Consumer complaint received 2025-10-14 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am reaching out to request a full debt validation for a series of accounts currently being reported on my Equifax credit file under the name XXXX XXXX. These items are listed as follows : XXXX XXXX - XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX - {$900.00} XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX - {$1500.00} XXXX XXXX - XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX - {$1500.00} XXXX XXXX - XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX - {$2400.00} XXXX XXXX - XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX - {$4900.00} XXXX XXXX - XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX - {$11000.00} I am formally requesting that the creditor or collector responsible for these listings provide full validation of these debtsnot generic summaries or restated balances, but actual documentation that substantiates the existence and ownership of each account. This includes signed original agreements, account histories, and documentation from the original lender proving that the debt is legally enforceable and legitimately mine. 

Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, once a consumer disputes a debt, the collector must cease all collection activity until they have provided proper validation. Despite previous disputes, no such validation has been furnished to me. Instead, what I have received are recycled data printouts that do not meet the standard required under federal law. 

Additionally, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ), furnishers of information must ensure maximum possible accuracy when reporting to credit bureaus. The way these XXXX XXXX accounts appear is inaccurate on multiple fronts. The name XXXX XXXX does not clearly identify a creditor, which already violates the transparency required under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ( 2 ). Moreover, the dates on these accounts range from XXXX to XXXXXXXX beyond the legal reporting limit of XXXX years from the date of the first delinquency, as stated in 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ). Simply put, these items are too old to lawfully remain on any credit report and should have been purged years ago. 

Reporting aged, unverifiable debts as if they are current is not just a procedural mistakeit is a direct violation of consumer protection laws that govern how financial information must be handled. The persistence of these items has deeply affected my financial stability. Ive faced repeated credit denials, higher interest rates, and the constant stress of explaining debts that should not even exist on my report anymore. This kind of harm goes beyond numbersit affects my ability to rebuild, to plan, and to trust that my financial identity is accurately represented. 

Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), when an item is disputed, the furnisher must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. However, what has happened in my case feels more like a rubber-stamp verification than a legitimate investigation. I am not asking for special treatment ; I am simply asking for the fairness and due process the law guarantees.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation