Consumer complaint received 05/26/2016 about Credit reporting () with EQUIFAX, INC. (MI).
Issue: Credit reporting company's investigation
Sub-issue: No notice of investigation status/result

Complaint: Today I received in the mailbox a credit report which includes the results of the investigation. Confirmation # XXXX is dated XXXX XXXX XXXX. It is hard to fathom the items printed on page XXXX of XXXX as anything other than a sloppy non-investigation. For instance, Since when is " XXXX '' in XXXX? It is not. Next, since when is the U. S. Dept. of Education in XXXX. It is not. Next, " XXXX '' IS still reporting on page XXXX of XXXX pretending to be " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' at " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : ( XXXX ) XXXX '' and a simple phone call by Equifax will confirm there is no XXXX XXXX XXXX at that address. That is fraud. Next, " XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ... '' just underneath the " XXXX '' once again contradicts the previous item above it and there is no bank at that address or at that phone number. Next, " XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX : Phone ( XXXX ) XXXX '' and its " original source '' is dated XXXX and has no connection with XXXX 's current assets since XXXX. The account was paid in XXXX and closed by me. It is not to report in XXXX. Specifically, on page XXXX of XXXX, the sentence " Pays As Agreed '' is in the present tense. It was paid off in XXXX and therefore no payments were made such that present tense is factually correct. Moreover, " actual payment '' in combination with " Pays As Agreed '' is absolutely false! There is no " original source '' in the present tense that can possibly verify it as an account that is not time-barred. For instance, XXXX cuts reporting off at ten years. The others removed it immediately. Lastly, once again " XXXX ... '' is not in XXXX XXXX. All of these items save " XXXX '' are absolutely wrong and this means an improper investigation was done by not verifying that the furnisher was a actually the one listed on the pages of the report. Keep in mind, the original credit report I received back in XXXX was what I filed complaints about verbatim in XXXX. Since that time, some of these furnishers cleverly and fraudulently changed the furnisher information to get the erroneously reported data to remain despite being wrong. So Equifax needs to call each phone number on the credit report and ask the legal name of the furnisher at that address and phone number. After a few quick phone calls, it will be obvious that Equifax has a serious problem with the pages of this report. Equifax is now solely responsie for allowing itself to be duped into thinking for one second these furnishers will hold up in court inder oath. There is no excuse for such incompetence on the part of Equifax. If anything, the credit report is more error-ridden than before. Much of the problem boild down to common sense. Equifax should remember that words have meanings. When the report is filled with words that mean the opposite of what can be proved in court, the blame will fall squarely onto Equifax for not doing due diligence. Proper investigations do more than rubber stamp errors by third-party entities who pose as actual creditors. Equifax must determine the legal authority the address and phone number has over the accounts they furnish in a clear and non-ambiguous way. Equifax can not merely take the furnisher 's wird for the data provided if the name of the company does not match the address and phone number. This is sloppy investigation by Equifax and has no value to any reader as printed today. Additionally, to state that it is correct is also mail fraud on the part of Equifax. Equifax ca n't mail false information and declare it true and verified. It is not true and it was not verified. The length of time used to get to a worse report than the original is willful non-compliance with FCRA. The intent of that law is to accurately report in a meaningful way. Equifax should note that many of the complaints at CFPB are inter-related.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation