Consumer complaint received 2025-11-20 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding the reporting, verification, and continued publication of information associated with Ref : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that appears on my credit file. The purpose of this complaint is to clearly outline what happened, explain the issues with the way this information is being handled, and request that federal regulators review whether the credit reporting agencies and the data furnisher involved have complied with all applicable sections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Bankruptcy Code, Metro 2 compliance guidelines, and federal consumer reporting regulations. 

This complaint is not about challenging the existence of the bankruptcy filing itselfcourt filings are public records. The issue is about how the bankruptcy information has been obtained, validated, verified, reported, coded, updated, and maintained, and whether these actions meet the legal standard required when reporting a federal bankruptcy record. 

A bankruptcy public record must be : Accurate Complete Up-to-date Verified through a legally acceptable source Reported in full compliance with FCRA 607 ( B ) Reinvestigated in compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ) Supported by proper documentation Reflected correctly in all linked tradelines In the case of Ref : XXXX, several questions, inconsistencies, and procedural failures have led to confusion and concern regarding the manner in which this bankruptcy record has been reported and verified. What happened, from my perspective, raises serious doubts about whether the credit bureaus and the third-party public-record vendors providing this data have complied with federal requirements for accuracy and proper reinvestigation. 

1. Concerns About the Source of the Bankruptcy Information A critical issue is that the credit bureaus do not directly obtain bankruptcy information from federal courts. The courts themselves have confirmed this. Bankruptcy courts do not report consumer bankruptcy cases to credit bureaus. Instead, credit bureaus use private third-party vendors who scrape, collect, and aggregate public records.

In many cases, these vendors may : Pull incomplete or outdated information Misinterpret docket entries Retrieve incorrect filing dates Assign the record to the wrong person Report incomplete case details Fail to update the record after discharge Fail to verify the source using original court documents Because of this structure, the bankruptcy public record being reported under Ref : XXXX raises the question of what source was actually used to verify the accuracy of the information. 

This is important because under FCRA 607 ( B ), the credit bureaus have an affirmative duty to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of all information they publish. If they pulled this information from a third-party vendor instead of from original court documents or the PACER federal court record, the accuracy of the reporting becomes questionable. 

There has never been any disclosure regarding which vendor provided the data for Ref : XXXX, what files they checked, or what specific documents they used to validate the reporting. 

Without this information, the reporting agencies can not demonstrate that the data meets the legal threshold for accuracy. 

XXXX. Questions About the Accuracy and Completeness of the Bankruptcy Record The bankruptcy record reported under Ref : XXXX contains unresolved questions concerning : The filing date The Chapter designation The completeness of included case details The accuracy of debts discharged The alignment of bankruptcy-linked tradelines Whether the case was discharged, dismissed, or updated properly Whether the public record reflects all required docket information If the reported information is incomplete or inaccurate in any way, it violates FCRA 607 ( B ) because the bureaus are required to ensure that all information they furnish is accurate and fully up to date. 

I have no way of knowing whether the record on my credit report came from : An outdated database A partial scrape of court records Incorrect linking by a third-party vendor Another person with a similar name A misclassification of the docket An incomplete set of bankruptcy case documents Because the public record was never verified with an original certified court document, the accuracy of the reporting is uncertain. 

A fair investigation requires it to be completely validated. 

3. Lack of Clear Documentation Used in the Verification Process When I requested verification and reinvestigation of this bankruptcy public record, I was not provided with any documentation whatsoever. Instead, the bureaus merely stated that the record was verified.

However, under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), the credit bureaus are required to provide consumers with the method of verification upon request. This includes : The name of the person who verified the information The actual documents reviewed The date verification occurred The system or database used Whether verification came from XXXX, a third-party vendor, or another source A detailed explanation of how the reinvestigation was completed Instead, the bureau provided only a generic statement indicating that the record was verified through public records. No specific documents were provided. No docket entries were shown. No verification logs, timestamps, vendor reports, or documents reviewed were included. 

This means that I still do not know : Whether the verification was manual or automated Whether any documents were reviewed at all Whether the bureaus relied solely on third-party vendor confirmation Whether any certified or original court documents were accessed This creates major concerns because an automated verification process without document review does not meet the standard of a reasonable reinvestigation under the FCRA. 

4. Questions About Whether This Bankruptcy Record Was Updated Correctly Another problem with Ref : XXXX is that bankruptcy records require multiple updates over their lifecycle : Filing Case acceptance Meeting of creditors Trustee actions Motions Discharge order Closing of the case If any portion of this chain is missing, incomplete, or incorrect, the public record becomes misleading under FCRA 607 ( B ).

In many cases, third-party vendors only report the initial filing and never update the rest. That means the record may reflect : The wrong case status Incorrect dates A case that appears unresolved even if it is closed A discharge that is missing A dismissal that is not clarified An outdated or incomplete status If a vendor fails to update the record, and the bureaus do not verify it accurately, the information becomes unreliable. 

I can not confirm whether the public record associated with Ref : XXXX has been updated properly because the bureaus did not provide any documentation showing that the case status, discharge details, or court entries have been accurately tracked. 

5. Bankruptcy-Linked Tradelines Not Reporting Consistently Additionally, bankruptcy reporting requires that every creditor included in the bankruptcy report accurately and consistently according to Metro 2 standards.

This means that all tradelines included in the bankruptcy should be updated to reflect : Included in bankruptcy Discharged in bankruptcy {$0.00} balance No past due amount No ongoing delinquencies No collection activity after discharge However, there are discrepancies between the public record and certain tradelines associated with Ref : XXXX, raising concerns such as : Certain tradelines still showing past due balances Some accounts not updated to reflect bankruptcy inclusion Inconsistent dates of delinquency or late marks Tradelines showing activity after the filing date Wrong status codes Incorrect remarks or missing bankruptcy indicators These inconsistencies violate Metro 2 compliance and FCRA 607 ( B ), as the reporting must be complete and consistent across all systems.

Because the reported bankruptcy information appears to be misaligned with the associated tradelines, this raises additional concerns about whether the bureaus properly matched the public record to the correct accounts and whether the data vendor provided accurate linking. 

This inconsistency further indicates the need for a full reinvestigation and proper audit of the information. 

XXXX. No Evidence of an Actual Reinvestigation After Dispute Submission When I disputed the bankruptcy record, the credit bureaus provided a very brief response within a timeframe that suggests the investigation was performed automatically rather than through a manual review of official bankruptcy records. 

A complete reinvestigation under FCRA 611 requires : Reviewing all supporting documents Contacting the furnisher or source Assessing the information for completeness Fully examining all relevant records However, the bureaus response did not address any of the specific concerns I raised. It did not confirm : What documents were checked Whether the bankruptcy court was contacted Whether PACER was accessed Whether the third-party vendor provided updated documents Whether the reinvestigation involved actual review of case filings Instead, the response appeared to rely solely on the same vendor data used before, suggesting that the reinvestigation may not have been reasonable.

Because the bureaus rely heavily on automated systems such as e-OSCAR, it is possible that the reinvestigation was simply a code-driven verification rather than a review of actual case documents, which falls short of legal requirements.

7. Fundamental Questions About Identity Matching and Court Record Linking Another concern is whether the bankruptcy public record was matched correctly to my file. Due to the way public records are aggregated by vendors, errors such as the following are common : Matching to a similar name Incorrect linking due to partial data Misassignment based on address history Mismatched identifiers Errors caused by shared names or common surnames Incomplete middle initials Incorrect docket numbers Because the credit bureaus did not provide any documentation showing what identifiers were used to match Ref : XXXX to my credit file, there is no way to confirm that the match was accurate. 

FCRA 607 ( B ) requires the bureaus to use reasonable procedures to ensure maximum accuracy, yet without transparency into the linking process, it is impossible to confirm whether the accuracy standard was met.

This alone may require suppression or reinvestigation of the record.

8. Continued Reporting While Verification Remains Uncertain Even though there are unresolved questions surrounding the accuracy, completeness, and verification of the bankruptcy public record, the credit bureaus have continued reporting it on my file. This imposes ongoing harm, impacts credit decisions, and may violate : FCRA 602 ( A ) FCRA 607 ( B ) FCRA 611 ( a ) The CFPB Furnisher Rule Bankruptcy Code discharge protections Information that can not be fully verified must be deleted, and information under dispute can not continue to be published in a way that is unfairly damaging. 

Because the credit bureaus have not provided documentation showing that this record is accurate and properly verified, its continued reporting could be harmful and misleading. 

Conclusion In summary, what happened is that the bankruptcy public record associated with Ref : XXXX is being reported in a manner that raises serious concerns regarding accuracy, completeness, verification, procedural compliance, and alignment with federal reporting laws. 

The fundamental issues include : Lack of transparency in verifying the record Dependence on third-party vendors instead of court documents Incomplete or inconsistent bankruptcy details Misalignment with associated tradelines No method of verification provided Inadequate reinvestigation process Potential mismatching or linking errors Continued reporting despite unresolved questions Because of all these factors, this public record should not continue to be published unless : It is fully validated using official bankruptcy court documents All case details are complete and accurate All related tradelines are properly updated A full method-of-verification report is provided All data vendors involved demonstrate compliance The reporting agencies confirm procedural adherence The record is definitively proven to belong on the file Until that occurs, continued reporting may violate the FCRA, the CFPB Furnisher Rule XXXX and the federal legal standards governing bankruptcy reporting.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief