Consumer complaint received 2025-10-08 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: Kikoff Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I, XXXX XXXX XXXX, acting Pro Se pursuant to Florida Statutes 27.51 and reserving all rights under UCC 1-308 without prejudice, hereby file this formal complaint against KIKOFF LENDING , LLC for ongoing and unresolved violations related to the inaccurate and unvalidated reporting of a charge-off account ( account number XXXX, opened XX/XX/XXXX, charged off XX/XX/XXXX, balance {$180.00}, past due {$120.00} ) on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX credit reports. This complaint escalates issues from my prior CFPB complaint # XXXX ( submitted XX/XX/XXXX, closed XX/XX/XXXX ), where Kikoffs response failed to address my concerns, provide full validation, or comply with federal and state laws, causing continued harm to my credit ( e.g., XXXX XXXX  score XXXX, credit denials ). 
Despite my prior dispute and feedback on XX/XX/XXXX, Kikoffs response ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) claims compliance with FCRA but fails to substantiate the reported late payments and charge-off with verifiable evidence. The provided " XXXX '' ( unsigned ) and " XXXX  '' ( partial history, last payment XX/XX/XXXX ) do not include the original wet-ink signed contract, full itemized statements, or proof of enforceability under Floridas statute of limitations ( Fla. Stat . 95.11 ( 2 ) ( b ) ). This constitutes willful noncompliance with : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation after my dispute via CFPB complaint XXXX XXXX. Kikoff did not review all relevant information or delete unverifiable data, violating the strict standard set by courts ( e.g., Johnson v. MBNA America Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426 ( 4th Cir. XXXX ) ). 
15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Duty to furnish accurate information. Reporting late payments without evidence of expired grace periods or agreed-upon terms is misleading ( see Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. , 526 F.3d 142 ( 4th Cir. XXXX ) ). 
15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) : Mandatory notice of negative information. I have not received written notice before or within 30 days of furnishing negative data to CRAs, an independent violation noted in my prior feedback. 
12 C.F.R. 1022.42 : CFPB Regulation V requires written policies for accuracy. Kikoffs reporting of a {$180.00} charge-off with inconsistencies ( e.g., varying balances across bureaus ) and no IRS Form 1099-C ( despite 26 U.S.C. 6050P requirements for debts over {$600.00} ) indicates procedural failures.

15 U.S.C. 1692g ( FDCPA ) and Fla. Stat. 559.72 : Failure to provide full debt validation upon request, including the original contract and proof of enforceability. 
Kikoffs claim that late payments are reportable under FCRA does not excuse the lack of documentation or investigation into potential grace periods, extensions, or hardship arrangements ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ). The continued presence of this tradeline, despite my demand for deletion if unvalidated, harms my credit and entitles me to actual, statutory ( up to {$1000.00} per violation under 15 U.S.C. 1681n ), and punitive damages.

Demands : Immediate reinvestigation under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( within 30 days ).

Full debt validation, including the original signed contract and proof of enforceability.

Permanent deletion of the Kikoff tradeline from all CRAs if unvalidated.

Provision of all required notices and documentation, including the 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) notice of negative information.

CFPB escalation to investigate Kikoffs systemic practices under 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( unfair acts ). 
Supporting Evidence : Prior CFPB complaint # XXXX records. 
Credit reports ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
U.S. Passport and XXXX for identity verification. 
Kikoffs response attachments ( XXXX XXXX  ). 
I urge the CFPB to compel Kikoff to comply within 15 days ( 12 U.S.C. 5512 ( b ) ( 1 ) ) or order tradeline deletion and systemic review. Failure to act will be treated as continued violations, subjecting Kikoff to further liability.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation