Consumer complaint received 2025-08-17 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: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
Experian Credit Reporting Issues XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Initial Experian Report ( Negative Accounts Identified ) On XX/XX/XXXX, my Experian credit report listed several derogatory accounts. Key negative entries included : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Loan ) A personal loan opened XX/XX/XXXX with original balance {$3000.00}. As of XX/XX/XXXX it was reported charged off with {$3400.00} written off. The balance was {$0.00} ( sold or collected ) with a status Account charged off last updated XX/XX/XXXX. This charge-off was scheduled to remain until XX/XX/XXXX. ( Another XXXX XXXX account opened XX/XX/XXXX for {$2000.00} was also on the report, but that one was paid and closed in good standing. ) XXXX XXXX ( Credit Card ) Opened XX/XX/XXXX, with a credit limit of {$300.00}. By XX/XX/XXXX it had a small balance ( around $ XXXX {$94.00} ) and showed a history of serious delinquencies in XXXX. The XXXX report reflected multiple late payments : up to 120 days past due in XX/XX/XXXX and 90 days past due in XX/XX/XXXX, among other XXXX delinquencies. Although the account was open with a modest balance, Experian flagged it as Potentially Negative due to this past derogatory history. XXXX was XXXX but with prior delinquencies ( the status was noted as updated XX/XX/XXXX, likely after some payment activity ). 


XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX ( Credit Card ) Opened XX/XX/XXXX, with a credit limit of {$600.00} and a balance around $ XXXX. This account was delinquent as well. The XX/XX/XXXX report showed it past due ( approximately {$73.00} past due by that time ) with late payments recorded in XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. It was still open and accruing fees/interest, and was listed as a negative account. ( No dispute notation was present yet on this date. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) Opened XX/XX/XXXX, original amount {$15000.00}. This loan was included in a XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( filed XXXX ) and showed XXXX through XXXX XXXX Bankruptcy ( status updated XX/XX/XXXX ). The balance was {$0.00} after discharge. However, the payment history on the XXXX report still reflected the serious delinquencies leading up to bankruptcy e.g. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX late marks throughout XXXX. By XX/XX/XXXX, this account was scheduled to remain on record until XX/XX/XXXX. ( It was a negative tradeline due to the prior defaults, though marked as included in bankruptcy. ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) Opened XX/XX/XXXX, original loan {$110.00} for a XXXX installment plan. This accounts status on XX/XX/XXXX is noteworthy : at that time it was not yet showing as a major derogatory. The XXXX report either did not flag it as negative or showed it as recently opened with a balance ( ~ {$110.00} ) and maybe XXXX payment coming due. ( In late XXXX, a {$40.00} payment was made, so as of XXXX it XXXX not have hit a full XXXX delinquency yet. ) In other words, the XXXX loan was not listed as a derogatory account as of XX/XX/XXXX no past due notation had been fully reported by that date. 


In summary ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : I identified XXXX negative accounts on the Experian report : the XXXXXXXX XXXXey charge-off, XXXX XXXX card ( with multiple past-due notations ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( past due ), XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ( defaulted , in bankruptcy ), and ( potentially ) the XXXX loan which at that time did not yet show a past-due status. These accounts had various inaccuracies or issues I disputed ( e.g. possible re-aging of the XXXX accounts dates, lingering delinquencies on the bankrupt auto loan, and incorrect past-due reporting on open accounts ). 


XX/XX/XXXX Experian Report ( After Initial Disputes Filed ) By XX/XX/XXXX, after I submitted a detailed manual dispute letter in XXXX, Experian generated a new report. The disputes were in progress or recently completed for some items. Notable changes and inconsistencies on the XX/XX/XXXX report included : XXXX XXXX now a Negative Account : In the XX/XX/XXXX report, the XXXX loan first appeared with derogatory status. It was now showing as XXXX {$70.00} past due, with the first payment never received. In fact, by early XXXX it was 60 days past due ( reflecting missed payments in XXXX and XXXX ). This is a new derogatory notation that was not present on the XX/XX/XXXX report. Essentially, the XXXX account turned into a negative mark in XXXX a significant development since it had not been flagged as late in the previous file. The status update now read XX/XX/XXXX, and Experian added a consumer dispute comment ( because I had included this account in my dispute letter ). This sudden reporting of XXXX missed payments in the XXXX file, along with a remark First payment never received ( logged in XX/XX/XXXX ), suggests that Experian updated this tradeline during the investigation. The timing makes it appear re-aged or newly delinquent in the eyes of the report the accounts derogatory status is now very fresh ( XX/XX/XXXX ) whereas the original delinquency began earlier in the summer. 


XXXX XXXX minimal change ( still delinquent ) : The XXXX XXXX card remained on the report with its prior delinquencies. By XX/XX/XXXX, the balance had increased slightly ( to about {$94.00}, updated XX/XX/XXXX ), suggesting interest or fees added. It was still open and listed as negative. Importantly, Experian had added a notation that I had previously disputed this account : the XXXX report shows a comment Account previously in dispute investigation complete, reported by data furnisher for XXXX XXXX. This comment indicates that I disputed this tradeline earlier ( in XX/XX/XXXX ) and Experian marked the dispute as completed. Indeed, the XXXX XXXX section confirms This item was updated from our processing of your dispute in XX/XX/XXXX.. In other words, sometime between the XXXX and XXXX reports, Experian supposedly investigated XXXX XXXX. Result : They left the late payments and status intact, only appending the note that the creditor verified the information. The account still showed serious derogatory marks ( XXXX days late in XXXX XXXX ) and Experian failed to remove XXXX correct those as I requested. If anything, by updating the account in XXXX and again noting it in XXXX, Experian made the negative entry look more recent. ( The * * Status Updated field is XX/XX/XXXX now, rather than the last actual delinquency in XXXX, effectively refreshing the item on my report. ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  dispute in progress : On the XX/XX/XXXX report, the XXXX XXXX account was now explicitly flagged as Under Dispute by Experian. My manual dispute letter had asked for a thorough review/correction of this account as well. By early XXXX, Experian had updated the status to Open {$73.00} past due as of XX/XX/XXXX and a Status Updated date of XX/XX/XXXX. The payment history still showed the prior late payments ( 30 days late in XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XXXX ; 60 days late in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ). Notably, Experian did not fix the inaccuracies the past-due amount and derogatory marks remained. Instead, they simply tagged the account as disputed. The XXXX XXXX on the later XX/XX/XXXX report confirms This item was updated from our processing of your dispute in XX/XX/XXXX.. This means by the XX/XX/XXXX report, they were in the process of updating it. However, the update did not correct the core issue the account still shows as delinquent. In fact, by updating the status to XX/XX/XXXX without removal, Experian effectively re-aged the delinquency, making the last activity appear XX/XX/XXXX instead of the older late dates. This continued past-due reporting ( now {$73.00} past due ) despite my dispute suggests Experian ignored my instruction to correct or remove the erroneous reporting on this account. 


XXXX XXXX no correction yet ( XXXX account unchanged, XXXX updated ) : I had disputed the XXXX XXXX XXXX listings, pointing out that one might be duplicate or inaccurate alongside the charged-off loan. In the XX/XX/XXXX report, the charged-off XXXX loan was still present with no visible changes ( it still showed {$3400.00} written-off, with the same XX/XX/XXXX removal date ). The second XXXX account ( the paid-off loan ) also remained. There was no indication of correction by XX/XX/XXXX. ( By the next report on XX/XX/XXXX, Experian notes appear : the paid account remained unchanged from our processing of your dispute in XX/XX/XXXX, and the charged-off account was updated from our processing of your dispute in XX/XX/XXXX.. In short, as of early XXXX, Experian had not yet fixed anything on XXXX. By XXXX, they claim to have updated the negative XXXX entry but the only observable update is the addition of the dispute notation. The fundamental data ( dates, balance, etc. ) stayed the same. No deletion or substantive correction was made. The On Record Until date remained XX/XX/XXXX, which matches a first delinquency in late XXXX so if anything, the item was not removed despite being potentially obsolete or mis-reported. My concern was that Experian might be re-aging this tradeline ; after dispute, the item still shows in XXXX as a recently verified charge-off, keeping it alive on the report instead of considering an earlier obsolescence date. ) XXXX dispute completed ( no change in status ) : By XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX auto loan still appeared much as before : included in bankruptcy, {$0.00} balance, with all the historical late marks. The critical difference after my dispute was a new comment on the account : Completed investigation of FCRA dispute consumer disagrees.. This comment ( present by XX/XX/XXXX and still on XX/XX/XXXX ) indicates that I disputed the XXXX account and did not agree with XXXX resolution. Indeed, the XXXX XXXX notes that Experian processed a dispute in XX/XX/XXXX for this item. The outcome was that Experian verified the account as accurate and left it unchanged, despite my request for correction. I had raised issues with this tradeline ( for example, the account continued to show derogatory late payments even though it was XXXX in bankruptcy those late notations should perhaps have stopped once the bankruptcy was filed ). Experian failed to correct that. Instead, they merely added the statement that I disagree with their findings. No deletion or update to the late payment history was done. The account remained marked Under Dispute in the header on the XXXX report, yet there was no further action by Experian to fix the reporting. 


XX/XX/XXXX Latest Experian Report ( Post-Dispute Results ) On XX/XX/XXXX, Experian issued another report incorporating the results of my disputes. This final report still shows all the above accounts, with some notations from XXXX investigation, but little actual correction. Key points on this latest report : XXXX XXXX : Still listed as open and delinquent ( 60 days past due ) with {$70.00} balance. The payment history confirms XXXX late in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX late in XX/XX/XXXX. Experian did not remove or fix this account ; instead, they updated it to show the missed payments and added my dispute comments. The comment section shows Account information disputed by consumerFirst payment never received. ( XX/XX/XXXX ). Experians Reinvestigation Info states This item was updated from our processing of your dispute in XX/XX/XXXX.. In effect, the only outcome was that Experian verified and updated the account, which actually introduced the derogatory marks onto my report ( since, as noted, it hadnt been showing as negative before ). This is a prime example of Experian introducing a new negative item instead of resolving an error my dispute seems to have prompted them to report the delinquency more prominently, rather than examining any inaccuracies I raised. The debt appears effectively re-aged to the present, because now the status/update date is XX/XX/XXXX. 


XXXX XXXXXXXX : Remains open with a {$94.00} balance ( updated XX/XX/XXXX ) and derogatory history. The latest report still flags it as negative. The dispute comment ( previously in dispute investigation complete ) is shown as Current status on the account. Experians handling here : they processed my dispute ( in XXXX ) and left the account reporting exactly the same lates, simply appending a note that the data furnisher verified it. No corrections were made to the incorrect late payment notations I challenged. For instance, if a payment was made and not properly reported, Experian did not fix that. They did not remove the account either. No new errors were introduced per se, but failing to remove or correct the old delinquencies means the inaccuracies persist. The accounts On record until XX/XX/XXXX suggests it will remain negative for 7 years from the last delinquency ( XX/XX/XXXX ) again, Experian did nothing to adjust that, even though I requested a review. 


XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  : Still open with {$820.00} balance and now {$73.00} past due as of XX/XX/XXXX. The payment history and past-due notations remain unchanged ( XXXX lates in XXXX XXXX XXXX etc. ). Experians final report marks it Under Dispute ( because I continued to contest the outcome ). The XXXX XXXX confirms they handled my dispute in XX/XX/XXXX. However, they failed to correct or remove the erroneous information. The account still shows a past-due balance and the same late history. In fact, by updating the status in XX/XX/XXXX without changes, Experian essentially re-affirmed the derogatory entry as current. The status updated date is XX/XX/XXXX, which can be seen as a form of re-aging the delinquency is now tied to a current date rather than solely to the original late dates in XXXX. Experian did not comply with my instruction to perform a manual verification with proper documentation. Instead, they likely relied on an automated verification from the creditor, left the data as-is, and merely noted the dispute. This ignores the substance of my dispute letter, which pointed out reporting errors. 


XXXXXXXX XXXX : On the XX/XX/XXXX report, Experian annotated the XXXX XXXX entries with dispute results. The paid-off XXXX loan shows This item remained unchanged from our processing of your dispute in XXXX XXXX meaning Experian did nothing and left it on the report ( despite my request to remove what I believed was an erroneous or duplicate listing ). The charged-off XXXX loan shows This item was updated from our processing of your dispute in XX/XX/XXXX.. In practical terms, the only update I can see is that Experian added that notation ; the account still shows {$3400.00} charged off, status charged off in XX/XX/XXXX, and due to drop off XX/XX/XXXX. There is no correction of any inaccuracy. If anything, the act of verifying it in XX/XX/XXXX could be seen as re-aging the item now has a fresh dispute verification date associated with it. Experian failed to remove this account even if it XXXX have been obsolete or unverified. They also did not correct the on record until date ( if it was wrong ) I suspect it might still be calculated from a possibly incorrect date. In sum, Experians response on XXXX was wholly inadequate : XXXX account unchanged, the other updated in name only. They ignored my specific instructions ( for example, if I provided proof that XXXX of these XXXX accounts was never mine or should have been removed, that evidence was not acknowledged ). 


XXXX : The XX/XX/XXXX report continues to list the XXXX XXXX loan with the same derogatory history and bankruptcy status. Experian added the dispute comment as noted earlier : Completed investigation of FCRA dispute consumer disagrees.. This confirms that by XX/XX/XXXX, nothing was fixed I still disagree with Experians conclusion, and Experians system reflects that stalemate. They did not remove the account ( which I requested due to the bankruptcy ), nor did they adjust any of the late payment notations from XXXX. The account remains scheduled to report until XX/XX/XXXX. Experians handling here shows a complete failure to correct information : even after my dispute, the old late payments from before the bankruptcy are all still there, which is unfair and not reflective of the fact the debt was XXXX. Additionally, while the account shows {$0.00} balance ( which is correct post-bankruptcy ), Experian did not ensure the narrative was updated to Included in Bankruptcy it only says XXXX, and all the derogatory codes remain. This lack of meaningful change suggests Experian ignored the spirit of my dispute ( to have the trade-line properly updated or removed ), only adding a notation that effectively blames the consumer for disagreeing. 


Experians Failure to Correct Errors and Indications of Re-Aging Throughout this period ( XXXX XXXX ), Experian repeatedly failed to make the corrections I requested and in some cases made the situation worse : No Removal of Inaccurate Information : Not a single negative account that I disputed was removed, despite my providing a manual dispute letter with detailed explanations and ( where applicable ) supporting evidence. For example, I asked Experian to remove duplicate or incorrect accounts ( like the extra XXXX XXXX entry ), but Experian left it unchanged on my file. I also requested removal or correction of accounts that were not verified with original documentation ( for instance, if the creditors didnt respond properly ). Experian ignored these instructions, defaulting to the creditors verifications via automated means. 


Dispute Results Not Reflected in Corrections : Experians own reports acknowledge my disputes ( the Reinvestigation Info sections list disputes in XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX for the various tradelines ). However, aside from adding boilerplate comments, Experian did not fix the actual report data. Late payments that I challenged as impossible or incorrect remain. Charge-off details I questioned ( such as confirm the amounts and dates ) were not adjusted. In essence, Experians investigations resulted in verified no change across the board, which is unsatisfactory given the clear evidence I provided of mistakes. 


Introduction of New Derogatory Notations : After my disputes, new negative remarks appeared. The most glaring example is the XXXX account, which went from unremarked in XXXX to XXXX past-due in XXXX with a fresh derogatory notation first payment never received. This gives the appearance that the account was handled incorrectly rather than investigate why the payment was reported late or whether the reporting was timely, Experian simply updated the file to add the delinquency. Similarly, for XXXX XXXX, the account now shows an XX/XX/XXXX past-due status, which refreshes the derogatory item on my credit. These actions by Experian effectively re-aged the delinquency dates on my report. By tagging the accounts with recent dates ( XXXX, XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) during dispute processing, Experian made old negatives look newer. For instance, XXXX XXXX last actual late payment was XX/XX/XXXX, yet Experians update makes it appear delinquent as of XX/XX/XXXX. This re-aging is detrimental and improper under the FCRA, which prohibits continuing to report old negatives as if they are new. 


Ignored Manual Review Request : My dispute letter explicitly requested a manual, thorough review of each contested item ( rather than the automated e-Oscar verification ). I also included specific instructions and information for each account ( for example, noting that the XXXX account was XXXX and should not list ongoing past dues, or that XXXX XXXX was duplicative, etc. ). Experian appears to have disregarded these instructions. The outcome suggests they relied on automated responses from furnishers. There is no evidence in the report that Experian considered my documentation or performed any independent analysis. For example, I asked for verification of the original account documents/signatures for the accounts I doubted Experian did not indicate that any such documentation was produced. They simply marked items as updated or unchanged without explanation. This lack of a true manual reinvestigation violates my rights under FCRA 611, which requires a reasonable investigation. 


New Errors Introduced : In addition to re-aging, some details changed inconsistently. The XXXX XXXX balance history, for instance, shows duplicate entries for XX/XX/XXXX with different balances ( {$84.00} and {$82.00} ), which is confusing and XXXX be an error in reporting after the dispute. Also, by XX/XX/XXXX, some accounts had slight balance increases ( e.g., XXXX XXXX went to {$94.00} from the mid- $ XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX to {$820.00} from {$750.00} ) due to fees/interest, but no correction to the past due calculation was made. Its possible Experian failed to note a payment I made. If so, thats an error of omission. Without the corrections I asked for, the reports contain inconsistent data that makes it difficult to discern the true account statuses. 


Conclusion Pattern of Inaccurate Reporting and Poor Dispute Handling In summary, from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, Experians handling of my credit file has been deeply problematic : Multiple negative accounts ( charge-off, late accounts, bankruptcy account ) showed up with errors or outdated derogatory marks. Over time, new derogatory notations were added ( XXXX past due status ) and dispute comments appear, but the underlying errors were not fixed. 


I diligently submitted a manual dispute letter detailing each issue. Key dates and amounts were provided, such as the {$3400.00} charge-off on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$73.00} past-due on XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX discharge date for XXXX, etc., XXXX with explanations. Experian either failed to act on this information or simply deferred to creditors without real investigation. 


Experian did not correct any of the listed items. Instead, they updated some of them in a way that re-aged the debt or made the negative information more current. They introduced new errors by resetting status dates to the dispute resolution dates ( for example, labeling items as updated in XXXX XXXX, which can unfairly impact credit scores by making delinquencies look recent ). 


Experian ignored my specific instructions to conduct a proper review. There is no indication they considered the detailed explanations or evidence I provided. For instance, I requested that the XXXX account be marked appropriately or removed since it was included in bankruptcy Experian left all the old late payments and simply noted consumer disagrees. I pointed out that the XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts appeared duplicative ( one should possibly not be on the report ) Experian left both, unchanged. I asked that any verification include actual account-level documentation Experians results show no sign of that ; they just relied on furnishers saying verified. 


Bottom line : Experian has failed to ensure maximum possible accuracy of my credit report. Over this timeline, they have persistently reported inaccurate and derogatory information, even after disputes. They have re-aged debts by updating status dates, left uncorrected errors, and potentially violated my dispute rights by not performing a true investigation. This narrative, with the dates and details above, demonstrates the pattern of Experians poor reporting and dispute handling, which I am submitting for the CFPBs review. The evidence shows that Experians actions ( or inaction ) have harmed my credit reports integrity, and I seek the CFPBs assistance to correct these issues promptly. All facts stated are backed by the Experian reports from XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX and the correspondence from Experian regarding my disputes.

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