Consumer complaint received 2026-05-21 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This complaint relates to and supplements CFPB Complaint No. XXXX filed on XX/XX/XXXX, regarding the same XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. / XXXX Credit Card account ending XXXX. I am filing this as a new related complaint because the portal does not accept supplemental uploads on existing complaints. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - Supplemental Submission to Pending CFPB Complaint Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card Account Subject : Supplemental Evidence Regarding Impossible Date of First Delinquency, Premature Collection Activity, Punitive Credit Limit Reduction, and Multi-Bureau Reinvestigation Failures To Whom It May Concern : I submit this supplemental statement in support of my pending CFPB complaint concerning XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This supplement clarifies critical facts not fully addressed in the original submission and provides additional documentary support. I. Consumer Background and Pre-Impairment Credit Profile Prior to XX/XX/XXXX, my credit profile was pristine across a credit history of more than XXXX years. My FICO score was approximately XXXX, in the highest tier of consumer credit. I had no late payments on any account at any point reflected on my credit file. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ending XXXX had been opened on XX/XX/XXXX, approximately fifteen years prior, and had been paid on time for approximately 175 consecutive months without a single delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX conduct described below introduced the first derogatory mark in my entire credit history of more than three decades. II. Impossible Date of First Delinquency XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX dispute result ( Confirmation No. XXXX ) expressly lists XX/XX/XXXX as the Date of 1st Delinquency for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account. The same Date of 1st Delinquency appears both before and after XXXX investigation. The XXXX XXXX XXXX billing statement dated XX/XX/XXXX shows that the payment due date for the relevant billing cycle was XXXX XXXX XXXX. The same statement also states : Auto Pay- {$530.00} will be deducted from your account and credited as your automatic payment on XX/XX/XXXX. A 30-day delinquency could not have existed on XX/XX/XXXX because the payment was not yet due. The furnished Date of First Delinquency predates the payment due date by one day. This is not a clerical discrepancy. It is a facially impossible delinquency timeline that can not be reconciled with TDs own billing records. III. Premature Collection Activity XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX issued a collection letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, regarding the same XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account. The letter states that XXXX is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt owed to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The letter is dated one day before the XX/XX/XXXX payment due date. Third-party collection activity occurred on XX/XX/XXXX the same date XXXX later reported as the Date of First Delinquency even though payment was not due until XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX does not initiate collection contact independently ; it acts on XXXX data file and XXXX instructions. The XX/XX/XXXX collection letter therefore evidences that XXXX internally classified the account as default-eligible no later than XX/XX/XXXX, before any actual delinquency was possible. IV. Punitive Credit Limit Reduction and Manufactured Utilization Damage Between the XX/XX/XXXX statement and the XX/XX/XXXX statement, XXXX reduced my credit limit from {$2600.00} to {$900.00} a 65 % reduction. The XX/XX/XXXX statement contains the notice : Credit Limit Notice : The credit limit for your XXXX XXXX Card was recently lowered. The new limit is shown on this statement. This reduction caused my credit utilization on this account to spike from approximately 21 % to 92 %. The combination of ( 1 ) the false 30-day delinquency reporting and ( 2 ) the manufactured high-utilization ratio resulted in approximately XXXX points of XXXX impairment on XXXX ( from approximately XXXX to XXXX ). The credit limit reduction did not respond to any actual delinquency. It coincided with the same XX/XX/XXXX internal misclassification that produced the impossible Date of First Delinquency and the premature XXXX collection contact. The line reduction therefore compounded the harm caused by XXXX own false classification rather than responding to any change in my creditworthiness. V. Account Was Paid in Full on XX/XX/XXXX Upon discovering the autopay failure, I paid the full balance of {$820.00} on XX/XX/XXXX four days after the due date and well before any 30-day late status could lawfully have existed. As of XX/XX/XXXX, the account had a XXXX balance and XXXX past-due amount. Notwithstanding the full payment, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX dispute response continued to report Date of Last Payment as XX/XX/XXXX, Amount Past Due of {$30.00}, and Balance of {$820.00}. XXXX failed to furnish corrected information after the account was cured, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ). VI. XXXX Re-Verification of the Impossible Data After Notice On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed disputes with XXXX and XXXX through the consumer dispute process. On XX/XX/XXXX, my counsel sent a formal FCRA direct dispute to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. c/o XXXX XXXX Services by certified mail. XXXX therefore had multiple channels of written notice of the dispute, the account chronology, the supporting documents, and the impossibility of the furnished Date of First Delinquency. Notwithstanding this notice, XXXX verified the impossible data in early XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX XXXX dispute response reflects XXXX verification of the impossible Date of First Delinquency, the false delinquency status, and the related inaccurate fields. XXXX verification of facially impossible data, after written notice, constitutes the type of post-consent-order furnishing conduct that the XX/XX/XXXX CFPB consent order against XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) was designed to prevent. VII. XXXX Contradictory Dispute Response XXXX XX/XX/XXXX dispute response states : Our investigation concluded that the disputed information should be updated. Notwithstanding that stated conclusion, XXXX own document discloses that no material field was updated. The Date of First Delinquency ( XX/XX/XXXX ), Status ( 30-59 Days Past Due ), Balance ( {$820.00} ), Amount Past Due ( {$30.00} ), and Date of Last Payment ( XX/XX/XXXX ) all remained unchanged before and after the investigation. XXXX dispute response is internally contradictory on its face : the bureau acknowledged that the disputed information should be updated while updating nothing material. Subsequent to the XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX has further altered the consumer-facing display of this tradeline by removing the XX/XX/XXXX entry from the payment history grid ( marked as No Data Available ) and recategorizing the tradeline out of the Potentially Negative section. Notwithstanding these cosmetic display changes, the underlying coded data fields remain inaccurate, as evidenced by the continued XXXX impairment of approximately XXXX points on XXXX compared to my XXXX XXXX score. XXXX response to the dispute has been to make the harm less visible to me without correcting the underlying data that produces the harm. VIII. XXXX Failure to Provide a Reinvestigation Response On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a dispute to XXXX regarding the same XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account, with the same impossibility argument and the same supporting documents provided to XXXX. As of the date of this supplemental submission, XXXX has not provided me with any written response to the dispute. When I called XXXX to inquire about the status, the agent acknowledged that he could see my supporting documents in the system but stated that only supervisors had authority to act on them. The agent attempted to transfer me to a supervisor, but the call was disconnected during the transfer. The same agent stated that due dates are between you and your bank and that XXXX does not consider account due dates when investigating disputes regarding past-due status. If that statement accurately reflects XXXX reinvestigation procedure, the procedure is structurally incapable of detecting the arithmetic inaccuracy at issue in this dispute. TransUnion currently shows a XXXX score of approximately XXXX, suggesting that XXXX may have produced partial correction. However, the absence of any written notice of reinvestigation result, combined with the agents representation regarding XXXX procedures, demonstrates procedural failures independently actionable under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) and 1681i. IX. Experians Denial of Dispute Access As of the date of this supplemental submission, I have been unable to file a dispute with Experian regarding the same XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account for nearly one month, because Experians system has blocked my access to the dispute mechanism. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I attempted to file a dispute through Experians published online dispute portal on four separate dates : XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. On each attempt, accessed from a hotel network in the XXXX XXXX XXXX while I was traveling, Experians system returned an access denied error message. I was unable to file an online dispute during this period. After returning to the United States, I attempted again to file the dispute through Experians online portal. The system did not return an access-denied error on this attempt, but it required me to call a U.S. telephone number to complete the dispute, rather than completing the dispute through the online channel that Experian publicly advertises as available. Experians consumer-facing screen states : For security reasons, we can not process your dispute online. Please contact us below. The screen identifies Report Reference No. XXXX and directs the consumer to call ( XXXX ) XXXX, Monday through Friday, XXXX to XXXX CST. The effect of Experians access architecture has been to prevent me from filing a dispute through Experians published online channel for nearly one month. The Fair Credit Reporting Act does not authorize consumer reporting agencies to deny dispute access based on consumer location or to condition dispute filing on the consumers availability during U.S. business hours by U.S. telephone. The result is that Experian continues to publish the inaccurate XXXX tradeline on my Experian credit file without my having had the opportunity to file a dispute through the online channel Experian publicly offers. Experians denial of dispute access is independently actionable under 15 U.S.C. 1681i, 1681e ( b ), and 1681g, and under California Civil Code 1785.14 and 1785.16. The harm is ongoing because the inaccurate TD/Target data remains on my Experian file unchallenged through any consumer-dispute channel. X. Bureau Score Divergence as Evidence of Procedural Failure As of the date of this supplemental submission, my Equifax XXXX score is approximately XXXX while my XXXX XXXX score is approximately XXXX. The XXXX divergence between bureaus reporting the same underlying account constitutes direct evidence that XXXX reinvestigation procedure failed where XXXX succeeded on the same dispute, with the same supporting documents, against the same furnisher. The difference between bureaus is not the evidence ; it is XXXX procedures. Experians position can not be evaluated against this benchmark because Experian denied me the ability to file a dispute at all. XI. Relationship to CFPB Prior Enforcement Against XXXX XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB entered consent order File No. XXXX against XXXX XXXX, XXXX , involving XXXX furnishing of inaccurate consumer credit information, XXXX failure to conduct reasonable investigations of consumer disputes, and XXXX failure to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding furnishing. The CFPB found XXXX conduct to be abusive under the CFPA. The conduct described in this supplement furnishing of impossible delinquency data, verification of impossible data after notice of dispute, and failure to update inaccurate information after the account was cured is the same conduct prohibited by the XX/XX/XXXX consent order. The conduct occurred approximately seventeen months after the order took effect. XII. Documents Submitted With This Supplement 1. XXXX dispute result dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Confirmation No. XXXX ), showing XX/XX/XXXX as the Date of 1st Delinquency before and after investigation, and XXXX narrative that the disputed information should be updated ; 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX billing statement dated XX/XX/XXXX, showing the XX/XX/XXXX payment due date, the {$2600.00} credit limit, and the scheduled autopay for {$530.00} ; XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX billing statement dated XX/XX/XXXX, showing the reduced {$900.00} credit limit and the Credit Limit Notice ; 4. XXXX XXXX XXXX collection letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, showing third-party collection activity before the XX/XX/XXXX payment due date ; 5. Proof of payment dated XX/XX/XXXX, showing payment in full of {$820.00} ; 6. Direct FCRA dispute to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. c/o XXXX XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX, sent by certified mail ; 7. Experian dispute access screen showing Report Reference No. XXXX and the message For security reasons, we can not process your dispute online ; and 8. Credit-reporting records showing the XXXX score impairment and the continued inaccurate reporting after dispute. XIII. Requested Relief and Required Explanation I request that XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX, XXXX, and Experian address this supplemental evidence in their pending CFPB responses and specifically explain : 9. Why XXXX XX/XX/XXXX dispute result lists XX/XX/XXXX as the Date of 1st Delinquency for this account ; 10. How a Date of 1st Delinquency could lawfully or accurately predate the XX/XX/XXXX payment due date shown on XXXX own billing statement ; 11. Whether XXXX furnished XX/XX/XXXX as the Date of First Delinquency or any equivalent delinquency-related field, and the date on which XXXX did so, to each of XXXX, XXXX, and Experian ; 12. Whether XXXX verified, confirmed, updated, or otherwise permitted continued reporting of XX/XX/XXXX as the Date of 1st Delinquency after receiving the XX/XX/XXXX bureau dispute and the XX/XX/XXXX certified-mail direct dispute ; 13. Whether the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX collection letter was generated because XXXX referred, placed, coded, or otherwise treated the account as delinquent before the XX/XX/XXXX due date ; 14. The basis for the credit limit reduction from {$2600.00} to {$900.00} reflected on the XX/XX/XXXX statement, including the date of the reduction decision, the information relied upon, whether XXXX provided written adverse action notice under 15 U.S.C. 1681m, and the date and substance of any such notice ; 15. Why XXXX failed to update the Date of Last Payment, Balance, and Amount Past Due fields after the account was paid in full on XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX. Why XXXX XX/XX/XXXX dispute response stated that the disputed information should be updated while leaving all material fields unchanged ; 17. Whether XXXX subsequent removal of the XX/XX/XXXX entry from the payment history grid and recategorization of the tradeline reflects a substantive correction of the underlying coded data fields or only a change to the consumer-facing display ; 18. Why XXXX has failed to provide written notice of any reinvestigation result more than three weeks after the XX/XX/XXXX dispute, in apparent violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ; 19. Why Experian has denied online dispute access to me for nearly one month, including access denied errors during four attempts between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and the subsequent phone-only restriction associated with Report Reference No. XXXX ; 20. On what legal basis Experian conditions consumer access to the dispute mechanism on consumer geographic location and U.S. telephone availability during U.S. business hours ; 21. Whether XXXX and the bureaus have sent correction or deletion instructions to all consumer reporting agencies that received the inaccurate data ; and 22. Whether XXXX contends that the account was accurately reportable as 30-59 days past due before thirty full days had elapsed after the XX/XX/XXXX payment due date. I request immediate and complete deletion of the inaccurate delinquency reporting from all consumer reporting agencies to which XXXX furnished the information, including correction of all derived data fields ( Date of First Delinquency, Status, Balance, Amount Past Due, Date of Last Payment ), restoration of the prior {$2600.00} credit limit, immediate restoration of online dispute access on my Experian credit file, written confirmation of all correction and deletion instructions sent to consumer reporting agencies, and a complete written explanation of the basis for each respondents conduct. Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX

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