Consumer complaint received 2025-10-01 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
Dispute Date : XX/XX/XXXX To : Experian Equifax TransUnionXXXX  : XXXX A. XXXX ( XXXX : XXXX ) Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, WA XXXX : Formal Dispute Removal of Unverified/Incorrect Late-Payment Notations Only ( Not Disputing Account Ownership ) Dear Credit Bureau, I am disputing the accuracy and verifiability of specific late-payment notations appearing on my credit file. I am not disputing account ownership ; I am disputing late codes that are being reported without proper verification and/or in a manner that is inaccurate, incomplete, or non-compliant with FCRA and Metro 2 standards.

My rights and your duties : * FCRA 607 ( b ), 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) requires you to maintain maximum possible accuracy.

* FCRA 611 ( a ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i requires a reasonable reinvestigation. If any disputed information is found to be inaccurate or can not be verified, you must delete it from my file. 
* FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) & 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) entitle me to the Method of Verification ( MOV ) a description of the verification procedure, including the business name, address, and telephone number of the party you contacted.

* FCRA 605 ( a ) bars reporting of obsolete adverse information ( e.g., late payments older than 7 years from their date of delinquency ).

* Metro 2 ( CDIA standard ) requires consistent, accurate coding of Payment History Profile, Payment Rating, Current Status, dates, and other fields. Inconsistent or incomplete coding equals inaccuracy under the FCRA.

I also have an active fraud alert on my file. Any adverse notation must be verified with appropriate rigor.

Below, I enumerate each account with late-payment notations still on my file and demand deletion of those late entries unless they are independently and fully verified with original, transaction-level records ( billing statements with due dates, grace periods, date-stamped payment histories, and internal servicing notes ). Merely confirming data electronically with the furnisher is not a reasonable reinvestigation. 

XXXX ) XXXX Credit Card XXXX Notations ( XXXX total ) Report facts : Open account ; balance ~ {$4900.00} ( approx. 99 % utilization ) ; XXXX late payments reflected across prior periods. 
Why I have a legal basis : * FCRA 611 ( a ) : Every late month must be individually verifiable. You must obtain documentary evidence from the furnisher : the statements due date, any grace period, the actual posting date, and whether the account was XXXX days past due as defined by contract and industry standards. If any single late code can not be proven with this documentation, its unverifiable and must be deleted. 
* FCRA 607 ( b ) : If your system shows a late code but the Current Status, Payment Rating, and Payment History Profile are internally inconsistent ( e.g., duplicative rolling XXXX codes rather than an accurate progression, or mismatches between status dates and history ), the data fails the maximum possible accuracy requirement and must be removed or corrected. 
* XXXX XXXX : The XXXX XXXX XXXX must reflect a single, accurate delinquency timelineno double-counting or mis-sequenced XX/XX/XXXX codes. Payment Rating codes must align with the reported XXXX XXXX for that month. Any misalignment is a XXXX XXXX compliance failure and therefore an FCRA accuracy problem. 
Demanded action ( late-codes only ) : * Delete every late-payment notation that can not be supported by original statements + payment posting records. 
* Provide the Method of Verification for each retained late code ( who you contacted, how verification was performed, and what documents were reviewed ). 
* If you can not produce this, the late codes must be deleted under 611 ( a ).

If escalated to civil court : Re-reporting late entries without documentary verification after disputes suggests negligent or willful noncompliance with FCRA 607 ( b ) and 611. I would seek statutory damages, actual damages, attorneys fees, and possibly punitive damages under 616617 for continued reporting of unverified late codes. 

XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Report facts : Open account ; limit ~ {$700.00} ; current balance {$0.00} ; XXXX late payment ( XXXX ) indicated for XX/XX/XXXX. Comments show prior dispute language on the tradeline history. 
Why I have a legal basis : * FCRA 611 ( a ) : A single 30-day late must be provable with the billing statement due date, the exact posting date of the payment, and the contractual definition of 30 days late used by the furnisher. If my payment posted on or before day XXXX, or within the creditors grace period, the code is inaccurate. If the furnisher can not produce these original records, the late code is unverifiable and must be deleted. 
* XXXX XXXX : A lone XXXX late must be coded once and must not cascade or persist after the account returned to current ( which the report shows with a {$0.00} balance ). Any persistence, duplication, or mismatch between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX is non-compliant and therefore inaccurate under 607 ( b ). 
Demanded action ( late-code only ) : * Delete the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX late unless you can document with original statements + payment ledger that the payment was truly XXXX days past due under the contract. 
* Provide MOV for any retained late code. 
If escalated to civil court : XXXX to report a single disputed late without documentary supportespecially after prior disputesexposes you to FCRA liability. I would pursue damages and attorneys fees for failure to reasonably reinvestigate and to delete unverifiable data. 

XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card XXXX Late-Payment Notations Report facts : Small-limit secured card ; XXXX late payments before closure in XX/XX/XXXX ; bureau comments reflect creditor-requested closure and prior dispute remark ( XXXX ) on XXXXXXXX XXXX  accounts. 
Why I have a legal basis : * FCRA 611 ( a ) : Each late must be supported by original billing and payment records. Without transaction-level proof, the late marks are unverifiable and must be deleted. 
* FCRA XXXX ( a ) : Any late entries that have aged beyond 7 years from their delinquency date are obsolete and must be purged automatically. 
* XXXX XXXX : After the account is closed, no new late codes should appear. Historical late codes must accurately reflect the timeline leading up to closure. Any error in status-date alignment ( e.g., post-closure lates, mis-sequenced XX/XX/XXXX progressions, or inconsistent XXXX XXXX versus XXXX XXXX ) constitutes non-compliance and thus inaccuracy under 607 ( b ). 
Demanded action ( late-codes only ) : * Delete any late code that can not be verified with original statements and payment ledgers. 
* Purge any late marks that are now obsolete under 605 ( a ). 
* Provide the XXXX of XXXX for any late code you keep. 
If escalated to civil court : Persisting in reporting aged-out or unverified late codes would show negligent or willful noncompliance. I would seek statutory/actual damages and fees for failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy and failure to delete unverifiable or obsolete information. 

XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card XXXX Late-Payment Notations ( XXXX ) Report facts : High-limit unsecured card ; XXXX lates in the XXXX window ; the account is closed ; my file includes a consumer statement noting delinquency due to extended unemployment. 
Why I have a legal basis : * FCRA 605 ( a ) : Late marks from older years may now be approaching the XXXXXXXX obsolescence window ( measured from each lates delinquency date ). Any late more than XXXX XXXX XXXX must be automatically removed. 
* FCRA 611 ( a ) : For any late marks within the XXXX window, you must re-verify with original records ( statements, posted-payment dates, contractual grace period ). A generic verified response is not enough. If you can not provide documentary proof of each late, they are unverifiable and must be deleted. 
* XXXX XXXX : The XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX must reflect a consistent delinquency progression and must align with the closure date. Any inconsistencies are accuracy failures under 607 ( b ). 
Demanded action ( late-codes only ) : * Delete any late codes that are obsolete ( older than 7 years from the delinquency ). 
* Delete any remaining late codes that can not be documented with original records. 
* Provide the XXXX of XXXX for each late code you choose to retain. 
If escalated to civil court : Keeping obsolete or unverified late codes after dispute violates 605 ( a ), 607 ( b ), and 611. I would seek statutory/actual damages, attorneys fees, and appropriate relief for failure to purge obsolete data and failure to delete unverifiable entries. 

My Required Remedies and XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX. Reinvestigate each late-payment notation above in good faith and with due diligence as required by FCRA 611 ( a ). Verification must mean reviewing actual source documents, not an automated response.

2. Delete any late-payment entry that is inaccurate, inconsistent, obsolete, or can not be verified with original records.

3. Provide the Method of Verification ( 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) ) for any late code you keepwithin 15 days of your reinvestigation resultsincluding the name, address, and phone of the party you contacted and a description of how you verified.

4. Send me updated copies of my credit reports showing the removal of all late codes that were not fully verified.

5. Note my fraud alert and apply appropriate heightened scrutiny. 
Please complete your reinvestigation and respond within 30 days as the FCRA requires. If you can not fully verify with source documents, you must delete the late-payment notations. Should you fail to comply, I am prepared to escalate, including filing complaints with the CFPB and seeking remedies in civil court for your failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy and to delete unverified information. 
Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, WA XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation