Consumer complaint received 2026-01-27 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was paid
Company: TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
TD BANK USA/Target Card Services is furnishing materially inaccurate and inconsistent information to consumer reporting agencies and has failed to provide a reasonable, documented investigation of my written dispute. The company is also treating the account as currently collectible while simultaneously reporting it as charged off, creating a serious question of ownership, authority, and standing to collect and/or furnish adverse credit information. In addition, the data being furnished appears inconsistent with standardized credit reporting requirements ( Metro 2 ), which is contributing to inaccurate and incomplete reporting across XXXX XXXX and XXXX. 

Timeline XX/XX/year> : I sent TD BANK USA/Target Card Services a written direct dispute requesting a reasonable investigation, supporting documentation, and written communications only. 

Disputed credit reporting fields and investigation failures Balance / Past Due Amount ( material discrepancy ) : TD/Target reflects an alleged balance of {$800.00}, while XXXXXXXX XXXX  and XXXX  report {$1200.00} with charge-off/past due reporting. This is a material numeric discrepancy requiring a complete account ledger and itemization showing how any balance was calculated and what amount is being furnished to each CRA. 

Status reporting conflict ( charge-off vs. active collection posture ) : TD Bank/Target is continuing to treat the account as actively collectible while the tradeline is reported as charged off. While a charge-off does not automatically eliminate an obligation, it reasonably raises the issue of who owns the account now, who has authority to collect, and who is furnishing data to each CRA. The company must reconcile its collection posture with its credit reporting and provide competent records supporting the status and amounts furnished. 

Standing/ authority to collect and furnish ( ownership/agency proof required ) : If the account was charged off and/or transferred, sold, assigned, placed with a servicer, or placed with a collector, TD Bank/Target must provethrough competent business recordscurrent ownership or, if not the owner, present authority to collect and furnish information. If TD Bank/Target is merely a servicer or collector and not the current owner, it must identify the owner and produce the instrument granting TD Bank/Target authority . 

Account matching / identifier conflicts : The credit bureaus display different masked account formats for the same tradeline. TD Bank/Target must identify the exact account being furnished and provide documentation tying the furnished tradeline to the correct account and consumer. 

DOFD / delinquency timeline conflicts : Discrepancies in delinquency timeline fields ( including Date of First Delinquency and other date/status fields ) require substantiation with the underlying records used to populate CRA reporting XXXX 

Furnisher identification/contact data inconsistencies : XXXX XXXX, and XXXX display different furnisher addresses/phone numbers for the same entity, reflecting inaccurate or incomplete furnishing that must be corrected. 

Metro 2 / standardized furnishing compliance problem ( context for how this is being violated ) : Furnishers are expected to report data to CRAs in a standardized, consistent format ( commonly referred to as Metro 2 ), so that core fieldssuch as Account Status, Current Balance, Amount Past Due, Date of First Delinquency, Date Updated, and Consumer/Account identifying informationare accurate, internally consistent, and uniformly reported across CRAs. TD Bank/Targets furnishing appears to violate this standardization because : The same alleged account is reporting materially different balance/past due amounts depending on source ( {$800.00} vs. {$1200.00} ). 

The account is reported as charged off while simultaneously being treated as actively collectible, suggesting inconsistent status coding and/or inconsistent furnishing fields. 

CRA-facing furnisher identifiers ( addresses/phone numbers ) and account identifier formats vary across bureaus, indicating inconsistent or incomplete furnishing of required identification fields. 
These inconsistencies are exactly the type of problems standardized Metro 2 reporting is designed to prevent, and they support my claim that TD Bank/Targets furnishing is inaccurate, incomplete, and not the result of a reasonable investigation.

Laws and duties implicated 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ( Regulation XXXX Direct Disputes ) : Requires a reasonable investigation of a direct dispute. 

15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( FCRA furnisher duties ) : Requires accurate and complete furnishing and appropriate dispute handling, including investigation obligations ( including 1681s-2 ( b ) after CRA notice ) and dispute notation where applicable ( including 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) ).

FDCPA ( if a third-party debt collector is involved ) : If any debt collector is collecting, they must cease collection until verification is provided ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ) and must communicate disputes appropriately ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ) ). 

What I requested from TD Bank/Target ( investigation outputs ) I requested legible copies of the records relied upon to furnish the disputed data, including : the full account history/ledger and itemization reconciling {$800.00} vs. {$1200.00} the basis for charge-off reporting and all relevant dates used to populate CRA fields ( including DOFD ) proof of current ownership OR proof of servicing/collection authority and identification of the current owner ( if TD is not the owner ) chain of title documentation showing every transfer, assignment, sale, or placement from origination to the present, including effective dates, parties, and a schedule/identifier tying my specific account to any transfer the forward flow agreement ( and any amendments, schedules, or purchase/transfer exhibits ) governing any ongoing sale/assignment pipeline for accounts of this type, sufficient to establish whether my account was included, and if so, when and to whom a bureau-by-bureau furnishing snapshot ( Metro 2 / data tape fields ) showing the exact data TD Bank/Target transmitted to Experian, Equifax , and TransUnion for this account, including all status/balance/date fields that support the disputed tradeline reporting the method of verification used for each disputed field, including what records were reviewed and what department conducted the investigation written communications only ( no telephone contact ) Harm This inaccurate furnishing and contradictory posture ( active collection while reporting charge-off and conflicting balances/status fields ), combined with apparent Metro 2 inconsistency, is causing ongoing credit harm and prevents me from correcting my consumer reports. The charge-off status, balance/past due amounts, and inconsistent data fields are materially adverse and misleading.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation