Consumer complaint received 2025-11-20 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: SC

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) for FDCPA & FCRA Violations This is my third active CFPB complaint regarding this same account because XXXX XXXX XXXX continues to report inaccurate information, violate federal timelines, and provide misleading statements during the dispute process. 

Cfpb prior complaint numbers : XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX Violated the 5-Day Notice Requirement ( FDCPA 1692g ( a ) ) XXXX uploaded their own XX/XX/XXXX initial letter into the CFPB system as proof of notice. 
However : XXXX XXXX assigned the account around XX/XX/XXXX ( per PRAs own documents ). 
XXXX did not send me their first notice until XX/XX/XXXX 15 days later, not 5.

Their own submission confirms this violation. 



2. XXXX Attempted Collection Before Any Validation Was Ever Provided ( FDCPA 1692g ( b ) ) After the late XX/XX/XXXX letter, XXXX immediately began collection activity : XXXX collection notice XX/XX/XXXX another collection notice At this point, XXXX had not validated the debt under any federal standard. 

I did not begin disputing the debt until XXXX, after reviewing my reports for military enlistment. XXXX did not provide any validation until XX/XX/XXXX, which was months after collection activity began. 

This is clear collection activity prior to validation. 

3. TIMELINE OF PRAS FAILURE TO VALIDATE XXXX received my validation request on XX/XX/XXXX. 
They did not upload anything until XX/XX/XXXX over XXXX later. 

Under the law : A federal court found 30 days to be a reasonable validation timeframe ( Thomas v. Shapiro & Kreisman, 1993 ). 
Another federal court found up to 45 days reasonable, but anything beyond that is not ( Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 1999 ).

CFPB guidance states that 30 days is generally a reasonable period for a furnisher or debt collector to complete a validation or investigation, and up to 45 days may be reasonable depending on the circumstances. 

XXXX  XXXX day delay violates ALL of these standards. 

And even after 64 days, what XXXX provided still was NOT validation. 

XXXX. XXXX Continued Furnishing & Updating the Account During an Active Dispute Even while my disputes and CFPB cases were open, XXXX continued to : furnish new data add new remarks alter status codes trigger multiple reinsertions/ updates with the credit bureaus This is continued communication under the FDCPA, and XXXX can not legally keep furnishing updates while simultaneously representing to the CFPB that they have ceased all communication. 

This violates : FDCPA 1692c FDCPA 1692g ( b ) FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Even after XXXX certified to the CFPB that all communications would cease, they continued updating and modifying the tradeline, which directly conflicts with their certification. 

XXXX also told the XXXX  they were investigating, yet at the same time, my Equifax report already showed : Investigation complete consumer disagrees And XXXX continued reporting the account as verified This contradicts XXXX statements to the XXXX  and supports that XXXX was not conducting any real investigation and simply marking disputes as verified while supplying no validation. 

XXXX  Actions Caused the Credit Bureaus to Reclassify the Account Improperly Because of XXXX  incorrect and incomplete furnishing : Equifax moved the account out of Collections, then into Closed Accounts, then back into Collections, and continues altering remarks. 
XXXX  followed a similar pattern. 
XXXX  initially refused deletion and is now reinvestigating because of PRAs contradictory information. 

A collection agency can not legally be reported as a closed account, because no creditorconsumer relationship exists between me and XXXX. 

This violates : FCRA 623 FCRA 607 ( b ) ( maximum possible accuracy ) 4. What XXXX Provided vs. What XXXX Failed to Provide What XXXX Provided on XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX sent one XXXX  XXXX billing statement and one generic XXXX  XXXX letter. 
They also included a XXXX cover sheet stating that this should serve as validation. 
That is all they provided. 

XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX cover sheet references an electronic file sent by XXXX XXXX, but : An electronic file is not a bill of sale. 
It is not a chain of title. 
It is not proof of ownership or authority to collect. 
It does not establish assignment terms, transfer terms, or creditor authorization. 

5. What XXXX Failed to Provide : XXXX has still not provided any of the legally required validation items under FDCPA 809 ( b ), including : No bill of sale No chain of title / assignment agreement No proof of ownership / transfer agreement No authority to collect No contract with my signature No itemized charges No account-level transaction history No accounting showing how the balance was calculated Therefore, the documents provided on XX/XX/XXXX do not meet the legal standard of validation under FDCPA 809 ( b ), nor the CFPB standards of reasonable proof of ownership, itemization, and transfer documentation. XXXX has still not validated this debt. 

XXXX never sent me the XX/XX/XXXX initial letter at any point during my XXXX validation request. That letter was only uploaded to the CFPB portal, not provided to me in the XX/XX/XXXX validation packet. I later located the original XX/XX/XXXX letter myself while reviewing old mail, along with XXXX additional collection attempt letters. Screenshots of all three letters are included for reference. 

Requested Relief I am requesting : 1. Immediate permanent deletion of this XXXX XXXX tradeline from all three credit bureaus. 
2. An investigation into PRAs failure to comply with FDCPA 1692g ( a ) and 1692g ( b ).

3. An investigation into PRAs inaccurate furnishing under FCRA 623.

4. A formal investigation into PRAs failure to validate before collecting 5. A review of their conflicting statements to CFPB, the XXXX, and the XXXX Notice I have already taken additional formal steps, including : Sending XXXX a 7-day demand letter with intent to sue, which they received on XX/XX/XXXX. ( proof attached ) Proceeding with a civil lawsuit, which was already filed in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX case number : XXXX ( proof attached ). The filing was later returned only due to a filing-fee issue that I am in the process of resolving. 
Filing complaints with the South Carolina Attorney General, FCC and FTC, with more agency filings pending. 

XXXX is fully on notice that their continued violations have triggered legal action. 


XXXX was formally warned and chose to ignore legal notice. 

XXXX, Equifax, and XXXX  are being included on notice in this CFPB complaint so each bureau is fully aware of XXXX XXXX XXXX violations, inconsistent furnishing, and failure to validate this account. This information supports my active disputes and ensures all three bureaus have the complete record of dates, documents, and violations outlined above.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation