Consumer complaint received 2023-11-15
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)

Equifax claims XXXX verified the accuracy of the data reported for an account/tradeline on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. However, the information verified accurate by XXXX to Equifax is on its face incorrect. XXXX verified the alleged date of first delinquency as XXXX of XXXX. Yet, a simple inspection of he " Account History with Status codes '' for the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX credit report clearly shows this is impossible because there is XXXX corresponding derogatory indicator for the month XX/XX/XXXX. Inspecting a credit report from XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with Report Confirmation ( XXXX ) clearly indicates no such date of first delinquency exists, implying that the Date of First Delinquency alleged to have occurred is inaccurate and a fictitious piece of information added to my Equifax credit file some time in XXXX. In fact, the fictitious XX/XX/XXXX date of first delinquency is neither reported in XX/XX/XXXX ( Report Confirmation XXXX ) nor reported in XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ), the latter of which reports a date of first delinquency of XX/XX/XXXX, which again corresponds to a month for whic the payment history also indicates the account was paid on-time. Note, Report confirmation XXXX shows no date for which this alleged delinquency is first reported. According to an Equifax Credit report generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( Report Confirmation XXXX ), no date of first delinquency corresponding to XX/XX/XXXX is reported until XX/XX/XXXX. However, according to XXXX, generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, this same XX/XX/XXXX date of first delinquency is alleged to have been first reported in XX/XX/XXXX. Each month Equifax has updated the file in response to my disputes yields a verification from XXXX regarding the alleged XX/XX/XXXX date of first delinquency, which does not exist. Despite this obvious error, XXXX has insisted this is not a result of the information they are furnishing to Equifax and as such XXXX has verified the information for this account/tradeline is accurate AS EQUIFAX IS XXXX REPORTING. As such, per their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaints XXXX and XXXX, XXXX will not respond to any future complaints I file through the CFPB regarding the erroneous information they are furnishing to any of the CRAs. Further examining the account/tradeline indicates Equifax is aware the account/tradeline is erroneous at least in-part because Equifax has responded to prior dispute ( s ) and/or CFPB complaint ( s ) blocking any future reporting beyond XX/XX/XXXX for the " Account History with Status Codes '' section of the account/tradeline. For context, XXXX has been reporting an alleged charge-off of the account, but has been unable to provide a concrete date that such a charge-off occurred. Moreover, the charge-off itself is dubious and resulted from an earlier set of incidents in which Discover claimed authorized XXXX payments were returned with a code XXXX -- unable to locate account, yet were able to debit that same account AFTER the account was allegedly charged-off. It is possible Equifax has sought to rectify the alleged unfair and misleading charge-off of the account by using the " date of first delinquency '' as a mechanism such that the alleged charge-off of the account would be outside of the two-year period over which the alleged charge-off would impact my XXXX credit score. Th ereason for the the XXXX date would then still be an anomaly. Nevertheless, the approach has not resolved the inaccurate reporting and has prolonged my suffering as a consumer, especially when it comes to obtaining rental housing. At this point, the only recourse is to remove any and all derogatory " Account XXXX '' / " Payment history '' that would rely on a date of first delinquency : ie the charge-off annotations for XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX, and to then remove the date of first delinquency reported. After which a continued block of updates from XXXX should remain in-effect.