Consumer complaint received 2025-08-06 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: Possible Financial Inc
State: MS

Complaint narrative:
Possible Financial has reported this account with conflicting status indicators over an extended period. The tradeline alternates between Charge-Off and Placed for Collection across multiple months, despite the account being closed and inactive. This inconsistency violates both XXXX XXXX reporting standards and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).

Despite submitting formal disputes, the account continues to reflect derogatory status with no resolution, no suppression, and no validation. This has misled lenders, suppressed my credit score, and caused direct financial harm.

Violations Cited FCRA Violations 1681e ( b ) : Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. The account reflects contradictory status codes and unverifiable delinquency.

1681i ( a ) : Failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation after receiving consumer disputes. No changes were made to the tradeline despite multiple dispute submissions.

1681s-2 ( b ) : Furnishing inaccurate information after being notified of a dispute. Possible Financial continued reporting the same derogatory status without verifying or correcting the data.

1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) : Reporting outdated delinquency beyond the permissible timeframe. The accounts derogatory status has not been updated since closure. 

XXXX XXXX Compliance Violations Improper Use of Status Codes 93 & 97 : Alternating between Placed for Collection and Charge-Off violates XXXX XXXX logic for closed accounts. These codes are mutually exclusive and must reflect a clear resolution path.

Missing or Incorrect Field 12 ( Date of First Delinquency ) : The trade-line lacks a properly coded delinquency date, which is required to determine aging and expiration under FCRA.

Failure to Update Payment History Profile : The account shows no progression,
resolution, or closure violating XXXX XXXX requirement for accurate aging and status transitions. 

Absence of Dispute Indicator ( Code 166 ) : Despite multiple disputes, Possible Financial failed to apply or update the dispute indicator, violating XXXX XXXX re-investigation and suppression protocols.


Cushman v. TransUnion Corp., 115 F.3d 220 ( 3rd Cir. 1997 ) : Furnishers must conduct meaningful investigations. Failure to do so constitutes willful noncompliance under FCRA. Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, No. 05-4757 ( N.D. Cal . 2006 ) : Court ruled that duplicative and misleading reporting caused consumer harm and justified statutory damages. Macik v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 14-cv-00044 ( S.D. Tex. 2015 ) : Jury awarded damages for improper Payment Rating coding and failure to update closed account status. Lexington Law v. TransUnion ( Case Summaries ) : Courts ruled that stale data and failure to suppress disputes violate FCRA and entitle consumers to relief. I have submitted multiple disputes in good faith. Possible Financial has ignored them, failed to investigate, and continued reporting false and outdated information. This is not a clerical error it is willful negligence. I am demanding full deletion of this account and monetary compensation for the harm caused. If this matter is not resolved within 15 days, I will escalate to formal litigation and pursue the maximum statutory, actual, and punitive damages allowed by law. I will not back down.

Company public response: Company disputes the facts presented in the complaint
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation