXXX Confirmation that each CRA has conducted a manual reinvestigation and obtained verifiable proof from the furnishers before certifying any data as accurate. \n\nReferral of this matter to the Federal Trade Commission and New York State Attorney General for further enforcement, if necessary. \n\nLegal Summary FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Inaccurate and inconsistent data reporting FCRA 1681i ( a ) : Failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) : Furnisher failure to verify or correct data FCRA 1681n & 1681o : Willful and negligent noncompliance TILA 1666 ( b ) : Lack of consumer billing notice before alleging delinquency XXXX Section 2.2.3 : Prohibition of contradictory or obsolete data Recommendation Proceed with CFPB escalation and deletion demand, not remark correction. \nBoth XXXX XXXX and XXXX display structural XXXX and FCRA violations, meaning partial updates ( such as Pays as agreed ) will not resolve the compliance breach. \nDeletion is the only corrective action that satisfies 15 USC 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) and preserves the consumers right to accurate reporting.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-31T17:11:31.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11714","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16949859","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-31T17:05:41.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Data <em>Security</em> and Consumer Harm Equifaxs prior data breach settlement, which confirmed exposure of personal identifying information, raises serious concerns regarding their continued retention and use of my data. Given that Equifax confirmed my data was impacted by the breach, their refusal to correct unverifiable reporting further compounds their <em>negligence</em> and privacy violations. \n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[12.978448,"16949859"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20099811","_score":11.879635,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally report a persistent security breach involving my Capital One checking account that has not been resolved. This follows a previous incident several weeks ago where a large transfer I made in front of local Capital One staff was met with what appeared to be social engineering attempts by internal employees at the Capital One XXXX in XXXX and a \" jamming '' of my external transfer ports, which blocked access to my funds for nearly a month. \n\nAlthough I was eventually able to add an account and make a transfer, after I mailed a notarized letter explaining the situation to Capital One Bank by Mail, new evidence proves a systemic failure in the API security and data-sharing protocols, and that the \" Jammed '' accounts are still active and harvesting my account data, and there doesn't appear to be a way to sever the connection.\n\n1. Unauthorized Data Sharing & Connection Anomalies Today, XX/XX/year>, I received an automated notification from Capital One stating that I had connected XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) to my account 30 days ago. This statement is factually impossible. Thirty days ago, my transfer options were entirely jammed, and the XXXX account was one of the unauthorized \" jamming '' accounts that I could not remove. These accounts were not added to my account by me. Because I had experienced what Capital One claimed was an XXXX, Capital One closed my accounts without my permission, thereby deleting the external accounts that were previously connected. When my new accounts showed up, there were 3 accounts that had been added to my profile, and not by me and these accounts were jamming the external port, stopping me from making transfers. Please refer to my previous notarized letter that documented the encounter.\n\nThese accounts appeared to vanish only after I sent a notarized letter to Capital One banking, and was able to link an external account and access my money. Oddly, when I linked the external account, there were no other external accounts showing at all. I thought that Capital One must have deleted them per my request. However, today 's notification proves the connection remains active in the background without my consent or knowledge and against my explicit attempts to delete these external accounts and my requests to Capital One to remove these external accounts.\n\nAlso, in the notarized letter I sent to Capital One, I asked to close one of my savings accounts and have the sum sent to me in 2 money orders or cashier 's checks to the address on file. I gave very specific directions on how to send my funds. Capital One has not responded and never closed the account, nor sent the funds, and my account, although accessible from the one bank I added, is still linked to the accounts I did not authorize.\n\n2. Technical Evidence of \" Account Persistent Hooking '' I am reporting what appears to be Account Persistent Hooking or a failure in the OAuth/API handshake process. I have documented the following : Failed Deletion : When I select \" Delete '' for the XXXX  account via the app or website, the system returns a \" Successfully Deleted '' confirmation, yet the account remains active and visible upon refresh. This was the same problem I already reported and apparently it is not fixed.\n\nBypassing Account Limits : Your platform typically limits external links to three accounts. Currently, my profile shows four active connections ( XXXX and three unauthorized ports- at least one is to XXXX XXXX ).\n\nThis suggests a bypass of standard system constraints, which makes this appear to be something implemented by a rogue internal or 3rd party node. API Handshake Refusal : It appears XXXX or a third-party intermediary is \" refusing the handshake '' to disconnect, effectively keeping a digital key to my Capital One data open despite my revocation of access.\n\n3. Regulatory and Legal Context I have already filed serious complaints regarding these incidents with multiple federal agencies. I am treating this unauthorized re-linking of XXXX as a supplemental security breach. \n\nThe fact that I am receiving emails confirming data is being shared with an institution I have explicitly attempted to block, while being prohibited by your system from stopping it, is a massive violation of consumer privacy and banking security standards. If your staff previously claimed \" no issues '' while these shadow connections were active, it indicates either gross negligence or internal complicity.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-09T18:32:39.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Savings account","zip_code":"577XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20099811","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-03-09T18:15:37.000Z","state":"SD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am treating this unauthorized re-linking of XXXX as a supplemental <em>security</em> breach. \n\nThe fact that I am receiving emails confirming data is being shared with an institution I have explicitly attempted to block, while being prohibited by your system from stopping it, is a massive violation of consumer privacy and banking <em>security</em> standards. If your staff previously claimed \" no issues '' while these shadow connections were active, it indicates either gross <em>negligence</em> or internal complicity."]},"sort":[11.879635,"20099811"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13895921","_score":10.786007,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against TransUnion for their continued reporting of a fraudulent and unverifiable account from XXXX XXXX, which XXXX has already removed after confirming it could not be verified. It is not only unreasonable but also legally questionable for TransUnion to claim that this same account is somehow verifiable when the original furnisher has yet to provide any legally sufficient documentation, and another major bureau has already confirmed it should not exist on my credit report.\n\nLet me be very clear : there is no possible way this debt could have been verified, because no such debt exists. I do not owe XXXX XXXX. In fact, if anything, they owe mefor the damage caused by their false reporting as well as for not returning my security deposit and for TransUnions continued negligence in handling my disputes. Ive been disputing this account for over a year, and yet TransUnion continues to pull the same sham investigations and stalling tactics, delaying responses until the last possible day, only to mark the account as verified again, without explanation or evidence uploaded to the CFPB portal. This is not a reinvestigation under the lawits a bad-faith attempt to sidestep accountability.\n\nPer the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) requires a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes an account. There is nothing reasonable about re-verifying an account without proof and despite XXXX removing it. \n15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) mandates that consumer reporting agencies maintain maximum possible accuracy. One bureau has reached opposite conclusionsso accuracy clearly isnt being ensured.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) requires all relevant information to be passed to the furnisher during an investigation. If that were truly done, TransUnion wouldve received the same lack of proof that I did.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) requires that all documentation used in the reinvestigation be provided to the consumer. I have not received a single legally binding documentonly a move-out statement, which is woefully insufficient under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ).\n\nI am no longer tolerating this. If TransUnion refuses to remove this account immediately or responds with yet another vague and dismissive verified status, I will be preparing to take full legal action. I will pursue civil penalties for violations of both the FCRA and FDCPA, including failure to conduct a reasonable investigation, negligent misreporting, and continued reporting of inaccurate and unverifiable information. for them to take 60 days and to avoid providing me with what I ask in this portal shows their complete negligence. It is not only unfair. Its unjust and I encourage the CFPB to look into Trans Unions investigation just like they did with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX needs to deleted permanently from my account and I have attached XXXX this response to my consumer financial protection bureau, so TransUnion please explain your negligence on why and how in the world did you verify this foolishness on my report and Im extremely passionate because I do not let me say it again do not owe this collection agency! Take a look at their reviews there are so many tenants that had a unfit unit that are battling the same exact thing. Im battling with receiving their security deposit back! All of this is retaliatory because of me filing a complaint with my local cities Code enforcement for my unit these apartments being advised by Code enforcement that they would be fine because they were having me in deplorable living conditions and me not renewing my! I would like to add I fully paid for movers to move my things out of this place not only did I pay movers and gave them almost 3 months notice that I would not dare renew my lease with them. They tried to report bogus items on the moveout statement that they genetically typed up that I didnt even own in that apartment. Ive been holding on to my video of me in that apartment office that shows the time I reported the move out statement to see if these investigations go legitimately and clearly they havent and thats why Im so prepared to sue with my final request for deletion! I also have documentation on where the movers went in the location to remove every item out of that apartment that was a left spotless! Please get it together because this is my very last time asking this to be removed before legal action is taken. This is absolutely ridiculous and I wish I could say more on this platform because I am so disgusted, but I have to remain professional get this off of my credit immediately! Dont mail me anything. Talk to me on the consumer financial protection bureaus platformif youre providing a legal and proper investigation just like XXXX did they acknowledged their incorrections and explained their full process please dont overlook the uploaded attachment that they deleted this foolishness off of my credit! Even if they did provide you with any documentation which I highly highly doubt because none exist Im telling you now they were forged and fraudulent and thats why Im so passionate! Ive been keeping this video in my back pocket because I already know what type of non-integrity having people I was dealing with when I decided not to stay in the unit! But there comes a time where enough is enough do the right thing and dont take 60 days after youve already taken almost 400 days of me battling this with you in particular Trans Union !","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-04T12:53:36.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Rental debt","zip_code":"32244","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13895921","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-04T12:24:59.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In fact, if anything, they owe mefor the damage caused by their false reporting as well as for not returning my <em>security</em> deposit and for TransUnions continued <em>negligence</em> in handling my disputes. Ive been disputing this account for over a year, and yet TransUnion continues to pull the same sham investigations and stalling tactics, delaying responses until the last possible day, only to mark the account as verified again, without explanation or <em>evidence</em> uploaded to the CFPB portal."]},"sort":[10.786007,"13895921"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8513425","_score":9.692362,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"My Equifax consumer file still shows a collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I have disputed this account directly with this company multiple times, and they have failed to produce any proof of a binding contract between myself and their company, written or oral, that contains evidence of a mutual understanding or agreement, an exchange of value or consideration, or a verifiable obligation for any monetary amount or performance of any kind ( 15 U.S.C. 1692f ( 1 ) ) After doing sufficient research, I have discovered other very significant violations. If this company identifies as a debt collection agency, according to the Department of Financial Protections XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( NMLS ) I discovered XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not licensed to collect debt in the state of California, therefore this file must be immediately removed from my report and all collection notices or communication must cease. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX should also be fully aware the original account is past the California statute of limitations for debt ( Code of Civil Procedure, XXXX ) and is no longer enforceable or reportable. The opened date for the account on my report is also incorrect. Per my records, the original account was already well past the statute in all State jurisdictions when it was purchased or acquired by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This is a violation of Cal. Civ. Code 1785.25. The first time I disputed this account, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sent me copies of old statements they obtained from the original creditor. A debt collector violates the FDCPA when it misleads a consumer to believe a time-barred debt is legally enforceable. The paperwork they sent me and the reporting of this account is clearly misrepresenting and misleading the legal status of the debt, they have no California license so they are not legally allowed to collect this debt, and I believe XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was fully aware of the statute before reporting it or sending me misleading documentation and letters. Unfortunately, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has a history of prior accusations involving trying to collect time-barred debt even though it is unenforceable, and purposefully not informing the consumer. ( State of Washington v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX also has prior accusations of reporting inaccurate derogatory credit information, thereby causing erroneous and negative information in consumers credit files ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). This inaccurate and negative reporting is damaging to my creditworthiness and is adversely affecting my credit rating and ability to obtain credit. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was also sued for a serious data breach where the company failed to implement cybersecurity measures to adequately protect the private information of more than XXXX people from hackers. ( XXXX XXXX, et al., v. XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ) The Social Security XXXX is very clear that our private social security numbers should only be shared with government agencies. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not a government agency, and I did not give them permission or authorization to use my social security number to share my private information with non-government third party companies, like Equifax. This is a serious violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, especially considering XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is being sued for failing to keep private consumer information properly protected. I subsequently demand the deletion of my private information from all XXXX systems, as they collected my private information from a company seeking their debt collection services. I did not provide them with my information willingly, and I do not have any business or contractual obligations with their company. I was also never formally notified by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that there was a security breach that may have compromised my information, I had to find out about it through my research. In regard to reporting eligibility, according to Metro2 standards physical carbon copies of all information must be sent to each company an account is being reported to. Does XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have evidence it has fulfilled this carbon copy requirement? Equifax should easily be able to confirm the copies were received by mail. If they were not received, this account is not eligible to be reported under Metro2 standard, and is not in compliance. As a reputable reporting agency, I expect Equifax to do their due diligence in investigating my claims. I believe several violations will be found, and this account will be properly deleted due to the inaccuracy and incompleteness of the file, the expired statute of limitations, violations of the Privacy Act of 1974, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX not being licensed to collect debt in the state of California. I also expect records to be checked to ensure XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has complied with the Metro2 carbon copy mailing requirement. Please be advised If I suspect any negligence or willful non-compliance from any party in failing to conduct a proper investigation of these matters, I will equally hold XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Equifax to the full extent of the law for civil money penalties, violations, actual damages, and any other relief that is just and proper. For clarity, a true investigation does not involve XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Equifax submitting codes to one another over eOscar, and that will not be considered as a proper investigation under consumer law. This complaint is being sent in good faith through the CFPB, which is a regulatory agency to all parties. I pray for equitable relief, fairness in review, and I reserve the right to use this complaint and any subsequent responses from either party in any legal proceeding should one occur.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-09T07:32:08.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8513425","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-03-09T07:32:07.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My Equifax consumer file still <em>shows</em> a collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I have disputed this account directly with this company multiple times, and they have failed to produce any proof of a binding contract between myself and their company, written or oral, that contains <em>evidence</em> of a mutual understanding or agreement, an exchange of value or consideration, or a verifiable obligation for any monetary amount or performance of any kind ( 15 U.S.C. 1692f ( 1 ) ) After doing sufficient"]},"sort":[9.692362,"8513425"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8510623","_score":9.692362,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"My XXXX consumer file still shows a collection account reported by Convergent Outsourcing , Inc . I have disputed this account directly with this company multiple times, and they have failed to produce any proof of a binding contract between myself and their company, written or oral, that contains evidence of a mutual understanding or agreement, an exchange of value or consideration, or a verifiable obligation for any monetary amount or performance of any kind ( 15 U.S.C. 1692f ( 1 ) ) After doing sufficient research, I have discovered other very significant violations. If this company identifies as a debt collection agency, according to the Department of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( NMLS ) I discovered Convergent Outsourcing XXXX XXXX is not licensed to collect debt in the state of California, therefore this file must be immediately removed from my report and all collection notices or communication must cease. Convergent Outsourcing , Inc. should also be fully aware the original account is past the California statute of limitations for debt ( Code of Civil Procedure, 337 ) and is no longer enforceable or reportable. The opened date for the account on my report is also incorrect. Per my records, the original account was already well past the statute in all State jurisdictions when it was purchased or acquired by Convergent Outsourcing , Inc . This is a violation of Cal. Civ. Code 1785.25. The first time I disputed this account, Convergent Outsourcing , Inc. sent me copies of old statements they obtained from the original creditor. A debt collector violates the FDCPA when it misleads a consumer to believe a time-barred debt is legally enforceable. The paperwork they sent me and the reporting of this account is clearly misrepresenting and misleading the legal status of the debt, they have no California license so they are not legally allowed to collect this debt, and I believe Convergent Outsourcing , Inc. was fully aware of the statute before reporting it or sending me misleading documentation and letters. Unfortunately, Convergent Outsourcing , Inc. has a history of prior accusations involving trying to collect time-barred debt even though it is unenforceable, and purposefully not informing the consumer. ( State of Washington v. Convergent Outsourcing , Inc. ) Convergent Outsourcing , Inc. also has prior accusations of reporting inaccurate derogatory credit information, thereby causing erroneous and negative information in consumers credit files ( XXXX XXXX Convergent Outsourcing, XXXX ). This inaccurate and negative reporting is damaging to my creditworthiness and is adversely affecting my credit rating and ability to obtain credit. Convergent Outsourcing , Inc. was also sued for a serious data breach where the company failed to implement cybersecurity measures to adequately protect the private information of more than XXXX people from hackers. ( XXXX XXXX, et al., v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. ) The Social Security Administration is very clear that our private social security numbers should only be shared with government agencies. Convergent Outsourcing , Inc. is not a government agency, and I did not give them permission or authorization to use my social security number to share my private information with non-government third party companies, like XXXX. This is a serious violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, especially considering Convergent Outsourcing , Inc. is being sued for failing to keep private consumer information properly protected. I subsequently demand the deletion of my private information from all Convergents systems, as they collected my private information from a company seeking their debt collection services. I did not provide them with my information willingly, and I do not have any business or contractual obligations with their company. I was also never formally notified by Convergent Outsourcing Systems , Inc. that there was a security breach that may have compromised my information, I had to find out about it through my research. In regard to reporting eligibility, according to Metro2 standards physical carbon copies of all information must be sent to each company an account is being reported to. Does Convergent Outsourcing , Inc. have evidence it has fulfilled this carbon copy requirement? XXXX should easily be able to confirm the copies were received by mail. If they were not received, this account is not eligible to be reported under Metro2 standard, and is not in compliance. As a reputable reporting agency, I expect XXXX to do their due diligence in investigating my claims. I believe several violations will be found, and this account will be properly deleted due to the inaccuracy and incompleteness of the file, the expired statute of limitations, violations of the Privacy Act of 1974, and Convergent Outsourcing XXXX Inc. not being licensed to collect debt in the state of California. I also expect records to be checked to ensure Convergent Outsourcing , Inc. has complied with the Metro2 carbon copy mailing requirement. Please be advised If I suspect any negligence or willful non-compliance from any party in failing to conduct a proper investigation of these matters, I will equally hold Convergent Outsourcing , IncXXXX and XXXX to the full extent of the law for civil money penalties, violations, actual damages, and any other relief that is just and proper. For clarity, a true investigation does not involve Convergent Outsourcing , Inc. and XXXX submitting codes to one another over eOscar, and that will not be considered as a proper investigation under consumer law. This complaint is being sent in good faith through the CFPB, which is a regulatory agency to all parties. I pray for equitable relief, fairness in review, and I reserve the right to use this complaint and any subsequent responses from either party in any legal proceeding should one occur.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-09T07:32:02.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8510623","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Convergent Resources, Inc.","date_received":"2024-03-09T07:08:49.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My XXXX consumer file still <em>shows</em> a collection account reported by Convergent Outsourcing , Inc ."]},"sort":[9.692362,"8510623"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17910642","_score":9.083751,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Urgent Demand for Immediate Action on Inconsistent, Unverifiable, and Fraudulent Credit Reporting by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am submitting this formal and urgent complaint against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, which have blatantly failed to comply with federal law under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and systematically engaged in unethical, fraudulent, and illegal conduct in violation of consumer rights. Their ongoing disregard for accuracy and verification requirements has caused severe financial harm to me and countless other consumers. These practices have already been proven by multiple court rulings, regulatory orders, and substantial financial settlements to be fraudulent, negligent, and highly unethical. I demand immediate action to delete the unverifiable items on my credit reports and hold these entities accountable under the law. \n\nDiscrepancies in My Credit Reports : Direct Violations of FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Days Past Due Violation : This account is being reported differently on each bureaus report, demonstrating a blatant failure to maintain consistent and accurate data. Under FCRA 609, 611, this discrepancy proves negligent reporting and failure to investigate and verify disputed information. Such actions are fraudulent by omission, as they mislead creditors, lenders, and consumers. \n\n* XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax : Balance : {$28000.00}, status : XXXX Days Past Due Experian : Missing or inconsistent status. \n\nTransUnion : Not reported at all. \n\nViolation : This failure to report consistently across bureaus undermines the accuracy of my credit profile and is illegal under FCRA. This shows the bureaus ' reckless disregard for maintaining the integrity of the information they distribute, which is directly harmful to consumers and violates XXXX ( a ) of the FCRA. \n\n* XXXX. XXXX XXXX  ( Account ending XXXX ) Equifax : \" Pays as Agreed, '' with flags stating \" Account Paid After Foreclosure Started '' and \" Affected by Disaster '' Experian/TransUnion : Inconsistent remarks and missing data. \n\nViolation : The inclusion of misleading and inconsistent foreclosure remarks is an unconscionable violation of FCRA, specifically 611 ( a ), as it fails to comply with requirements to provide accurate and timely information. The bureaus behavior here is not just negligent but fraudulent, intentionally obscuring key details from consumers and creditors. \n\n* XXXX. Department of Education XXXX XXXX ( Student Loan, Account ending XXXX ) Equifax : Balance : {$82000.00}, status : Pays As Agreed Experian/TransUnion : Discrepancies in balance reporting and narrative codes. \n\nViolation : The inaccurate reporting of federal student loans under the Department of Education is a clear violation of the FCRA. Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax are systematically failing to maintain accuracy, causing significant harm to the consumers ability to qualify for financing or favorable terms. Failure to comply with federal reporting guidelines is fraudulent. \n\nThe Proven Pattern of Fraudulent, Negligent, and Unlawful Conduct : Legal Precedents and Settlements Equifax History of Unethical and Fraudulent Behavior : XXXX XXXX Settlement ( Final Payouts XXXX ) In the wake of the XXXX data breach, which exposed the sensitive data of XXXX XXXX Americans, XXXX XXXX Equifax was XXXX into a global settlement with the FTC, CFPB, and state governments. The {$420.00} XXXX settlement allocated funds to victims, showing gross negligence and failure to secure consumer data, actions that the CFPB has since penalized. Final payouts are still being distributed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Final Approval XX/XX/XXXX ) Equifax settled XXXX class-action lawsuit over misreporting tribal loans. As part of the settlement, Equifax must delete erroneous loan accounts and compensate affected consumers. This reflects a pattern of erroneous reporting intentionally harming consumers for corporate benefit. \n\nCFPB XXXX {$15.00} XXXX Civil Penalty ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The CFPB issued a {$15.00} XXXX civil penalty against Equifax for failing to properly investigate consumer disputes over inaccurate credit-report information, which is a clear violation of FCRA. This penalty is just XXXX of the many regulatory actions confirming XXXX unlawful practices and the damage caused to consumers by such systemic failures. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$720000.00}, XX/XX/XXXX ) Equifax also settled a XXXX error case, paying {$720000.00} to consumers for erroneously lowering their credit scores, resulting in higher loan costs. This shows a continuing failure to maintain the accuracy required by law. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Payouts ( Final Distribution Phase XXXX ) As part of the XXXX breach, final payouts began in XXXX, marking the culmination of Equifaxs liability for its unethical and negligent handling of consumer data, a practice that has now been rectified only after massive regulatory intervention. \n\nExperian Documented Pattern of Negligence and Systemic Failures : CFPB Lawsuit Filed XX/XX/XXXX Experian has been sued by the CFPB for failing to properly investigate consumer credit disputes, falsely re-inserting previously deleted information, and not maintaining accuracy. This represents systematic failures that have been proven unlawful under FCRA. \n\nCourt Ruling in XXXX XXXX Experian ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The courts decision on Experians XXXX practices further demonstrates that Experians illegal actions continue to be challenged in court, reinforcing the ongoing fraudulent misreporting and unethical dispute-handling procedures they employ. \n\nTransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Fines : XXXX XXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX Fine ( XX/XX/XXXX ) TransUnion was XXXX {$23.00} XXXX by the CFPB and FTC for XXXX to properly process tenant screening reports and misleading consumers about security freeze processing, indicating gross negligence and fraud. \n\nXXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX ( Credit-Report Dispute Failures ) TransUnion was forced into XXXX {$23.00} XXXX class-action settlement for failing to properly investigate and delete disputed credit-report information. This case is a clear demonstration of fraudulent noncompliance and deceptive practices in consumer dispute resolutions. \n\nClass-Action Settlement {$2.00} XXXX ( Failure to Delete Information ) TransUnion was XXXX {$2.00} XXXX for violating FCRA by XXXX to delete inaccurate or outdated information after receiving valid deletion requests. \n\nBankruptcy Reporting FCRA Class-Action {$45.00} XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX XXXX others, was forced to settle for {$45.00} XXXX in a class-action lawsuit over failure to properly report bankruptcy and debt-discharge information, further underlining its systematic neglect of consumer rights. \n\nMulti-Bureau Public Record Reporting Cases ( Ongoing/Resolved Settlements ) Ongoing actions, involving TransUnion and other bureaus, continue to resolve improper public-record and tax-lien reporting, with settlements improving XXXX in consumer data across all three bureaus. \n\nThe ongoing litigation and settlements outlined above are clear evidence of these bureaus ' unlawful practices. Their history is XXXX of intentional negligence, deliberate noncompliance, and disregard for consumer welfare. If this pattern is allowed to continue, the legal consequences will be severe.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-10T06:13:04.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33578","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17910642","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-10T06:12:38.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Fines : XXXX XXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX Fine ( XX/XX/XXXX ) TransUnion was XXXX {$23.00} XXXX by the CFPB and FTC for XXXX to properly process tenant screening reports and misleading consumers about <em>security</em> freeze processing, indicating gross <em>negligence</em> and fraud."]},"sort":[9.083751,"17910642"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17910638","_score":9.083751,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Urgent Demand for Immediate Action on Inconsistent, Unverifiable, and Fraudulent Credit Reporting by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am submitting this formal and urgent complaint against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, which have blatantly failed to comply with federal law under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and systematically engaged in unethical, fraudulent, and illegal conduct in violation of consumer rights. Their ongoing disregard for accuracy and verification requirements has caused severe financial harm to me and countless other consumers. These practices have already been proven by multiple court rulings, regulatory orders, and substantial financial settlements to be fraudulent, negligent, and highly unethical. I demand immediate action to delete the unverifiable items on my credit reports and hold these entities accountable under the law. \n\nDiscrepancies in My Credit Reports : Direct Violations of FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Days Past Due Violation : This account is being reported differently on each bureaus report, demonstrating a blatant failure to maintain consistent and accurate data. Under FCRA 609, 611, this discrepancy proves negligent reporting and failure to investigate and verify disputed information. Such actions are fraudulent by omission, as they mislead creditors, lenders, and consumers. \n\n* XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax : Balance : {$28000.00}, status : XXXX Days Past Due Experian : Missing or inconsistent status. \n\nTransUnion : Not reported at all. \n\nViolation : This failure to report consistently across bureaus undermines the accuracy of my credit profile and is illegal under FCRA. This shows the bureaus ' reckless disregard for maintaining the integrity of the information they distribute, which is directly harmful to consumers and violates XXXX ( a ) of the FCRA. \n\n* XXXX. XXXX XXXX  ( Account ending XXXX ) Equifax : \" Pays as Agreed, '' with flags stating \" Account Paid After Foreclosure Started '' and \" Affected by Disaster '' Experian/TransUnion : Inconsistent remarks and missing data. \n\nViolation : The inclusion of misleading and inconsistent foreclosure remarks is an unconscionable violation of FCRA, specifically 611 ( a ), as it fails to comply with requirements to provide accurate and timely information. The bureaus behavior here is not just negligent but fraudulent, intentionally obscuring key details from consumers and creditors. \n\n* XXXX. Department of Education XXXX XXXX ( Student Loan, Account ending XXXX ) Equifax : Balance : {$82000.00}, status : Pays As Agreed Experian/TransUnion : Discrepancies in balance reporting and narrative codes. \n\nViolation : The inaccurate reporting of federal student loans under the Department of Education is a clear violation of the FCRA. Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax are systematically failing to maintain accuracy, causing significant harm to the consumers ability to qualify for financing or favorable terms. Failure to comply with federal reporting guidelines is fraudulent. \n\nThe Proven Pattern of Fraudulent, Negligent, and Unlawful Conduct : Legal Precedents and Settlements Equifax History of Unethical and Fraudulent Behavior : XXXX XXXX Settlement ( Final Payouts XXXX ) In the wake of the XXXX data breach, which exposed the sensitive data of XXXX XXXX Americans, XXXX XXXX Equifax was XXXX into a global settlement with the FTC, CFPB, and state governments. The {$420.00} XXXX settlement allocated funds to victims, showing gross negligence and failure to secure consumer data, actions that the CFPB has since penalized. Final payouts are still being distributed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Final Approval XX/XX/XXXX ) Equifax settled XXXX class-action lawsuit over misreporting tribal loans. As part of the settlement, Equifax must delete erroneous loan accounts and compensate affected consumers. This reflects a pattern of erroneous reporting intentionally harming consumers for corporate benefit. \n\nCFPB XXXX {$15.00} XXXX Civil Penalty ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The CFPB issued a {$15.00} XXXX civil penalty against Equifax for failing to properly investigate consumer disputes over inaccurate credit-report information, which is a clear violation of FCRA. This penalty is just XXXX of the many regulatory actions confirming XXXX unlawful practices and the damage caused to consumers by such systemic failures. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$720000.00}, XX/XX/XXXX ) Equifax also settled a XXXX error case, paying {$720000.00} to consumers for erroneously lowering their credit scores, resulting in higher loan costs. This shows a continuing failure to maintain the accuracy required by law. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Payouts ( Final Distribution Phase XXXX ) As part of the XXXX breach, final payouts began in XXXX, marking the culmination of Equifaxs liability for its unethical and negligent handling of consumer data, a practice that has now been rectified only after massive regulatory intervention. \n\nExperian Documented Pattern of Negligence and Systemic Failures : CFPB Lawsuit Filed XX/XX/XXXX Experian has been sued by the CFPB for failing to properly investigate consumer credit disputes, falsely re-inserting previously deleted information, and not maintaining accuracy. This represents systematic failures that have been proven unlawful under FCRA. \n\nCourt Ruling in XXXX XXXX Experian ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The courts decision on Experians XXXX practices further demonstrates that Experians illegal actions continue to be challenged in court, reinforcing the ongoing fraudulent misreporting and unethical dispute-handling procedures they employ. \n\nTransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Fines : XXXX XXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX Fine ( XX/XX/XXXX ) TransUnion was XXXX {$23.00} XXXX by the CFPB and FTC for XXXX to properly process tenant screening reports and misleading consumers about security freeze processing, indicating gross negligence and fraud. \n\nXXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX ( Credit-Report Dispute Failures ) TransUnion was forced into XXXX {$23.00} XXXX class-action settlement for failing to properly investigate and delete disputed credit-report information. This case is a clear demonstration of fraudulent noncompliance and deceptive practices in consumer dispute resolutions. \n\nClass-Action Settlement {$2.00} XXXX ( Failure to Delete Information ) TransUnion was XXXX {$2.00} XXXX for violating FCRA by XXXX to delete inaccurate or outdated information after receiving valid deletion requests. \n\nBankruptcy Reporting FCRA Class-Action {$45.00} XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX XXXX others, was forced to settle for {$45.00} XXXX in a class-action lawsuit over failure to properly report bankruptcy and debt-discharge information, further underlining its systematic neglect of consumer rights. \n\nMulti-Bureau Public Record Reporting Cases ( Ongoing/Resolved Settlements ) Ongoing actions, involving TransUnion and other bureaus, continue to resolve improper public-record and tax-lien reporting, with settlements improving XXXX in consumer data across all three bureaus. \n\nThe ongoing litigation and settlements outlined above are clear evidence of these bureaus ' unlawful practices. Their history is XXXX of intentional negligence, deliberate noncompliance, and disregard for consumer welfare. If this pattern is allowed to continue, the legal consequences will be severe.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-10T06:13:01.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33578","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17910638","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-10T05:14:42.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Fines : XXXX XXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX Fine ( XX/XX/XXXX ) TransUnion was XXXX {$23.00} XXXX by the CFPB and FTC for XXXX to properly process tenant screening reports and misleading consumers about <em>security</em> freeze processing, indicating gross <em>negligence</em> and fraud."]},"sort":[9.083751,"17910638"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17910643","_score":9.069757,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Urgent Demand for Immediate Action on Inconsistent, Unverifiable, and Fraudulent Credit Reporting by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am submitting this formal and urgent complaint against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, which have blatantly failed to comply with federal law under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and systematically engaged in unethical, fraudulent, and illegal conduct in violation of consumer rights. Their ongoing disregard for accuracy and verification requirements has caused severe financial harm to me and countless other consumers. These practices have already been proven by multiple court rulings, regulatory orders, and substantial financial settlements to be fraudulent, negligent, and highly unethical. I demand immediate action to delete the unverifiable items on my credit reports and hold these entities accountable under the law. \n\nDiscrepancies in My Credit Reports : Direct Violations of FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Days Past Due Violation : This account is being reported differently on each bureaus report, demonstrating a blatant failure to maintain consistent and accurate data. Under FCRA 609, 611, this discrepancy proves negligent reporting and failure to investigate and verify disputed information. Such actions are fraudulent by omission, as they mislead creditors, lenders, and consumers. \n\n* XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax : Balance : {$28000.00}, status : XXXX Days Past Due Experian : Missing or inconsistent status. \n\nTransUnion : Not reported at all. \n\nViolation : This failure to report consistently across bureaus undermines the accuracy of my credit profile and is illegal under FCRA. This shows the bureaus ' reckless disregard for maintaining the integrity of the information they distribute, which is directly harmful to consumers and violates XXXX ( a ) of the FCRA. \n\n* XXXX. XXXX XXXX  ( Account ending XXXX ) Equifax : \" Pays as Agreed, '' with flags stating \" Account Paid After Foreclosure Started '' and \" Affected by Disaster '' Experian/TransUnion : Inconsistent remarks and missing data. \n\nViolation : The inclusion of misleading and inconsistent foreclosure remarks is an unconscionable violation of FCRA, specifically 611 ( a ), as it fails to comply with requirements to provide accurate and timely information. The bureaus behavior here is not just negligent but fraudulent, intentionally obscuring key details from consumers and creditors. \n\n* XXXX. Department of Education XXXX XXXX ( Student Loan, Account ending XXXX ) Equifax : Balance : {$82000.00}, status : Pays As Agreed Experian/TransUnion : Discrepancies in balance reporting and narrative codes. \n\nViolation : The inaccurate reporting of federal student loans under the Department of Education is a clear violation of the FCRA. Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax are systematically failing to maintain accuracy, causing significant harm to the consumers ability to qualify for financing or favorable terms. Failure to comply with federal reporting guidelines is fraudulent. \n\nThe Proven Pattern of Fraudulent, Negligent, and Unlawful Conduct : Legal Precedents and Settlements Equifax History of Unethical and Fraudulent Behavior : XXXX XXXX Settlement ( Final Payouts XXXX ) In the wake of the XXXX data breach, which exposed the sensitive data of XXXX XXXX Americans, XXXX XXXX Equifax was XXXX into a global settlement with the FTC, CFPB, and state governments. The {$420.00} XXXX settlement allocated funds to victims, showing gross negligence and failure to secure consumer data, actions that the CFPB has since penalized. Final payouts are still being distributed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Final Approval XX/XX/XXXX ) Equifax settled XXXX class-action lawsuit over misreporting tribal loans. As part of the settlement, Equifax must delete erroneous loan accounts and compensate affected consumers. This reflects a pattern of erroneous reporting intentionally harming consumers for corporate benefit. \n\nCFPB XXXX {$15.00} XXXX Civil Penalty ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The CFPB issued a {$15.00} XXXX civil penalty against Equifax for failing to properly investigate consumer disputes over inaccurate credit-report information, which is a clear violation of FCRA. This penalty is just XXXX of the many regulatory actions confirming XXXX unlawful practices and the damage caused to consumers by such systemic failures. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$720000.00}, XX/XX/XXXX ) Equifax also settled a XXXX error case, paying {$720000.00} to consumers for erroneously lowering their credit scores, resulting in higher loan costs. This shows a continuing failure to maintain the accuracy required by law. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Payouts ( Final Distribution Phase XXXX ) As part of the XXXX breach, final payouts began in XXXX, marking the culmination of Equifaxs liability for its unethical and negligent handling of consumer data, a practice that has now been rectified only after massive regulatory intervention. \n\nExperian Documented Pattern of Negligence and Systemic Failures : CFPB Lawsuit Filed XX/XX/XXXX Experian has been sued by the CFPB for failing to properly investigate consumer credit disputes, falsely re-inserting previously deleted information, and not maintaining accuracy. This represents systematic failures that have been proven unlawful under FCRA. \n\nCourt Ruling in XXXX XXXX Experian ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The courts decision on Experians XXXX practices further demonstrates that Experians illegal actions continue to be challenged in court, reinforcing the ongoing fraudulent misreporting and unethical dispute-handling procedures they employ. \n\nTransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Fines : XXXX XXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX Fine ( XX/XX/XXXX ) TransUnion was XXXX {$23.00} XXXX by the CFPB and FTC for XXXX to properly process tenant screening reports and misleading consumers about security freeze processing, indicating gross negligence and fraud. \n\nXXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX ( Credit-Report Dispute Failures ) TransUnion was forced into XXXX {$23.00} XXXX class-action settlement for failing to properly investigate and delete disputed credit-report information. This case is a clear demonstration of fraudulent noncompliance and deceptive practices in consumer dispute resolutions. \n\nClass-Action Settlement {$2.00} XXXX ( Failure to Delete Information ) TransUnion was XXXX {$2.00} XXXX for violating FCRA by XXXX to delete inaccurate or outdated information after receiving valid deletion requests. \n\nBankruptcy Reporting FCRA Class-Action {$45.00} XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX XXXX others, was forced to settle for {$45.00} XXXX in a class-action lawsuit over failure to properly report bankruptcy and debt-discharge information, further underlining its systematic neglect of consumer rights. \n\nMulti-Bureau Public Record Reporting Cases ( Ongoing/Resolved Settlements ) Ongoing actions, involving TransUnion and other bureaus, continue to resolve improper public-record and tax-lien reporting, with settlements improving XXXX in consumer data across all three bureaus. \n\nThe ongoing litigation and settlements outlined above are clear evidence of these bureaus ' unlawful practices. Their history is XXXX of intentional negligence, deliberate noncompliance, and disregard for consumer welfare. If this pattern is allowed to continue, the legal consequences will be severe.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-10T06:13:00.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33578","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17910643","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-10T06:12:38.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Fines : XXXX XXXX XXXX {$23.00} XXXX Fine ( XX/XX/XXXX ) TransUnion was XXXX {$23.00} XXXX by the CFPB and FTC for XXXX to properly process tenant screening reports and misleading consumers about <em>security</em> freeze processing, indicating gross <em>negligence</em> and fraud."]},"sort":[9.069757,"17910643"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11934668","_score":9.045425,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Equifax, I am writing to dispute and demand the immediate removal of the following account XXXX XXXX XXXX that appear on my Equifax credit report. I confirmed I am victim of the Equifax data breach, which exposed my personal information, making me more vulnerable to fraudulent activity. \n\nI am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the improper handling of my dispute regarding the XXXX XXXX XXXX account, which continues to show as a closed account on my credit report despite your claim that it is \" non-reporting. '' This issue has been escalated through multiple dispute submissions, including my formal complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). However, Equifax has repeatedly failed to address my concerns in a lawful and transparent manner. \n\nSummary of Violations and Concerns Misrepresentation of Account Status : On XX/XX/XXXX, Equifax stated via CFPB response that the XXXX XXXX XXXX account is \" non-reporting '' on my credit file. \nContrary to this claim, the account remains visible as a closed account on my end, reflecting inaccurate reporting that you have failed to validate or address. \nFailure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation ( FCRA Section 611, 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : Despite multiple dispute submissions and accompanying documentation ( including my identity theft report, proof of identity, and proof of Equifax data breach exposure ), Equifax has failed to provide : Verification of the accuracy of the disputed account. \nContact details or evidence from the furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \nAny documentation substantiating the accounts legitimacy. \nUnlawful Stalling Tactics : Equifax has sent repeated notices claiming it is unable to locate my file, despite having received : My full name, last four digits of my Social Security Number, and date of birth.\n\nEquifax falsely claims I have submitted disputes \" multiple times within 90 days '' as a tactic to delay resolution.\n\nThese stalling tactics are in direct violation of FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ), which requires disputes to be resolved within 3045 days.\n\nFailure to Provide Debt Validation and IRS Form 1099-C : I formally requested proof of debt validation, including the 1099-C cancellation of debt form and documentation showing : Ownership of the account.\n\nTransfer details or evidence of collection activity.\n\nEquifax has failed to provide any of this information, violating my rights under FCRA Section 609 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681g ).\n\nFailure to Remove Fraudulent Information ( FCRA Section 605B, 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ) : As a victim of identity theft and the 2017 Equifax data breach, I submitted : A valid identity theft report.\n\nProof of my identity and address.\n\nA detailed written request for removal of the fraudulent account.\n\nDespite meeting all legal requirements, Equifax has refused to block the fraudulent information, in clear violation of Section 605B.\n\nFailure to Adhere to CFPB Mandates : Following the CFPBs recent enforcement action against Equifax in XX/XX/XXXX for improper investigations, I expected full compliance with regulatory requirements. However, your continued negligence and disregard for federal law demonstrate ongoing noncompliance. \nLegal and Regulatory Violations Equifaxs actions violate the following federal laws and regulations : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : Section 611 ( a ) : Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation or provide supporting documentation.\n\nSection 605B : Failure to block fraudulent information upon receiving valid identity theft documentation.\n\nSection 609 : Failure to provide required documentation, including debt validation and proof of account ownership.\n\nSection 1681e ( b ) : Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nConsumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) : Prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ). Your stalling tactics and false claims constitute deceptive practices. \nRecent CFPB Precedent ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : The CFPBs enforcement action against Equifax highlights the agencys commitment to holding CRAs accountable for failure to investigate disputes and reinserting inaccurate information.\n\nRequested Actions To resolve this matter, I demand the following actions within 10 calendar days : Immediate Deletion of the XXXX XXXX XXXX Account : Remove the disputed account from my credit report as required under FCRA Section 605B and Section 611.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-04T15:24:44.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"398XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11934668","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-02-04T15:12:08.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Contact details or <em>evidence</em> from the furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \nAny documentation substantiating the accounts legitimacy. \nUnlawful Stalling Tactics : Equifax has sent repeated notices claiming it is unable to locate my file, despite having received : My full name, last four digits of my Social <em>Security</em> Number, and date of birth.\n\nEquifax falsely claims I have submitted disputes \" multiple times within 90 days '' as a tactic to delay resolution."]},"sort":[9.045425,"11934668"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17091245","_score":7.9861016,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX Case Number : XXXX Date Filed : XX/XX/year> Subject : FORMAL DEMAND TO REOPEN CASE XXXX ARTICLE XXXX FRAUD, BAD FAITH, EVIDENCE PRESERVATION, AND EMPLOYEE SANCTION REQUEST To : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX & XXXX XXXX : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) ; Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . XXXX Department ; Wells Fargo XXXX XXXX ; XXXX Department of Justice ( for referral ) ; XXXX XXXX Sheriff ( law enforcement record ). \n\nI. STATEMENT OF FACTS ( DETAILED AND UNSUMMARIZED ) On XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, an unauthorized wire transfer in the amount of {$24000.00} USD was executed from my Wells Fargo business account ( account ending in XXXX ). The wire confirmation number is XXXX. The unauthorized beneficiary was XXXX XXXX ( account ending XXXX ). \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, at XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, Wells Fargo system-generated emails show that delivery and notification preferences were changed, thereby disabling all electronic alerts and out-of-band verifications. These changes rendered the account defenseless and prevented any notification that an unauthorized funds transfer had been initiated. \n\nForensic logs from my computer show outbound network connections to IP address XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX United States ) and XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, Port XXXX ) within the exact window of the unauthorized wire. \n\nXXXX Defender Security Center recorded detection events and tamper logs Event XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX showing that Tamper Protection and core security configurations were disabled. This proves that my machine was actively compromised by remote control at the time of the wire. \n\nWells Fargo has falsely asserted in its written Final Resolution letter dated XX/XX/year>, signed by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, that : We can confirm there was a One-Time Password ( OTP ) code sent to your mobile device to process this wire. \nThis statement is false, misleading, and materially deceptive, because all alert and OTP delivery mechanisms were disabled prior to the wire transfer. \n\nWells Fargo closed the matter through its XXXX and XXXX Department, not its Legal Department, and therefore no determination under XXXX Article XXXX was ever made. \n\nWells Fargo issued an internal tracking number ( XXXX ), misrepresented as a lawful UCC XXXX ( b ) trace. This internal reference number is not a legal trace and carries no standing under the XXXX XXXX Code. \n\nXXXX. LEGAL BASIS AND GOVERNING STATUTES ( CITED IN FULL ) UCC XXXX ( a ) and ( b ) Requires the bank to prove that its security procedure was commercially reasonable and that the bank accepted the payment order in good faith. \n\nXXXX XXXX ( a ) Requires the bank to refund the amount of any unauthorized payment order plus interest. \n\nXXXX XXXX ( b ) Defines trace and cancellation as legal instruments between banks ; such records must be initiated and verified under legal supervision. \n\nXXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( c ) Defines authorization as the customers intention to issue the payment order. Credential use alone does not meet this definition. \n\nXXXX XXXX Article XXXX governs exclusively all funds transfers. XXXX departments have no jurisdiction to close Article XXXX cases. Only the banks XXXX Department may adjudicate and respond. \n\nXXXX XXXX A bank can not misuse the finality or one-year preclusion provisions by closing a claim prematurely to extinguish customer rights. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX contract or duty within the UCC imposes XXXX obligation of good faith in performance and enforcement. \n\nXXXX XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) Defines good faith as honesty in fact and observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. \n\nXXXX U.S.C. XXXX XXXX prohibition against knowingly making false statements or representations in any matter within federal jurisdiction. \n\nXXXX U.S.C. XXXX Prohibits destruction, alteration, or concealment of records or documents to obstruct an investigation. \n\nXXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Mandates sanctions for failure to preserve electronically stored information relevant to litigation. \n\nXXXX. SPECIFIC BREACHES AND FINDINGS Intentional Misrepresentation to a XXXX XXXX and the Account Holder Wells Fargo knowingly or recklessly stated that a One-Time Password was sent, despite clear evidence that all notifications and OTP delivery settings were disabled prior to the wire. \n\nThis constitutes a violation of XXXX XXXX ( lack of good faith ) and XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( false statements ). \n\nFailure to Follow UCC Article XXXX Legal Procedure The matter was closed through the XXXX and XXXX Department, not the XXXX Department, in violation of XXXX XXXX and XXXX ( b ). \n\nCommercially Unreasonable Security Procedure Allowing a single user credential to disable all alert and XXXX notifications violates the standard of commercial reasonableness required by XXXX XXXX ( b ). \n\nFailure to Refund Unauthorized Wire Transfer Wells XXXX refusal to refund {$24000.00} violates the refund mandate of XXXX XXXX ( a ). \n\nFabrication and Misrepresentation of Trace Documentation The internal number XXXX is not a legal trace identifier under UCC XXXX ( b ). Representing it as such is deceptive and violates XXXX XXXX and XXXX U.S.C. XXXX. \n\nFailure to Preserve and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX failure to produce the raw authentication, session, and system logs violates XXXX U.S.C. XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nBad-Faith Case Closure Closing the matter within XXXX ( XXXX ) calendar days without legal analysis constitutes willful evasion of responsibility under UCC XXXX and UCC XXXX. \n\nIV. NUMBERED DEMANDS FOR ACTION ( MANDATORY AND NON-NEGOTIABLE ) Demand XXXX. Reopen Case : Pursuant to XXXX XXXX and XXXX ( b ), Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . must reopen the matter as a legal Article XXXX dispute under the supervision of its XXXX Department, not XXXX XXXX. \n\nDemand XXXX. Refund Obligation : In accordance with UCC XXXX ( a ), the bank must refund {$24000.00} USD plus accrued interest immediately or provide a lawful defense signed by legal counsel explaining why the refund is withheld. \n\nDemand XXXX. Full Record Production : Under UCC XXXX ( b ) and FRCP XXXX, Wells Fargo must produce within XXXX ( XXXX ) business days : Full Fedwire/SWIFT trace data for Wire XXXX. \n\nAll audit logs, device identifiers, XXXX records, and alert-change histories for October 912, 2025. \n\nThe name and title of every Wells Fargo employee who had access to or modified these records. \n\nDemand XXXX. Legal Department Certification : Under XXXX XXXX, only the Legal Department can certify compliance. A signed statement from Wells Fargo XXXX XXXX must confirm that XXXX now controls the matter. \n\nDemand XXXX. Employee Accountability : Pursuant to XXXX XXXX and XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, identify all employees involved in preparing, approving, or issuing the false statement about the XXXX delivery. Each must be suspended pending investigation and terminated if misconduct is confirmed. \n\nDemand XXXX. Preservation of Evidence : Under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX and FRCP XXXX ( XXXX ), certify that no evidence, email, or log file has been altered, deleted, or destroyed. Produce a chain-of-custody affidavit signed by XXXX XXXX data custodian XXXX \n\nDemand XXXX. XXXX and DOJ XXXX : Pursuant to XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) and XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, the CFPB and XXXX must refer this matter to the Department of Justice for review of potential criminal conduct. \n\nDemand XXXX. Systemic XXXX XXXX : Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( Appendix A ), require XXXX examiners to investigate whether XXXX XXXX alert-disable functionality constitutes an unsafe or unsound practice. \n\nDemand XXXX. Written Legal Explanation : Within XXXX ( XXXX ) business days, Wells Fargo XXXX must provide a signed, notarized legal memorandum detailing : Whether an OTP was ever generated, queued, or transmitted on XX/XX/year>. \n\nWhy the XXXX Department handled an Article XXXX claim. \n\nThe statutory interpretation used to justify case closure. \n\nDemand XXXX. Immediate Regulatory Oversight Confirmation : Under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( FOIA ), I will obtain XXXX and CFPB XXXX records to confirm whether this complaint was logged and transmitted to Wells Fargo XXXX. Any delay, omission, or failure to forward will be treated as regulatory negligence. \n\nV. PRESERVATION AND SPOLIATION WARNING This correspondence constitutes a litigation hold. \nAny deletion, alteration, or failure to preserve responsive data constitutes obstruction under XXXX XXXX. XXXX and will be reported to the court. \n\nAll agencies and parties must maintain these records under XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nVI. REQUEST FOR ENFORCEMENT AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION I hereby request : That the XXXX invoke its enforcement authority under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) to compel XXXX XXXX compliance with UCC Article XXXX obligations. \n\nThat the CFPB designate this submission as a new complaint titled UCC Article XXXX Legal Fraud and False Statement Case. \n\nThat disciplinary action be taken against any Wells Fargo employee who knowingly misrepresented material facts to federal authorities. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. \nAll exhibits, screenshots, logs, and correspondence referenced herein are authentic and preserved under litigation hold. \n\nI demand full compliance, written certification from Wells Fargo XXXX, and immediate action by the XXXX and CFPB to enforce statutory obligations under UCC Article XXXX, XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ), and FRCP XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX Managing Broker / Owner XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX, CA XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX | XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-07T23:53:26.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"949XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17091245","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-11-07T23:39:26.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Forensic logs from my computer <em>show</em> outbound network connections to IP address XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX United States ) and XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, Port XXXX ) within the exact window of the unauthorized wire. \n\nXXXX Defender <em>Security</em> Center recorded detection events and tamper logs Event XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX showing that Tamper Protection and core <em>security</em> configurations were disabled. This proves that my machine was actively compromised by remote control at the time of the wire."]},"sort":[7.9861016,"17091245"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6523276","_score":7.540133,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"LVNV Funding, LLC Resurgent Acquisitions LLC Resurgent Capital Services XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Notice of Legal Hold and Debt Validation Demand for account ending XXXX This letter is being sent to you in response to your Debt Collection attempt of the debt I purportedly owe to LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Acquisitions LLC, Resurgent Capital Services or XXXX XXXX. in the amount of {$1400.00}. I never heard about LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Acquisitions LLC, Resurgent Capital Services as my alleged creditors or representatives of my Creditor and never received any mandatory Notices under FDCPA about LVNV Funding, XXXX, Resurgent Acquisitions LLC, Resurgent Capital Services intent to collect from me as required under FDCPA. Be advised that this is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 ( b ) that your claim is disputed and validation is requested. Please also be advised that I plan to file an Adversary Complaint as ProSe, under Rule XXXX ( 2 ) to determine Validity of Claim where all of named above entities - LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Acquisitions LLC, Resurgent Capital Services or XXXX XXXX will be included as co-defendants. This is NOT a request for verification or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to the above named Title and Section. I respectfully request that your offices provide me with competent evidence that I have any legal obligation to pay you. Please provide me with the following : Please provide me a Written Warranty of Ownership of my alleged debt by ANY company who claims to be the owner of this debt, signed by an individual employee of this XXXX who is responsible for accounting or bookkeeping. Please disclose if the Account receivable for this alleged debt was established and currently exists in books and records of ANY company who claims to be my XXXX. Please provide me a copy of account receivable LEDGER for this account receivable wet-ink signed by an individual employee of my Creditor who is responsible for collection and administration of my alleged debt. Please disclose how LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Acquisitions LLC, Resurgent Capital Services or XXXX XXXX became my XXXX. If it was a purchase of this alleged debt, please provide me a proof of payment such as wire transfer receipt, ACH or cancelled check. Please provide me FULL mailing address and direct contact information for XXXX XXXX from Resurgent Capital Services since I can not issue them Summons to a XXXX XXXX XXXX Please provide me copies of Notices under FDCPA sent to me by these alleged XXXX where they intended to collect any money from me. What the money you say I owe is for ; Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe ; Provide me with copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe ; provide me a proof of purchase of my debt, if any Please provide me a copy of retainer and confirmation sale of my purported debt to LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Acquisitions LLC, Resurgent Capital Services by XXXX. Show me that you are licensed to collect in my state Provide me with your license numbers and Registered Agent. Please provide me evidence if my Promissory Note as Appeared on the Application for the Credit was processed by XXXX in accordance with XXXX. Was it placed as a receivable to XXXX account to generate profits? If yes, please state how much profits were generated by using my signature on the XXXX as an XXXX on XXXX balance sheets. Please state if my promissory Note was securitized and sold to investors for cash and how much profits XXXX received by trading on my name, signature and reputation on the open markets. Please send me a document where it said that I allowed XXXX to use my name, signature and reputation to trade on the open market as a security to generate profits. At this time I will also inform you that if your offices have reported invalidated information to any of the XXXX major Credit Bureaus XXXX XXXX, XXXX or XXXX ) this action might constitute fraud under both XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Due to this fact, if any negative mark is found on any of my credit reports by your company or the company that you represent I will not hesitate in bringing legal action against you for the following : Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ; Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ; Defamation of Character. If your offices are able to provide the proper documentation as requested, I will require at least XXXX XXXX to investigate this information and during such time all collection activity must cease and desist. Also during this validation period, if any action is taken which could be considered detrimental to any of my credit reports, I will consult with my legal counsel for suit. This includes any listing any information to a credit reporting repository that could be inaccurate or invalidated or verifying an account as accurate when in fact there is no provided proof that it is. If your offices fail to respond to this validation request within XXXX XXXX from the date of your receipt, all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately. I would also like to request, in writing, that no telephone contact be made by your offices to my home or to my place of employment. If your offices attempt telephone communication with me, including but not limited to computer generated calls and calls or correspondence sent to or with any XXXX parties, it will be considered harassment and I will have no choice but to file suit. All future communications with me MUST be done in writing and sent to the address noted in this letter by XXXX. It would be advisable that you assure that your records are in order before I am forced to take legal action. This is an attempt to correct your records, any information obtained shall be used for that purpose. Furthermore, This Notice is to inform you that I plan to file a legal action for violations of FDCPA and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Act, 18 U.S.C 1961-1968. I demand you to put legal hold on all documents related to this alleged debt and transfers, including all origination documents ; and copies of all communication with any XXXX, LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Acquisitions LLC, Resurgent Capital Services representative, including but not limited to letters, emails, faxes, ect. I want to stress out the importance of my request. When Companies facing litigation and regulatory or enforcement proceedings today, they must bear not only the enormous burdens of electronic discovery, but also the risk of increasingly expensive penalties for failing to preserve email and business records from the earliest possible moment after a dispute arises. Charges and liabilities for aiding and abetting wrongful conduct XXXX with these challenges, its is essential that your Companies issue litigation holds as soon as any type of formal legal proceeding is reasonably anticipated. Both, civil and Federal courts have held that the failure to design and implement an adequate litigation hold may constitute negligence. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ), a defendant was held in contempt of court for its failure to implement an adequate litigation hold. The court entered a default judgment and required the defendant to pay plaintiff 's costs and attorneys ' fees. Please be advised that I place a litigation hold on all and any documents. You must preserve and retain all paper files and electronically stored information that is related to this matter. In the paragraphs below, I have outlined my recommendations for ensuring that all potentially relevant evidence is preserved. I can not stress enough the importance of taking immediate actions to preserve this information as failure to take adequate steps to collect and preserve evidence, including electronic evidence, could result in severe sanctions being imposed by the XXXX for spoliation of evidence. I recommend that you take the following XXXX steps to ensure that all date, including electronic date, is preserved : XXXX. You should agree on XXXX person to take a lead in preserving all information potentially relevant to this matter. This person will insure that these steps are taken in their entirety, and that steps are not accidentally skipped because they all assume that the other is taking care of it. XXXX. You should develop a strategy for preserving ALL electronic data in their possession, including consulting an XXXX XXXX XXXX if necessary. You are required to preserve all electronic data, including but not limited to, emails, electronic documents ( such as documents created using XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX and the like ) ; data generated by calendaring, task management, and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ; data created with the use of document management software ; all data created with the use of paper and electronic mail logging and routing software ; all Internet and Web browser generated history files, caches and cookies files ; all electronic activity logs ; and employee personal e-mail accounts. You must preserve all potentially relevant data, regardless of whether it is contained on business or personal computer, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX If you automatically dispose of or recycle digital or paper files, digital back-up files/tapes ; or any other storage media ( possibly pursuant to a document retention policy ), I recommend suspending such program for the time being. We can then discuss which information should be preserved throughout the litigation. If your document retention policy previously resulted in the destruction of electronically stored information that can still be reasonably recovered, please recover this information immediately. If it is possible to recover information for a significant period of time, please contact me to discuss the relevant period of time for recovery. Once you have had an opportunity to consider the points raised in this letter, please contact me to discuss this matter in greater details. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX,","date_sent_to_company":"2023-02-05T14:15:13.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"606XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6523276","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2023-02-05T14:15:07.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Please send me a document where it said that I allowed XXXX to use my name, signature and reputation to trade on the open market as a <em>security</em> to generate profits."]},"sort":[7.540133,"6523276"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15546973","_score":7.1716413,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"# TRANSUNION CREDIT DISPUTE LETTER XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Michigan XXXX * * [ XXXX XXXX, XXXX * * TransUnion LLC * * * * Consumer Dispute Center * * * * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, PA XXXX * * * * RE : FORMAL DISPUTE UNDER 15 U.S.C. 1681i - FCRA COMPLIANCE REQUIRED * * * * TransUnion File Number : * * [ XXXX * * Date of Birth : * * [ XX/XX/XXXX * * Social Security Number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXeport Date : * * [ XXXX # # NOTICE OF DISPUTED INFORMATION AND LEGAL VIOLATIONS Dear TransUnion Dispute Resolution Team, This letter constitutes formal notice of disputed tradelines on my TransUnion credit report and serves as demand for compliance with federal law requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\n# # CONSUMER IDENTIFICATION VERIFICATION To verify my identity for this dispute : - Full Legal Name : [ Your Full Name as it appears on credit report ] XXXX XXXX - Current Address : [ Your Current Address ] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Date of Birth : [ XXXX - Social Security Number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DISPUTED ACCOUNTS - ACCURACY CHALLENGES # # # ACCOUNT XXXX : [ XXXX XXXX # XXXX * * * * * * TransUnion Account Reference : * * [ Account number as shown on XXXX report ] XXXX * * Current Status : * * Charge-off - {$700.00} * * Date Opened : * * XX/XX/XXXX * * Date Closed : * * XX/XX/XXXX * * SPECIFIC DISPUTES UNDER 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : * * 1. * * Mathematical Inaccuracy Challenge : * * - Original balance reported as {$630.00} - Charge-off amount shows {$700.00} - * * DEMAND : * * Documentation showing how {$630.00} became {$700.00} - * * LEGAL BASIS : * * * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CRA must XXXX mathematical accuracy XXXX. * * Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) Verification Required : * * - Charge-off date must correspond to actual DOFD per Metro XXXX XXXX - * * DEMAND : * * Original creditor documentation establishing true DOFD - * * LEGAL BASIS : * * Regulation V, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. * * Payment History Accuracy : * * - Payment history shows pattern inconsistent with my records- * * DEMAND : * * Month-by-month payment verification from original creditor - * * LEGAL BASIS : * * XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) reasonable investigation requirement # # # ACCOUNT XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX  TransUnion Account Reference : * * [ Account number as shown on XXXX report ] # XXXX * * Current Status : * * Charge-off - {$660.00} * * Date Opened : * * XX/XX/XXXX * * Estimated Removal : * * XX/XX/XXXX * * SPECIFIC DISPUTES UNDER XXXX U.S.C. XXXX : * * XXXX. * * Impossible Future Date Error : * * - Report shows \" Payment Received : XX/XX/XXXX '' - * * FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY : * * Can not receive payment on future date - * * IMMEDIATE Deletion REQUIRED : * This violates basic accuracy standards- * * LEGAL BASIS : * * XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) reasonable procedures requirement XXXX. * * Data Furnisher Verification Challenge : * * - * * DEMAND : * * Proof thaXXXX XXXX  has legal right to report - * * DEMAND : * * Original contract and assignment documentation - * * LEGAL BASIS : * * * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX must verify reporting authority XXXX XXXX * * Charge-off Calculation Verification : * * - * * DEMAND : * * Documentation supporting {$660.00} charge-off amount - * * DEMAND : * * Complete payment history from account inception - * * LEGAL BASIS : * * Fair Credit Reporting Act accuracy requirements # # TRANSUNION 'S LEGAL OBLIGATIONS XXXX * Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i, TransUnion must : * * 1. * * Reasonable Investigation ( 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ) : * * - Forward dispute details to data furnisher within 5 business days - Review all relevant information provided by consumer - Conduct investigation beyond automated verification ( * XXXX XXXX Trans Union * ) XXXX. * * XXXX Standards ( XXXX ( b ) ) : * * - Maintain reasonable procedures for maximum possible accuracy - Can not rely solely on data furnisher confirmation ( * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  - Must independently verify disputed information when challenged XXXX. * * Investigation Timeline ( XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) ) : * * - Complete investigation within 30 days of receipt - Extend to 45 days only if additional relevant information provided - Provide written results including basis for determination # # REQUIRED VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION * * TransUnion must obtain from data furnishers : * * * * For Both Accounts : * * - Original signed contracts or loan agreements- Complete payment histories from account inception to charge-off - Mathematical calculations supporting all reported balances - Chain of title documentation if debt was assigned/sold - Internal procedures used for previous \" verification '' * * For Account XXXX Specifically : * * - Documentation explaining balance increase from {$630.00} to {$700.00} - Original creditor 's charge-off calculation methodology - Proof of final account statement accuracy * * For Account XXXX Specifically : * * - Correction of impossible future payment date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) - Current account holder verification and reporting authority - Validation of estimated removal date calculation # # PREVIOUS DISPUTE FAILURE ANALYSIS Both accounts show \" VERIFIED AS ACCURATE '' notations, indicating previous disputes. However : - * * No substantive documentation was provided * * supporting verification - * * Automated verification insufficient * * under * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX * - * * Future date error proves inadequate investigation * * occurred - * * Mathematical inaccuracies remain unaddressed * * * * Legal Standard : * * * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX * - reasonable investigation requires substantive review, not mere confirmation. \n\n# # DEMAND FOR COMPLIANCE * * Within 30 Days, TransUnion Must : * * XXXX. * * XXXX Reasonable Investigation : * * Following federal court precedent requiring substantive verification 2. * * Obtain Required Documentation : * * Listed above from each data furnisher 3. * * Delete : * * Any information that can not be completely verified as accurate 4. * * Provide Written Results : * * Including specific basis for conclusions and updated credit report # # ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE If data furnishers can not provide complete verification documentation, * * 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) mandates immediate deletion * * of disputed information.\n\n# # NOTICE OF POTENTIAL FEDERAL VIOLATIONS * * Willful Non-Compliance Damages ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ) : * * - Statutory damages : {$100.00} - {$1000.00} per violation - Punitive damages for willful violations - Attorney fees and costs * * Negligent Non-Compliance ( 15 U.S.C. 1681o ) : * * - Actual damages for CRA negligence - Court costs and reasonable attorney fees # # COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS- All responses must be in writing - Provide complete investigation results- Include updated credit report if changes made - Send to address listed above via first-class mail # # DOCUMENT PRESERVATION NOTICE This letter serves as notice to preserve all documents related to : - This dispute investigation - Previous dispute investigations on these accounts - Communications with data furnishers - Internal investigation procedures and results * * Destruction of relevant documents XXXX constitute spoliation of evidence. * * # # TIME-SENSITIVE COMPLIANCE DEMAND Your XXXX investigation period under federal law begins upon receipt of this certified letter. Failure to comply with FCRA requirements XXXX result in federal court action seeking damages and injunctive relief. \n\nI request immediate compliance with these federal law requirements and look forward to receiving proper verification documentation or deletion of inaccurate information. \n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ENCLOSURES : Copy of TransUnion Credit Report ( disputed items highlighted ) Government-issued Photo ID ( copy ) Proof of Current Address ( utility bill, bank statement, etc. ) Affidavit in Support of Dispute ( if prepared ) Previous Dispute Correspondence ( if any","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-27T23:37:11.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48505","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15546973","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-27T23:10:09.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX : * * XXXX. * * Impossible Future Date Error : * * - Report <em>shows</em> \" Payment Received : XX/XX/XXXX '' - * * FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY : * * Can not receive payment on future date - * * IMMEDIATE <em>Deletion</em> REQUIRED : * This violates basic accuracy standards- * * LEGAL BASIS : * * XXXX U.S.C."]},"sort":[7.1716413,"15546973"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13321378","_score":6.1104302,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:34.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13321378","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-03T22:15:06.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Supporting <em>Evidence</em> : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response <em>shows</em> these payments clearly. Yet the credit report <em>shows</em> aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This <em>shows</em> they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false."]},"sort":[6.1104302,"13321378"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13318699","_score":6.1104302,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:30.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13318699","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-03T22:15:06.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Supporting <em>Evidence</em> : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response <em>shows</em> these payments clearly. Yet the credit report <em>shows</em> aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This <em>shows</em> they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false."]},"sort":[6.1104302,"13318699"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13321520","_score":6.101476,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:32.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13321520","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-03T20:55:45.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Supporting <em>Evidence</em> : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response <em>shows</em> these payments clearly. Yet the credit report <em>shows</em> aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This <em>shows</em> they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false."]},"sort":[6.101476,"13321520"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15202503","_score":6.004999,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am submitting this formal complaint regarding multiple false, inaccurate, incomplete, and unverifiable items being reported on my credit file by several furnishers and credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ). These inaccuracies have severely impacted my creditworthiness, caused financial harm, and violated my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692, and CFPB regulations.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TX XXXX Wrong Address Issue : This address is a post office box that I have never rented, visited, or authorized as my mailing location. \nLaw : Under FCRA 1681e ( b ), consumer reporting agencies must maintain maximum possible accuracy and remove unverifiable data.\n\nStory : The continuous appearance of this address in my file is highly misleading. It creates a false identity trail and increases the likelihood of debt collectors or fraudulent accounts being linked to me. I have verified with USPS that I have never held a PO Box at this location. Allowing this false address to remain suggests negligence in your verification process and could lead to financial loss, missed opportunities, and reputation damage.\n\nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TX XXXX Wrong Address Issue : I have never lived at or been associated with this apartment. \nLaw : FCRA 609 and 611 prohibit maintaining mixed file data, where information from one consumer appears in anothers report.\n\nStory : This error likely arose from a similar name match with another individual. Including an unrelated residential address creates suspicion of instability to potential lenders. I have no lease, utility bill, drivers license update, or USPS mail record tied to this location. Past reports show such errors can cause bank account denials, increased interest rates, or false collection activity all unfair consequences to an innocent consumer.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TX XXXX Wrong Address Issue : I have never used this or any other P.O. Box for personal or financial purposes. \nLaw : FCRA 602 emphasizes consumer privacy, security, and fairness ; falsely linking me to this address breaches all three.\n\nStory : Listing this address as mine exposes me to severe privacy concerns, including creditors sending confidential information to third parties. No bank, credit, or service provider of mine has ever recorded this location. Retaining this entry without verification is a direct compliance failure on your part and a violation of my federal consumer rights.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX | Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | High Balance : {$720.00} | Late Payment ISSUE : The reported late payments are inaccurate and have been reported without sufficient verification. No valid documents or records have been provided despite my request. \nLAW : Under Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 609 ( a ), I have the right to a full disclosure of the information in my file and its source. Under 611 ( a ), if the information can not be verified, it must be deleted immediately.\n\nSTORY : I opened this account in XXXX and during the COVID-19 lockdown there were banking system delays, not due to my negligence. Still, the bureau reported late payments without any notice, causing unfair damage to my credit score. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX Date Opened XX/XX/XXXX High Balance : {$0.00} Status : Collection Issue : This account shows a High Balance {$0.00} which is impossible for any valid collection. If there is no balance, there is no debt to collect. This suggests either the account is misreported or is a case of re-aging to harm my credit profile. \nLaw : Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), furnishers may not report information they know or should know is inaccurate. Under FDCPA 807 ( 2 ) ( A ), representing an amount owed when none exists is a false representation.\n\nStory : I have never received a valid notice of this debt from XXXX XXXX XXXX. Furthermore, the Date Opened of XX/XX/XXXX is suspicious as it matches a recent period and appears to be an attempt to restart the reporting period. No original creditor information is provided, which violates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ). This account is harming my credit score unfairly. \n\nXXXX Acct # XXXX Date Opened XX/XX/XXXX High Balance : {$720.00} Status : Late Payment Issue : This account is reporting ongoing late payments without proof of contract or payment history. There is no evidence of my liability for this account. \nLaw : As per FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), I have the right to request the full method of verification including signed application and original billing statements. Failure to produce proof means the account must be deleted.\n\nStory : I do not recall opening any account with XXXX. No billing statements, no correspondence, and no agreements were ever sent to me. Reporting this account without verification is damaging my creditworthiness, especially since the company may be reporting late payments as a punitive measure without lawful standing. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Date Opened XX/XX/XXXX High Balance : {$720.00} Status : Late Payment Issue : Late payments are reported for a loan that I believe was never finalized. The lender has not verified my signature on any agreement. \nLaw : FCRA 611 ( a ) requires accurate and verifiable information. Unverified accounts must be removed. FDCPA 809 ( b ) allows me to dispute within 30 days of first notice, which I never received.\n\nStory : I never received funds for this account, making it impossible for payments to have been late. This suggests the account was opened in error or fraudulently. I request immediate deletion to prevent further harm to my financial reputation. \n\nXXXX  Acct # XXXX  Date Opened XX/XX/XXXX High Balance : {$240.00} Status : Charge Off Issue : This account is listed as a charge-off but with minimal amount and no proof of actual charge-off event date from original creditor. \nLaw : FCRA 623 ( b ) obligates furnishers to conduct reasonable investigation. FCRA 605 ( a ) prohibits reporting inaccurate charge-off dates.\n\nStory : The reporting date and balance appear inconsistent with my payment records. This may reflect an internal system error. Without original signed agreement and transaction history, this reporting is a violation of my consumer rights.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Accounts Multiple Dates ( XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ) High Balance {$0.00} Status : Late Payment Issue : Both accounts show {$0.00} balance yet report Late Payment. A XXXX balance can not be delinquent. \nLaw : FCRA 607 ( b ) requires maximum possible accuracy. Reporting late payment with {$0.00} balance is materially misleading.\n\nStory : No documentation or notices have been provided verifying any delinquency. Such erroneous reporting could be due to system migration errors from the Attorney Generals office and must be corrected. Updating them to Paid/Closed or deleting is required.\n\nXXXX Acct # XXXX  Date Opened XX/XX/XXXX High Balance {$0.00} Status : Charge Off Issue : Reporting a charge-off for {$0.00} is misleading and false. \nLaw : FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) and FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) forbid false credit information.\n\nStory : No notice of charge-off was sent to me. This entry is likely an obsolete account, beyond the 7-year reporting limit under FCRA 605 ( a ), and thus must be removed immediately.\n\nXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : This inquiry was made without my authorization and was added to my credit report without my consent, which is illegal. \nLaw : Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), prior permission is required before conducting a credit inquiry. \nStory : I have never given this company permission to check my credit information. This type of unauthorized inquiry is damaging my credit score, which is harming my financial life.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Issue : Suspicious inquiry not related to my account. \nLaw : According to the FCRA, any inquiry that is not related to my account or transactions is a violation. \nStory : I have never conducted any business with XXXX XXXX  ; therefore, this inquiry is completely false and must be addressed. \n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unauthorized inquiry negatively affecting my credit score. \nLaw : Under the FCRA, compensation can be sought for unnecessary inquiries.\n\nStory : I have never entered into any agreement with this company. This inquiry appears to be a spam or unlawful attempt. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unauthorized inquiry and sharing of client information without consent. \nLaw : Under Section 604 of the FCRA, any inquiry without permission is invalid. \nStory : Despite avoiding any transactions with XXXX XXXX XXXX, this inquiry was added to my report, harming my credit performance. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unrecognized and outdated inquiry made without permission. \nLaw : The FCRA sets time limits for inquiries, and this one violates those limits. \nStory : I never gave consent for this inquiry, and it has impacted my financial well-being. \n\nXXXX XXXX  Issue : Suspicious and unfamiliar inquiry. \nLaw : Inquiries older than 2 years, or unrelated to an account, are considered unlawful. \nStory : I have no connection to this transaction or inquiry, yet it was added without proper verification. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  Issue : Unauthorized and illegal inquiry. \nLaw : Under the FCRA, unauthorized inquiries should be removed from the report.\n\nStory : Since I never gave explicit permission, this means my credit report contains false information. \n\nXXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unauthorized suspicious inquiry damaging a positive credit history. \nLaw : Anti-fraud provisions require that such unauthorized inquiries be explained.\n\nStory : I have never contacted this company, therefore this inquiry must be removed from my report. \n\nXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unauthorized inquiry. \nLaw : Under the FCRA, I have the right to request removal of unauthorized inquiries.\n\nStory : This inquiry was made without my consent, and I intend to take legal action.\n\nXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Illegal inquiry conducted without consent. \nLaw : Written consent is mandatory for credit inquiries.\n\nStory : This inquiry should never have occurred on my account ; its compromising my financial security.\n\nHarm Caused and Legal Demand The above errors are not isolated but part of a pattern of willful disregard for accuracy and consumer rights. These violations have : Lowered my credit score significantly.\n\nCaused loan denials and higher interest rates. \nDamaged my reputation with lenders and potential employers. \nUnder FCRA 616, 617, I am entitled to actual, statutory, and punitive damages for willful or negligent noncompliance. I request that the CFPB take immediate enforcement action against the furnishers and CRAs to : 1. Delete the inaccurate addresses from my credit file.\n\n2. Remove the unverifiable and incorrect accounts.\n\n3. Ensure full compliance with FCRA and FDCPA going forward.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-11T19:02:02.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77071","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15202503","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-11T18:58:07.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Past reports <em>show</em> such errors can cause bank account denials, increased interest rates, or false collection activity all unfair consequences to an innocent consumer.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TX XXXX Wrong Address Issue : I have never used this or any other P.O. Box for personal or financial purposes. \nLaw : FCRA 602 emphasizes consumer privacy, <em>security</em>, and fairness ; falsely linking me to this address breaches all three."]},"sort":[6.004999,"15202503"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8750998","_score":5.878113,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To whom it may concern, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Tennessee XXXX I am writing to formally address the matter of account deletion or blocking following a data breach or unauthorized inquiries, as stipulated in FCRA Section 605B [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ] and FCRA Section 604 [ 15 U.S.C. 1681b ]. I respectfully dispute the accounts on my consumer credit report mentioned below, asserting that they are a direct result of a data breach or fraud.\n\nI request concrete and verifiable evidence, including my signature or electronic signature, to substantiate these actions. This letter represents my personal initiative, and I kindly urge you to scrutinize its contents. These actions transpired without my authorization, thereby infringing upon my consumer rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically under Section 605B [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ] and Section 604 [ 15 U.S.C. 1681b ]. My attempts to engage with the involved companies revealed an absence of proper validation or original proof for their reporting actions.\n\nListed below are the Personal Information that are being challenged Incorrect Previous Address : - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TN, XXXX This item was fraudulently misrepresented - I will alert the issuing bank of this fraud unless you agree in writing to remove the debt immediately. - Please verify if this belongs to me. \nXXXX - XXXX I hereby submit a formal request for the cessation of reporting regarding the aforementioned account. Kindly provide documented evidence attesting to the accuracy and validation of all details, encompassing notations, dates, balances, compliance condition code ( s ), and any pertinent elements within the Metro 2 compliance segment and field ( s ). Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.\n\n15 U.S.C 1681 No Written Consent to share this information. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I hope\n\nthis message finds you well. I would like to bring to your attention that the data presented above does not appear to have undergone certification to meet the required reporting standards. Additionally, it is crucial to acknowledge that this information might be incomplete, outdated, or lacking proper support. Therefore, I kindly request that any inaccurate or unsupported material be expeditiously removed from this page. I wish to draw your esteemed attention to the discrepancy denoted by Account Type Details as documented within the report. It has come to my notice that the information pertaining to this account displays potential inaccuracies and deviations from the well-\ndefined reporting norms set forth by the XXXX. I kindly request a thorough reevaluation to ascertain the veracity, accuracy, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all stipulated requisites. Should these criteria not be met, I respectfully request the removal of my profile. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the reporting of Account Status ( XXXX ) : XXXX is not in compliance with the required reporting standards.\n\nI would like to bring to your attention that the Payment Status ( XXXX ) : Coll/Chargeoff reported across the XXXX credit reporting agencies shows significant inconsistencies. It appears that the reporting may be in violation of the established XXXX XXXX reporting standards, and there is a possibility that it may be untrue, inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and/or non-compliant with all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting. This field is indicative of potential issues with reporting accuracy and compliance standards, which is a matter of concern. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could urgently investigate this issue and take the necessary steps to address any discrepancies and ensure that reporting practices are in full compliance with the established standards.\n\nI wish to draw your attention to the presence of an issue denoted as \" Credit Limit ( XXXX ) : {$0.00} '' within the provided report. It has come to my notice that the data associated with this account appears to deviate from established reporting standards set forth by the XXXX, displaying inaccuracies and inconsistencies. I kindly request a thorough reevaluation of this matter, with the objective of ensuring its veracity, accuracy, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all stipulated requisites. Should these concerns not be addressed satisfactorily, I respectfully request the removal of my profile.\n\nI wish to draw your attention to the issue of inconsistency in the reporting of High Credit ( XXXX ) : {$19000.00} across the XXXX credit reporting agencies. It has come to my attention that this reporting may be non-compliant with the established XXXX XXXX reporting standards and may be untrue, inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and/or not confirmed to be compliant with all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting. This field suggests that this item of reporting may potentially be an issue with reporting accuracy and compliance standards, which is a matter of grave concern. Therefore, I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter to ensure that such discrepancies are addressed and that future reporting is accurate, complete, and compliant with the established standards.\n\nI kindly wish to draw your attention to the presence of an error in the Past Due ( XXXX ) : XXXX as stated in the report. It has come to my attention that the data pertaining to this account may be erroneous or incoherent with the prescribed reporting norms set forth by the XXXX. I humbly request that you reconsider the matter and provide substantiation for the accuracy, completeness ( within the designated timeframe ), verification, and adherence to all relevant requirements. Should these conditions not be met, I would greatly appreciate the removal of my profile.\n\nI kindly wish to draw your attention to the matter of Monthly Payment ( XXXX ) : {$0.00} as identified within the report. It has come to my notice that the data pertaining to this account exhibits discrepancies that appear to deviate from the established reporting standards of the XXXX. I humbly request your reconsideration of this information, with a view towards ensuring its fidelity, accuracy, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all stipulated requirements. Should this not align with the prescribed standards, I would respectfully request the removal of my profile from consideration. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.\n\nI would like to draw your attention to the Last Reported : XX/XX/XXXX that has been reported in the document. It seems that the data pertaining to this account may be erroneous or inconsistent with the established reporting standards of the XXXX. Therefore, I kindly request you to conduct a thorough review of the information and ensure its veracity, accuracy, completeness ( within the designated timeframe ), verification, and compliance with all relevant requirements. If any discrepancies are found, I would appreciate it if you could promptly rectify them. In the event that this can not be accomplished, I respectfully request that my profile be removed from the system.\n\nI would like to draw your attention to the Date Last Active ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX mentioned in the report. It seems that the data pertaining to this account is not in line with the established reporting standards of the XXXX, and may be considered inaccurate or inconsistent. I kindly request you to reevaluate the information and provide evidence of its authenticity, accuracy, completeness ( within the specified timeframe ), verification, and compliance with all relevant requirements. If these criteria are not met, I respectfully request that my profile be removed.\n\nI kindly wish to draw your attention to the matter concerning the Date of Last Payment ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX as indicated in the report. It has come to my attention that the data associated with this account exhibits a notable inconsistency when measured against the established reporting standards upheld by the XXXX. I humbly request that you undertake a thorough review of this data to confirm its accuracy, completeness, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all requisite criteria. Should it transpire that these aforementioned criteria are not met, I would respectfully request the removal of my profile. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the reporting of Date Opened ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX may not be deemed valid, accurate, or compliant with the established standards of the credit reporting industry. It is imperative to acknowledge that the XXXX has specifically outlined that any deviations from these standards can result in deficient reporting, requiring the removal of the claim ( s ) until they are proven to be compliant with legal requirements. We must stress that this action must be taken, even if there is evidence of misapplication, willful ignorance, or negligence in reporting practices. Therefore, any deviations, as mentioned below, must be regarded as adequate grounds to remove the claim ( s ) from reporting.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that there is no confirmation that the reporting of XXXX  Year History : XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX is valid, accurate, or compliant with credit reporting industry standards. We would like to highlight that XXXX has explicitly stated that any deviation from these standards results in deficient reporting, and any claims must be removed until they can be proven to be compliant with legal requirements. We must emphasize that this action must be taken regardless of any evidence of misapplication, willful ignorance, or negligence in reporting practices. As such, any deviations, such as those listed below, should be considered sufficient grounds for the removal of the claim ( s ) from reporting. We would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, ensuring adherence to all ethical and legal reporting practices.\n\nThis is not mine - this belonged to a patient who is no longer living. Remove this from my report.\n\nI express my profound disappointment regarding the absence of documented proof of compliance with reporting standards and consumer laws. This deficiency is significant, and I demand the immediate deletion of the flawed report. Failure to comply will result in legal action for non-compliance with the relevant legal requirements. It is crucial for us to have comprehensive knowledge through accurate documentation, ensuring we are well-prepared to address potential issues in the future.\n\nI am writing to express my concern and disappointment regarding the presence of Account Type Details in the report. Regrettably, the data associated with this account raises serious doubts about its accuracy and alignment with the established reporting standards of the XXXX. I respectfully request a thorough reevaluation to ensure the utmost veracity, precision, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all stipulated requirements. Should these concerns remain unaddressed, I kindly request the immediate removal of my profile. \nIt is with a deep sense of disappointment and concern that I must lodge a complaint regarding the reported information concerning High Credit ( XXXX ) : {$15000.00}, which appears to be in violation of the necessary standards for compliant reporting. Therefore, I challenge the reporter 's privilege to report this claim unless they can provide evidence of their confirmed and demonstrated adequacy of reporting practices and processes, which includes full adherence to the Credit Reporting Industry 's mandatory Metro 2 Format standards. It is quite evident that one or more of the reported Last Verified information is deficient in its reporting proficiency, which is unacceptable. Consequently, it is imperative that the reporter incontrovertibly demonstrates the accuracy, completeness, and compliance of their reporting with the industry standards. Failing to do so will have severe consequences, as it undermines the credibility and trustworthiness of the reporting industry.\n\nI would like to draw your attention to the presence of Monthly Payment ( XXXX ) : {$0.00} as highlighted in the report. Regrettably, the data pertaining to this account seems to deviate from the established reporting standards set forth by the XXXX, indicating potential inaccuracies or inconsistencies. Therefore, I kindly request you to thoroughly reassess the information and provide irrefutable evidence of its authenticity, accuracy, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all stipulated requirements. If these conditions can not be met, I must insist on the removal of my profile from the records.\n\nI wish to express my concern and disappointment regarding the presence of Last Reported : XX/XX/XXXX in the report. Regrettably, it has come to my attention that the data related to this account does not align with the established reporting standards of the XXXX, raising concerns about its accuracy and compliance. I kindly request a thorough reevaluation to ensure the veracity, precision, timeliness, verification, and full compliance with all necessary requirements. In the event that these expectations are not met, I respectfully request the removal of my profile.\n\nI must respectfully bring to your attention the matter of Date Last Active ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX as reported in the document. Regrettably, it has come to my attention that the data concerning this account significantly departs from the well-established reporting standards mandated by the XXXX, causing me deep disappointment and frustration. I earnestly request a thorough reevaluation of this situation to validate its veracity, accuracy, completeness ( within the designated timeframe ), verification, and adherence to all prescribed requirements. In the unfortunate event that these criteria are not met, I insist on the immediate removal of my profile.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the reported Date of Last Payment ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX can not be confirmed to be valid, accurate, or compliant with the established standards of the credit reporting industry. We express our disappointment and concern that any deviation from these standards would result in deficient reporting, which is completely unacceptable. We must remind you that the XXXX has clearly stated that such deviations require the immediate removal of the claim ( s ) until they can be proven to be compliant with all legal requirements. We expect nothing less than adherence to ethical and lawful reporting practices, regardless of any evidence of misapplication, willful ignorance, or negligence. We urge you to consider any deviations, such as those listed below, as sufficient grounds for removing the claim ( s ) from reporting, and to take prompt and decisive action to ensure compliance with industry standards.\n\nIt is with a sense of disappointment and concern that I must lodge a complaint regarding the reported information concerning Date Opened ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX. It appears that the information provided deviates from the necessary standards for compliant reporting, which is unacceptable. Therefore, I am challenging the reporter 's privilege to report this claim unless they can demonstrate their confirmed and demonstrated adequacy of reporting practices and processes, which must include full adherence to the Credit Reporting Industry 's mandatory Metro 2 Format standards. It is evident that one or more of the reported Last Verified information is deficient in terms of reporting proficiency. It is crucial that the reporter incontrovertibly proves the accuracy, completeness, and compliance of their reporting with the industry standards. This situation requires a prompt resolution to ensure that the trust and integrity of the reporting process are maintained.\n\nI feel compelled to draw your attention to the presence of XXXX  Year History : XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX within the report, which has left me deeply disappointed and somewhat frustrated. It has come to my attention that the data associated with this account falls short of the rigorous reporting standards stipulated by the XXXX, displaying disconcerting inaccuracies and inconsistencies. In a respectful yet assertive manner, I urge a thorough reevaluation of this matter to establish its veracity, precision, timeliness, verification, and adherence to all mandated criteria. If these expectations are not met, I must insist on the prompt removal of my profile.\n\n15 U.S.C 1681 No Written Consent to share this information. \nXXXX - XXXX I would like to respectfully remind you once again to immediately remove any unproven or inadequately supported claims from your reporting, whether they are listed above or below. As a data reporting provider, it is imperative that you meet the minimum criteria required to report with the conditional privilege to do so. Failure to do so raises doubts about the validity of any and all claims that you make.\n\nI dispute the reportability of any claim that you fail to prove conclusively, particularly concerning the mandatory Metro 2 Compliance standards. These standards, as laid out by the XXXX in their nearly annual XXXX, are crucial to maintaining the integrity of the data. Any deviation from these standards poses a significant risk to the data 's integrity, and thus, I urge you to adhere to the requisite reporting practices to be deemed certifiably compliant.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the Account Type Details that has been reported across the three credit reporting agencies is inconsistent. It is our understanding that this reporting appears to be non-compliant with the established XXXX XXXX reporting standards, which is concerning. Additionally, we believe that this may be untrue, inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and/or not confirmed to be compliant with all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting. Given the gravity of the situation, we are concerned that this field suggests that there may potentially be an issue with reporting accuracy and compliance standards. We kindly request that this matter be addressed promptly, as it is of utmost importance to us and our clients.\n\nI kindly urge you to thoroughly verify the information in question through your investigation, specifically seeking original creditor documentation bearing my signature. Should no such documentation bearing my signature exist, I respectfully demand the prompt removal of all inquiries and reported accounts from my credit report associated with my Social Security number.\n\nI would like to bring to your attention the inconsistency in the reporting of Payment Status ( XXXX ) : Coll/Chargeoff across the XXXX credit reporting agencies. Upon further examination, this reporting appears to be non-compliant with the established XXXX XXXX reporting standards and raises concerns regarding the accuracy, completeness, and compliance of the reporting. Specifically, this field suggests that this item of reporting may potentially be an issue with reporting accuracy and compliance standards. It is imperative that we address this matter with urgency to ensure that the reported information is truthful, accurate, and fully compliant with all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting.\n\nI must bring to your attention a matter of concern regarding the Credit Limit ( XXXX ) : {$0.00} reported across the XXXX credit reporting agencies. This reporting appears to be inconsistent and not compliant with the established XXXX 's reporting standards. There is a possibility that this reporting may be untrue, inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and/or non-compliant with all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting. The discrepancy in this field suggests that this item of reporting may potentially be an issue with reporting accuracy and compliance standards. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter to ensure that all reporting is accurate, complete, and fully compliant with the industry standards.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the reporting of High Credit ( XXXX ) : {$11000.00} is not in compliance with the required reporting standards.\n\nI wish to draw your esteemed attention to an issue concerning the Past Due ( XXXX ) : XXXX as documented in the report. It has come to my discerning notice that the data pertaining to this account exhibits potential inaccuracies or deviations from the well-established reporting benchmarks set forth by the XXXX. I humbly request a thorough reevaluation of this matter, with the objective of substantiating its authenticity, precision, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all mandated prerequisites. Should these criteria not be met, I respectfully implore that my profile be expeditiously expunged from the system. Your prompt consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the reporting of Monthly Payment ( XXXX ) : {$0.00} may not be deemed valid, accurate, or compliant with the established standards of the credit reporting industry. It is imperative to acknowledge that the XXXX has specifically outlined that any deviations from these standards can result in deficient reporting, requiring the removal of the claim ( s ) until they are proven to be compliant with legal requirements. We must stress that this action must be taken, even if there is evidence of misapplication, willful ignorance, or negligence in reporting practices. Therefore, any deviations, as mentioned below, must be regarded as adequate grounds to remove the claim ( s ) from reporting.\n\nI would like to bring to your attention that the Last Reported : XX/XX/XXXX reported across the XXXX credit reporting agencies shows significant inconsistencies. It appears that the reporting may be in violation of the established XXXXXXXX XXXX reporting standards, and there is a possibility that it may be untrue, inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and/or non- compliant with all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting. This field is indicative of potential issues with reporting accuracy and compliance standards, which is a matter of concern. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could urgently investigate this issue and take the necessary steps to address any discrepancies and ensure that reporting practices are in full compliance with the established standards.\n\nWe would like to inform you that the reporting of Date Last Active ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX does not meet the necessary standards for reporting, as mandated by regulatory bodies.\n\nI wish to draw your esteemed attention to the discrepancy denoted by Date of Last Payment ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX as documented within the report. It has come to my notice that the information pertaining to this account displays potential inaccuracies and deviations from the well-defined reporting norms set forth by the XXXX. I kindly request a thorough reevaluation to ascertain the veracity, accuracy, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all stipulated requisites. Should these criteria not be met, I respectfully request the removal of my profile. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.\n\nThe information provided on Date Opened ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX appears to deviate from the required standards for compliant reporting. Accordingly, I am submitting a complaint challenging the reporter 's ability to report this claim unless they can demonstrate their confirmed and demonstrated adequacy of reporting practices and processes, which includes full compliance with the mandatory Metro 2 Format standards of the Credit Reporting Industry. It is evident that one or more of the Last Verified information provided is deficient in its reporting proficiency. Thus, the reporter must unequivocally prove that their reporting is precise, comprehensive, and compliant with industry standards.\n\nThe previous address mentioned on my report- I never resided here. - Your actions are in violation of FCRA Laws and XXXX Standards. I insist that you remove this erroneous information. \nIncorrect Previous Address - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TN, XXXX I am writing to formally request that you take immediate action to remove an incorrect address from my credit file, which is no longer associated with me and can not be delivered to me by the United States Postal Service. I am deeply concerned about the potential risk of identity fraud that could result from this error, and I would like to remind you that your company may be held liable if this incorrect information remains on my credit report. Furthermore, I must emphasize that I have never resided at this address and therefore, it is imperative that you take steps to delete it from my credit file immediately. It is my understanding that accurate and complete personal information is critical to maintaining the integrity of credit reporting, and I PERSONAL INFORMATION Previous Address ( es ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TN, XXXX would appreciate your assistance in ensuring that my credit report is correct and up-to-date.\n\nI am writing to bring to your attention my awareness of your unlawful practices involving the sending of standardized letters in response to consumer disputes and challenges, regardless of the specific details provided by the individuals. Such practices are in direct violation of 15 U.S. Code 5 1681i, which mandates that each dispute and challenge be addressed individually and evaluated on its own merits. It is important to note that the letters I have submitted were created using widely accessible software. Failure to properly process and address my letters would constitute a breach of my rights as a consumer. I must express my concern that such disregard for my rights may be interpreted as a deliberate act, prompting me to seek legal assistance from my attorney to pursue appropriate legal actions\n.\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-12T01:18:19.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"37207","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8750998","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-04-12T01:00:06.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We must stress that this action must be taken, even if there is <em>evidence</em> of misapplication, willful ignorance, or <em>negligence</em> in reporting practices. Therefore, any deviations, as mentioned below, must be regarded as adequate grounds to remove the claim ( s ) from reporting.\n\nI would like to bring to your attention that the Last Reported : XX/XX/XXXX reported across the XXXX credit reporting agencies <em>shows</em> significant inconsistencies."]},"sort":[5.878113,"8750998"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12166990","_score":4.7464485,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern, This is my final demand for Equifax to immediately remove the fraudulent XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX accounts from my credit report due to multiple serious violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regulations, and Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) guidelines. \nDespite my XX/XX/XXXX dispute, which included : A valid identity theft report Victim of Data Breach Documentation FCRA 605B Identity Theft Block Request Government-Issued ID for Verification Formal Dispute Letter Equifax has failed to remove the fraudulent accounts, refused to provide verification documentation, and engaged in deceptive stalling tactics, which constitute deliberate noncompliance and willful violations of federal law.\n\nEQUIFAXS VIOLATIONS 1 Failure to Remove Identity Theft Accounts Within XXXX Business Days ( FCRA XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) FCRA XXXX requires Equifax to block fraudulent information within XXXX business days upon receiving : A valid identity theft report Proof of identity A formal dispute letter Violation : Equifax has failed to remove the fraudulent accounts despite receiving all required documentation on XX/XX/XXXX. \nLegal Remedy : Immediate deletion required, or Equifax is liable for statutory damages ( {$1000.00} per violation ) + punitive damages under FCRA 616 & 617.\n\n2 Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation ( FCRA 611, 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) FCRA 611 requires credit bureaus to conduct a thorough reinvestigation within 30 days and provide supporting evidence. \nViolation : Equifax has falsely claimed the account was verified but failed to provide : A signed contract proving I authorized this account Payment records or validation from the original creditor A chain of title proving ownership of the account Contact information of the furnisher & proof of communication Legal Remedy : If Equifax can not verify the debt with original documentation, it must delete the account immediately under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\n3 Improper Dispute Handling Rushed Investigations & No Verification ( TILA 1666b & FCRA 1681e ( b ) ) FCRA 1681e ( b ) requires Equifax to ensure maximum possible accuracy in credit reporting.\n\nTILA 1666b requires Equifax to notify consumers and provide documentation before posting a charge-off or delinquency.\n\nViolation : Equifax has been completing disputes within an unreasonably short timeframe, proving that no real reinvestigation occurred.\n\nEquifax claims verification occurred, but has failed to provide proof.\n\nImmediate Action Required : Provide all records used to verify this account or delete it immediately.\n\nStop falsely stating that accounts have been verified when no verification has been provided.\n\n4 Stalling Tactics & Deceptive Practices ( FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) & CFPB UDAAP Laws, 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) requires disputes to be handled in good faith, with a proper reinvestigation.\n\n12 U.S.C. 5531 ( Consumer Financial Protection Act - UDAAP ) prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices ( UDAAP ).\n\nViolation : Equifax has : Sent repetitive dispute updates to delay resolution.\n\nClaimed my file could not be located or that more documentation was needed after already receiving everything.\n\nFalsely verified the account without providing supporting documentation.\n\nImmediate Action Required : Cease stalling tactics. If Equifax can not verify, it must delete the account immediately.\n\n5 Reporting Contradictory & Inaccurate Information ( FCRA 1681e ( b ) ) Equifax reported a {$0.00} balance but continued listing the account as a charge-off.\n\nEquifax claims the account was sold but is still reporting it under XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nIf the debt was canceled, a 1099-C form should have been issued per IRS regulations ( 26 U.S.C. 6050P ).\n\nNo IRS 1099-C form has been provided.\n\nImmediate Action Required : Remove these accounts immediately, as Equifax can not legally report a charge-off on a sold debt. \nFINAL DEMAND YOU HAVE XXXX BUSINESS DAYS TO COMPLY I am giving Equifax exactly XXXX business days from the date of this letter to : 1 Immediately and permanently delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts. \n2 Provide a written confirmation stating the accounts have been removed and will not be reinserted.\n\n3 Cease all further reporting of these accounts and notify any collection agencies that these accounts must not be sold, reassigned, or reported in any form.\n\n4 Provide the name, title, contact information, and date of conversation with the furnisher if you claim verification was conducted.\n\n5 Stop sending misleading dispute notifications to stall the removal process.\n\nLEGAL ACTION IF YOU FAIL TO COMPLY If Equifax fails to comply within 4 business days, I will take the following actions without further notice : File a Lawsuit Against Equifax in Small Claims or Federal Court Under FCRA 616 & 617, I will sue for : {$1000.00} per violation ( statutory damages ) Additional damages for harm to my creditworthiness Court costs & legal fees File Additional Complaints with Federal and State Agencies Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) request fines & enforcement action.\n\nFederal Trade Commission ( FTC ) request an investigation into repeat violations.\n\nMy State Attorney Generals Office request legal action for consumer protection violations.\n\nConsumer Data Industry Association ( CDIA ) report noncompliance with industry standards.\n\nPublicly Report Equifaxs Noncompliance I will share documented evidence of your failures on consumer protection forums, credit reporting complaint sites, and social media.\n\nEquifaxs failure to act places them in additional violations under federal law. Below are the key laws they have violated, in addition to previous FCRA, FDCPA, and CFPB violations.\n\n1 FAILURE TO BLOCK IDENTITY THEFT ACCOUNTS ( FCRA 605B, 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ) Under FCRA 605B, credit reporting agencies must block fraudulent information within 4 business days when a consumer submits : A valid identity theft report Proof of identity A written statement explaining the fraud Violation : Equifax has not blocked or removed the fraudulent accounts despite receiving all required documentation.\n\nEquifaxs refusal to block the accounts constitutes willful noncompliance with federal law.\n\nLegal Remedy : Equifax is liable for statutory damages ( {$1000.00} per violation ), punitive damages, and attorneys fees under FCRA 616 & 617.\n\n2 FAILURE TO PROTECT DATA BREACH VICTIM ( FCRA 628 & FTCs Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act - 15 U.S.C. 6801 ) ( Equifax Data Breach Victim Rights ) FCRA 628 requires Equifax to maintain reasonable security procedures to protect personal consumer information.\n\nGramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) - 15 U.S.C. 6801 requires financial institutions, including credit bureaus, to safeguard sensitive consumer data. \nViolation : Equifax failed to protect your personal data in the XXXX data breach, exposing your information to identity theft. \nEquifax has refused to remove fraudulent accounts linked to identity theft, despite their legal obligation to protect breach victims.\n\nLegal Remedy : Equifax may be subject to additional lawsuits & regulatory fines for failing to protect breach victims.\n\nFile a complaint with the CFPB and FTC, requesting enforcement action against Equifax for failure to assist a data breach victim.\n\n3 UNFAIR & DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ( CFPB UDAAP Laws, 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) Under 12 U.S.C. 5531, the CFPB prohibits credit bureaus from engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ).\n\nCredit bureaus must not mislead consumers, provide inaccurate information, or fail to conduct fair investigations.\n\nViolation : Equifax has falsely claimed it verified your dispute but has not provided verification evidence.\n\nEquifax has engaged in deceptive practices by failing to reinvestigate and using stalling tactics.\n\nEquifax has provided contradictory responses, misleading you about their handling of your dispute.\n\nLegal Remedy : Demand immediate removal of the fraudulent accounts & compensation for XXXX deceptive practices. \nFile a complaint with the CFPB and FTC, requesting enforcement action for UDAAP violations. \n4 VIOLATION OF FTC RED FLAGS RULE ( 16 C.F.R. 681.1 ) The FTCs Red Flags Rule requires Equifax to have identity theft detection and prevention policies.\n\nCRAs must investigate and respond properly when an identity theft victim submits a fraud report.\n\nViolation : Equifax failed to act on your valid identity theft claim, violating the FTCs requirements for fraud prevention.\n\nEquifaxs refusal to assist you despite knowledge of their own data breach shows willful negligence.\n\nLegal Remedy : File an FTC complaint for violation of Red Flags Rule.\n\nRequest an investigation into Equifaxs failure to follow fraud prevention protocols.\n\n5 FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ( FCRA 609 & 611 ) Under FCRA 609 & 611, credit reporting agencies must provide a copy of all documents used to verify a disputed account upon request.\n\nViolation : Equifax has failed to provide any proof that this account belongs to you.\n\nNo signed contract, payment history, or chain of title has been provided.\n\nEquifax is falsely claiming verification without any supporting evidence.\n\nLegal Remedy : If Equifax can not provide documentation, they must delete the account immediately under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nFailure to provide documentation entitles you to statutory damages and legal action.\n\n6 IMPROPER REPORTING OF CHARGE-OFF WITHOUT A 1099-C ( IRS Code 6050P ) Under IRS Code 6050P, a creditor must issue a 1099-C form if a charge-off exceeds {$600.00}.\n\nIf a debt is canceled or written off, it should not be reported as owed.\n\nViolation : Equifax is reporting the account as a charge-off but has not provided proof of a 1099-C form. \nIf the debt was sold, XXXX should no longer report it, and Equifax is misrepresenting the account status. \nLegal Remedy : If no 1099-C was issued, demand the account be removed immediately for improper tax reporting.\n\nReport Equifax to the IRS for noncompliance with debt cancellation reporting.\n\n7 VIOLATION OF FDCPA CONTINUED REPORTING OF A SOLD OR UNVERIFIED DEBT ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) ) ( Applicable if the debt is now held by a collection agency ) FDCPA 807 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692XXXX ( XXXX ) ( A ) ) prohibits misrepresenting the legal status of a debt. \nIf XXXX sold the account, Equifax can not legally report it as a charge-off under Nissans name. \nViolation : Equifax is reporting a charged-off account under XXXX, despite claiming the debt was sold.\n\nIf Nissan no longer owns the debt, it is illegal to report it under their name.\n\nLegal Remedy : Demand Equifax remove the account immediately or provide proof of ownership.\n\nFile an FDCPA complaint if they refuse to remove a debt that was sold. \nFINAL DEMAND YOU HAVE XXXX BUSINESS DAYS TO COMPLY I am giving Equifax exactly XXXX business days from the date of this letter to : 1 Immediately and permanently delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts. \n2 Provide a written confirmation stating the accounts have been removed and will not be reinserted.\n\n3 Provide all documentation used to verify this account, including : Signed contract proving I authorized the account Payment records or validation from the original creditor Chain of title proving ownership of the account Contact information of the furnisher & proof of communication 4 Cease all further reporting of these accounts.\n\n5 Stop sending misleading dispute notifications to stall the removal process.\n\nLEGAL ACTION IF YOU FAIL TO COMPLY If Equifax fails to comply within XXXX business days, I will take the following actions without further notice : File a Lawsuit Against Equifax in Small Claims or XXXX XXXX XXXX a complaint with the CFPB, FTC, and State Attorney General Report Equifax to the IRS for improper debt reporting","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-21T19:16:42.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"398XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12166990","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-02-21T19:09:25.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Legal Remedy : Immediate <em>deletion</em> required, or Equifax is liable for statutory damages ( {$1000.00} per violation ) + punitive damages under FCRA 616 & 617.\n\n2 Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation ( FCRA 611, 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) FCRA 611 requires credit bureaus to conduct a thorough reinvestigation within 30 days and provide supporting <em>evidence</em>."]},"sort":[4.7464485,"12166990"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":26,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":26}]}},"product":{"doc_count":26,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":20,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":19},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Rental debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":26,"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":8},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":1},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":7,"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":7}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":1},{"key":"Debt was paid","doc_count":1},{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble using your card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't use card to make purchases","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":26,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":26}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":26,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":15},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":11}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":26,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":26}]}},"company":{"doc_count":26,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":9},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":8},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Convergent Resources, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":26,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":5},{"key":"NY","doc_count":5},{"key":"FL","doc_count":4},{"key":"MI","doc_count":4},{"key":"GA","doc_count":2},{"key":"IL","doc_count":2},{"key":"HI","doc_count":1},{"key":"SD","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":26,"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":13}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":26,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[4.7464485,"12166990"]}}}