Consumer complaint received 2026-05-18 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC ( PRA ) continues to furnish and report inaccurate, inconsistent, and unverifiable information regarding an alleged XXXX account despite repeated written disputes, formal notice of reporting defects, and prior CFPB complaints. On XX/XX/2026, I mailed a formal written dispute and demand for correction/deletion to PRA via Certified Mail No. XXXX. XXXX tracking confirms the dispute package was delivered and picked up in XXXX, Virginia on XX/XX/2026. The dispute specifically challenged PRAs furnishing accuracy, ownership claims, legal standing, account classification reporting, creditor identification, and failure to conduct a reasonable investigation pursuant to : FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692e Texas Finance Code 392.304 The dispute demanded : complete chain of title documentation purchase and sale agreements account-level assignment records proof that the specific account was included in any alleged transfer proof of lawful ownership competent business records sufficient to establish balance accuracy and furnishing authority Despite receiving extensive written notice and supporting documentation, PRA failed to provide competent account-level ownership documentation or evidence establishing lawful authority to furnish the account to consumer reporting agencies. Instead, PRA responded with conclusory statements claiming the account was verified while failing to identify : the actual investigation procedures used the records reviewed how conflicting data was reconciled how materially inconsistent reporting across consumer reporting agencies was validated PRAs response failed to address the central issues raised in the dispute. PRAs response also appears to rely on automated or conclusory verification methods that failed to reconcile the documented inconsistencies identified across consumer reporting agencies. The account continues to reflect multiple material inconsistencies across consumer reporting agencies, including : conflicting original creditor identification ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) materially different account classifications across bureaus inconsistent delinquency timelines inconsistent removal/on-record dates inconsistent balance reporting structures For example : XXXX reports the account as a Debt Buyer Collection account XXXX reports the account as a Debt Buyer account XXXX reports the account as a Factoring Company / Open Account tradeline A single account can not simultaneously exist under materially different reporting classifications across national consumer reporting agencies while still satisfying the Fair Credit Reporting Acts maximum possible accuracy requirements. The account also reflects conflicting original creditor identification. PRAs responses identify XXXX XXXX as the originating creditor, while consumer reporting agency files identify XXXX. PRA failed to explain how the account could be reasonably verified where the originating creditor itself can not be consistently identified. The account additionally reflects inconsistent balance reporting between approximately {$2200.00} and {$2200.00} across reporting periods, further undermining the reliability and accuracy of the furnished information. PRA also acknowledged that the alleged debt is beyond the applicable statute of limitations while continuing to furnish the account to consumer reporting agencies. Despite these unresolved inconsistencies and repeated written notice, PRA continues furnishing and reporting the account as verified and accurate. PRAs conduct raises substantial concerns regarding : failure to conduct a reasonable investigation failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy furnishing unverifiable information deceptive and misleading representations regarding the account continued reporting despite unresolved disputes and contradictory reporting structures Because PRA failed to provide competent ownership documentation, failed to reconcile conflicting reporting data, and failed to explain how the account was reasonably verified despite documented inconsistencies, the account is unreliable, unverifiable, and unsuitable for continued consumer reporting. Because PRA has failed to resolve the documented reporting defects and furnishing inconsistencies after repeated written notice, I am also preserving all contractual arbitration rights and all remedies available under federal and Texas law. I am requesting CFPB oversight regarding PRAs continued furnishing of disputed and materially inconsistent information and PRAs failure to conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving formal written disputes and supporting documentation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief