Consumer complaint received 2023-07-19
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: EQUIFAX, INC. (TX)

I have attached all of the accounts in question that MUST be removed from my credit report. I have highlighted all data, inconsistencies, etc that must be removed and the violations.

I am very curious as to what kinds of process-verbal or " records '' you may have for any and each of the accounts alleged by the non-compliant data furnishing reporter ( s )? Under the FCRA, you are required to investigate on this account if I request it, and further provide me a written report of proceedings. I therefore am submitting my written request to you to investigate. Per the FCRA, you have 30 days to conduct this investigation and respond to my request. If you do not respond within this time period, per the FCRA, you must remove any alleged unproven negative information of which I have lodges a contesting of reporting privilege ( s ) by the indicated reporting entity ( ies ). Again, I believe and you shall agree that it is noteworthy that as the injured consumer, I am of no obligation ( s ) to reveal any imperfections nor any flawed reporting as it is your moral imperative to do so. However, at a minimum the reported allegations versus me include what I have identified as being likely-SUSPICIOUS claims of base field 7 ( XXXX ) with redacted truncation. In mathematical reality, this makes impossible for ANY ENTITY to be certain of adequacy to the perfect inclusion and arrangement of ONLY accurate and complete data field information within the requisite reported data fields outlined mandatory for lawful reporting fulfilling the necessary decrees. That is, how is it assumed that the true account number, whatever it might be, actually has exactly and only the reported data fields and reported data field information as proclaimed by the alleged accusing data reporting furnisher? Further, I ask, given the redacted values within the alleged charged off claim versus me, how can it possibly be confirmable the impeccable reporting when it's not provable the displayed data fields are in and of only perfect alignment with the exact information from such data field ( s ) related to only the one account number that would be supposed truly and provable mine yet not even exposed at all? As example, if were 4 redacted values in any truncated number, there is at least XXXX potential account numbers ( XXXX ) that would satisfy filling in those redacted values yet only one COULD BE THAT OF THIS REPORTING. MATHEMATICALLY, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY ALLEGING DATA REPORTER OR ANY ACCEPTING REPOSITORY OF DATA TO KNOW IN CERTAINTY THE CLAIMS MADE ARE FACTUAL, VERIFIABLE, VALIDATABLE, COMPLIANT, MUCH LESS CONFIRMATIONAL if said considered information is from a concerning truncation. Another potential ailment in the reported claims adherence to requirements appears to be the reported base field 15 related to the scheduled monthly payment amount. This deviation highlights the likelihood of questionable reporting, an infraction of the ethical and lawful reporting practices of each or either the alleging data reporting furnisher and any accepting repository. 
The universal requisites, at a minimum, includes adhering to any and all applicable federal and state statutes, regulations, and standards which is required to ensure that the involved entities each have the correct policies and procedures in place to document their confirmed certifiable compliant reporting process even to the mandates to adhere to the Metro 2 data-filled field formatted reporting standards, of which no omitting nor deviations from the aforementioned standards can exist without jeopardizing the claimed data 's integrity calling into question its ethical and or lawful retaining of the very conditional privilege to report complete, true, accurate, physically proven data. THIS OFFICIAL CONSUMER COMPLAINT is my compliance-based contesting of the accusers reporting privilege related to any negativity accused versus me. In this, accept my challenging of you and or the reporter for proof of adequate confirmed reporting process including the mandatorily utilized Metro 2 format. CLEARLY INACCURACIES CANT BE CERTIFIABLY COMPLIANT!

I ask, DID OR NOT THE accusing REPORTER actually SATISFY THEIR very CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE TO even REPORT? As you are aware and as I too am aware as a litigious currently injured consumer, THERE IS NO " RIGHT TO REPORT ''.

I n addition t o m y CONTEST of THE data reporter 's claim ( s ) ' REPORTABILITY, understand also this IS TO CHALLENGE THAT SAME REPORTER and or any accepting repository ( yourself included ) to demonstrate or make demonstrated PROOF that a confirm-able ( certifiable ) compliant reporting process was used. This demand is to include in that certified compliant reporting process evidence ensuring that the mandatorily utilized Metro 2 Data-filled field formatted reporting standards WAS IN fact perfect as used. Per CDIA 's own most recently rendered version of the CRRG manual it is stated in clarity on 3-4 that there can be no deviation from the standards nor omitting of requisite reported aspects without jeopardizing the integrity of the data alleged. Additionally stated are the guidelines that are purposed for the ensuring of consumer reporting to be most fair, true, correct, timely, and complete in total agreement with at least the FCBA, FCRA ECOA and all applicable state laws. Clearly, failure to prove a certifiably compliant reporting process potentially lends to bringing concerns that the alleged claim ( s ) by any or each reporter is questionable, at least. There is no assumption by me as the potentially injured consumer that the information reporting seemingly deficient of each any and all of the mandatory requirements in regard to the standards indicates certainty of any claim having been made by reporter known to be untrue, incorrect, untimely, incomplete, unverifiable, invalid, nor otherwise improperly reported. However, let me remind you of the fact that it is the onus of the reporter ( not consumer ) to present and or provide ONLY DATA THAT IS UNQUESTIONABLY provable as true, timely, correct, and is adequately complete information of which is also factually verifiable as even being undeniable in its validity in total adherence to any and all of the mandates with absolute accordance to at least the FCBA FCRA ECOA and each any and all applicable state laws.

In was suggested by the CDIA and is my agreed opinion that ONLY confirmable certified compliance to the Metro 2 format gives greatest assurance that the reporter did on fact report fairly and otherwise ethically within the regulations of which were deliberately designed to limit or eradicate injurious misrepresented information accused of and reported against a consumer.

> CHECK IF OR NOT REPORTER TRULY SATISFIED MINIMUM CRITERIA TO HAVE GAINED THE PRIVILEGE TO REPORT?

> IF STATED OR ASSUMED SO, REQUIRE THE REPORTER TO CONFIRM THEIR PRACTICES OF REPORTING IS ACCORDING TO EACH THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS AS WELL AS TO THE INDUSTRY REQUIRED STANDARDS, NAMELY IN PERFECT ADHERENCE TO THE REQUISITE REPORTED METRO 2 FORMAT?

> IF BOTH ABOVE IS CLAIMED YES OR ASSUMED SO, THEN EXPLAIN HOW IT IS THERE EXISTS " DEVIATIONS '' WITHIN THAT MANDATORILY UTILIZED STANDARD FORMAT OR OMITTANCE FROM IT OF REQUISITE REPORTED ACCOUNT DATA THAT might be specific to a particular industry type or primary negativity issue?

> if the standards are flawed, explain how it can be feasible to suggest that ANY information alleged was done so to the federal mandates/laws which REQUIRE ONLY DATA REPORTED TO BE DONE SO VERIFIABLY AND VALIDATED AND TO A DEGREE NO LESSER THAN THAT OF A MAXIMUM POSSIBLE ACCURACY AND MAXIMUM POSSIBILITY OF COMPLETENESS.

> SEEING how the reporter continues reporting despite flawed reporting practices, how is it assumable the reporter is not misreporting in willful noncompliance, even willfully in recklessness?

> finally, as an accepting repository, it is your duty to ensure the information you gather is in fact adequate and fair, especially upon notification that some data is potentially not so. If you are continually going to report for reporter accusing me of negativity injurious to my credit worthiness, how can I assume youre not willfully noncompliant and reckless yourself?

Might be wiser you require the accusing reporter to do so in full alignment with the very industry standards and in total accordance with each any and all laws required of both you and the reporting entity involved with Derogatory claims versus me.

Further, might be advisable that you immediately and continuously remove from reporting each any and all claims versus me deficient of the perfect adhering to the reporting standards and regulations of reporting, be them mentioned or not, until a date no sooner than each circumstance for ethical lawful fully compliant reporting can be and IS ACHIEVED, DOCUMENTED, AND A NOTICE RETURNED TO ME ALERTING ME OF SUCH CERTIFIABLY COMPLIANT REPORTING OF DEROGATORINESS RETURNING TO REPORTING AGAINST ME, within 5 days of such if occurs!

Finally, I am within my rights to demand that you timely investigate then send me an updated report displaying your then-adequacy in that the argued points within this complaint will have rendered your XXXX  XXXX-like actions to remove from reporting the data of the opposed reporter ( s ), temporarily at least. If and when the alleging data reporting furnisher ( s ) makes good on its reporting practices and information, and you again accept its reporting, I demand it only be so in a manner of provable compliance in every aspect of concern. 
Closing Professionally My requisite reported first and last name is exactly XXXX XXXX *please note any included image proofs of my non-contested personal identifier information data.