Consumer complaint received 2023-01-01
Company: EQUIFAX, 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:
XXXX XXXX alleges account was charged-off on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. It is of note that this was within proimity to multiple billing error notices I filed within a span of ninety ( 90 ) days prior, for which not less than two ( 2 ) of such notices were filed within sixty ( 60 ) days prior to C/O and one ( 1 ) within thirty ( 30 ) days prior to C/O. XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account information such that delinquency history ( ie, number of days past-due ) occurs from an arbitary date after C/O, causing additional late payment history that is then transmitted to the CRAs and included in my credit files, ultimately impacting my credit scores. Unlike a C/O annotation, which is a single event and inficts maximum damage on a consumer 's credit-worthiness in the short-term but decays over the long-term, the reporting of arbitrary chronic late payment history for dates after C/O has the cumulative effect of reaging delinquencies of an alleged outsanding debt that gives potential lenders the imporession that future obligations ( those after C/O ) existed on the alleged debt and subsequently fell further behind. Moreover, any C/O that would subsequently occur as a result of number of days past-due would then reflect as more recent than the actual alleged date of C/O causing maximum damage each period that XXXX XXXX attempts to " reconcile '' the account. For example, the first period over which his occured began in XX/XX/XXXX and concluded XX/XX/XXXX ( according to XXXX ) and XX/XX/XXXX ( according to Equifax and XXXX ). However, when XXXX XXXX attempted to reconcile again, the reaging caused recent past-due payment history to be reported beginning XX/XX/XXXX -- one ( XXXX ) year after alleged C/O. In fact, screenshots from XXXX website clearly indicate an alleged past-due balance that is equal to a multiple of three ( 3 ) times a scheduled monthly payment that neither coencides with facts of alleged C/O in XX/XX/XXXX nor the alleged payment history as reported by XXXX for XX/XX/XXXX ( see p. XXXX for the screenshot, and p. and p.1 for the history as reported to XXXX ). The bottom line is that 15 U.S.C. 1666 is clear in terms of what a creditors responsibilities are after receiving a billing error from a consumer and establishes time frames over which portions of the billing error correction process must take place. For whatever reason, XXXX XXXX has been unable to reconcile the account since the billing errors were brought to their attention a second time on or around XX/XX/XXXX. In fact, each subsequent billing error/reconciliaton notice I have filed has caused additional damage to me as a consumer through effective re-aging of alleged delinquent payment history that itself was caused by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX negligence. The incompetence of XXXX XXXX, and the failures in their systems, practices, processes, and procedures in no way justifies supplying inaccurate/unverifiable/misleading information to the CRAs that is then persisted in my credit files. The CRAs have been made aware of the issue in several prior CFPB comlaints, but have continued to persist the unverifiable information in my credit files. Given the copious evidence I've consistently provided in my prior CFPB complaints, Equifax, XXXX, and XXXX, know or should know the information is inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified. While XXXX XXXX is in violation of the provisions of the law governing data furnishers ( 12 U.S. Code 5531, 12 U.S. Code 5533, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ), at this point the CRAs are in violation of the portion ( s ) of the FCRA governing consumer reporting agencies ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i et seq. ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation