Consumer complaint received 2023-07-30
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: CA
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report
Sub-issue: Reporting company used your report improperly

Complaint:
The currently reported XXXX XXXX with account number displayed as XXXX XXXX on my XXXX XXXX report, shown as this information is NOT REPORTED on XXXX in this reported claim on my XXXX report, and alleged as this information is NOT REPORTED on Equifax in this reported claim on my Equifax report. Any inconsistency, incompleteness, inaccuracy, or omission of the reported item serves as a anomaly from the mandatorily utilized reporting industrys own Metro 2 Datafilled Field Formatted reporting compliance standards, of which there can be NO DEVIATION without JEOPARDIZING THE INTEGRITY OF THE DATA ( see CDIA CRRG 3-4 ) and as so is lawfully questionable until evident confirmation of all aspect ( s ) of claim ( s ) are factually true, correct, complete, timely, physically verifiable, and elsewise undeniably valid particularly if not certifiably compliant in full according to the above-mentioned Metro 2 formatted industry requirements. With that in mind, please consider the following suspect reported data fields alleged for this now contested reported item of injury : In regard to item questioned above, Data Reporter Identification Number reported as Not Reporting for XXXX, XXXX for XXXX XXXX, and as Not Reporting for Equifax and as such is one, each or all in deviation from the requisite standard ( s ) and or is not proven much less certifiably compliant to its regulatory mandates as its a sin XXXX non for compliant reporting and as such are one or more apparently deficient of its exigency of reporting decree ( s )!

Regarding the item questioned above, Data Reporter Street Address reported as Not Reporting for XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX, and as Not Reporting for Equifax for Equifax and as such are one or more, according to protocol, deficient of its exigency of reporting obedience! 
In regard to item questionably reported above, please note that Activity Date is reported as XX/XX/2023 for XXXX, XX/XX/2023 for XXXX XXXX, and as Not Reporting for Equifax are one, two, or each apparently in potential deviation from the requisite standard ( s ) for the compliant reporting, thereby making such reported claims a concern due in part to lesser integrity of data as reported ( per CRRG3 - 4 ). As reported, there can be NO deviation from the requisite standard ( s ) for the compliant reporting of Data fields within any Metro 2 Field nor else wise in regard to this mandatorily accurately depicted data field. 
With respect to item questioned above, Portfolio Type ( Account Type-Detail ) : reported as Not Reporting for XXXX, Not Reporting for XXXX XXXX , and as Not Reporting for Equifax and as such is one, each or all in aberrancy from the requisite standard ( s ) and or is not proven much less certifiably compliant to its principal mandates as its relevant and consequential for compliant reporting acquiescence. This field, as reported, is a divergence from the established CDIAs reporting standards and or is reported one or more of being untrue, inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and or else wise not confirmed certifiably compliant to all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting! Clearly, this field asserts that potentially this item of reporting is or is not yet unproven to be an aberrancy at issue with reporting accuracy and or compliance standards. 
Against the item questioned above, Scheduled Monthly Payment Amount : reported as Not Reporting for XXXX, Not Reporting for XXXX XXXX, and as Not Reporting for Equifax and as such is one, each or all in deviation from the requisite standard ( s ) and or is not proven much less certifiably compliant to its regulatory mandates as its a sin XXXX non for compliant reporting and as such are one or more apparently deficient of its exigency of reporting sufficiency and or amenability! 
In cognizance to the item questioned above, Account Credit Limit : reported as Not Reporting for XXXX, Not Reporting for XXXX XXXX, and as Not Reporting for Equifax and as such is in apparent deviation from the requisite standard ( s ) for certifiably compliant reporting, hence the genesis of my rightful consumer complaint contesting reporter 's privilege to report this claim unless it accepts and successfully fulfills the challenge to prove indisputably its confirmed and demonstrated adequacy of reporting practices and process to include no less than the full adherence of their required perfection and completeness of the Credit Reporting Industry 's mandatorily utilized Metro 2 Format standards, and as such are one or more likely deficient of its exigency of reporting edict, and as such are one or more for all intents and purposes surely deficient of its exigency of reporting proficiency and or expected appropriateness!

On the subject of the item questioned above, Data Reporter City, State, and Postal Zip Code reported as Not Reporting for XXXX, XXXX, VA, XXXX for XXXX XXXX, and as Not Reporting for Equifax and as such is one, each or all in aberrancy from the requisite standard ( s ) and or is not proven much less certifiably compliant to its principal mandates as its relevant and consequential for compliant reporting acquiescence. This field, as reported, is a divergence from the established CDIAs reporting standards and or is evidently reported one or more of being untrue, inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and or else wise not confirmed certifiably compliant to all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting proclivity! Clearly, this field asserts that potentially this item of reporting is or is not yet unproven to be an aberrancy at issue with reporting accuracy and or compliance standards. 
With reference to item questioned above, ECOA Code : reported as Derogatory for XXXX, Derogatory for XXXX XXXX, and as Not Reporting for Equifax and as such is one, each or all in aberrancy from the requisite standard ( s ) and or is not proven much less certifiably compliant to its principal mandates as its relevant and consequential for compliant reporting. This field, as reported, is a divergence from the established CDIAs reporting standards and or is reported one or more of being untrue, inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and or else wise not confirmed certifiably compliant to all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting! Clearly, this field asserts that potentially this item of reporting is or is not yet unproven to be an aberrancy at issue with reporting accuracy and or compliance standards. 
In regard to item questioned above, Account Status : reported as Closed for XXXX, Open for XXXX XXXX, and as Not Reporting for Equifax and as such are one or more having the appearance of being deficient of its exigency of reporting devoir and or decorum elsewise! I here now file a written challenge to and for the accusing data reporter and for each any and all of the accepting data reporting repositories to factually attest to thereby corroborating at least the minimally required adequacy of its own reporting and in doing so naturally satisfying the minimal criterion to have utilized their obviously previously-takenfor- granted benefit to report.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief