Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports

From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX furnished information of an auto loan to all 3 CRAs that contained systemic errors, In many instances, the errors should have been readily apparent because the data for the account was internally inconsistent. Moreover, Respondent received error reports from all 3 Credit reporting agency 's that described these errors in the companys data files. In addition, XXXX XXXX XXXX internal audits show that it was aware of these errors as of XXXX. Despite being on notice of these errors, XXXX XXXX XXXX continued to make them for years including XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX. 

Several of XXXX XXXX XXXX errors related to its use of the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) field in its furnishing data. I contacted all 3 credit reporting agency as well as XXXX XXXX XXXX and explained Section 605 ( a ) ( 5 ) of the FCRA requires that negative information such as late payments must be removed from a consumers credit report after that information is seven years old. 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( a ) ( 5 ). The date by which such information must be removed is determined by the date on which the account first became delinquentthe date of first delinquency. This provision allows me the consumer to rebuild their credit following a long period of delinquency. 


I explained to XXXX XXXX XXXX through mailed letters and phone calls that they are Reporting Incorrect Date of First Delinquency in all XXXX of my credit profiles between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX furnished a DOFD during this time period, the DOFD furnished by XXXX XXXX XXXX equaled the Date of Account Information ( DOAI ) for the account. The DOAI is the date on which Respondent pulled information from its system of record each month in order to send to CRAs. 

When furnishing in the Metro 2 format, furnishers like XXXX XXXX XXXX must provide the DOAI so that date is updated each month until the company stops reporting on a tradeline. Even if the DOFD did equal the DOAI at one point for a particular account, it is extremely unlikely that the DOFD would equal the DOAI for two or more months. 

A CRA informed XXXX XXXX XXXX that it was reporting DOFDs that were more recent than previously reported DOFDs on derogatory accounts -- an error that could result from using the DOAI in the DOFD field. XXXX XXXX XXXX received these reports from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX and again in XX/XX/XXXX and early XXXX. 

when XXXX XXXX XXXX reported a DOFD that equaled the DOAI, the company also reported an account status showing a serious delinquency ( e.g., account was charged-off or at least 90 days delinquent, or the vehicle was already repossessed ). The DOAI is typically close in time to the date of furnishing because account information is ordinarily pulled for furnishing purposes shortly before it is transmitted to CRAs. By contrast, it would be extremely unusual to have a DOFD close to the date of furnishing on a seriously delinquent account. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX also furnished inconsistent information regarding whether the account in question were open or closed and whether it was carrying a balance or obligated to make future payments. To the extent that the company inaccurately reported whether the account were open or closed or that i owed money that they did not actually owe, these errors have negatively impacted my credit scores and access to credit. 

between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX furnished information indicating that accounts were paid in full, charged off, along with contradictory information suggesting the tradelines were still open. The company received error reports from a CRA highlighting this inconsistency from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX also reported that the auto loan had a current balance and simultaneously furnished contradictory information, such as also furnishing information indicating that the accounts were paid in full. The company had received error reports from a CRA since XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX advising of this error. 

Prior to XX/XX/XXXX, Respondent did not consistently, for all its retail installment contract and lease portfolios, clearly and conspicuously specify to me an address where i could notify the company that information the company furnished was inaccurate. 

Section 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) of FCRA prohibits a furnisher from furnishing any information relating to a consumer to any CRA if it knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). 

XXXX XXXX XXXX furnished my credit information to CRAs that contained inaccurate information about my credit accounts. 

In many instances, XXXX XXXX XXXX knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the information was inaccurate because this information was internally inconsistent. In many other instances, the company furnished a DOFD that equaled the DOAI, which was extremely unlikely to be accurate for tradelines furnished over multiple months for multiple accounts. Moreover, the company continued to furnish this inaccurate information even after it had been notified about these types of errors by CRAs. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX violated 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ).

Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) of FCRA requires furnishers to promptly update and correct information they have furnished to a CRA that they determine is not complete or accurate. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ).

As detailed above, in numerous instances from at least XX/XX/XXXX to at least XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX furnished to CRAs information relating to consumers that was not complete or accurate. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX furnished information that was inconsistent with its internal account information and inaccurate. In many other instances, Respondent furnished a DOFD that equaled the DOAI, which was extremely unlikely to be accurate for tradelines furnished over multiple months for multiple accounts. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX received multiple error reports from at least one CRA that allowed it to determine that the information it furnished was not complete or accurate, and Respondents internal audits showed at least one of the errors listed above. 

Despite this knowledge, XXXX did not promptly update or correct the incomplete or inaccurate information it furnished. To the contrary, in many 11 cases XXXX continued reporting inconsistent information for years after being alerted to its errors. 


Therefore, XXXX violated section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ).