Consumer complaint received 2026-01-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Avant Holding Company, Inc.
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Complaint / Dispute Letter Avant / XXXX Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account : AvantCard ( XXXX  ) Summary of Key Points XXXX. Avant received my written cease-and-desist and dispute on XX/XX/XXXX, yet continued communications and credit reporting until XX/XX/XXXX. A cease-and-desist is effective upon receipt under FDCPA 805 / 15 U.S.C. 1692c. Their delay demonstrates noncompliance. 

Two. Avants internal characterization of my cease-and-desist as a communication consent update misrepresents the statutory nature of such notice. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not conditional and can not be ignored pending additional information.

Three. After receiving indirect disputes via e-OSCAR on XX/XX/XXXX, Avant continued reporting the account without demonstrating a reasonable reinvestigation, as required under FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ). Their XX/XX/XXXX letter provides only conclusory statements and a generic Cardmember Agreement, failing to verify account ownership or authorization.

Four. Avant asserts that communications sent after XX/XX/XXXX were not debt collection activity. This is legally incorrect. Courts consider whether communications objectively induce payment ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ). Their statements referencing balances, failed payments, and account status clearly meet this standard. 

XXXX. Continued reporting and communications after acknowledging my C & D and dispute may constitute unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts under 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( UDAAP ). Internal classifications do not override statutory obligations.

Six. Avant claims their investigation is complete and accurate, yet no documentary evidence, no chain-of-custody, and no itemized verification of alleged balances or account authorization was provided. This fails the statutory definition of a reasonable investigation under FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) and invalidates their conclusions.

Detailed Timeline and XXXX XXXX XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Avant received my written dispute and cease-and-desist, acknowledging the communication via email. 
XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Avant attempted to process multiple payments and sent emails titled Update Your Bank Account XXXX. 
XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Avant received indirect disputes via e-OSCAR from CRAs asserting the account was not mine. 
XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Avant continued sending account-related communications despite statutory notice. 
XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Avant finally updated communication consents to honor my cease-and-desist, 14 days after statutory notice. 
XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Avant claims to have mailed a validation of debt, but the materials do not establish account authorization, IP/device verification, or legally binding responsibility.

Legal and Regulatory Violations FDCPA 805 / 15 U.S.C. 1692c Cease-and-desist must be honored immediately
; delayed enforcement is a violation.

FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Furnishers must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, review all relevant information, and delete or suppress unverifiable information. Avants investigation was conclusory and lacked evidence.

12 U.S.C. 5531 ( UDAAP ) Continued communications and reporting during a dispute constitutes unfair or abusive conduct, regardless of internal policy labeling. 
Case law : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX. 





Attachments/ Evidence XXXX. Email thread of current complaint and dispute correspondence with Avant ( including XX/XX/XXXX dispute, responses, and XX/XX/XXXX letter ). 
XXXX. Proof of receipt of envelope from Avant on XX/XX/XXXX ( USPS tracking, envelope scan, or photograph ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation