Consumer complaint received 2023-08-09
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: Experian Information Solutions Inc. (MI)

I have had multiple payment processing and billing error issues with XXXX that resulted in adverse payment history being furnished to the CRAs. I made a payment on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to prevent suspension of account in the amount of XXXX. I Received notification on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that payment had been received. I Contacted XXXX by phone on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX to confirm payment was received by XXXX. I spoke with male representative who confirmed payment was received and posted to account. His statement was : " Yes we have received the the funds and the payment has been posted to the account. '' As a result there would be no suspension on the account. I received notice on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX advising me the payment had been " returned '' unpaid -- this was/is contradiction to the statement by the account manager on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Screenshots indicate the funds authorized for withdraw from the bank account were present on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with an available balance of XXXX. Screenshot from XXXX payment indicate payment was authorized on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX allows billing error notices to be filed online within ninety ( 90 ) days. I attempted to file a billing error notice online and the system responded with an error. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX my mother made a payment on my account using an ACH authorization that was scheduled with a live agent on XXXX XX/XX/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 XXXXThe payment posted and no payment reported as having been returned. However, on or around XXXX XX/XX/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 XX/XX/XXXX and was returned with R03 -- unable to locate. This is a distinct error code from R01 -- NSF, R02 -- closed account, or R04 -- invalid account number. The account existed. The account was 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 had no record of XXXX having presented payment and has confirmed funds were available for debit. XXXX never presented the payment to the financial services institution for processing. Therefore, I filed a billing error notice within the sixty ( 60 ) 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 last four ( 4 ) 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 last four ( 4 ) digits of the account number to match against the phone-based ACH authorization with a live agent that occurred on XXXX XX/XX/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 live 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, Discover has refused to provide reproductions of any and all documentation to show that a billing error on their part did not occur they provided zero ( 0 ) 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 XXXX is 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. The information furnished by XXXX then gives a misleading imporession that as a consumer, XXXX due to XXXX at the time, I failed to present a payment that would prevent the account from being viewed as a receivable and that as such it was a loss. The loss was due to XXXX XXXX failure to present payment to the financial services institution. The FCRA requires that a consumer reporting agency ensure maximum accuracy of information witin a credit file. The precedent established within my Federal district makes clear that reporting of false/misleading information violates 15 U.S. Code 1681e. In this context, the information reported need not even be " false '' but may equally be " correct '' information that gives a materially misleading impression ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). As such, to ensure maximum accuracy under the FCRA, it is incumbent upon Experian to change the affected periods to Not reported/NR, and to remove any and all derogatory payment and account status narratives.