Consumer complaint received 2026-02-10 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Trident Asset Management, L.L.C.
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
COMPLAINT SUMMARY This complaint concerns ongoing, repeated, and unresolved violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) arising from Trident Asset Management, LLCs continued furnishing of materially inaccurate, misleading, and internally inconsistent credit information, despite multiple disputes, prior CFPB complaints, and Tridents own written admissions that contradict its credit reporting. 
This is a new CFPB complaint based on new documentary evidence, post-dispute reporting changes, improper re-aging, creditor role misrepresentation, continued fee assessment after charge-off, and retroactive alteration of account status. These violations can not be cured through partial correction. 
BACKGROUND & PRIOR NOTICE This tradeline has been disputed multiple times and was previously the subject of CFPB complaints, including CFPB Reference No. XXXX. Trident has been placed on notice repeatedly that its reporting is inaccurate. 
Rather than correcting or deleting the tradeline, Trident has continued to furnish misleading information and has modified the reporting in ways that further distort the accounts true history. Marking an account as disputed does not cure inaccurate reporting, improper re-aging, balance inflation, or status manipulation under the FCRA. 
FACTUAL INACCURACIES & FCRA VIOLATIONS XXXX. Creditor Role and Ownership Misrepresentation In written correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, Trident Asset Management, XXXX states that : The original creditor is XXXX XXXX Bank The current owner of the debt is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is acting solely as a XXXX-party debt collector Despite this admission, Trident continues to furnish the tradeline in a manner inconsistent with a third-party collection role. An entity can not simultaneously disclaim ownership while furnishing data in a creditor-like capacity. This is materially misleading and violates XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). 
XXXX. Improper Re-Aging / False Account Opened Date The collection tradeline reports an opened date of approximately XX/XX/XXXX, which does not reflect the true age of the underlying XXXX  XXXX Bank account. 
XXXX XXXX Bank billing statements dated XX/XX/XXXX show : A past-due balance A payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX Ongoing fees and interest while the account was already delinquent These records establish that the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) occurred well before XXXX. Reporting a later collection placement date in lieu of the true XXXX constitutes illegal re-aging in violation of XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) and artificially extends the tradelines negative impact. 
XXXX. Continued Fees and Balance Inflation After Charge-Off The XXXX XXXX Bank statements show that fees and interest continued to be assessed after the account was charged off, despite the account no longer functioning as an active revolving credit line. 
Carrying forward or incorporating post-charge-off fees without contractual or legal authority inflates the balance, misrepresents the true amount owed, and renders the tradeline inaccurate and unverifiable. Trident is now furnishing a balance that includes these improperly assessed amounts without providing documentation authorizing such charges, in violation of XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). 
XXXX. Improper Monthly Collection Status Updating The tradeline reflects monthly collection status updates in XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, despite : No payments No consumer activity No change in legal status This rolling reporting falsely refreshes derogatory impact and constitutes misleading freshness reporting, prohibited under XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ). 
XXXX. Improper Removal of Charge-Off Status and Replacement With Rolling Collection Reporting The account was previously reported with a charge-off status associated with the underlying XXXX  XXXX Bank XXXX. Within the past XXXX months, XXXX altered the reporting to remove the charge-off status and replace it with new monthly collection updates, despite no change in the legal or factual status of the debt. 
This retroactive modification constitutes rewriting of historical credit data and is materially misleading. A furnisher may not suppress or replace a charge-off with rolling collection updates to refresh derogatory impact or alter how the account is evaluated by consumer reporting agencies. 
Replacing a charge-off with ongoing collection activity does not reset delinquency, does not create a new reporting event, and does not permit continued monthly negative reporting. This practice constitutes status manipulation, improper re-aging by substitution, and inaccurate furnishing, in violation of XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) and XXXX ( a ). 
This change occurred after prior disputes and CFPB complaints, demonstrating continued furnishing of inaccurate information after notice and raising willfulness concerns under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. 
XXXX. Misleading Threat of XXXX XXXX XXXX Tridents XX/XX/XXXX letter states the debt will continue to be reported as unpaid for as long as the law permits. This language is misleading and omits that credit reporting is strictly limited to XXXX years from the Date of XXXX Delinquency, not from collection placement or account transfer. 
XXXX. Failure to Provide Proof of Assignment or Authority Although Trident  claims XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX purchased the debt, no bill of sale, assignment agreement, or chain-of-title documentation has been provided. Without proof of lawful transfer and reporting authority, continued furnishing is unverifiable and non-compliant. 
XXXX. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation Despite repeated disputes submitted through consumer reporting agencies and the CFPB, Trident has failed to conduct or demonstrate a reasonable investigation as required under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). Prior responses avoided the specific inaccuracies raised and relied instead on generic FDCPA language. 
REQUESTED RELIEF Because this tradeline contains multiple interdependent inaccuracies, including : Creditor and ownership misrepresentation Improper re-aging Suppression of charge-off history Rolling collection updates Post-charge-off fee inflation Partial correction is insufficient. 
I request : Immediate and complete deletion of this tradeline from XXXX XXXX and XXXX Written confirmation of deletion Absent deletion, Trident must provide documentary proof supporting every reported date, balance component, and reporting authority. 
ATTACHMENTS Trident Asset Management, XXXX letter dated XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank billing statements ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Credit report screenshots showing re-aging, rolling updates, and status changes Prior CFPB correspondence and reference numbers CLOSING Trident Asset Management, XXXX has been placed on notice repeatedly that its reporting is materially inaccurate. Continued furnishing, combined with post-dispute status manipulation, demonstrates an ongoing pattern of noncompliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act rather than an isolated error.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation