Consumer complaint received 2021-04-09
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: FL
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:
A recent investigation of Acct Number # XXXX Creditor : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX did not remove the unverified negative account from my credit report, reporting in collections. 

Under the FCRA Equifax, XXXX and XXXX are required to have a copy of the original creditors documentation on file to verify that this information is mine and is correct. In results of their investigation they did not send me provided me a copy of ANY original documentation ( a consumer contract with my signature on it ) as required under Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) & Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). Furthermore they have failed to provide the method of verification as required under Section 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) In addition, in the case of Spears Vs. Brennan ( IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, No. 49A02-0003-CV-169 ), the court ruled that : 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ( emphasis added ). On XX/XX/1996, nineteen days after the date of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX letter, XXXX counsel XXXX sent XXXX a letter declaring that XXXX disputes your debt collection-related allegations, denies the same, and demands strict proof and verification thereof. Record at 21. As such, XXXX should have ceased his debt collection efforts immediately upon receiving that letter. Instead, XXXX proceeded to obtain a default judgment against XXXX on the debt collection claim before he had mailed XXXX the necessary verification and, thus, violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). 

XXXX maintains, however, that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he sent adequate verification of the debt [ to XXXX ] in the XX/XX/1996 notice of claim. Brief of Appellee at 13. Specifically, XXXX claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between XXXX and XXXX XXXX attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). We can not agree. 

The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of XXXX loan, including a 17.99 % annual interest rate and the original loan amount of {$2500.00}. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by XXXX, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once XXXX stopped making the required payments. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time XXXX sent the debt collection notice was at least {$350.00} more than the original loan amount. Therefore, XXXX violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) when he failed to cease collection of the debt by obtaining a default judgment against XXXX after XXXX had notified XXXX in writing that he was disputing the debt but before XXXX had mailed verification of the debt to XXXX. We reverse the trial courts entry of summary judgment in favor of XXXX on this issue.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation