Consumer complaint received 2016-05-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting — 
Issue: Incorrect information on credit report — Account status
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
Today I received my Experian credit report XXXX, page XXXX of XXXX " Payment History Legend '' sequences logically : " 'OK ' Current/Terms of agreement met ; '30 ' Account 30 days past due ; '60 ' Account 60 days past due ; '90 ' Account 90 days past due ; ... 'CLS ' Closed ... '' Clearly, this obvious sequential logic is not found in account after account after account. If a legend differs from the furnished payment history that is clearly and mathematically impossible on several accounts, the consumer is left wondering if the FICO score is based on voodoo math. Do computers have logic filters to stop so many errors? To answer this question without burdening each consumer and CFPB with XXXX separate complaints about each and every instance of it, why not use one example on this report today. XXXX XXXX is labeled " OK '' ( see legend ). Yet, XXXX XXXX says " 60. '' This was " XXXX XXXX '' - which is in its entirety on dispute. My focus here is that while computers and colorful reports only emphasize this glaring errors, they are not visible to people at Experian when calling. One huge problem for those applying for payment plans with the servicer in this example is that they will not retroactively fix this type of glaring math error no matter what. This makes default attractive to those who see payment plans as merely reaging debt. To be fair to any/all customers, no such legend should appear on page XXXX ; when all other pages ignore the XXXX legend items that wedge in between a payment made in time in a certain month, and the requisite " 30 '' that MUST follow it the next subsequent month. It ca n't be " 60 '' and it ca n't be " 90 ''. It can be " CLS ''. In a letter received today, I received completely false reporting, compounded by the closing of an account that never existed. XXXX consecutive payments were made from XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXX. It was closed in XXXX XXXX. Not only did the letter say it was reported correctly ( it was n't ) and it was not reported except XXXX XXXX ( it was reported the previous 13 months but not XXXX XXXX ; and so forth. This renders these credit reports garbage. Do we still teach math in school? Are the computer programers that work for every data furnisher this idiotic? Does the credit reporting agency have any self-respect so as to colorize erroneous data? Are you laughing at consumers? Hoping we are both color-blind and own no calendar? Get it fixed! Or do not allow these data furnishers to report any months whatsover. Stop them. Filter them. Do it now. Additionally, " NR '' should automatically become " OK '' because lazy data furnishers are incentivized to only focus on bad math, rather than on positive reporting. Absent a report, the " OK '' will err on the side of the consumer and discourage lazy intermittant reporting that does not provide a regular pattern. If even one payment was paid, its non-reporting should not be the " tree that fell in the woods that no one saw '' but instead the presumtive payment we know the consumer made in good faith that someone forgot to report. Here is why. Take CFPB complaint # XXXX for instance.In that one, formerly on Experian, the account should never have been reported. The bank had an internal computer update that externally reported XXXX agencies at once. That is unacceptable ; to extrapolate errors by a factor of XXXX, with no thought to the reports being generated. Plus, that was not even true. So, in trying to get this math removed, it is better to require effort from lazy sloppy data furnishers to intentionally furnish separately from internal database upgrades. Divide/conquer errors. Effort results in less errors, but mostly shows intentional and wilfull disobeying of consumer laws. No one can hide behind computers now. GIGO. Clearly garbage is going into credit reports like this one and clearly garbage is what these reports are destined for. No excuses. Filter math!!

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