Consumer complaint received 2020-05-31
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 — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: EQUIFAX, INC. (CA)

Upon checking my consumer credit reports on XX/XX/2020, I discovered that my XXXX XXXX Account was marked with a 30-day late payment on all major credit bureaus for the month of XX/XX/2020. I made a payment on the 30th day ( XX/XX/2020 ) and was subsequently reported for a 30-day late payment. I immediately contacted XXXX to speak with their representatives on the matter and was told I had to write a letter to their credit dispute department. And on the same phone call, although my account was then current for XX/XX/2020, I also placed my account in a 2-month deferment to avoid any further impacts to my credit during COVID-19.

I disputed the 30-day late information in a letter written and mailed directly to the Data Furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) on XX/XX/2020 to address my concerns. In my letter, I explained to XXXX that their consumer website and mobile app were both down on the evening of XX/XX/2020 which made it impossible for me to conduct an online or mobile payment. Therefore I was forced to pay the following day XX/XX/2020 which made the account exactly 30 days late. I also wrote that I solely rely on the online systems to make payments and dont not feel comfortable making automated phone payments because in most cases they involve a service fee. In addition, I attempted to reach a live customer service representative over the phone on the evening of XX/XX/2020 however, I called at approximately XXXX PST ( 1 hour ) after the offices had closed for the evening ( XXXX EST ). 

Furthermore, I expressed a desire for XXXX to address my concern by acknowledging the website was down and to accommodate a dismissal of the 30-day late reporting. 

Meanwhile, upon checking my credit again on XX/XX/2020, I discovered that my XXXX account was notated with the AW - Natural or Declared Disaster Code with all major credit bureaus as a result of COVID-19. Upon the code being added, the negative information on my account was removed and my credit scores improved by 45 points. I immediately called XXXX back to ask what the code meant and how it would impact my credit because I was confused by what was happening. I was told by XXXX customer service that my account would not be impacted and it was a notation only because I had deferred my account payments. 

At this point I thought my dispute had been resolved and everything was fine, meanwhile I did not know my rights were being violated. 

Upon XXXX writing me back on XXXX, XXXX 2020, in response to my credit dispute letter, XXXX explained that they understood I was having difficulty with their website ( acknowledgement that it could have been down ) but advised I should have utilized another form of payment such as their automated phone system to complete the payment. 

They also wrote that I did not supply sufficient justification to change how they are obligated to report my account the credit agencies. 

Meanwhile, my credit score dropped 45 points and my XXXX account reverted back to a negative status around XXXX, XXXX, 2020 leaving me even more confused as to what was going on. 

At this point I managed to do a significant amount of research on my consumer protection rights and realized that my rights had been violated. 

And according to the [ Consumer Data Industry Association Credit Reporting Resource Guide FAQ 58 ], reporting on an account affected by a Natural or Declared Disaster should not have any record of delinquency or negative information reported during the period of which a Natural or Declared Disaster exists. In this case, COVID-19 has a material timeline which includes XX/XX/2020, and ends on the later of 120 days after XX/XX/2020, or 120 days after the national emergency terminates as defined by the CARES Act.

Furthermore, the CDIA indicates, if a trade line has a natural disaster code, any delinquencies during or near the time period that the code is in place should be scrubbed, i.e. replaced with the D code for no information. The CDIA Guidelines clearly state that reporting can not proceed in a business as usual manner with derogatory information being reported despite the natural disaster code. Instead, the Data Furnisher should either report the account as current or no information. 

For the record, my dispute falls in direct correlation to COVID-19 along with the AW coding, and this information should be accurately reflected in my account documentation thus removing the 30-day late for XX/XX/2020. 

To prevent such harm, the CARES Act requires furnishers to report a credit obligation as current if the obligation was current prior to the grant of a CARES Act accommodation. In this case my account was current prior to XXXX but I still have negative information being reported ( XXXX ) although that falls within the CARES Act accommodation period ( XX/XX/2020, and ends on the later of 120 days after XX/XX/2020, or 120 days after the national emergency terminates ). 

And the Credit Bureaus initially changed my account to effectively support the proper reporting guidelines mentioned above on XX/XX/2020 and then reverted back to the negative reporting in the same month. Very strange. 

At that point I contacted Equifax and they could not explain what was taking place on the account told me to contact XXXX who furnishes the notations on my account. 

Reporting negative information with a disaster code doesnt work because that negative information is still in the system, and per the guidelines that have been established by both the CDIA as well as the CARES Act, this is a direct violation of my rights. 

The CARES Act covers a wide range of issues, and this rebuttal focuses on Section 4021, Credit Protection During COVID-19. This section amends Section 623 ( a ) ( 1 )  of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which generally prohibits a party from furnishing information to a consumer reporting agency that the furnisher knows or should know is inaccurate. 

The Act defines an accommodation as an agreement to defer one or more payments, make partial payments, forbear delinquent amounts, modify a loan or contract, or any other assistance or relief granted to a consumer affected by COVID-19 during the covered period, which again began XX/XX/2020, and ends on the later of 120 days after XX/XX/2020, or 120 days after the national emergency terminates. 

Therefore, it is my expectation that with this new substantiation of facts and detailed information, XXXX XXXX XXXX will reverse the negative 30-day late reporting for XX/XX/2020 on my account Every creditor that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency must understand the new requirements and scope of the CARES Act. Creditors should carefully review their account servicing and credit reporting policies, systems, and training to ensure they can furnish accurate information as required by the CARES Act about consumers protected by accommodation plans made during the covered period. 

XXXX  : XXXX