Consumer complaint received 2023-07-14
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: EQUIFAX, INC. (MI)

XXXX never presented the payment to the financial services institution for processing. My mother made a payment on my account using an ACH authorization that was scheduled with a live agent on XXXX XXXX XXXX. The authorized ACH was in the amount of approximately XXXX dollars. XXXX, the live agent, scheduled the payment and provided my mother with the reference number XXXX.The payment posted and no payment reports as having been returned. However, on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX  I received notification that my account had been automatically closed due to non-receipt to keep the account open. The authorization took place on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX and was returned with XXXX -- unable to locate. This is a distinct error code from XXXX -- NSF, XXXX -- closed account, or XXXX -- invalid account number. The account exists. The account is open. The first and last name on the account, as provided TO the representative was correct. The individual authorizing the transaction was the owner of the account. 
The financial services institution has no record of your firm having presented payment and has confirmed funds were available for debit.Therefore, I filed a billing error notice within the sixty ( XXXX ) day period. XXXX XXXX, in XXXX Executive Office of Customer Advocacy, allegedly conducted an investigation. In a follow-up conversation he conceded that when comparing the supplied account information disclosed with the live agent, he was ony able to match the XXXX  XXXX  ( XXXX  ) digits of the account being debited. That is, whomever, and through whatever investigatory process he recieved the transaction information from, it/they provided him only with the XXXX XXXXr ( XXXX ) digits of the account number to match against the phone-based ACH authorization with a XXXX agent that occurred on XXXX XXXX XXXX. And, although he was given the full routing number for the financial services institution, he was not provided with the first name and last name as keyed into the ACH authorization by the live agent. This is troubling as the error could be on the part of XXXX and its XXXX  agent. The investigator was not provided with that information. Under 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( d ), " Absence of error ; finding ; explanation, '' if after conducting a billing investigation a financial institution determines that an error did not occur, it must deliver or mail to the consumer an explanation of its findings within three ( 3 ) business days after the conclusion of its investigation. Moreover, upon request of the conclusion of its investigation. Moreover, upon request of the consumer, a financial services institution must promptly deliver or mail to the consumer reproductions of all documents which the financial institution relied on to conclude that such error did not occur. Finally, the financial institution must include notice of the right to request reproductions with the explanation of its findings. XXXX has neither provided the reporoductions of any and all documents, nor responded to CFPB complaint XXXX. XXXX has refused to explain what exactly took place. It seems likey they are doing such to escape any potential liability under 15 U.S. Code 1693h. 
Overall, XXXX has failed to supply requested documentation that would eliminate the possibility of an error on their part under 15 U.S. Code 1693h ( a ) ( 2 ), specifically but not limited to computational error, incorrect funds transfer, or the omission from a periodic statement of the ACH transaction being applied to my account. Clearly, XXXX has refused to provide reproductions of any and all documentation to show that a billing error on their part did not occur they provided XXXX ( XXXX ) documentation, which itself constitutes both an error on their part, and an unfair, and unlawful, practice because they are knowingly and willfully refusing to supply the requested documentation to me. At the same time, they are continuing to furnish data to the CRAs that is a result of their own processing errors, claiming that the information is accurate and verifiable. Information is patently unverifiable if they are unwilling to provide that documentation to a consumer that is entitled to request AND receive that documentation under 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( d ). CONCLUSION : XXXX never presented the payment to the financial services institution for processing, failed to conduct a billing error investigation, and then refused to provide documentation as required under 15 USC 1693f : Error resolution. A more detailed explanation, as written to USDOJ is attached.