Consumer complaint received 2023-11-21
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)

On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I filed CFPB complaint XXXX regarding an accoun XXXX XXXX . In the complaint I highlighted XXXX XXXX allegations the account was charged-off on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. I asked XXXX to provide a response that included the number of days delinquent for the months immediately preceding CO through present. Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) of the FCRA requires data furnishers to provide date of delinquency on charge-off accounts. Therefore, I also requested a response that defined the date of first delinquency that led to the alleged charge-off. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I received a response from XXXX. The response does not provide a date of first delinquency that led to the charge-off. Instead, XXXX claims that despite only recently reporting the charge-off in ( beg. XX/XX/XXXX ), the charge-off date is still XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Thus XXXX violated Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) of the FCRA. The charge-off is allged to have occurred nearly two ( 2 ) years ago, yet neither Equifax, nor XXXX, nor XXXX were notified promptly thereafter. To quote XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaints { XXXX, XXXX }, " Additionally, the reporting of your account will update after XX/XX/XXXX to reflect as 'charge off '. '' More jarring are the contents of the table. In the months prior to allged charge-off I'd been filing CFPB complaints highlighting multiple unfair and unlawful practices XXXX had been engaging in that prevented me from obtaining information about my account, making payments on my account, and otherwise servicing my account. The XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX shows an alleged past-due status of thirty ( 30 ) days for XX/XX/XXXX. By XX/XX/XXXX the table shows the number of days past-due increased to one-hundred twenty ( 120 ) days. That is, the past-due status and reported delinquency increased by ninety ( 90 ) days over one ( 1 ) billing cycle. Either XXXX intentionally accelerated the number of days past-due to imploy the charge from balance to loss as punishment for having the audacity to ensure access to statements and make payments and/or XXXX is grossly negligent in its duty to provide accurate data regarding consumer accounts to the CRAs. Any reasonable person would see the table and question the accuracy of the information furnished for XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. Any reasonable individual would question the accuracy of the data in the table for the months after charge-off. For example, " If the account was charged-off, why does the count for the numer of days past-due reset at the beginning of XXXX? '' Or further, " If the account was alleged charged-off in XX/XX/XXXX, why is XXXX only reporting the charge-off beginning in XXXX. I have disputed this account on multiple occasions with the CRAs and filed CFPB complaints with both the CRAs and XXXX directly. By now XXXX knows, or has reasonable cause to believe the data it's furnishing to Equifax, XXXX, and XXXX is inaccurate. XXXX appears to be kowkingly and willfully engaging in defamation. That is XXXX is knowingly and willfully harming me as a consumer, and it smells of retaliation for trying to ensure I was ableto service my account when I was afflicted with long-COVID. XXXX behavior is unfair, unlawful, and amounts to a campaign of harassment. Equifax and XXXX need to remove this account/tradeline at once and block XXXX from providing any updates to this account/tradeline. Additionally, Equifax and XXXX need to block XXXX from inserting data pertaining to this account under a duplicate and/or new account/tradeline.