Consumer complaint received 2025-04-06 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: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
I am writing to formally dispute a debt currently being reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and to request an investigation into the reporting practices of both Experian and XXXX, who have reported conflicting and unverified information regarding this account. 
No Contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I have no contract, agreement, or legal obligation with XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX is a third-party debt collector attempting to collect on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX yet they have provided no signed contract, proof of debt ownership, or chain of assignment authorizing them to collect or report this alleged debt on my credit file. They have also stated that their agreement with the original creditor is " private and confidential '' which means it is not subject to public or legal scrutiny, and therefore not valid as proof of debt under federal law. 
Legal Precedent : Billing Statements Validation The only documentation provided is a billing summary from XXXX XXXX Apartments, which is insufficient under case law. In XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court held that billing statements alone are not adequate to validate a debt. This standard has been affirmed in additional cases : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) XXXX must not provide misleading or incomplete verifications. 
XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  the amount and nature of the debt must be explained clearly. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) validation must include underlying contracts and detailed accounting. 
Experians History of Sham Investigations My concern is further amplified by Experians history of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) through sham dispute investigations. In Federal Trade Commission v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc., the FTC and various lawsuits alleged that Experian failed to conduct meaningful reinvestigations of consumer disputes, often relying solely on the furnishers wordwithout verifying documents or correcting clear inaccuracies. 
This is particularly relevant because Experian and XXXX have both " verified '' this disputed account, yet the information they report is conflicting, and neither has provided any documentation demonstrating that a proper reinvestigation took place as required under FCRA 1681i ( a ). This raises the question of whether either agency conducted a reasonable or lawful investigation in response to my dispute. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for reporting a debt without legal validation and for failing to provide a contract or proof of assignment. 
Investigate Experian and XXXX for their verification of the account despite reporting conflicting information, and determine whether either conducted a legally sufficient reinvestigation. 
Require that this account be removed from all credit reporting agencies unless and until XXXX XXXX XXXX provides proper validation including : A contract signed by me Proof of assignment or legal transfer of the debt A full breakdown of the charges with dates and amounts This account continues to cause harm to my credit profile and financial wellbeing without any verified legal basis.

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