Consumer complaint received 2021-02-23
Company: STERLING JEWELERS, INC.
State: CA
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt was paid

Complaint:
Hi. I wanted to file a second complaint against Kay Jewelers / XXXX. Just so you know, because I wanted this complaint to be clear and precise, I had my significant other type up what my issue was because I am unable to articulate in a formal manner. I felt this was too important to simply write another single paragraph complaint. I am just copying the letter I had her draft on my behalf. The original complaint is CFPB complaint # : XXXX I want to start by saying I am not happy with the response I received from Kay Jewelers to my first complaint. One one hand, I commend them for taking the time to research their account and give me an accounting of what transpired with it while it was theirs. On the other hand, their response was both patronizing and contradictory to the spirit of their message and the letter of the law. 

To elaborate on why I am upset and am ready to take this to the next level, Kay Jewelers said XXXX took over the servicing of this account on XX/XX/XXXX. They then went on to state on XX/XX/XXXX they charged-off the account and sold it to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. No balance was owed to them at that point. The trust then assigned the account to XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX  then deleted their tradeline after I settled with them but that has no bearing on Kay Jewelers / XXXX tradeline. All of this is perfectly valid, reasonable, and acceptable. What is not acceptable is the remainder of their response. 

As part of their response Kay Jewelers / XXXX  states " We are obligated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act to make sure your account history, while we were the owner, is accurately reported to all credit bureaus to which our data is furnished : XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. '' They then state they are not going to delete their tradeline but will update their reporting with the credit bureaus. I have to say that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. I will elaborate as to why this is a load of garbage and the creditor is comporting itself as the stereotypical bully who is taking advantage of its customers. 

As Kay Jewelers admitted, they have to report accurately at all times. As part of their response to my first complaint, They also admit " In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX received an electronic dispute from the credit bureaus to which they investigated and timely responded. '' What they failed to tell you is their response to the credit bureaus came back as " verified. '' That is violation of the Fair Credit reporting Act # 1. To prove this we simply go back to their statement of " On XX/XX/XXXX, your account charged off and was subsequently sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the Trust ). o No balance was owed to us from this point on. '' If the account was sold back on XX/XX/XXXX and no balance was owed from that point on, why was there still a balance being reported by XXXX in XXXX? So on top of " verifying '' an account as accurate in XXXX which they knew wasn't, why was it misreporting for the last three years. By the way, that is violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act # 2. Again, They have to report accurately at all times, and by virtue of their own response to my first complaint, they acknowledge this account wasn't accurate at all. 

If the above points don't tell you that Kay / XXXX is simply doing what they please and not what the law dictates, this next part of their response is what really takes the cake so to speak. " During our investigation, we reviewed our tradeline on each bureau and found discrepancies with the information XXXX and XXXX  are reporting. While it is unclear why this might now be the case, in response, XXXX submitted a request to both to update their information. Please note that our tradeline was not deleted, as requested in your complaint. '' I like how they mention it is unclear as to why that might be the case. To me this sounds again like they acknowledge the information was wrong, and by extension that it has been wrong since XXXX of XXXX, but they don't really care about why it wasn't accurate for the last 3 years nor what harm they have caused me by this misreporting. They also acknowledge they received a dispute in XX/XX/XXXX but again failed to mention to you that they didn't actually correct the reporting at that time but still won't delete the account from my report. In fact, had it not been for my first complaint against them, this would have never been fixed at all until the 7 year statute of limitations ran out! 

With all due respect to anybody involved in handling this complaint, their response and actions towards my first response is not acceptable. They don't get to choose when and how they want to follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act. They don't get to simply wash their hands of their negligence and misreporting for the last three years. I have been denied credit for years due partly because in essence because my credit report was showing I owed XXXX XXXX / XXXX twice the amount really owed. Even after I settled with XXXX and they deleted their tradeline from the credit report, I was still denied credit because my score was lower than it was supposed to be due to my report showing I owed Kay Jewelers / XXXX  still. These aren't simple credit denials to just any creditor either. I am being denied the opportunity to qualify for a home loan. Do you know how much the price of homes have risen in the last 6 months where I'm from? These are thousands of dollars in home prices and opportunity costs that I'm going to have to pay and am being denied respectively BECAUSE KAY JEWELERS / XXXX HAVE BEEN MISREPORTING FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND NOW REFUSE TO HONE UP TO THEIR MISTAKE!! A simple balance correction after the misreporting for three years as well as failure to correct it after I disputed it the first time is no longer an appropriate action and I will be forced to sue them if Kay Jewelers / XXXX  do not delete this account from my credit report.

Company public response: Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation