Consumer complaint received 2025-07-16 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: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
Formal Rebuttal to Equifaxs CFPB Response to my complaint Request for Deletion Submitted by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Rebuttal to Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX Response to my claim XXXX Failure to Correct or Delete Tradeline Due to Inaccurate Reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX am submitting this formal rebuttal to Equifaxs response XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, regarding my complaint concerning inaccurate and defamatory reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) with you the ( CFPB ) having received updated billing history from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) in separate complaint against XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX proving further inaccuracies and violations. 
XXXX investigation failed to address, correct the documented errors I presented and delete the tradeline from my credit file. 

I am requesting immediate deletion of the inaccurate PenFed account from my Equifax credit file pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). 

PLEASE NOTE THAT XXXX COMPLIED WITH ( FCRA ) DELETING IT Summary of My Dispute I disputed the tradeline associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( auto loan ) with full verifications via certified mail on XX/XX/XXXX to Equifax, XXXX XXXX XXXX and then filed complaint with the CFPB because : XXXX. Equifax is reporting false delinquencies from XXXX through XXXX, including 60, 90, 120, and 150-day lates, as well as continuous charge-off status, which are not supported by the factual billing history and verifications provided AS SUPPORTED BY EQUIFAX 'S OWN REPORTING ON MY CREDIT FILE AS FOLLOWS AND EVIDENCE ATTACHED PROVIDED XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX are marked as " '' ( on-time ), yet XXXX are all marked 60 days late This is inaccurate reporting and here is why : A payment marked 60 days late in XX/XX/XXXX means no payment was made in both XXXX and XXXX or the XXXX payment was 30 days late, and no payment was made in XXXX. 

But in your report and supporting documentation, XXXX and XXXX are marked on time ( ), which contradicts the logic needed for a XXXX delinquency to appear in XXXX. 

Reporting Error : Backdated Corrections or Adjustment Misapplied or Miscredited Payments : If XXXX  received payments in XXXX and XXXX but applied them to other months ( e.g., past due balances ), they XXXX have internally marked your account as rolling delinquent. But they still reported XXXX as on-time, which would be deceptive. 

This reporting is internally inconsistent and misleading. If XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payments were made on time ( as reported ), then XX/XX/XXXX can not be 60 days late. This contradicts ( FCRA ) guidelines requiring accurate and consistent reporting. I request full deletion of this tradeline due to materially misleading and inaccurate information. 


XXXX. I provided Equifax with verifiable proof that the reporting was false, including : Bank statements and XXXX XXXXs own records verifying full and timely payments throughout the loan ( e.g., {$420.00} on-time payment posted XX/XX/XXXX initiated as automatic reoccurring payment ) NOW UPDATED TO REFLECT PER XXXX 'S FRAUDULENT UPDATED BILLING HISTORY PROVIDED TO THE ( CFPB ) : that not only is this an incorrect late payment ; they applied the referenced above payment fraudulently for only {$390.00} while stating falsely to the CFPB that they reversed late fees when clearly they applied them within payments, deflating the payments and inflating the loan further. 

XXXX. The pattern repeats with XXXX and XXXX being current ( ) with on-time payments verified with a skip payment misapplied reflecting for XX/XX/XXXX. Regardless of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX agreement the skip payment for 1 year of on time good payment history reward was agreed to be applied toward XX/XX/XXXX yet that still reflects as a missed/late payment as to intentionally inflate the loan and attempt to deceptively make the loan appear delinquent What the Report Shows : XX/XX/XXXX : ( On-time ) XX/XX/XXXX : ( On-time ) XX/XX/XXXX : 60 days late Inconsistency Identified : This is another clear contradiction in Equifaxs reported history. Here 's why : XXXX and XXXX are shown as on-time. 

That means payments for those months were made by the due date But XXXX is marked as 60 days late. 

A XXXX late in XXXX would require missed payments in both XXXX and XXXX which were reported as paid on time with no delinquency on record This violates credit reporting logic and potentially FCRA rules requiring accuracy and consistency. According to standard credit bureau and XXXX XXXX reporting XXXX. Documentation of a repossessed vehicle Sold at auction when fraudulent and misleading notice that was never sent violating Washington State repossession law clearly states would be sold to private party and only {$2000.00} was credited toward the loan then a few days later according to vehicle history report was resold at fair market by affiliate for value based on the condition the vehicle was truly in for {$10000.00} and was never properly credited to the loan. A plethora of further evidence is readily available to support that the vehicle was in excellent condition at the time of repossession that I already provided to Equifax Proof of fraudulent CPI insurance charged to the loan by XXXX using an expired XXXX XXXX policy as an excuse to inflate the loan, despite proof of active XXXX coverage that XXXX  was aware of since XXXX with them listed as the lien holder payee on the policy and the loan was never properly credited fully. Also note that XXXX was preparing to repossess the vehicle and did so days later, using this as a reason to further inflate the loan beforehand XXXX false claim to the CFPB of applying a prorated {$2400.00} GAP refund, which is not reflected in the transaction history either Despite all this evidence, Equifax failed to remove the inaccurate tradeline and instead issued a generic response stating the account was " updated '' based on information from the furnisher. This is not a proper reinvestigation under federal law.

Legal Basis for Deletion Under the FCRA Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Equifax is required to conduct a meaningful and accurate investigation of disputed information : FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Upon receiving a dispute from a consumer, the credit bureau must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate.

> Equifax failed to do so by blindly accepting XXXX manipulated records, without resolving the documented evidence of misapplied payments, wrongful fees, and contradictory account histories.

FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Obligation to Delete Inaccurate or Unverifiable Information > If, after any reinvestigation ... an item of information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer 's file. 

I provided conclusive proof that : XXXX misreported payments and inflated fees The vehicle was resold and the balance misrepresented XXXX violated multiple federal and state laws Equifax did not verify these details, and therefore must delete the tradeline, not merely update it. 

FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Duties of Furnishers After Notice of Dispute XXXX had a duty to correct or delete inaccurate information after being notified by Equifax. Instead, they reaffirmed false data, and Equifax failed to override it with the independent evidence I submitted. Both parties are now in violation. 

SUMMARY OF KEY VIOLATIONS Period Discrepancy Violation XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX lates despite disputed payments FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ), XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Blank month during active delinquency FCRA 1681e ( b ) XXXX XXXX XXXX reported while still collecting or applying funds FDCPA 1692e, FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) All of 2024 Ongoing " CO '' despite vehicle sale and claimed refunds FCRA 1681i, 1681s-2 ( b ) 2025 Continued " CO '' without clarity on refund/deficiency status FCRA 1681e ( b ), RCW 62A.9A-611 Demand for Action I am requesting that the CFPB reopen and escalate this dispute against Equifax, and that the following action be taken : 1. Immediate deletion of the XXXX tradeline from my Equifax credit report due to failure to verify and false reporting ; 2. Full reinvestigation with inclusion of my submitted evidence ; 3. Referral for enforcement under the FCRA and applicable state and federal consumer protection laws as follows : I. FEDERAL LAWS VIOLATED BY EQUIFAX AND XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.

Violations : 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing information known to be inaccurate * XXXX reported false late payments ( e.g., XX/XX/XXXX ) despite confirmed bank receipt and their online records showing full, on-time payments. 


1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) Failure to properly investigate disputes - Equifax * When you filed disputes via the credit bureaus, XXXX failed to correct or delete the clearly inaccurate data and instead reaffirmed false reporting. 


1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Duty of credit bureaus to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation Equifax relied on XXXX false statements and did not address your documented proof, violating their obligation to reinvestigate properly. 


2. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. 

> Applies because XXXX collected a debt using deceptive and unfair practices post-default. 



Violations : 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) False representation of the character or amount of a debt * XXXX inflated your balance with unearned CPI insurance and failed to credit proceeds from the sale of your repossessed vehicle. 


XXXX ( XXXX ) Communicating false credit information Continued to report false delinquencies to credit bureaus even after being shown proof of errors. 


1692f ( 1 ) Attempting to collect unauthorized or inflated amounts Charged for insurance you did not owe ( XXXX ), refused to apply a GAP refund, and falsely reduced the vehicle sale credit.

3. Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.

Violations : Failure to apply payments as agreed Payments were misapplied to inflated fees rather than principal/interest, altering the loan amortization.

Undisclosed finance charges The added CPI insurance was never properly disclosed and was based on an expired policy you no longer held.

II. WASHINGTON STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS VIOLATED 1. Washington Consumer Protection Act ( CPA ) RCW 19.86 > Protects consumers from unfair or deceptive practices in trade or commerce.

Violations : RCW 19.86.020 Unfair or deceptive acts or practices Misrepresentation of your account status to credit bureaus False denial of agreed payment plans ( e.g., bump or skip payments ) Continuously blocking your account access online to prevent resolution Sending deceptive repossession and sale notices 2. Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) Repossession Rules RCW 62A.9A Violations : RCW 62A.9A-614 Required post-repossession written notice > Notice must include date, time, and location of sale to allow consumer redemption rights. 



* XXXX did not send you a valid post-repossession notice as they claimed and provided no proof thereof while said letter still is not compliant with Washington State consumer protection repossession laws regardless Claimed a false intent to sell the vehicle to a private party while it was already placed in auction.

RCW 62A.9A-610 Requirement to sell collateral in a commercially reasonable manner * XXXX via affiliates resold your repossessed vehicle for {$10000.00} yet only credited {$2000.00} to the loan.

This is not commercially reasonable and violates your right to have the proceeds fairly applied.

3. Washington Insurance Code RCW 48.30 > Governs unlawful insurance practices. 

Violations : RCW 48.30.010 ( 1 ) Unfair or deceptive insurance practices * XXXX charged for CPI insurance after falsely claiming you lacked coverage, even though you had an active XXXX policy naming XXXX  as lienholder. 

They relied on a XXXX expired XXXX policy to justify these charges in XXXX XXXX. Additional Unfair Practices Documented Wrongful denial of bump payment plan * XXXX  falsely told the CFPB it offers bump payment arrangements and hardship assistance as it is dedicated to assisting its members, yet said it has no record of offering it to you, but phone recordings and your written correspondence show they neglected your loan completely Vehicle Condition Misrepresentation * XXXX  claimed the vehicle was in poor condition to justify a lower resale valuation at auction. 

* You provided a XXXX inspection from XX/XX/XXXX and a XXXX maintenance report showing the vehicle was in excellent condition with recent repairs. 

Debt resolution prevention deceptions * XXXX stated to the CFPB that they sold the debt to XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX but you provided an email between you and XXXX XXXX XXXX representative that the debt was recalled back to the house of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX stated to the CFPB that they have no record of you requesting full account information prior to XX/XX/XXXX when you provided email evidence between you and XXXX XXXX XXXX representative requesting complete and full history payment history with credits and all in XX/XX/XXXX Conclusion : Actionable Violations Justifying Compensation, Deletion, and Enforcement The documented pattern of : False payment reporting, Misapplied payments, Illegal repossession procedures, Deceptive balance inflation, And bad-faith credit dispute responses On a final note another round full dispute with all enclosed evidence herein and documentation with all identification verifications will be mailed certified to Equifax again and if not deleted immediately this matter will be further legally escalated to seek civil lawsuit Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am prepared to submit all supporting exhibits again and provide testimony regarding the ongoing harm caused by this false reporting. 

Sincerely, ON RECORD ( concealed due to public posting ) ( * Legal assistant statements based upon documentation and verifications reviewed and compared to factual law violations )

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation