Consumer complaint received 2022-04-14 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 — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
The XXXX code is XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX, disabled both my access to e-statements and stopped sending paper statements. This is acknowledged in XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to my billing error notification sent on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, by XXXX XXXX XXXX associate XXXX XXXX. In that e-mail XXXX explains the system automatically took this action. The access was allegedly re-enabled, but had been disabled again by early XX/XX/XXXX. Therefore, I did not receive statements for periods from the onset in XX/XX/XXXX thru present. XXXX was given the statutory two ( 2 ) full billing cycle periods to correct the billing errors. When the XX/XX/XXXX billing statement did not arrive, I notified XXXX again on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX responded again acknowledging the error and stated I would have no further online access as my online banking access was now locked. In a XXXX XX/XX/XXXX follow-up, I asked XXXX if XXXX could confirm I was receiving paper statements. I received no response. 

My accounts were reported by XXXX to the CRAs on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX as charged-off. 

I filed at least two ( 2 ) billing error notices, apprising UMCU that I was not receiving statements and was unable to retrieve them via the banking portal. XXXX acknowledged this in two ( 2 ) different responses, but has not been able to rectify the situation. 

It is the unlawful for XXXX to report derogatory information to he CRAs regarding my accounts for the period beginning XXXX XX/XX/XXXX thru present because a billing error notice was sent to XXXX. 

Thus, the derogatory information for accounts must be removed from my credit report and/or the account/tradelines and associated information must be expunged. 

ISSUES IN DETAIL I. XXXX FAILED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC STATEMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION Z The accounts with for which XXXX has continued to report delinquent history and subsequently charged-off are open-ended accounts. Billing cycle regulations are governed by Regulation Z, 12 CFR Part 1026.2, which requires the minimum duration between statement generation date and statement due date be twenty-one ( 21 ) days. Moreover, Regulation requires that the date on which a payment is due may not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days. 

Simply put, I have received XXXX ( XXXX ) statements since XX/XX/XXXX. This is something XXXX acknowledged per the reply of XXXX XXXX on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX. XXXX FAILED TO CONDUCT BILLING ERROR INVESTIGATIONS AND FIX BILLING ISSUES 12 CFR Part 1026.13 outlines the actions that a financial services institution must take when it receives a billing error notice and prohibits certain actions from taking place upon receipt of that notice. XXXX initially responded to my XXXX billing error notice on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX informed the steps he'd taken to allegedly correct the error, but did mention the system was automatically preventing me from accessing my accounts online. I notified XXXX XXXX of the same issue again around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX again acknowledged the system was disabling the access due to the status of my accounts and would be permanently disabled thereafter. I asked XXXX to then confirm that XXXX system was mailing my statements because i had not received any statements between XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX could not provide me with a statement and instead provided me with a screen-dump lacking the information required on any periodic statement/billing notice compliant with 12 CFR 1026. 

At some point, without confirming statements were being mailed, and with XXXX fully aware that I was not able to log into the online system to retrieve paper statements, fully aware that the online system previous indicated I had XXXX ( XXXX ) accounts with XXXX, XXXX charged-off my revolving accounts and reported the adverse history to the CRAs. 

Paragraph 13 ( c ) ( 2 ) outlines that XXXX had two ( 2 ) complete billing cycles to conduct its investigation and provide me with a resolution. While XXXX XXXX did inform me on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that he'd re-enabled both mailing of paper statements and retrieval of online statements, I received no subsequent statements and no follow-up from XXXX regarding XXXX statement delivery issue. The provisions laid out in XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ) would enable XXXX to make the necessary corrections by the end of XX/XX/XXXX. When I did not receive a statement at the end of XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted XXXX again on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to apprise them of the on-going issue. 

Paragraph XXXX ( d ) ( 2 ) of Regulation Z is quite clear in that no creditor or its agent shall directly or indirectly make, or threaten to make, an adverse report to any person about the consumer 's credit standing, or report that an amount is delinquent because the consumer failed to pay the disputed amount or related finance charges. So without resolving the issue since filing my billing error on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX continued to report my payment status delinquent for the months XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, including the charge-off annotation. 

In total, it appears there was never a resolution to the billing error notice initially filed on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The matter remained unresolved and continues to remain unresolved. XXXX 's solution was then to lock me out of the online banking portal, the portal that stated i had XXXX ( XXXX ) accounts and access to zero ( 0 ) statements. They then acknowledged those actions, provided me with zero ( 0 ) corrected statements and/or explanations, and subsequently charged-off my accounts in violation of Paragraph 3 ( d ) ( 2 ) of Regulation Z.

III. XXXX ENGAGED IN UNFAIR ACTS AND PRACTICES Section 1036 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) of the CFPA prohibits unfair acts or practices. 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). 22. An act or practice is unfair under the CFPA if it : ( a ) causes or is likely to cause consumers substantial injury ; ( b ) such injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers ; and ( c ) such injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) The delinquent payment history and subsequent charge-offs would be considered unfair practices because XXXX has not provided statements to me on a periodic basis as required by CFPB interpretation of Regulation Z, 12 CFR Part 1062.2 and instead has continued to report my payment history each month as delinquent without sending me a statement. 

The decision by XXXX to charge-off my accounts after XXXX XX/XX/XXXX constitutes an unfair practice because the basis of the charge-offs was due to non-payment, for which the non-payment was due to XXXX 's inability and/or unwillingness to ensure received paper statements by mail and/or through their online system. 

The adverse credit history reported for the months XX/XX/XXXX through present, and the charge-off status reported for the revolving accounts harms and will continue to harm my ability to finance with in the future. Moreover, as someone who holds or has held security clearances my ability to obtain, maintain, and gain new clearances can be damaged by the reported information, when I have made every attempt to resolve the billing matter with XXXX. 

Instead of trying to resolve the issues with their billing systems/practices, XXXX chose to charge off my accounts, in the process violating multiple provisions under both the CFPA and Regulation Z.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation