Complaint sub-issue: Reporting company used your report improperly

In previous complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX I described how the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY had received negotiable instruments toward the account # XXXX XXXX and had failed to process them in accordance with the law. CFPB informed me that they were unable to oversee the matter and forwarded me to the NCUA who in turn forwarded me to the DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES. When DFS first received the complaint and word from XXXX they sought to close the complaint. But, after viewing the evidence that I provided to them which is the same evidence provided previously they reconsidered and asked for more evidence. I received a call from a representative at XXXX this very day stating that due to some error at their offices they did receive negotiable instruments sent to them on behalf of the debtor in question but did not process them as they are required to by law. It stands to reason that if they were not being forthright about this negotiable instrument they are not being forthright about other negotiable instruments sent to them. The two proceeding negotiable instruments that were sent to them would have completely satisfied the debt obligation. If you read their response carefully to DFS it does not say that they did not " receive '' what was sent to them. They are stating what they " accept ''. Well, if they do not " accept '' a negotiable instrument they must respond with a notice of dishonor as required by law. The letter that names an attorney could have and should have been sent in response to the correspondences sent by the Notary Public. This attorney did not respond then becaue he would have been guilty of perjury as lying and/or misrepresenting oneself is only illegal when doing so under oath or before one who takes oaths. The reason why they chose not to process XXXX XXXX XXXX Check XXXX is because they would have to acknowledge that negotiable instruments sent to the address are indeed legal and/or lawful for processing. I demand that EQUIFAX remove the XXXX account from their files as it is incorrect by XXXX XXXX own admission. EQUIFAX has aided XXXX in their apparent scheme and should they fail to remove this information IMMEDIATELY I will have no choice but to include them in the coming action against XXXX. I thank CPFB for its tireless efforts in providing the public with a defense against these unfair practices. If not for the men and women at this institution there would be no recourse for the public. Though CPFB does not oversee XXXX and other credit unions it does oversee EQUIFAX. EQUIFAX is bound by law to report ACCURATE information. If you can not trust the information being provided to you and/or it is incorrect then you must remove it. If the company reporting the information is engaged in fraud and/or misrepresentation it would be unethical and/or illegal and/or unlawful to aid them in sharing the erroneous information. The name of the debtor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is under copyright. DFS is aware of this as well as XXXX for if you examine their response letter to DFS they do not properly provide the debtor name in their correspondence. This is an admission that they are not authorized to utilize the name in the first place so how are they able to share information with EQUIFAX in regards to the debtor name? Also, what XXXX is doing irreparably harms the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as the method used for the complete satisfaction of the debt obligation reduces the ever expanding National debt.