Consumer complaint received 2023-12-26
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: EQUIFAX, INC. (MI)

XXXX XXXX responded to CFPB complaint XXXX on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. In their response they explain my account was charged-off due to the alleged return of a payment in XX/XX/XXXX that would not have covered the minimum payment required. From mid XXXX until late XXXX I had no ability to access my account through the XXXX customer account web portal. During that same time XXXX provided instructions for me to log into a different system to manage my account. Unlike my regular portal account, this account access required a different set of credentials. A XXXX XXXX e-mail from XXXX instructed me to register for a new portal account. Per the provided instructions XXXX claimed I would simply need my reference code ( zip code ) to access my account. Yet the website itself required the full fifteen ( 15 ) digit account number and 4-digit security pin on the physical card a card that XXXX acknowledges was canceled in XX/XX/XXXX. This did not just happen once, but twice corresponding to the transfer from collections agents : XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX. Thus XXXX engaged in deceptive acts or practices because it provided incorrect/ withed correct information necessary for me to use ( make payments on ) my account ( see XXXX XX/XX/XXXX e-mail from XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX e-mail from XXXX ). In the second instance I was harmed because autopay with the original collections agent stopped because XXXX transferred the account to a different collections agent in XXXX XXXX. Since I had not received statements I filed CFPB complaint XXXX on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. It read in part " could retrieve statements using URL available through instructions. Told acct not handled by XXXX XXXX. I have not received statements in nearly four ( 4 ) months despite continuing to reside at same address. Received first communication from second agency XXXX on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX claiming ''. The XXXX XXXX XXXX response did not address my inability to manage my account. I filed CFPB complaint XXXX on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX responded on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX acknowledging they'd provided the incorrect information for me to manage my account with the collections agent " the URL that was provided shows it is a working URL and was provided as a way for you to make your payments. However, you did not have your Card information to access the site. '' For clarity the instructions from XXXX sent on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX stated " You [ pay ] your balance online at XXXX using reference code XXXX to access the website. '' Thus, I was provided with false information necessary to log into the account and manage payments and lost access to the normal XXXX website to make payments. In their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response XXXX XXXX " It is important to know your account status for the month of XX/XX/XXXX was reported as 60 days past due, however ; we received a payment on XX/XX/XXXX, for {$200.00} which was less than the minimum payment due on your enclosed XX/XX/XXXX statement, this caused your account to report on XX/XX/XXXX as 30 days past due. This payment was then returned on XX/XX/XXXX, by your banking institution, as such, your account was accurately reported as 120 days past due on XX/XX/XXXX. Our response to your prior correspondence filed with the CFPB, reference number XXXX, advised of this returned payment. For clarity, XXXX was filed on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX provided a response on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Thus, I had zero ( 0 ) notification from XXXX XX/XX/XXXX until a response to CFPB complaint XXXX on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX -- that's two ( 2 ) years later. Although returned, if the XXXX ( XXXX ) dollar payment was not " enough '' to meet the minimum payment, this implies I was not receiving statements. In the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX response, XXXX claims " we are accurately reporting your account and we are unable to remove the account from your credit report. '' However, this is false. In general 15 U.S.C 1681s2 prohibits data furnishers from furnishing information to the CRAs it knows or has reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. Similar language applies to CRAs under 15 U.S.C. 1681e. While the respective language is different for each the XXXX XXXX has recognized the synergy between the language of both stating in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' Although the majority of cases involve the duty the same standard of accuracy applies to a furnishers response under 1681s-2. Both 1681e and 1681s-2 serve the same purpose : ensuring accuracy in consumer credit reporting. A CRA can best fulfill its obligation to report accurately under 1681e if it receives accurate information from a furnisher under 1681s-2, ''. Likewise, the XXXX XXXX came to a similar conclusion in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, " Section 1681s-2 at times uses incomplete or inaccurate. E.g., 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ). Section 1681e, on the other hand, speaks only in terms of 'maximum possible accuracy. ' One might draw the inference, then, that accuracy and completeness are different... We think not ''. From the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX we can then arrive at an understanding that if CRAs are required to report information in consumer files with maximum possible accuracy, it is then incumbent upon data furnishers themselves to supply consumer information with maximum possible accuracy. The same standard of accuracy applies to both. Quoting from the XXXX XXXX, " Courts have long understood that, when it comes to the FCRA, accurate means more than just 'technically correct. ' E.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), '' ( XXXX, XXXX. XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX ) ). For the definition of incomplete and inaccurate information one can look to the XXXX XXXX, " We have interpreted the phrase 'incomplete or inaccurate ' to encompass not only false information, but also correct information that nevertheless create [ XXXX ] a materially misleading impression. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), '' ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). The information XXXX has furnished to the CRAs has been misleading since XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX was notified I was not receiving paper statements. Per the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX e-mail from XXXX, I was to be able to log into the alternative web portal to make payments, but was unable because XXXX provided incorrect information for me to be able to login. I had no knowledge a payment was returned on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX states they made me aware of that in response to CFPB complaint XXXX, which was supplied on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX received multiple billing error notices between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, but never conducted a billing error investigation before the account was charged-off on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Yet according to, 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( b ) ( 1 ) if a creditor has failed to send a periodic statement, the 60-day period runs from the time the statement should have been sent. Once the statement is provided, the consumer has another 60 days to assert any billing errors reflected on it. I was never sent statements BEFORE the account was charged-off. And, withouut conducting a billing error investigation, XXXX charged-off the account on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, in the process violating 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( d ) ( 2 ) - ( d ) ( 3 ), which prohibits a creditor from taking any adverse action on an account before a billing error investigation has been conducted under 1026.13. After filing multiple billing error notices in XXXX my ability to login to XXXX regular website was restored. I logged in on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to find a credit of around XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) dollars had been applied to my account, and a XXXX XX/XX/XXXX electronic notice which informed me my complaints were ( now ) being investigated no payment was due at that time. Yet, given the recap above, XXXX continues to verify that all the information furnished to the CRAs for my account is " accurate, '' even claiming the reporting of a charge-off status in XXXX ( as explained in XXXX Response to XXXX ) was " accurate '' for a charge-off that allegedly took place XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Given the situation recapped above, there nothing accurate about reporting a payment history from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX " paid on time, '' followed by a period from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX alleging payments were late by an additional thirty ( 30 ) days over that period of time, followed by a period XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX " paid on time, " followed by a period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX with payment history alleging advancing 30 day delinquencies until reaching 180 days past-due. There is nothing accurate about payment history that then reports 180 days past-due for six ( 6 ) straight months until the account was reported as charged-off in XX/XX/XXXX. It's so bad the Date of First Delinquency, which determines how long any charge-off stays in a consumer file, reports as XX/XX/XXXX. Yet, the account, was alleged charged-off by XXXX, wrongfully I might add, on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The Date of First Delinquency is the date of the first delinquency immediately prior to the charge-off. That date wouldhave to be in XXXX IF XXXX alleges the account was charged-off XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Overall, the information XXXX is furnishing to the CRAs for XXXX and XXXX continues to me materially misleading and most-definitely has caused me harm since XXXX. I've been denied stable housing because of the defamatory information XXXX continues to furnish for this account in XXXX. I will close by offering another falsehood alleged by XXXX in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to XXXX. XXXX claims, " there is no option to block or to opt out of credit reporting. We are required by laws and regulations to report the status of an account accurately to the national credit reporting agencies. '' This is patently false. According to 15 U.S.C 1681s2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) ( iii ), " if an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified after any reinvestigation under paragraph ( 1 ), for purposes of reporting to a consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation promptly [ the data furnisher shall ] ( iii ) permanently block the reporting of that item of information. '' And, XXXX knows or has reasonable cause to believe the information they are furnishing to the CRAs is prohibited because it does not meet the accuracy/completeness standard under 15 U.S.C 1681.