Consumer complaint received 2025-08-18 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern : This is my third/fourth dispute of the items below. The FCRA requires maximum possible accuracy ( 607 ( b ) ) and deletion of any item that is inaccurate, incomplete, or can not be verified ( 611 ). Furnishers must report DOFD for charge-offs/collections ( 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) ) and flag disputes ( 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) /FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) ). Your file still contains duplicative, misclassified, and internally inconsistent derogatory entries. Please delete immediately. 

Items in Dispute ( Equifax ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) You list Credit grantor reclaimed collateral to settle defaulted mortgage. Month-by-month history/remarks do not match other bureaus, creating unreliability.

DOFD not visible on my copy ; without it, aging/obsolescence can not be validated ( 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) ). Delete unless you can produce a single verified DOFD and uniform history. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX ) You list Closed Charge-off but with limited visible late details, while Experian shows a different pattern/timeline. 
DOFD/CO date must be verified and consistent across CRAs ; otherwise delete. 
XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct XXXX ) You show Closed Charge-off and count XXXX : XXXX implausible, duplicative representation of severity for a single delinquency timeline ( appears to code the same default repeatedly ). That is misleading under 607 ( b ). Delete or correct to a non-duplicative matrix tied to one DOFD/CO date. 
XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Acct XXXX ) You show Closed Charge-off {$1800.00} with XXXX : XXXX. Experian reports fewer severe lates/CO timeline. 
The late-count mismatch and differing closure classifications demonstrate unreliable data. Delete unless you can validate a single verified DOFD, CO date, and uniform late-month matrix. 
XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct XXXX ) You show Closed Charge-off with XXXX : XXXX, while Experian shows a different pattern ( monthly CO coding rather than your severe-late counts ). 
This inter-bureau inconsistency is materially misleading ; delete if you can not reconcile to one set of verified facts. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Acct XXXX ) You show Closed Charge-off with XXXX : XXXX, while Experian reflects fewer severe lates. 
Late-count inflation + chronology conflicts= not maximum possible accuracy. Delete. 
XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NEGATIVE AUTO LOANS ONLY ( 2 separate installment tradelines ; exclude any Pays as agreed ) Auto Loan A ( Acct base XXXX ) You show Closed Charge-off with large past-due history including multiple XXXX lates across months, and a reported amount like {$10000.00}. Another XXXX entry with the same base account number shows different status/balance, creating duplicate/fragmented reporting for one vehicle loan. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Acct base XXXX series ) You also show a separate negative installment line with heavy 120-day lates and a different high-balance ( e.g., {$9800.00} ), while other XXXX entries under related numbers show XXXX outcomes. 
These duplications/contradictions over-penalize me by making one loan look like multiple negatives, violating 607 ( b ). Unless you can uniquely identify each distinct vehicle loan with its own loan number, DOFD, and non-overlapping history, delete the negative XXXX auto tradelines immediately. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Separate from the autos, your XXXX credit card entry shows derogatory status that does not align with Experians details on the same card. 
This duplicate/fragmented appearance makes a single card look like multiple negatives. Delete unless you can prove one accurate, non-duplicative tradeline tied to a single DOFD. 
XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( Acct XXXX ) You show Closed Charge-off with XXXX : XXXX, while Experian reports fewer severe lates. 
Such a severe-late count across years appears duplicative for a single default period and is misleading. Delete if you can not validate one DOFD and a corrected, non-inflated late matrix. 
XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Collection ) XXXX XXXX XXXX {$630.00} ( Acct XXXX ) Dispute flag missing on your file while Experian marks it disputed, violating FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) and FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ).

DOFD not shown on my copy ; without DOFD, the collections aging/obsolescence can not be validated ( 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) ). Delete if you can not verify both DOFD and dispute coding. 
XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Debt Buyer ( Acct XXXX {$2900.00} ; XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX You classify as Factoring Companies, which is misleading for a debt buyer and obscures the true nature/chain-of-title.

No consumer-visible DOFD and insufficient source detail for method of verification. Delete unless you can verify OC chain, DOFD, and accurate furnisher classification. 
XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Debt Buyer ( Acct XXXX {$740.00} ; XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) Same misclassification ( Factoring Companies ), no visible DOFD, and no reconciled timeline. 
Delete unless you can validate DOFD, correct classification, and complete chain-of-title.

I must also note that this is now my third formal complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding these same accounts. I have disputed directly with the credit bureaus and with the CFPB on multiple occasions, yet the same inconsistent, inaccurate, and unverifiable tradelines remain. Continuing to verify accounts that are plainly contradictory across bureaus demonstrates not only a failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation as required by FCRA 611 ( a ), but also constitutes willful noncompliance under FCRA 616617. The repeated failure to correct these items after both bureau disputes and CFPB complaints leaves you with no choice but to delete the disputed accounts in full.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation