Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

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.