Consumer complaint received 2025-03-01 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a formal complaint regarding the misreporting of the following accounts, which continue to be inaccurately marked as open or unpaid after being previously reported as closed. These actions have been taken after multiple disputes, and this repeated failure to correct the errors is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and relevant case law. 

These accounts have been manipulated to appear as though they are being fixed by changing the status from closed to open and vice versa, which is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate credit scores and appear compliant without actually addressing the underlying issues. This conduct not only violates FCRA, but also violates consumer rights to accurate and complete information. 

Account XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
Account Number : XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Violation : Repeatedly changing the status from open to unpaid to closed to open, attempting to manipulate credit reporting and scores. Despite multiple disputes, no correction has been made, and the account remains inaccurately reported. 

Applicable Law : FCRA 1681e ( b ) Requires accurate reporting of all credit information. 
FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) Charge-off accounts must be reported as closed. 
Relevant Case Law : Cushman v. Trans Union Corp. ( 1997 ) : Repeated failure to correct inaccuracies after multiple disputes requires the removal of the entry from the credit report.

Woods v. LVNV Funding, LLC ( 2017 ) : Misreporting a charge-off as open or changing its status to manipulate the credit score violates FCRA. 

Account XXXX : XXXX XXXX, XXXX Account Number : XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX : Marked as open to unpaid to open after previously being closed, failing to report the account accurately despite several disputes. This is an attempt to manipulate credit reporting and scores. 

Applicable Law : FCRA 1681e ( b ) Requires all information to be accurate and complete. 
FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) Charge-off accounts must be marked closed.

Relevant Case Law : Harris v. Equifax ( 2018 ) : Misrepresentation of charge-offs as open accounts violates the FCRA and damages the consumers credit score. 
Woods v. LVNV Funding ( 2017 ) : A charge-off must be properly closed and not reopened or misrepresented to manipulate the consumers score. 

Account XXXX : XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX Violation : Marked as unpaid instead of closed, despite the account being a charge-off. The repeated status changes from open to closed to to unpaid to open after multiple disputes are attempts to manipulate credit reporting. 

Applicable Law : FCRA 1681e ( b ) Accurate and complete reporting of all information is required.

FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) Charge-off accounts must be reported as closed, not unpaid. 
Relevant Case Law : Woods v. LVNV Funding ( 2017 ) : The failure to properly close charge-offs violates FCRA and misrepresents the consumers credit status. 
Harris v. Equifax ( 2018 ) : Reopening a charge-off account and misreporting it as unpaid violates FCRA. 

As demonstrated above, these accounts have been misreported repeatedly, marked as open or unpaid after being closed, and have failed to be corrected despite multiple disputes. The manipulation of these accounts, changing their status to appear as though they are being fixed, violates my rights under the FCRA and FDCPA. 

Due to the failure to correct these errors after multiple disputes and the continued misreporting, I demand immediate removal of these accounts from my credit report. Under FCRA 1681e ( b ), the continued failure to correct the inaccuracies after multiple disputes requires that these accounts be removed. The relevant case law ( Cushman v. Trans Union Corp. ( 1997 ), Harris v. Equifax ( 2018 ), Woods v. LVNV Funding ( 2017 ) ) further supports the removal of these accounts due to willful noncompliance.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief