Consumer complaint received 2025-11-12 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Over the past several years, I have been attempting to maintain accurate and verified information on my credit reports across all three major credit bureaus. However, multiple negative and derogatory items continue to appear on my consumer file, even though these accounts have not been fully validated, verified with original documentation, or lawfully reported in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

The disputed accounts were reported as collections or charge-offs by various furnishers and data suppliers, yet each of these furnishers has failed to provide direct evidence that the information they furnished was verified through a lawful process or supported by original contractual documentation. I have filed several disputes with the credit bureaus, requesting an investigation and a method of verification as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), but the results have not included sufficient detail or proof that an independent and accurate reinvestigation took place.

1. Ongoing Reporting of Unverified Derogatory Accounts Several accounts remain on my credit report that reflect late payments, charge-offs, and collections without clear evidence of proper validation. For example, multiple accounts that were reported closed or charged off were allegedly verified by the bureaus, yet no original agreements, transactional records, or legal documents were provided to substantiate the information. The credit bureaus appear to have relied solely on automated third-party systems, such as e-Oscar, rather than conducting an independent, manual reinvestigation. 

This automated process is insufficient under the FCRA, which requires that consumer reporting agencies conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether disputed information is accurate. In my case, I have reason to believe that the bureaus simply forwarded my dispute electronically to the furnishers and then accepted the same data back without review. No evidence of manual verification, source documentation, or chain of assignment was provided. 

I have also noticed inconsistencies in the dates of last payment, charge-off dates, and closing dates across the same accounts reported by different bureaus. For example, certain accounts show different delinquency periods or payment histories depending on which credit bureaus file is reviewed. This demonstrates data inconsistency and suggests that the reporting agencies and furnishers are not maintaining maximum possible accuracy as required under FCRA 607 ( b ).

2. Lack of Documentation and Chain of Custody For each derogatory account, I requested that the credit bureaus provide copies of the original signed contracts, promissory notes, or account applications that prove I entered into an agreement with the creditor. None of these were supplied. Instead, I received vague summaries indicating that the information was verified as accurate, but without identifying who conducted the verification, what documentation was reviewed, or which system was used. 

The FCRA requires that when a consumer requests a method of verification, the credit bureau must provide a full description of the process used to determine the accuracy of the disputed item. This includes identifying the person, system, or source that verified the account. To date, this information has not been disclosed. 

Furthermore, many of the debts in question have likely changed ownership multiple times for example, being sold or assigned from the original creditor to one or more third-party debt buyers or collection agencies. Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), a collector is required to provide the full chain of assignment showing the transfer of ownership from the original creditor to any subsequent holders. Without that evidence, no collector or data furnisher has the right to report, collect, or communicate the debt. None of this documentation was provided to me or reflected in the bureaus reinvestigation results. 

3. Failure to Provide an Audit Trail I also requested audit trails showing the specific communications, timestamps, and user IDs associated with the reinvestigation of my disputes. I wanted to know whether the verification was conducted manually by a human reviewer, through e-Oscar, or via another automated data transfer system. The bureaus have not provided this information, which is crucial to confirming compliance with FCRA procedural standards. 

The law requires that furnishers and credit bureaus maintain an accurate record of dispute communications and furnishers responses. Without these logs, there is no transparency, and consumers can not confirm whether the investigation process was compliant. The failure to disclose such audit trails strongly suggests that the reinvestigation was superficial and based on automated responses rather than substantive verification.

4. Potential Violations of FCRA and FDCPA Each of these procedural shortcomings represents potential violations of federal law : FCRA 602 ( a ) emphasizes the need for fair and accurate credit reporting because inaccurate information directly impacts a consumers ability to obtain credit, employment, and housing.

FCRA 607 ( b ) requires credit bureaus to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report.

FCRA 611 ( a ) mandates a proper reinvestigation of disputed items and the provision of a method of verification upon request.

FDCPA 809 ( b ) requires that collectors provide full validation of any alleged debt, including original contracts, billing statements, and proof of assignment. 

By continuing to report accounts that have not been fully validated or substantiated, the bureaus and furnishers may be in violation of these statutory provisions.

5. Examples of Reporting Inconsistencies and Unverified Accounts Several accounts have inconsistent or incomplete data across credit bureaus : A credit union account that was charged off still appears as open on one bureau but closed and paid on another. 

A major bank card that was settled years ago is still being reported as an active charge-off with a balance due. 

A utility account appears under multiple collection agencies, even though it should only be reported once, by the verified owner of the debt. 

Several accounts show varying numbers of late payments across bureaus, even though payment records should be consistent. 

These inconsistencies not only damage my credit standing but also demonstrate the absence of a reliable and uniform validation process among the furnishers and credit reporting agencies.

6. Impact on Creditworthiness and Financial Stability Because these unverifiable derogatory items remain on my report, they have significantly harmed my ability to obtain favorable credit terms, rent housing, and access employment opportunities. Lenders rely heavily on the accuracy of the data provided by the credit bureaus. When that data is incorrect or unverified, consumers like myself suffer long-term financial and reputational harm. 

The FCRA recognizes that consumers have the right to an accurate credit profile that reflects only verifiable, lawful, and current information. The continued appearance of inaccurate or unverifiable derogatory data has caused measurable damage to my financial reputation, resulting in higher interest rates and the denial of certain credit applications.

7. Insufficient Consumer Disclosure and Lack of Transparency The dispute results I received from the bureaus often contained brief statements such as We verified that this account belongs to you or The creditor confirmed the information. However, these statements do not satisfy the requirement for transparency. They fail to specify how the account was verified, who conducted the verification, or what data sources were used. 

In some cases, the bureaus may rely on responses from furnishers through the e-Oscar system a platform that transmits standardized dispute codes but does not transmit original documentation. Because of this, many reinvestigations are completed without reviewing any actual contracts or billing statements. The process therefore fails to meet the standard of a reasonable reinvestigation required by the FCRA.

8. Request for Immediate Corrective Action Given these issues, I am requesting that all derogatory accounts that can not be verified with original source documentation be immediately deleted from my credit report. If the bureaus and furnishers can not provide evidence such as signed contracts, statements, and proof of debt ownership, they are legally obligated to remove the accounts from the record. 

I am also requesting written confirmation that the disputed accounts will not be reinserted unless the furnisher provides a certification of accuracy and notifies me in writing before reinsertion, as required under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).

Additionally, I request that the credit bureaus provide a copy of their reinvestigation procedures, including : The identity of the person or system that verified each disputed account.

The date of each verification. 

The data sources used to confirm accuracy. 

Any correspondence exchanged with the furnishers.

9. Need for Regulatory Oversight Because repeated disputes have not produced meaningful results or procedural transparency, I believe that regulatory oversight is necessary. This situation demonstrates a pattern of automated responses, incomplete investigations, and failure to provide consumers with required validation details. 

I am submitting this complaint to request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) review whether the credit bureaus and furnishers involved are complying with federal law in their handling of disputes and reinvestigations.

10. Expected Outcomes To resolve this matter, I am seeking : The deletion of all unverifiable derogatory accounts from my credit report.

The provision of a full method-of-verification report for each disputed item.

Assurance that unverifiable data will not be reinserted without certification.

Notification to all parties who have accessed my credit report within the past XXXX months that my file has been corrected. 

Confirmation that all furnishers have been notified of the corrections and required to update their own reporting systems.

11. Conclusion This complaint is not an attempt to avoid legitimate debt. Rather, it is a lawful exercise of my rights as a consumer under federal statutes to ensure that all information contained in my credit report is accurate, verifiable, and fair. 

For years, credit reporting agencies and furnishers have relied on automated systems that prioritize speed over accuracy. This has led to widespread errors that unfairly harm consumers. My case exemplifies how this system can fail to protect consumers rights and data integrity. 

I have provided all available evidence and requested information multiple times, yet the bureaus and furnishers have failed to substantiate the data they continue to publish about me. Therefore, I respectfully request that the CFPB investigate the procedures of the credit bureaus and furnishers involved, compel them to provide full verification, and enforce compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA. 

I also request that the credit bureaus conduct a new, independent reinvestigation of each disputed item, this time supported by actual documentary evidence, not automated responses. If no such documentation exists, these accounts must be permanently deleted from my file. 

Until these matters are resolved, the continued reporting of unverifiable accounts constitutes ongoing harm. I am asking for the CFPBs assistance to ensure that my rights under federal law are fully respected and that my credit file accurately reflects only legitimate, validated information.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief