Consumer complaint received 2022-04-09
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: WA
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 has two ( 2 ) accounts with XXXX that are being erroneously reported - a personal loan account, and a revolving credit account. 

Around roughly XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX was in the process of marital separation from XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX sought to place a personal loan with XXXX XXXX  into forbearance or obtain deferred payments, but was told that no option was available at the time by an in person representative. In the following months, XXXX XXXX was put under the false impression by XXXX XXXX branch representatives that she had to pay the cumulative amount of all of her missed monthly payments for XXXX XXXX to stop reporting XXXX XXXX 's personal loan account as being delinquent i.e. if she missed a XXXX XXXX monthly payment, next month she would have to pay a full {$800.00} to not be considered delinquent, and the next month she would have to pay {$1200.00} to not be considered delinquent. Unfortunately, XXXX XXXX was unable to make these cumulative payments in the amounts falsely purported by her XXXX XXXX  representative. In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX 's personal loan account was placed in a " charge off '' status ; ultimately, a {$1700.00} settlement was reached with XXXX XXXX  in XX/XX/XXXX that XXXX XXXX successfully paid off. With proper counseling after a XX/XX/XXXX credit pull for an apartment rental, XXXX XXXX has been informed that she would have been able to make payments of her regular monthly amount on this personal loan account in order to not be considered delinquent beyond the XXXX XXXX month that she was unable to make a payment and was denied both forbearance or deferral. The XX/XX/XXXX report also shows that XXXX XXXX  continues to report XXXX XXXX 's personal loan account as in an active " charge off '' state at the time it was pulled, despite the settlement coming 4 full months earlier in XX/XX/XXXX. Both issues of falsely purporting that forbearance/deferment, as well as the issue of continued false reporting of the " charge off '' state, are at issue on this account for XXXX XXXX. Ultimately, XXXX continues to harm XXXX XXXX 's credit, both by denying her the ability to be afforded her contractual right to forbearance and/or deferred payments without negative credit reporting, and XXXX also continues to harm XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX credit to maintain her account in a " charge off '' status after both parties have engaged in a bilateral settlement agreement. 

Additionally, on XXXX of XXXX, XXXX XXXX sought forbearance and/or deferred payments on a XXXX XXXX  credit card account due to unemployment challenges stemming from COVID-19. XXXX XXXX was again misinformed by XXXX staff in person, and not permitted to place the account into forbearance or obtain deferred repayment. As a result, XXXX XXXX 's credit card account was reported by XXXX as delinquent, when no negative reporting would have been more appropriate given that XXXX XXXX was negatively impacted by COVID-19 and sought a short term forbearance or deferment. XXXX XXXX requests that this account reflect forbearance being granted for all payments between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, ultimately reporting on time payments and correspondence with XXXX XXXX  during this period, in order to reflect her attempt to obtain her contractually obligated right to forbearance or deferment during this period. 

Upon receiving her updated credit report during an apartment application in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX sought counsel about the reasons for her low credit score. XXXX XXXX, along with XXXX XXXX, reached out to XXXX XXXX  both via phone and writing over a dozen times in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX to request resolution for their errors at the lowest level possible by directly engaging the XXXX and XXXX teams ; during these correspondences, XXXX XXXX offered to compensate XXXX for monies that they felt they may have been owed on either account in exchange for accurately representing that XXXX XXXX 's credit reporting should not reflect any missed payments after she sought forbearance/deferment. When XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX spoke with XXXX XXXX XXXX legal team " XXXX '' in XX/XX/XXXX, the latter initially recognized that XXXX XXXX 's personal loan account in a " charge off '' status should be modified and agreed to look into the other concerns. However, XXXX XXXX  made no attempt to investigate upon frequent follow up calls from XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, and merely obfuscated their error by having XXXX XXXX  refer XXXX XXXX to XXXX and XXXX refer XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX. After a multitude of attempts via phone, XXXX XXXX sent a written request sent via fax regarding her accounts on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX  bizarrely responded with a letter indicating that no mistakes were made by their team on XX/XX/XXXX ; this letter asked XXXX XXXX to direct her inquiry to a XXXX line of business that she had already corresponded with. As a result of XXXX XXXX 's fatigued with XXXX XXXX XXXX games and obfuscation, XXXX XXXX relies upon reporting these matters to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to gain the reasonable resolution of returning her reported credit scores to a status showing correspondence and accurate payments on each of her XXXX XXXX accounts dating back to XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX submitted complaint XXXX on XXXX XXXX 's behalf, and included a letter demonstrating XXXX XXXX 's authorization for XXXX XXXX to represent her interests regarding XXXX 's failure to resolve her complaints mentioned herein. XXXX incorrectly purported that they needed authorization to address XXXX XXXX 's complaint, and unilaterally ended the complaint process. This complaint is resubmitted so that XXXX properly attends to XXXX XXXX 's concerns.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation