Product: Credit reporting

I just spoke to " XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX PA XXXX Phone ( XXXX ) XXXX '' after first XXXX XXXX XXXX itself at the number online. This phone number is not XXXX XXXX XXXX. See attached .pdf. This has been since at least XXXX XXXX. So, they provided no explanation as to why this happened to get on page XXXX of my credit file dated XXXX XXXX XXXX, Confirmation # XXXX. While I am pointing out how that is a problem from a reinvestigation perspective, I also want to not that I asked about another " ( XXXX ) XXXX '' toll-free number at this address is not a number she recognized, despite both being attributed to this same address. Naturally, curious about that, called that number as well. All this is very disturbing considering that the initian Equifax disputes I submitted to them directly and also through the CFPB about XXXX XXXX XXXX, were supposedly invesrigated and reinvestigated. This one cites " original '' documents submitted by XXXX to Equifax. Low and behold the word " original '' is not exactly correct then. Instead, fascsimile or manufactured copies seem to have been submitted. Based on the replies to the various replies received by all the companies and attached to those CFPB complaints, I see that the originals appear to have been " doctored '' between XXXX and XXXX. I want to see the " orginals '' in thier original form submitted to Equifax and CFPB rather than something else. After all, we are bound by those original documents equally. I know that the guarantor affirmed in XXXX that all was identical to the ones approves by them, such that no discrepancy warranted anything other than approval. Yet, " Item As of Date Reported XXXX/XXXX/XXXX '' said the date of the last payment was " XXXX '' which is false. Worse still, the late of the last delinquency was " XXXX '' and in between those dates all three IBR forms were submitted on time and approved by XXXX of XXXX servicers ; XXXX of which is the guarantor of this very loan. Another XXXX XXXX XXXX account appears below that which was in good standing and went to that said guarantor. So both are tied to XXXX XXXX XXXX. The first page of the credit report where a XXXX disputed credit card was furnished during the XXXX year in its entirety and said that only Equifax still reports it per their letter XXXX XXXX XXXX but in a subsequent letter says different. Todat they say they never furnished the XXXX reporting at all. So this points directly to the XXXX servicer posing as XXXX XXXX XXXX itself orchestrating all this misinformation from their own zip code. By XXXX " rubber stamping '' that investigation to resukt in this erroneous piece of paper printed on both sides makes me want Equifax to remove all these accounts and not waste any more time investigating. If the addresses and phone numbers are fraudulent, how can that even begin to address my legitimate complaints? This is a farce. No proper investigation was done to result in this report today. Recap : 1. Credit card is time-barred from reporting per FRCA. Remove it NOW! 2. The student loan is not contact that is accurate. Trickery is never a good thing. XXXX told me they are not reporting any longer and no payments were made to any account in XXXX, regardless of what XXXX XXXX XXXX account is furnishing payment history. 3. The phone numbers do n't matchbthe business they are listed with. What a mess!!!!! Get it together, Equifax!