Consumer complaint received 2022-01-03
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: MI
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Account status incorrect

Complaint:
A payment in the amount of XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ) dollars was made on XXXX XXXX sub-account XXXX on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX acknowledges the payment on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. My financial servies company notified me of the direct debit withdraw for the payment on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The monthly payment amount for XXXX was approximately XXXX ( XXXX ) dollars and XXXX ( XXXX ) cents. Therefore the amount for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX was paid in-full at a total of XXXX. This left a partial payment towards XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of XXXX. A disaster forbearance was applied on XXXX covering the period from XXXX XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX -- this implies the first payment was due on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) dollar payment, having been already made, should have then been applied towards XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX, an and the excess applied as partial payment towards the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX payment -- it was not. Moreover the start of the disaster forbearance of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX shoud have started with the first payment due-date which was XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( the loan was in grace from XXXX XX/XX/XXXX until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) and the disaster forbearance should have covered XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX, with the overage applied towards the next billing cycle making the first payment due XX/XX/XXXX less the overage. Conversely, the XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) dollar payment, having already been applied on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and covering at minimum XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX payments, the disaster forbearance should have covered the period XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, with the first bill due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX less the overage. 

Per the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX letter, the loan was then in a deferment from XXXX XX/XX/XXXX until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX -- no statements were generated by XXXX XXXX billing system and no amounts were shown as being past-due or due during that period of time. 

After receiving the next statement dated of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, I logged into the XXXX online system to find an alleged amount outsanding for XXXX in the amount of XXXX. That is, the system alleged that the account was four ( 4 ) payments past-due. Thus the system alleged that no payment had been applied at all, and a forbearance was applied the application of the forbearance and no XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) dollar payment had ever been applied to the ledger for XXXX. 

The allegeation by the system is then patently false because a XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) dollar payment was made on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX towards XXXX. This is known because a set of two ( 2 ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) dollar authorizations were made -- with one in error. The authorization for XXXX was not succesful ( per XXXX system ), but the XXXX XXXX system notified me the XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) dollar authorization for XXXX was returned. Therefore, the XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) dollar payment that was successful was for XXXX, as evidenced in the notification from my financial services provider notifying of the withrawl. 

Therefore, the payment status as reported to the CRAs is patently invalid and unverifiable for XXXX. The combination of payment, disaster forbearance, and subsequent deferment implies that at the date of CO of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX there were no payments that were past-due. Yet, the Transaction report supplied by XXXX with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX for XXXX never records the the payment as ever posting and as consequence the account was erroneously CO on the last business day for the month of XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, with a due-date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

This is indeed the same haphazard behavior of XXXX XXXX systems as identified in XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation