Consumer complaint received 2023-02-07
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. (IL)

On or about XX/XX/2022, XXXX XXXX Services ( XXXX ) purchased information of a charged of account from XXXX Bank. XXXX immediately began reporting this invalid information to credit bureaus as an open account citing a debt amount of {$1800.00}. XXXX did not serve any notice or communication prior to reporting this erroneous debt to the bureaus. 

XXXX Equifax, the debt was reported to the bureaus on the same day the account was purchased and assigned ( XX/XX/2022 ). 

XXXX thereafter began reaching out to me contacting my cellphone in an attempt to advise me that they were attempting to collect a debt on behalf of XXXX Bank. Per that initial conversation, I advised their agent that I do not owe anything to XXXX Bank because the account was charged-off behind negotiations after a stint of financial hardships. I also advised that I do not owe anything to XXXX as I have no business relationship with XXXX and that I would not accept phone calls of such a nature. I made it clear that any correspondence regarding validation of the debt would be required and must be provided through postal mail. 

Subsequently, XXXX mailed a letter to me which further indicated that they were either retained or assigned to attempt to collect a debt on behalf of XXXX. 

On XX/XX/2022, having knowledge that the information XXXX was attesting as fact was not valid and could not be corroborated without proof, I immediately contacted Credit Karma to file a dispute citing the same general information I gave to their agent on the phone. XXXX XXXX later reported the debt as being validated, showing that XXXX presented information showing the account was purchased and thereby assigned to them. Thus, making their prior claims using the phrases of on behalf of or assignee of XXXX Bank are attempts to make authoritative impersonations. 

If they had a valid debt, they would produce the originating wet ink signature documents or some evidence of a transfer of payments from me to XXXX to substantiate that I was aware and acknowledged an account with XXXX. 

I was served a summons a week ago and found that XXXX has failed to advise the court of the disputes verbalized and filed with the bureaus. In their claims to the court, they state that I refused to pay. I have made no refusals. I have simply requested validation of the debt by originating instruments of contract between me and XXXX or between me and XXXX Bank. I have requested proof of any financial payment transactions made from me made payable to XXXX. XXXX has essentially reported information to the bureaus and the court which fail to validate any knowledgeable engagement of a business relationship between myself and XXXX thereby making their claims frivolous. 

After receiving service, I contacted the bureaus to confirm the date of my initial dispute. After speaking with Equifax directly, I have reopened their investigation into XXXX claims as they never provided proof of original construct or payments. Also, as their court claims evidence shows to Equifax, they reported the debt on the same date of purchase. Thus, at no point was notice provided nor was there establishment with me of an engaged business relationship. So, the reporting of this debt was inconsistent with requirements established by the FCRA.