Consumer complaint received 2023-08-29
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: MI
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem
Sub-issue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report

Complaint:
Information furnished in the narrative section for payment status, ie. 90 day status and XXXX current status, constitutes unfair and unlawful practices by XXXX because it was generated on the basis of depriving a consumer right of notice that violates both TILARegulation Z ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and the MPN for the loan ( XXXX ( XXXX ) ( b ) ). Persistence of information by XXXX or more consumer reporting agencies, when those agencies know, or should know, the information reported is unlawful ( incomplete or inaccuarte ), then implies those CRAs are reporting information that is false and/or misleading. Reporting of this information then violates 15 U.S. Code 1681e. In this context, the information reported need not even be " false '' but may equally be " correct '' information that gives a materially misleading impression ( see : Twumasi-Ankrah v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). All derogatory payment status indicators, all negative payment history, all derogatory payment narratives, and all derogatory payment ratings must be remved for this account/tradeline to ensure maximum possible accuracy, to include any reference to the account being " not more than XXXX payments past-due '' as a payment status ; A misapplication of payment and irregular processing of a forbearance by XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX led to payment status narrative claiming the account is/was " Not more than XXXX payments past due. '' XXXX XXXX of XXXX makes it quite clear : " Our office did not mail billing statements during the timeframe of XX/XX/XXXX, through XX/XX/XXXX, as billing statements are suppressed while the loan account payments have been deferred. '' Thus, if the loan exited a deferment period in XX/XX/XXXX, the loan would not be sixty ( XXXX ) days past-due beginning XX/XX/XXXX for a payment that was initially due in XX/XX/XXXX. The credit grantor 's assertion the first payment was due on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX is also moot because they acknowledge not providing billing statements ( statements suppressed ) for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( see p. XXXX of XXXX ). Further, a failure to provide periodic statements is both a violation of TILA/Regulation Z and the XXXX ( see p. XXXX of XXXX ). Finally, the account can not be reported by XXXX for XX/XX/XXXX because the account was transferred to another servicer/lender before the alleged due-date for XX/XX/XXXX. The alleged delinquencies for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX are because of XXXX failure to properly process a forbearance and/or deferment that led periods of such to be counted as late payments. This is evident in a payment history that shows the XX/XX/XXXX payment as being paid on-time, and magically being sixty ( XXXX ) days past-due in XX/XX/XXXX. 

Equifax has an obligation to remove any and all false/misleading/inaccurate information for this account/tradeline because its persistence has caused, and continues to cause me harm as a consumer and potential tenant. This obligation is not voided simply because a data furnishers system reports false/misleading/inaccurate information. At this point Equifax knows or should the information for this account is false/misleading/inaccurate they simply have to examine th documentation supplied to me BY the data furnisher itself. Any alleged prior investigation is moot because it continues to place a reliance on a data furishers response through eOSCAR over actual documentation supplied by a data furnisher. Any assertion by Equifax that the information is being reported correctly is irrelevant because correctness is not the standard under the law. The law makes quite clear the standard is that a CRA must conduct an investigation that ensures maximum possible accuracy ( see : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). Multiple circuits, including my location within the XXXX XXXX XXXX, have ruled that such inaccuracies XXXX be factually correct, but nevertheless gives a materially misleading impression. 

In this case it is materially misleading for charge-off statuses, negative payment history, derogatory narratives, current and prior payment statuses to persist in my credit file because those annotations are not the fault of my failure to pay, but the fault of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX apply payment ( XXXX ) received, and to properly process both a forbearance and deferment for the account. Those failures led to violations of an MPN and violations of my Right of Notice under CFPB interpretation of TILA/Regulation Z. 
Despite having the documentation, Equifax concluded the account/tradeline is " being reported correctly '' because the data furnisher 's systems reported the same information when Equifax used XXXX to " update '' the information for the account/tradeline. Querying a system that is the source of the incorrect information does not constitute a reasonable investigation under 15 U.S. Code 1681i. Despite claiming non-monetary relief a credit pull on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX shows XXXX ( XXXX ) changes and the false/inaccurate/misleading information persists in my credit file ( see p. XXXX of XXXX ). 

All derogatory information for this account/tradeline needs to be removed promptly.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief