Consumer complaint received 2025-07-22 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: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Formal Request for Reinvestigation and Full Compliance Review under FCRA, TILA, FCBA, FDCPA, and Metro 2 To Whom It May Concern : This is a formal Reinvestigation Request and Notice of Dispute regarding the information your company is furnishing to the credit reporting agencies under my consumer file.

Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ), and the Fair Credit Billing Act, you are required to conduct a reasonable investigation upon receiving notice of a dispute. I am hereby demanding a reinvestigation of the item ( s ) listed below, and a comprehensive review of your reporting under XXXX XXXX compliance guidelines, including all data fields and condition codes. 

Account Name/Number : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Nature of Dispute : The Date of Last Activity is inconsistent : XXXX  reports XX/XX/XXXX Equifax reports XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX reports XX/XX/XXXX Violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and Metro 2 Field 25 ( inaccurate and misleading reporting of aging ) Dispute Reason : The account is reported as closed under charge-off while still reflecting an outstanding balance, creating a potential contradiction. Additionally, the payment history shows inconsistent reporting patterns, which may lead to incorrect delinquency tracking and credit scoring discrepancies. 

The account status conflicts : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge Off- Collection/Charged Off XXXX : Open Collection/ Charge-off Violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX Field 17 ( status codes must be consistent across CRAs ) The payment history is missing : XXXX XXXX XXXX shows No History Available Violation of XXXX XXXX reporting standards ( field omission reduces transparency and accuracy ) The charge-off date is suspiciously aged : Last activity in XXXX vs. XXXX may indicate artificial account extension Possible violation of FCBA and TILA, which govern aging and accurate charge-off practices This may indicate either : The debt is unverifiable and thus omitted by other CRAs. 
The data furnisher failed to report uniformly, leading to incomplete data transmission in violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). 

Account Name/Number : PORTFOLIO RC ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Nature of Dispute : The Date of Last Activity is inconsistent : XXXX reports XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reports XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX reports XX/XX/XXXX Violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and XXXX XXXX Field 25 ( inaccurate and misleading reporting of aging ) Dispute Reason : The account is marked as closed under charge-off, but a collection balance remains, creating a contradiction under XXXX XXXX reporting standards XXXX Moreover, the payment history shows gaps in reporting consistency, which may impact the correct calculation of the date of first delinquency and charge-off timing. 

The account status conflicts : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge Off- Collection/Charged Off XXXX  : Open Collection/ Charge-off Violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX Field 17 ( status codes must be consistent across CRAs ) The payment history is missing : XXXX XXXX XXXX shows No History Available Violation of XXXX XXXX reporting standards ( field omission reduces transparency and accuracy ) The charge-off date is suspiciously aged : Last activity in XXXX vs. XXXX XXXX indicate artificial account extension Possible violation of FCBA and TILA, which govern aging and accurate charge-off practices This may indicate either : The debt is unverifiable and thus omitted by other CRAs. 
The data furnisher failed to report uniformly, leading to incomplete data transmission in violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). 





Account Name/Number : PORTFOLIO RC ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Nature of Dispute : The Date of Last Activity is inconsistent : XXXX reports XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reports XX/XX/XXXX XXXX reports XX/XX/XXXX Violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and XXXX XXXX Field 25 ( inaccurate and misleading reporting of aging ) Dispute Reason : The account status reflects charge-off with a closed notation, while still showing a collection balance, which can be misleading under XXXX XXXX guidelines. Additionally, payment history inconsistencies may result in incorrect delinquency aging, potentially affecting score calculation negatively. 

The account status conflicts : XXXX XXXX XXXX : Charge Off- Collection/Charged Off XXXX : Open Collection/ Charge-off Violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX Field 17 ( status codes must be consistent across CRAs ) The payment history is missing : XXXX XXXX XXXX shows No History Available Violation of XXXX XXXX reporting standards ( field omission reduces transparency and accuracy ) The charge-off date is suspiciously aged : Last activity in XXXX vs. XXXX XXXX indicate artificial account extension Possible violation of FCBA and TILA, which govern aging and accurate charge-off practices This may indicate either : The debt is unverifiable and thus omitted by other CRAs. 
The data furnisher failed to report uniformly, leading to incomplete data transmission in violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). 


Account Name/Number : PORTFOLIO RC ( XXXX BANK ) XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Nature of Dispute : The Date of Last Activity is inconsistent : XXXX  reports XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX reports XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX reports XX/XX/XXXX Violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and XXXX XXXX Field 25 ( inaccurate and misleading reporting of aging ) Dispute Reason : I am disputing the Portfolio RC account reporting on my XXXX credit report. There are inaccuracies in how this account is listed. The account balance, last activity date, and account status are inconsistent with other reports. Additionally, the payment history contains errors that do not accurately reflect my account status. Please conduct an investigation and correct or remove any inaccurate information. 

The account status conflicts : TXXXX XXXX XXXX : Charge Off- Collection/Charged Off XXXX : Open Collection/ Charge-off Violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX Field 17 ( status codes must be consistent across CRAs ) The payment history is missing : XXXX XXXX XXXX  shows No History Available Violation of Metro 2 reporting standards ( field omission reduces transparency and accuracy ) The charge-off date is suspiciously aged : Last activity in XXXX vs. XXXX XXXX indicate artificial account extension Possible violation of FCBA and TILA, which govern aging and accurate charge-off practices This may indicate either : The debt is unverifiable and thus omitted by other CRAs. 
The data furnisher failed to report uniformly, leading to incomplete data transmission in violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief