Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because of significant issues related to the reporting, verification, and reinvestigation of a derogatory account furnished by XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). This account appears on my credit report as a collection/charge-off with a reported past-due balance of {$1200.00}, a last payment date of XX/XX/year>, and a derogatory status reported exclusively on XXXX. However, after reviewing my credit reports and disputing this information, it is clear that XXXX XXXX XXXX has reported incomplete, unverified, and potentially inaccurate information, has not provided the documentation required under federal law, and has failed to validate the debt or support the reporting with any original contractual or transactional evidence. 

This complaint explains in detail what happened, why XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX reporting appears to violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and why the investigative and verification process conducted by both AM XXXX XXXX and the credit bureau was inadequate. 

XXXX. How I Discovered the Issue With XXXX XXXX XXXX  While reviewing my credit reports, I identified a derogatory entry reported by AM XXXX XXXX. The account appears as : Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX Status : Collection/Charge-Off Past Due Amount : {$1200.00} Last Payment Date : XX/XX/year> Derogatory Reporting : TransUnion only This information XXXX multiple concerns : I did not receive any charge-off notice from XXXX  XXXX XXXX. 

I did not receive any debt validation letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

I did not receive any documentation that would support a charge-off. 

The account was reported without prior communication. 

No original contract or agreement was ever provided. 

The information appears on only XXXX bureau, which is unusual and often a sign of inaccurate or incomplete furnishing. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX did not provide any documentation when I disputed the account. 

Because the reporting appeared inconsistent and unsupported, I began a formal dispute process. 

XXXX. Initial Concerns With XXXX  XXXX Finances Reporting The information furnished by XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX contained multiple inconsistencies and red flags : a. The charged-off balance was unexplained. 

There was no breakdown of : original loan amount, principal remaining, accrued interest, fees added, adjustments, or the calculation method used to reach {$1200.00}. 

b. No documentation was provided with the charge-off label. 

A legitimate charge-off requires : notification to the consumer, a final accounting statement, documentation of default, and internal records showing the charge-off process. 

None of this was provided. 

XXXX XXXX reporting across bureaus. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXeported the derogatory entry on only XXXX bureau. 
Accurate reporting generally appears across all three, unless the furnishers data is incomplete or inaccurate. 

d. No proof of ownership or servicing. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX did not provide : proof that they owned the account at the time of charge-off, proof of assignment, or proof that the account was legally reportable. 

e. No evidence the account belongs to me. 

No signed contract, application, or validation was provided. 

XXXX. I Filed Formal Disputes With All Three Credit Bureaus After discovering the questionable XXXX XXXX XXXX  entry, I filed disputes with : TransUnion ( the bureau reporting the derogatory entry ) Equifax Experian Even though only TransUnion displayed the derogatory entry, I disputed with all three bureaus to ensure accuracy and consistency. 

In each dispute, I specifically requested : The method of verification Copies of any documentation XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX provided The original signed contract A full payment history Charge-off statements Proof that the amount of {$1200.00} is correct Proof that AM XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX owned the account Manual reinvestigation not automated e-OSCAR responses I also requested : all notes used during the reinvestigation, internal audit trails, communication between the bureau and AM XXXX XXXX XXXX and a detailed description of how the furnisher verified the account. 

XXXX. The Credit Bureau XXXX Not XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX When the credit bureau responded, the letter stated : The furnisher has verified the information as accurate. 

However : No contract was provided No billing statements were provided No evidence of loan terms was provided No payment history was provided No charge-off documentation was provided No validation was provided No method of verification was provided No proof that XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX documents was provided This response strongly suggests that no actual reinvestigation occurred, and that the verification was conducted through XXXX  automated coding system, which simply takes the furnishers response at face value. 

Such a process is inadequate and violates : FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) Right to a reasonable reinvestigation FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A ) Right to a description of procedures used FCRA 607 ( b ) Requirement for maximum possible accuracy XXXX. XXXX  XXXX XXXX Failed to Provide ANY Validation of the Debt Under federal law, a furnisher must provide validation when a consumer disputes an account. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX did NOT provide : proof that the debt exists, proof that the debt belongs to me, proof of the amount, proof of the interest added, proof of the charge-off, proof of ownership, or any original documentation. 

There has been XXXX evidence produced by XXXX XXXX XXXX to verify : the account number, the balance, the dates reported, the payment history, or the legitimacy of the debt itself. 

XXXX. Inconsistencies in AM XXXX Finances Reporting Several aspects of the AM XXXX FIN account are inconsistent : a. The last payment date is unclear and unsupported. 

The credit report states : Last payment : XX/XX/year>. 
No proof of this payment was provided. 

b. The delinquency timeline is missing. 

There is no record showing : when missed payments occurred, how many were missed, when the account became delinquent, or when it was charged off. 

c. The account appears only on XXXX bureau. 

If XXXX XXXX XXXX genuinely charged off the account, it would normally appear across all three credit bureaus. 

The presence of the account on only XXXX bureau strongly suggests : incomplete reporting, inaccurate reporting, or improper furnishing. 

d. No dispute notation was added. 

After filing disputes, XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to mark the account as consumer disputes this account, violating FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ). 

XXXX. AM XXXX XXXX Did NOT Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation A reasonable reinvestigation requires : reviewing original documents, reviewing account history, comparing furnished data to internal records, manually verifying accuracy, and resolving discrepancies. 

It appears that none of these steps occurred. 

Instead, XXXX XXXX XXXX appears to have responded with : Verified. 

This is not a reinvestigation ; it is an automated response. 

XXXX verification does not meet the standards of the FCRA. 

XXXX. The Reporting of XXXXXXXX  XXXX XXXX Has Caused Real Harm Because of the derogatory reporting from XXXX  XXXX XXXX, I experienced : lower credit scores, higher interest rates, potential denials for credit lines, reduced lending options, negative impact on credit decisions, emotional stress, and financial injury. 

These damages are a direct result of : inaccurate reporting, unverified information, and failure to comply with the FCRA. 

XXXX. Summary of What Happened To summarize : XXXX XXXX XXXX furnished a derogatory charge-off account for {$1200.00}. 

No documentation supporting the report was ever provided. 

I disputed the accuracy with the credit bureaus. 

The credit bureau claimed the account was verified without documentation. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX did not produce the contract, history, or validation. 

The account appears only on XXXX bureau, indicating possible inaccuracies. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX did not mark the account as disputed. 

There are inconsistencies in dates and reporting. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. 

The continued reporting has caused harm. 

Because XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to validate the account, failed to demonstrate ownership, failed to provide documentation, and failed to comply with FCRA reinvestigation requirements, the account can not be considered verified.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation