Consumer complaint received 2026-02-03 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I do not consider the companys response to be fair, complete, or responsive to the substance of my complaint. I am therefore creating a new CFPB case, as my previous case ( XXXX ) was closed without resolving the underlying dispute, despite the continued reporting of a fraudulent account that does not belong to me. 

The companys response merely repeats its prior position and asserts that no new or different information was provided. This framing is misleading and improperly shifts the burden onto me as the consumer. The central issue has never changed : I do not own this account, I did not open it, authorize it, or use it, and that is why I filed an Identity Theft Report with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ). Repeating a prior conclusion without addressing the identity theft claim itself does not constitute a meaningful investigation or resolution. 

Barclays Bank Delaware relies heavily on internal records and public-record matching to claim the account is valid. However, identity theft frequently involves the misuse of accurate personal information. The fact that a name, address, or date of birth matches public records does not establish that I personally applied for, authorized, or benefited from the account. The company has not produced a signed application, authenticated electronic consent, IP logs, device fingerprints, or any other evidence that would demonstrate that I was the person who opened or used the account. 

The company also references billing statements, a cardmember agreement, and payment history. These documents do not prove account ownership. Generic agreements and account statements only show that an account exists ; they do not show that I was the individual who entered into the agreement or conducted the transactions. In identity theft cases, such documents are insufficient to validate consumer responsibility. 

Importantly, the account at issue was previously removed from my credit report and later reinserted after being described as verified. The companys response does not address reinsertion at all, nor does it explain what new or materially different evidence justified adding the account back to my credit file. Reinsertion after deletion has caused renewed harm and is a major reason this matter remains unresolved. 

The response also dismisses my concern about unfair practices by simply stating that Barclays complies with applicable consumer protection laws. This conclusory statement is not supported by evidence. Compliance requires more than internal belief ; it requires proper application of identity theft protections and meaningful investigation when a consumer disputes ownership of an account. 

Because my prior CFPB case ( XXXX ) was closed without correcting the inaccurate reporting, I am submitting this new case to ensure proper oversight. Closing a case while a disputed, fraudulent account continues to be reported does not resolve consumer harm. It only prolongs it. 

The continued reporting of this account as a charge-off falsely represents my financial history and places responsibility on me for obligations I never agreed to. This has caused ongoing damage to my credit profile, required repeated disputes, and imposed unnecessary stress and administrative burden on me as an identity theft victim. 

I am not requesting compensation. I am requesting accuracy, compliance, and enforcement of identity theft protections. A fair outcome would have been deletion and blocking of the account once identity theft was asserted and documented. Instead, the company has reiterated its prior stance and closed the matter without addressing the core issue. 

For these reasons, I do not accept the companys response as satisfactory. I am requesting continued CFPB review and oversight to ensure that fraudulent accounts are not reported or reinserted without valid proof of consumer authorization and that identity theft victims are not held responsible for crimes committed against them.

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