Consumer complaint received 2019-10-14 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: Professional Bureau of Collections of Maryland, Inc., GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO Branch
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
I disputed some accounts on my credit report, sent out on XX/XX/2019. XXXX did receive that dispute letter on XX/XX/2019 USPS tracking XXXX XXXX, according to FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ( i ), had 30 days to respond to my dispute letter of the accounts ; if not, they were supposed to remove/delete all the accounts disputed. They missed their deadline by sending a response with the post mark of XX/XX/2019 ( see attachment XXXX Late ), therefore they did not comply with the law. I received a response letter stating that two accounts would remain : Report response reference numbers : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX Dept of Ed/XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DE XXXX In regards to their response, which should be voidedthey did not supply my requests. I requested verifiable of an original Consumer Contract with my signature on it, again, according to the law FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). 
Their response was that they reached out to the debt collectors and the debt collectors informed them that the debt is verified. The law says that the CRAs must conduct a reasonable investigation, FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) which according to Kushman vs Transunion, they have to conduct an independent investigation. They are still conducting the same practices that were ruled against within this case. I have also requested to know their method of verification involving my dispute. I requested the exact procedures taken to conclude their results, who was involved, but none of these requests have been provided ; for both, XXXX XXXX nor XXXX. 

The account for XXXX was transferred/Sold immediately to the Department Default group as soon as my dispute was sent to them. It is my opinion that they sent it to default to avoid having to verify the account and force the Dept of Ed to deal with me. The Dept of Ed is only involved because of XXXX claiming to be the holder of the account, but has not verified it. The Dept of Ed claims that XXXX is now, formerly XXXX XXXX. XXXX has already lawsuit in the courts to CFPB due their falsehood methods, but shall they continue. They are not following the law, once again. I have requested verifiable proof but it has not been fulfilled. Due to all of the data breaches, one should understand this simple request. I have even noticed that the names and address listed under the Secretary of State business licenses do not match for XXXX. They are listed as just XXXX  on my reports while showing XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX, and the address is different from the Secretary of States listing in Louisiana. They do not all match. Shouldnt XXXX be held accountable to provide verifiable proof that I owe them this debt that XXXX is claiming? Shouldnt they have to provide me, the consumer, all the information associated with my file, at my request? They names of those that have touched my file, their exact method of how they verified other than just speaking to the debt collector, XXXX? 
In addition, XXXX was closed but still reporting charges, and now the Dept of Ed is reporting the same dept to my credit report. It is illegal for the CRAs to report the same debt from two different sources with balances from both, but they are doing it right now. 
There are errors listed on the payment history as well. One month shows Ok, then the next month shows 90 days late. According to the legend provided on the credit report, each month is supposed to progress from 30 days, to 60 days, to 90 days late, etc. This is inaccurate late payment reporting. I have demanded proof of payment history to clarify these errors, but nothing has been given, so now my payment history reflect false summaries, which have affected my credit as well. 
XXXX should not have been able to report my account to the Dept of Ed because they never sent verifiable proof of the debt at my request, which was sent out on XX/XX/2019. The 30 days have past for this request to have been fulfilled by XXXX as well. 
XXXX XXXX has not provided XXXX with verifiable proof either. XXXX  has closed their accounts, but they are still reporting charges to that account, which continues to drop my credit score. I have demanded that XXXX delete XXXX XXXX because they have inaccurate reporting and have not verified the debt with the original consumers contract with my signature on it. Instead, XXXX told me that XXXX XXXX has verified. When I asked for their procedure of verification and the method, I was told that they have already investigated this matter and it has been verified.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation