Consumer complaint received 2024-10-31 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: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
Inaccurate Credit Clinic Labeling : Multiple accounts across my credit report with this agency have been labeled credit clinic purposes- hard, falsely implying third-party involvement in my dispute filings. Every dispute has been filed independently by me through the CFPB, where I personally certified that I am not utilizing a credit repair agency. This inaccurate label unfairly biases the investigation process, diminishes the priority given to my disputes, and undermines the fairness of each review. This mislabeling is baseless and has introduced bias, limiting my right to a fair investigation under FCRA. 


2. XXXX XXXX  Erroneous and Retaliatory Reporting as Root Cause : XXXXXXXX XXXX  has engaged in negligent and retaliatory reporting practices, creating repeated inaccuracies across my credit report. Despite XXXX XXXX XXXX formal deletion confirmation dated XX/XX/2024 ( indicating the XXXX accounts closure with a {$0.00} balance ), XXXX continues to report it as active and has re-aged the account to extend derogatory marks beyond the original charge-off date. This re-aging and retaliatory reporting by XXXX have necessitated multiple filings, each addressing specific, unique inaccuracies directly stemming from XXXX unsupported certifications. These repeated complaints are therefore warranted and essential to address errors introduced by XXXX. 


3. Transaction Records Needed for Pre-Bankruptcy Accounts : I am also requesting transaction records for several pre-bankruptcy accounts, including XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. During the time in question, I was medically incapacitated, as documented by my FTC Identity Theft Report and hospice certification, both of which confirm my inability to oversee my accounts. Given that these accounts remain reported as valid, I assume they have undergone creditor certification and validation, meaning this agency has access to records that should support these certifications. These transaction records are necessary to determine the legitimacy of specific transactions ; if these records are unavailable, continued reporting would be unjustified under FCRAs standards. 


4. Over-Reliance on XXXX  Unsupported Certifications Without Independent Review : This agencys continued reliance on XXXX unsupported certifications has allowed significant inaccuracies to persist. My previous complaints provided updated evidence with each filing, revealing new issues or documenting ongoing errors introduced by XXXX. Despite this evidence, the agency has failed to conduct an independent review, relying solely on XXXX certification. This blind reliance contradicts FCRAs requirements for accuracy and impartial dispute investigation. 


5. Significant Financial and Personal Harm Due to Biased Handling of Disputes : XXXX retaliatory actions, combined with this agencys misclassification of my disputes as credit clinic and its failure to conduct unbiased investigations, have directly caused substantial harm to my credit standing and financial reputation. Every dispute has been filed in good faith to address specific errors or introduce new evidence, yet the agencys use of the credit clinic label has biased investigations, undermining my FCRA rights.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation