Consumer complaint received 2023-06-20
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: MI
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Sub-issue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report

Complaint:
On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I filed CFPB complaint XXXX against Experian. In that complaint I outlined how Experian failed to conduct a re-investigation of false/misleading/inaccurate information on my account/tradeline with XXXX XXXX. In it, I provided a copy of a letter written by XXXX XXXX to the Attorney General for my state regarding the false/inaccurate/misleading reporting. In that document XXXX XXXX clearly states they " have no control over how the credit reporting agencies display the information they provide them for their account. '' Experian closed the complaint on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, alleging it o be a " duplicate '' of a prior CFPB complaint. When logging into Experian, I find Experian conducted an automated update of the information for the account/tradeline. Additionally, they provided the following statement " Unless you send us relevant information to support your claim, we will not investigate this information again. '' That statement presupposes that an investigation was actually conducted, which it was not. XXXX XXXX alleges the account was Charged-off XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. That does not appear on the information Experian is reporting for the account. XXXX XXXX alleges they re-aged the account in XX/XX/XXXX. Experian shows it was re-aged multiple times and that it began randomly reporting as past-due thereafter. Experian reports the account only went 180 days past-due in XX/XX/XXXX. Yet, that is impossible if the Charge-off date was indeed XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Federal regulations require banks to charge off debts that are past due by 180 days. A charge off, is a term of art in banking, meaning that the account is switched from being considered an asset on the banks balance sheets to a loss for accounting purposes, because there is a low probability that the account will be repaid after a lengthy period of delinquency. If that charge-off has occurred as highlighted in XXXX own XXXX XX/XX/XXXX statement, and again in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX statement, then it would be noted as such in my credit files. The account is alleged to be 180 days past due for two ( 2 ) consecutive months in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The only defense XXXX has provided to not generating billing statements since XX/XX/XXXX was because the account was charged-off in XX/XX/XXXX ( see XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX response ). The cumulative effect is that an account that should report as charged-off, that was allegedly charged-off in XXXX, and should have been reported as such SINCE that time indicates the account only recently became 180 days past-due, 545 days after XXXX after the alleged date of charge-off. XXXX XXXX alleges the reason the account was not reported as " charged-off '' is because I was allegedly enrolled in a " financial relief plan. '' I do not recall being enrolled in a financial relief plan. Moreover, the XXXX website states dis-enrollment : " If you do not make Monthly Program Payments by the following statement closing date ( on consecutive billing cycles ) on any of your enrolled Card or Loan account ( s ), you may be removed from the Program ''. Therefore, there is no reason why an account that was allegedly charged-off in XX/XX/XXXX would only report as past-due 180 days beginning XX/XX/XXXX, especially considering XXXX alleges they have not received payments from me on the account, and alleges sporadically, since XXXX ( see the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to XXXX ). So, it is the inaccurate reporting, and RECENT 180 days past-due, that impacts my credit score. By XXXX XXXX ' own documents, the account, if being reported based upon XXXX own responses to the XXXX, would indicate the alleged full balance is past-due, with zero monthly payment. Moreover, the account would have been 180 days or more past-due since some ethereal point in XXXX due to an alleged enrollment in a financial relief program. However, for me to have been enrolled in such a program I would have had to be a card member in good-standing or one with whom an account had not already been charged-off. The act of a charge-off itself would demonstrate a non-adherence to the terms of any given program charge-off alleged to occur XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The cumulative effect of the successive re-aging to handle billing errors in a time period well after the fact, has caused a plethora of false and misleading information to be persisted in my credit files for this account/tradeline. In fact, it has caused me to be denied an apartment by two ( 2 ) different management companies that use Experian as their tenant screening vendor ( see attached ), where in Experian 's model, accounts that are charged-off are not penalized, whereas accounts with strictly negative statuses are. At the end of the day this XXXX account has some contradictory reporting because XXXX failed to rectify billing errors and failed to conduct billing error investigations in a timely fashion in XXXX. Yet, having filed billing error notices through the XXXX outside agent, the CFPB, and XXXX itself, I am bearing the brunt of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, nearly two ( 2 ) years later. This is the epitome of unlawful, unfair, and quite frankly abusive, practices on the part of XXXX. Nevertheless, Experian bears responsibility for persisting inaccurate information that is demonstrably false. I am not even asking for Experian to report the account as " current. '' All I have asked is for Experian to mark the periods of re-aging as " Not Reported. '' or to delete the account/tradeline.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation