Consumer complaint received 2023-11-25
Company: Experian Information Solutions 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 have disputed an XXXX account with XXXX and Experian on dozens of occasions regarding false/ misleading/inaccurate information for the account/tradeline. Each time both XXXX and Experian allegedly conduct a ( re ) investigation and allegedly verify and update the information for the account. While the derogatory information may shift, the acct/trade continues to show inchoate information. The last dispute was filed on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The results of Experian 's alleged reinvestigation simply " updated '' the information for the account/tradeline. The annotations from Experian corresponding to the dispute results stated " Disputed item not on credit report. '' Yet, the item IS on my credit report and is reporting using the account number. While the supplied documentation uses the last five ( 5 ) digitts of the actual card number, it is not difficult to match the two ( 2 ) numbers using the account balance. The balance has been consistently allged and furnished by XXXX to Experian and has not changed : {$3400.00}. While the derogatory information for the account/tradeline may shift temporally within my Experian credit file, the acct/trade continues to show inchoate information. I have filed billing errors over the past XXXX ( XXXX ) years and disputed the issues with the account/tradeline directly with XXXX and XXXX collections agents. XXXX has never conducted timely billing error investigations and charged-off ensued XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The second collections agent returned the alleged debt in early XX/XX/XXXX ( after charge-off ), with an effective date in XX/XX/XXXX ( bef. charge-off ). XXXX provided it's most recent response on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( CFPB complaint XXXX XXXX ), supplying a table of how it is reporting the information for the account/tradeline to the CRAs. The table clearly shows a ninety ( 90 ) day delinquency difference in payment history reporting from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, taking the account for allegedly thirty ( XXXX ) days past-due to one-hundred XXXX ( XXXX ) days past due -- enough to charge-off the account under XXXX policy. Yet, that same table allegedly reports " paid as agreed '' ( without a CO annotation ) for the months XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, and then reports past-due for months XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, advancing the delinquency status by XXXX days at the end of every billing cycle. XXXX then brings the account current for XX/XX/XXXX, but then begins reporting advancing delinquencies every thirty ( XXXX ) days at the end of each billing cycle for months XX/XX/XXXX through present, with the maximum delinquency being one-hundred XXXX ( XXXX ) days past-due for the last XXXX ( XXXX ) months. The account was charged-off XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX has varied its explanation as to why the accont has not been reported as charged-off. XXXX claims the reason no charge-off status is being reported to date ( nearly XXXX years after alleged charge-off ) was because of enrollment in a financial relief program : " It is important to know, this charge off status was never reported to the credit bureaus due to the accounts status as participating in a financial relief plan, '' ( see XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX response ). However, a XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint { XXXX and XXXX } says " Please know, we were unable locate any XXXX relief request from you, '' ( see XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response ). In contrast, XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX XXXX provides yet another explanation claiming the " balance was suspended for the periods '' post charge-off because I allegedly " advised '' I was not receiving statements. Yet, their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX makes clear " Your account was charged off on XX/XX/XXXX and we are no longer sending you billing statements. '' Now, whereas the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX alleges " There was no reporting submitted for XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, this differs from your correspondence which claims your account was reporting as 'Paid as Agreed ' until XX/XX/XXXX, '' the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX claims, " You advised that statements had not been received, therefore the account balance was suspended for those months and was reported as satisfactory. However, we didnt receive the required payments, therefore the account was updated with the credit reporting agencies accordingly. '' Quite obviously, Not reporting ( no data ) for months is NOT the same as reporting an account satisfactorily for those same months. What's glaring is that the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response claims derogatory reporting began because payments were not received AFTER XXXX brought the account current. Yet, XXXX made quite clear they were no longer sending me statements in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint CFPB XXXX. In fact, XXXX acknowledges it stopped sending statements in XX/XX/XXXX, " We have enclosed your XX/XX/XXXX statement, which was the final statement sent to you, '' ( see XXXX response XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ). It is therefore impossible for me to be aware of what the monthly payment obligation ( payments ) should/would be due because no notice was sent regarding the fractional portion of the alleged total oustanding balance that would be due. If there was a monthly payment obligation, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I be sent statements and that XXXX sends XXXX those statements such that I would receive them with a minimum of twenty-one ( XXXX ) days before the due date. Yet, no statements exist because the account has been allegedly charged-off, but a balance increases by a steady oustanding ( presumed minimum payment ) amount of ninety-seven ( XXXX ) dollars. Finally, despite no notification to the XXXX regarding the CO status UNTIL on or around XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX insists the date of charge-off, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, has not changed. Yet, XXXX has refused to report the charge-off and corresponding first date of delinquency in accordance with that charge-off, instead providing a slew of haphazard and contradictory explanations for the erroneous supply of information to the CRAs ( see XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ) for duties of furnishers reporting chared-off and closed accounts ). At present, the first date of delinquency being furnished to the CRAs is XX/XX/XXXX, which corresponds to a month during which XXXX alleges the account was paid as agreed. Any cursory examination of the table XXXX supplied in the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response would indicate the information they are supplying to the CRAs is false/misleading/inaccurate. Taken in conjunction with the sum of the contradictory explanations XXXX has provided over the past XXXX ( XXXX ) years when confronted with its failures to provide accurate and timely statements, its failures to provide accurate information to manage accounts, its failures to conduct billing error investigations, its failures to furnish accurate information to the CRAs for the account/tradeline, any reasonable individual would conclude XXXX is XXXX in unfair, unlawful, and abusive acts and practices that seriously and unrelentingly harms consumers. In my circumstance, I have been denied stable housing because XXXX has supplied this defamatory information, and because neither Experian nor XXXX have conducted reasonable re ( investigations ). The entire account/tradeline after XXXX XX/XX/XXXX is rife with errors and is patently unverifiable -- XXXX itself XXXX not provide a consistent explanation for the data it is furnishing for the account/tradeline. It is all but clear the account/tradeline is irreconcilable and does not meet maximum possible accuracy under 15 U.S. Code 1681e. Therefore, aside from removing the XXXX accout/tradeline from my consumer files, any and all derogatory information for the account/tradeline from XX/XX/XXXX through present needs to be removed. Thereafter, XXXX needs to be blocked from furnishing additional information for the account/tradeline and blocked from inserting any new data for a duplicate 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