Consumer complaint received 2025-08-31 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
What happened Barclays furnished derogatory late-payment information on my account, but has not proven compliance with the FCRA and accuracy standards : 1. No proof of timely Notice of Negative Information ( 623 ( a ) ( 7 ) ).

Barclays own timeline shows the first 30-day late was furnished around XX/XX/XXXX ( no payment posted until XX/XX/XXXX ). Barclays claims generic we may report language appears on statements and that I was on paperless billing, but they have not produced the actual 623 ( a ) ( 7 ) notice or any delivery records/E-SIGN consent proving that notice was delivered to me no later than 30 days after the first furnish.

2. Inaccurate / inconsistent reporting across CRAs and inadequate furnisher reinvestigation ( 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), 623 ( b ) ; Reg V App. E ).

XXXX  and XXXX  show different late-month histories for the same period ( e.g., TU : XXXX, XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX vs. EX : XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ; Equifax appears incomplete/not aligned ). After my disputes, Barclays asserted the data is accurate but did not provide any ACDV/AUD ( e-OSCAR ) results or a uniform correction/deletion across all CRAs, as required by 623 ( b ). This fails the accuracy/integrity standards ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1022, Regulation V Appendix E ) and leaves conflicting data on my reports.

3. Dispute-flag timing issue ( 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) ).

Barclays says my tradeline has been shown as in dispute only since XX/XX/XXXX. If they furnished updates before that date while my dispute was pending, those furnishes should have included the dispute indicator. Barclays has not provided dates showing compliant dispute coding on each furnish.

4. Missing Metro-2 field substantiation ( no DOFD / Payment History Profile ).

Barclays has not provided the Date of First Delinquency ( Field 25 ) or the Payment History Profile they furnished, which are necessary to confirm no re-aging and to reconcile month-by-month accuracy across all CRAs.

Why this matters Because Barclays hasnt proven timely 623 ( a ) ( 7 ) notice delivery and hasnt corrected or deleted inconsistent late-month reporting across all CRAs after disputes, the derogatory data remains unverified and inconsistent, harming my credit.

What I want Barclays to do Produce proof of 623 ( a ) ( 7 ) compliance : the exact notice page/letter tied to this account and delivery evidence ( mail logs or valid e-delivery with E-SIGN consent + server logs ) showing the notice was delivered within 30 days after the first furnish in XX/XX/XXXX. 
If they can not, require deletion of the affected late-payment codes with all CRAs.

Provide 623 ( b ) reinvestigation results : the XXXX trail and the specific corrections ( or deletions ) they made ; then synchronize the tradeline so the same accurate month-by-month history appears with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

Provide Metro-2 field set for XXXX : DOFD ( Field 25 ), Payment History Profile, Account Status, Special Comment/Compliance Condition, and relevant dates ; correct any errors or re-aging. 
Confirm dispute-flag timing and correct any prior furnishes that lacked the required dispute indicator.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation