Consumer complaint received 2018-04-22
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: VA
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: Problem with personal statement of dispute

Complaint:
XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau I have filed 5 complaints with XXXX/Equifax about the faulty information on my accounts with XXXX and have gotten nowhere. I recently filed a dispute with the CFPB but received the same results. I have called XXXX and XXXX and asked for the Date Of First Delinquency on XX/XX/XXXX and asked them to send me a letter with this information. They could not locate this information. I then asked for them to send me a letter stating they have no Date of First Delinquency. I spoke with them again on XX/XX/XXXX and the letter I had requested had never been sent, so I asked if they could send me another. I received a letter from XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and was not surprised to receive nothing that I had asked for. I called then that same day to tell them the problem and no help was provided. That is when I decided to send a dispute through the CFPB. What I ask the company 's to supply was the Date of First Delinquency and its proof. XXXX responded to my CFPB complaint that it was valid and that they now have the Date of first Delinquency and would not be removing the account. No evidence. False statement. I received a response from XXXX with a similar statement. No evidence false statement. I understand that even the CFPB does not trust the practices of XXXX XXXX being a collections agency for XXXX as there were some big lawsuits in the recent past. 

XXXX XXXX., the nations largest student loan servicer, is facing four lawsuits alleging that it harmed student loan borrowers throughout the repayment process. 

XXXX attorney general was the latest to file a suit, which came in early XX/XX/XXXX. The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Illinois and Washington attorneys general sued XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. 

Among other things, the CFPB alleges that since at least XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX misallocated payments, steered struggling borrowers toward multiple forbearances instead of income-driven repayment plans, and provided unclear information about how to re-enroll in income-driven repayment plans and how to qualify for a co-signer release. The CFPB is asking XXXX to compensate the borrowers the agency says were harmed. 

The Illinois, Washington and Pennsylvania suits make similar claims to the CFPBs allegations and also allege that XXXX, when it was part of XXXX XXXX, made subprime loans to students, particularly those attending for-profit schools. XXXX broke off from XXXX XXXX XXXX, one of the largest private student loan lenders, in XX/XX/XXXX. 

The allegations in XXXX suit are completely unfounded, XXXX said in an XX/XX/XXXX statement. The company has also rejected the allegations in the other three cases, filing motions to dismiss them. In a XX/XX/XXXX fact sheet, it said the CFPB, Illinois and Washington suits are based on new servicing standards that are being applied retroactively. 

The company announced in XX/XX/XXXX its plans to separate into two publicly traded companies an education loan management business to be launched with a new name XXXX and a consumer banking business, which retained the name XXXX XXXX. The spin-off was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. 

This is alarming to me as XXXX also says that my Date of First Delinquency was in XX/XX/XXXX the same month and year they made the split from XXXX XXXX. I see that the company will fight to the end no matter if they are clearly wrong as they did with CFPB but I want to let XXXX know that if the XXXX and PHEAA accounts are not dropped off my account with this dispute that they will have a 5th lawsuit on their hands this year.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation