Consumer complaint received 2018-05-29
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: Equitable Acceptance Corp (IN)

My issue has still not been resolved. Below is the response that I received from Equitable Acceptance when I filed a complaint against them last XXXX. Equitable Acceptance is still showing up on my credit reports and still shows that I owe {$1100.00} ... ... ... .. 


Company responded STATUS Company responded on XX/XX/XXXX RESPONSE TYPE Closed with explanation Company 's Response XXXX XXXX 's allegations are inaccurate, unfounded and contrary to the written agreements she signed. She appears to be confused about the transactions she agreed to, the disclosures and terms. This response will hopefully clarify things for her. Nevertheless, as is explained below, XXXX XXXX does not owe EAC anything. As an initial matter, Equitable Acceptance Corporation ( " EAC '' ) did not offer to, or assist XXXX XXXX with her student loan debt, and thus made no representations to her about that subject. XXXX XXXX entered into a Document Preparation Agreement with XXXX , XXXX, dba XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX '' ), a California company. EAC was not a party to that agreement, and is a separate unrelated company. The agreement between XXXX XXXX and XXXX clearly disputes as well her complaints about her arrangement with XXXX. For example, the XXXX documents clearly state that it is " a private company not affiliated with the Department of Education '' and that XXXX XXXX could, if she so chose, try on her own to navigate the DOE student loan debt relief process " without paying anyone a fee. '' For a fee, however, XXXX would - if requested by XXXX XXXX - XXXX through all the paperwork, websites and applications for her. XXXX would assist XXXX XXXX in assembling and processing the applications and documents which make up the student loan debt assistance programs offered by the DOE. XXXX XXXX chose not to attempt the process on her own, and instead hired XXXX to do it for her. XXXX did so, and XXXX XXXX benefitted. More specifically, XXXX located a federal program available to XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), enrolled her in it successfully, and reduced her monthly payment obligation from about {$630.00} per month to {$0.00}. It is only after XXXX XXXX hired XXXX that EAC got involved in this matter. XXXX XXXX had already agreed to pay XXXX for its assistance. Apparently, however, XXXX XXXX was unable to pay XXXX all at once. As a result, she requested that EAC pay XXXX  for her, and in exchange she would repay EAC over time with interest. After reviewing XXXX XXXX request, her agreement with XXXX and verifying the situation with XXXX XXXX directly, EAC agreed to pay XXXX for XXXX XXXX and did in fact do so. It was not until well after the contracts and after XXXX XXXX received the benefit of XXXX 's services that XXXX XXXX decided to object to the transactions, and suggest she XXXXay have been able to do this on her own. That amounts to nothing more than " buyer 's remorse. '' EAC, however, only gets involved in transactions like this on a full recourse basis with MTCSL. This allows EAC to unwind the transaction if it chooses. Based on XXXX XXXX 's allegations, EAC has charged her account back to XXXX. As a result, XXXX XXXX has no payment obligation to EAC and owes EAC nothing. EAC has also requested that the credit bureaus with which it does business delete the EAC account from XXXX XXXX 's credit history. Any further concerns she has about the transactions should be addressed to XXXX.