Consumer complaint received 2023-09-10
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:
I had an account with XXXX XXXX that was closed due to error in XXXX. XXXX XXXX agreed to reinstate the account once the balance was paid in-full. XXXX XXXX sent the account for collection in late XX/XX/XXXX claiming the account was forty-two ( XXXX ) days past-due. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I spoke with the collection agency and notified them that I had stopped receiving bills. The collection agency enrolled me in automatic payments and filed a billing error notice on my behalf, letting XXXX know I had not received statements. XXXX never conducted a billing error investigation and then transferred the account to a second collection agency in XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX notified me of the change via e-mail and advised me to go through a different website to paymy XXXX bill. XXXX stated I simply needed my name and zip code to log into the system. The login information required turned out to be my name and full sixteen ( XXXX ) digit card number -- for the card that was cancelled XXXX XXXX, and that would not be reinstated, with a different card number, until the balance was paid in-full. I filed a billing error notice and a complaint with the CFPB in XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX failed to conduct a billing error investigation within proximity to that billing error notice thereafter. I filed another CFPB complaint against XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX and a CFPB complaint against the collection agency around the same time. XXXX allegedy CO the account on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. They neither conducted a billing error investigation, nor The collection agency responded in early XX/XX/XXXX clearly highlighting a litany of legal issues I'd raised surrounding XXXX handling of the account to include violations of the FCRA, XXXX, the XXXX, and retaliaton for exercising my rights under those acts. They returned the account to XXXX effective XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and ceased all efforts to collect. XXXX brought the account current for XX/XX/XXXX sometime in XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX. The account continued to report as " pays as agreed '' until XX/XX/XXXX at which point XXXX began marking the account as XXXX ( XXXX ) days past-due. They then advanced the negative payment history by XXXX ( XXXX ) days until XX/XX/XXXX. I sent a billing error notice via e-mail to XXXX in early XX/XX/XXXX. The response I received stated the age of the alleged debt was too old for them to pursue and that a failure to pay would not affect my credit scores. XXXX then brought the account current in XX/XX/XXXX and but began reporting it as XXXX ( XXXX ) days past-due beginning XX/XX/XXXX. They have continued to advanced that reporting through present. The account allegedly reached a total of one-hundred XXXX ( XXXX ) days past-due in in XX/XX/XXXX, but is reported simply as a closed account with a past-due balance that increases at the end of every billing cycle, despite the account allegedly being charged-off on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX provided a statement on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX claiming the errors in payment history were attributable to me having filed multiple billing errors and reiterated the account was charged-off in XXXX XXXX. XXXX responded to a complaint from XXXX on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX stating the account was not reported as having been charged-off because I was allegedly " enrolled in a payment relief program. '' I was not and am not enrolled in a payment relief program. If that were true, the payment history alleged, and furnished to the CRAs, by XXXX, would have caused me to be removed from the program after XXXX ( XXXX ) delinquent billing cycle. In fact, XXXX responded to a CFPB complaint on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and acknowledged my issues with long-COVID, but within a few senetences denied any accomodations under a payment program. Moreover, on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX responded to another CFPB complaint stating " we are unable to locate a payment agreement from you. '' XXXX XXXX has taken very little responsibility for the XXXX ( XXXX ) years of errors ultimately claiming in XXXX XX/XX/XXXX they " were not responsible for the way the CRAs were displaying the account information furnished. '' That is a tacit acknowledgement by XXXX that the information they are furnishing to the XXXX is false/misleading/inaccurate/incomplete under XXXX XXXX Code XXXX, as interpreted by the Federal Court that has jurisdiction within XXXX XXXX of residence ( see : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX And, despite XXXX claims that they are not responsible, XXXX XXXX XXXX makes clear they are culpable in this matter because the preponderance of the evidence, composed of the statements on XXXX XXXX XXXX the statements from the collections agent ( XXXX ), and the payment history as displayed, would lead ANY REASONABLE PERSON to conclude the information furnished by XXXX is XXXX XXXX XXXX and is NOT being reported with maximum possible accuracy. XXXX allegedly deleted the account/tradeline in response to a CFPB complaint filed XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. However, Equifax and XXXX continue to close out their " investigations '' using the information furnished by XXXX at the end of each statement closing, claiming to the CFPB that their obligations under XXXX XXXX Code XXXX ( XXXX ) constitute " non-monetary relief. '' If that were the case the information reported would continue to be false/misleading/inaccurate. This is what I've experienced with XXXX over the past XXXX ( XXXX ) years as someone that had a platinum card until XXXX cancelled the account in XXXX after misapplying a payment. This is the hardship I have been subjected to by XXXX as a XXXX African-American man that has additionally spent the past XXXX ( XXXX ) years recovering from XXXX ( XXXX ) separate battles with COVID and long-COVID, both of which are also considered XXXX under the XXXX. It is completely unreasonable to expect mail had been delivered reliably during XXXX considering the pandemic and politics that were at-play. Included in the attached documents are several articles covering a swath of XXXX that flat out say mail was slow and unrelieable. Under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, SUBCHAPTER I, Part D : Credit Billing it states : " A creditor XXXX not treat a payment on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan as late for any purpose, unless the creditor has adopted reasonable procedures designed to ensure that each periodic statement including the information required by section XXXX ( b ) of this title is mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the payment due date. '' XXXX article quotes the time to deliver mail from where I live to another portion of the country as taking XXXX ( XXXX ) days. So, given the delays in mail, it is not even reaosnable to expect that a statement generated on or around XXXX of any month during XXXX would be delivered within the minimum twenty-one ( XXXX ) days required. XXXX makes clear when it says Please note, your account is not eligible for paperless billing statements, which means I was reliant on timely periodic paper statements to pay on my account. And, even though I was proactive on numerous occasions with XXXX, by filing billing error notices, they continued to use unfair, abusive, and unlawful tactics that affect me to this day.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation