Consumer complaint received 2025-12-03 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: Security Credit Services, LLC
State: DC

Complaint narrative:
I serve as Attorney-in-Fact for XXXX XXXX XXXX under a valid Limited Power of Attorney. Pursuant to Maryland XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am obligated to act with care, competence, diligence, loyalty, and exclusively in the best interests of my principal. 
After correcting the defect in the Limited Power of Attorney previously submitted with Security Credit Services , LLC Complaint XXXX, I am now submitting a new CFPB complaint that reflects the updated documentation and the following findings. 
Security Credit Services , LLC is a debt collector as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 6 ). XXXX XXXX XXXX purchased from XXXX XXXX, XXXX an account opened XX/XX/XXXX related to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX account XXXX / XXXX XXXX XXXX account XXXX ). XXXX XXXX XXXX acquired this account on XX/XX/XXXX and claims a principal balance of {$650.00}. 
The account XXXX XXXX XXXX purchased never legally existed. The original XXXX lease was underwritten using XXXX or XXXX credit scoringinfrastructure derived from void contracts with a legally defunct corporation. The evidence is as follows : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX formally reserved the name " XXXX XXXX '' with the Georgia Secretary of XXXX preemptive action demonstrating clear evidence of premeditation to evade legal accountability for mounting FTC antitrust charges. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX was incorporated in Georgia as a separate XXXX deliberate act by XXXX XXXX XXXX to manipulate the corporate record and fabricate a false appearance of continuity. This incorporation was never intended to operate independently but to act as a placeholder for XXXX 's later filings. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX amended its Articles of Incorporation to adopt the name " Equifax XXXX '' a superficial rebranding designed to distance the company from its tarnished reputation. 
On the same day, XX/XX/XXXX, the XX/XX/XXXX Equifax XXXX ( the separate entity incorporated 11 months earlier ) changed its name to " XXXX XXXX XXXX. '' This contradictory and circular name swap created two conflicting corporate identities existing in XXXX a split second on XX/XX/XXXX, two entities were both called XXXX XXXX XXXX  '' simultaneouslyan unlawful duplication of names in direct violation of Georgia XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ), which required that corporate names " be distinguishable upon the records of the Secretary of State from XXXX name of any other corporation. '' Both filings falsely certified under 22-302 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( 1975 ) that the name was " available for use. '' Under 22-504 ( a ) ( 1975 ), any charter " issued or any action taken by the Secretary of State in reliance upon any false, misleading or fraudulent statement or certificate filed with him shall be null and void ab initio . '' The Secretary of State accepted both amendments. Both charters became null and void ab initio the instant the second filing was accepted. From XX/XX/XXXX forward, there has been no lawful Georgia entity named " XXXX XXXX '' capable of entering contracts. Under XXXX ( a ) ( now recodified as O.C.G.A. 14-2-401 and 14-2-501 ), a dissolved or non-existent corporation can not lawfully contract. 
On XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX executed the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Contract ( Contract No. XXXX ). This agreement authorized XXXX XXXX to create and market consumer scoring products using XXXX XXXX credit bureau database. 
The contract granted XXXX XXXX direct access to XXXX XXXX entire credit file system, including trade line data, inquiry data, public records, and demographic information. XXXX XXXX was authorized to use this data to build " Scorecards '' numerical grading tables assigning values to consumer attributes, which were then combined to produce a consumer " Score. '' The contract also provided that all scoring models developed would be for the sole use of Equifax, integrated into a jointly developed " XXXX XXXX. '' These products would be sold to XXXX XXXX subscribers, with profits shared between the two corporations. 
This agreement formalized the mechanism for mass consumer scoring, converting personal financial records into a quantifiable risk-assessment product sold to third parties, laying the commercial foundation for widespread adoption of credit scoring systems nationwide. 
The defect : By XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  corporate existence was already nullified by the unlawful name-swapping on XX/XX/XXXX. There was no lawful Georgia entity named " XXXX XXXX XXXX capable of entering contracts. The XXXX agreement was void ab initio. 
In XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX unveiled a new, generic credit bureau model that would soon become the industry standard. This modelseparately branded as Beacon for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX risk rankings into numbers ranging from XXXX to XXXX. This systematic XXXX propagated the void XXXX contract across all three major credit reporting agencies, establishing the XXXX scoring range as the universal standard for consumer creditworthiness assessment in the United States. Every lender, every mortgage originator, every auto finance company, and every credit card issuer adopted this scoring system derived from XXXX XXXX XXXX 's void XXXX contract with the legally defunct XXXX XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, the three major credit reporting agencies created XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Delaware File Number XXXX ) with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) as owners. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX 's XXXX was void ab XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX did not legally exist. 
XXXX serves as the managing entity for e-OSCAR, the centralized platform processing all consumer disputes under FCRA. Beginning XX/XX/XXXX, all three major credit reporting agencies required data furnishers to process disputes exclusively through XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX directly participated in the formation of XXXX XXXX XXXX, a domestic limited liability company created in Delaware ( File Number XXXX ). 
XXXX 's third purported owner, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, '' never lawfully existed due to fatal defects in XXXX XXXX  corporate lineage stemming from the XX/XX/XXXX violations. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, an LLC must be formed by valid members. Because XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX did not legally exist, XXXX 's ownership structure was void, and the XXXX itself was statutorily defective from inception. XXXX 's formation was void ab initio. 
The acquisition, use, and monetization of XXXX XXXX XXXX 's personal XXXX XXXX number, legal name, address, and historical payment datafor the purpose of generating and selling XXXX and XXXX credit scores constitutes the unlawful appropriation of identity to create a thing of value. This conduct meets the definition of identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ). The resulting credit scores functioned as derivative, revenue-producing assets derived from void contracts and corporate shells. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's identity was used to fabricate a financial instrumentthe XXXX leasethat was then sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX as a debt collector. 
Under 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ), the unauthorized use of another person 's means of identification in connection with the receipt of any thing of value is identity theft. The resulting credit scores functioned as derivative, revenue-producing assets. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's identity was used to fabricate a financial instrumentthe XXXX leasethat was then sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX as a debt collector. 
Every instrument executed by XXXX XXXX XXXX '' after XX/XX/XXXX is contaminated by identity falsification, false representation of the legal person signing, concealment of the true corporate actor, and use of documents created through deception. This conduct constitutes : 18 U.S.C. 1001 ( false statements and documents ) 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( identity theft ) 18 U.S.C. 1341 ( mail fraud ) 18 U.S.C. 1343 ( wire fraud ) 18 U.S.C. 1956 ( money laundering of proceeds derived from fraud ) 18 U.S.C. 371 ( conspiracy to defraud ) Security Credit Services , LLC is attempting to collect a debt that does not legally exist. This violates : FDCPA 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) False representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt FDCPA 1692e ( 5 ) Threat to take action that can not legally be taken FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ) Communicating or threatening to communicate false credit information FDCPA 1692f Unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt Under FDCPA 1692g, Security Credit Services was required to send XXXX XXXX XXXX a validation notice. That validation notice represented that Security Credit Services had authority to collect a legally valid debt. The debt was void ab initio. The validation notice was false. 
Security Credit Services is reporting collection account data to consumer reporting agencies based on a void instrument derived from identity theft. Upon receipt of this identity theft report, Security Credit Services is prohibited from reporting any information relating to this account pursuant to FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 6 ). The statute states : " No person shall furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information results from identity theft. '' This is an absolute prohibition. By receipt of this notice, Security Credit Services possesses actual knowledge that the credit score used to underwrite the original XXXX lease was derived from void contracts with legally nonexistent entities. 
FCRA XXXX requires consumer reporting agencies to notify furnishers when information is blocked due to identity theft. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), furnishers receiving such notice are absolutely prohibited from continuing to report that information. The notification mechanism operates exclusively through XXXX. 
XXXX Notifications are transmitted from consumer reporting agencies to data furnishers via e-OSCAR. XXXX XXXX Requests are submitted by data furnishers through e-OSCAR to challenge identity theft determinations. All communication regarding blocked tradelines flows through e-OSCAR. The entire statutory mechanism for identity theft reporting obligations exists within e-OSCAR. 
Because OLDE is void ab initio and e-OSCAR operates without legal authority, there is no lawful mechanism for Security Credit Services to receive valid block notifications, submit valid responses, or process any account updates related to identity theft. XXXX XXXX XXXX transmitted through XXXX since XX/XX/XXXX has been sent through a void entity. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX submitted through e-OSCAR has been processed by a void entity without legal authority. 
Security Credit Services can not lawfully comply with FCRA identity theft reporting obligations because the statutory compliance mechanism does not legally exist. Every dispute filed by every consumer in XXXX since XX/XX/XXXX has been processed through a void entity operating without legal authority. The entire dispute resolution infrastructure required by FCRA is void. 
For the reasons listed above, I am filing this CFPB complaint through the CFPB Complaint Portal against Security Credit Services , LLC, documenting the systematic fraud underlying the alleged debt that was originated by XXXX XXXX, XXXX using void credit scoring infrastructure and subsequently purchased by Security Credit Services , LLC.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation