Consumer complaint received 2025-11-18 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
What happened with the Bank of America account is a prolonged sequence of events involving unclear reporting, lack of proper documentation, inconsistent verification, and multiple unresolved disputes. The issues began when I noticed information related to a Bank of America account appearing on my credit report that did not match my actual knowledge, records, or history. I did not understand why certain negative or derogatory information was appearing, and I had no record of receiving notifications, billing statements, or explanations concerning the activity being reported. Because of this, I initiated a dispute process to understand what exactly was being reported, why it was being reported, and whether the information was accurate. 

The first issue occurred when I noticed that the reported status of the Bank of America account appeared inconsistent and unclear. The dates associated with the alleged activity did not line up with any known timeline. Certain dates of delinquency or adverse activity did not match any event that I recognized. The account also appeared to reflect negative status updates that I had never been informed of. Because I had not received any previous communications from Bank of America that would indicate a serious delinquency, a charge-off, or any collection-related action, I believed there may have been an error in the reporting. 

In response, I submitted a dispute to the credit bureau asking for a full investigation of the Bank of America entry. I requested that the furnisher provide documentation showing how the account originated, how the reported activity was calculated, and what records were used to justify the negative notation. I explicitly asked for information related to the origin of the debt, any billing cycles, any notice of delinquency, any contracts associated with the account, and any details showing my involvement. I did this because I wanted to understand the complete basis of the reporting. However, I did not receive the documentation I expected. 

Instead of receiving detailed records from Bank of America, I received only a brief message from the credit bureau indicating that the furnisher had verified the information. No documents were provided, no explanation was offered, and no specifics were given as to how that verification was performed. I did not receive any contracts, statements, notices, or records showing that I had been sent any information by the bank. 

This lack of transparency prompted me to file another dispute. In the second dispute, I asked again for any evidence that Bank of America had used to support its reporting. I also requested the method of verification, including the name of the person or department who verified the information, the process used to confirm the data, and whether the verification was performed manually or electronically. I believed that a responsible furnisher should be able to produce the underlying documents that support the information they are furnishing. 

However, once again I received the same response from the credit bureau : the information was verified as accurate, yet no supporting documents were provided to me. This repeated response, without documentation, raised concerns about whether Bank of America had conducted a proper review or whether the information had been automatically confirmed through an electronic system without adequate investigation. 

Another issue was the fact that I had never received written notices from Bank of America informing me of any delinquency or negative activity. When a lender reports a significant event such as a charge-off, a delinquency, or any negative status, they are typically required to notify the consumer. I did not receive any letters, emails, calls, or other forms of contact from the bank. If the bank had attempted to contact me, I should have been able to reference those communications. Instead, there was no record of any communication at all. This made the sudden appearance of negative information on my credit report even more concerning. 

During this process, I also attempted to contact Bank of America directly. My objective was to request account documentation, billing statements, or historical records that would show how the reported information was calculated. When I contacted the bank, I was told that they could not locate the information without certain details that I was not comfortable providing over the phone. Additionally, they did not appear to have easy access to any historical records related to the account in question. This raised further concerns because if a company can not produce basic account documentation, it is unclear how they are able to confirm or verify information furnished to credit bureaus. 

Another major issue occurred when I tried to apply for credit at multiple places. On two separate occasions, I was denied credit. After receiving adverse action notices, I reviewed the reasons provided. In both cases, the negative Bank of America information was one of the primary reasons cited for the denial. This meant that the inaccurate or unverified reporting was not only affecting my XXXX XXXX but also actively preventing me from moving forward with financial plans, including obtaining financing for a business venture. This harm caused by the reporting made it even more critical to understand what had occurred. 

When I reviewed the Bank of America entry on my credit report in more detail, I noticed that some of the dates of last activity, dates of update, and balances did not appear consistent. Some details appeared to have changed over time without explanation. Inaccurate dates can significantly affect credit scoring models and can make an account appear more recent or more severe than it actually is. These inconsistencies suggested the possibility of either incorrect reporting, an internal error, or a lack of proper documentation review by the furnisher. 

Another important factor is that some personal information on my credit file was inaccurate at the time, which raised concerns about whether the Bank of America information might have been attached to my file due to mixed files or mismatched identity information. If a persons credit report contains incorrect names, addresses, or identifiers, there is an increased risk of unrelated accounts becoming linked to the wrong individual. Because I noticed name variations and address inconsistencies on my file, I believed this could have contributed to the Bank of America information appearing incorrectly. 

I attempted to correct the personal information by submitting disputes regarding the inaccurate identifiers. Although some corrections were made, not all of the inconsistent personal information was removed. This created further doubt about whether the Bank of America information belonged on my file in the first place. 

Another issue occurred when I requested detailed documentation showing the chain of reporting for the Bank of America data. I asked the credit bureau to explain the source of the information, how it was transmitted, and whether any third-party systems were used for verification. I wanted to know whether the data had been furnished manually by Bank of America or whether it had been sent through an automated system such as XXXX If it had been verified electronically, I wanted to know how the electronic match was made, what fields were used to confirm identity, and what safeguards were in place to prevent errors. I did not receive this information. 

Instead, I received another generic verification response. The lack of documentation showing any chain of custody, any transfer records, or any verification logs made it impossible to understand how Bank of America had determined the information to be accurate. 

Another issue arose when I reviewed the account history section of the Bank of America entry. The history did not show complete payment cycles or the context surrounding how the negative notation was determined. A properly reported account will normally show month-by-month payment activity. In this case, there were gaps, inconsistencies, and incomplete reporting. This gave the appearance of fragmented data rather than a complete and accurate history. 

A fair and accurate representation of an account requires that the data be complete, not partial. Reporting partial or incomplete information can mislead lenders and credit scoring algorithms. Because Bank of America did not provide complete historical records and because the credit report did not display a full sequence of payment history, it appeared that the account reporting was missing important context. 

During the dispute process, I also noticed that some of the Bank of America updates appeared to occur very quickly after the dispute was submittedsometimes within only a few days. This suggested that the verification may have been automated rather than conducted through a full investigation. An automated verification would not satisfy the requirement for a reasonable reinvestigation, especially when documentation is missing or unavailable. In addition, automated responses do not provide consumers with the transparency needed to understand the source of the information. 

I also considered the possibility that Bank of America may no longer have the original records, especially if the account is older or if the banks internal systems changed. Financial institutions sometimes archive or purge records over time. If the bank does not have the original documentation but continues to report the information, this creates a compliance problem because information can not be furnished or verified without actual records supporting it. If the bank relied solely on electronic summaries or incomplete records, they would not be able to reliably confirm the accuracy of the information. 

Another issue that occurred was the failure to receive notice of the results of the investigation in a clear and detailed manner. According to the rules governing disputes, the consumer is entitled to a description of the investigations findings, including what documentation was reviewed. I did not receive any such description. Instead, the responses I received were generic, vague, and lacking in any meaningful detail. Without a proper explanation, I was left unable to understand why Bank of America believed the information to be accurate. 

Because the information remained on my credit report and because I had not been provided verification or documentation, the ongoing presence of the Bank of America entry continued to cause harm. It artificially lowered my XXXX XXXX. It caused me to be denied for credit opportunities. It created confusion during underwriting reviews. It undermined my ability to obtain financing for business purposes. All of these consequences occurred while I was still attempting to understand the origin and legitimacy of the information. 

Another important point is that I submitted documentation to the credit bureau to verify my identity and establish my correct personal information. This included documents proving my current residence and identity. I believed this would help confirm that certain information did not belong to me. However, even after providing this documentation, not all of the inconsistencies were corrected. The Bank of America entry remained, and there was no evidence that my supporting documents were used or reviewed as part of the investigation. 

In summary, what happened with the Bank of America account is a series of unresolved disputes, missing documentation, unverified information, inconsistent reporting, unclear communication, and inadequate reinvestigation. I requested information multiple times. I attempted to correct personal identifiers. I attempted to understand the origin of the reporting. I attempted to request documentation directly from the source. I attempted to clarify inconsistencies. Despite these repeated efforts, I have not received the legally required validation or supporting documentation from the bank. 

The cumulative result is ongoing harm, confusion, financial loss, and inaccurate representation of my creditworthiness. Because the furnisher did not provide the documentation necessary to verify the information and because the reporting continues to be inaccurate, incomplete, or unverified, the Bank of America entry remains unresolved and continues to affect me. 

This is what happened.

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