Consumer complaint received 2025-06-17 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: Lendmark Financial Services
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, This is a formal rebuttal to the response submitted by Lendmark Financial Services on XX/XX/XXXX, concerning my original complaint. Their response is materially misleading, factually incorrect, and legally inadequate. I hereby request this rebuttal be added to the record and that Lendmark be held accountable for persistent violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and XXXX XXXX data furnishing guidelines. 

Lendmarks claim that they have accurately reported my account information is demonstrably false. They are currently reporting XXXX separate tradelines under my name : XXXX accounts using the root number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX under XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. These accounts display significant, harmful, and legally actionable inconsistencies in status, dates, balances, and dispute handling. 

I. Tradelines  Under # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Duplicate Accounts ) XXXX XXXX Lendmark is reporting XXXX separate accounts under the same account number, each with conflicting details : One tradeline reports the account opened on XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX  ) ; another says XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX  ). 

XXXX account is marked Paid/Current ( XXXX  ), while another is marked XXXX  Days Late ( XXXX  ) XXXX 

All show a {$0.00} balance and claim to be closed due to refinance, but Lendmark refuses to provide any documentation validating these refinances. 

None of the XXXX tradelines reflect an active dispute indicator, despite my legal demand and CFPB complaint. 

This is a clear example of data fragmentation, duplicate reporting, and re-aging a practice that damages credit scores by misrepresenting a consumers debt load and payment history. Reporting multiple entries under the same account number with different details is a direct violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) ( failure to maintain maximum accuracy ) and XXXX XXXX reporting logic, which requires consistency across fields and CRAs. 

II. Tradeline Under # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Charge-Off Account ) XXXX XXXX  This account is even more egregious : Open date is reported as XX/XX/XXXX on XXXX  and XX/XX/XXXX on XXXX. 

Lendmark lists this account as Charged Off with a balance of {$21000.00}, despite originating the loan at {$20000.00}. 

Lendmark has failed to provide any documentation breaking down this inflated balance ( no interest ledger, fees, or payment history ). This is furnishing unverifiable, inflated debt in violation of FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ).

The account is simultaneously labeled Charged-Off and Past Due, which is prohibited under XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines. 

The dispute flag is misleading : one bureau says Dispute resolved consumer disagrees, the other says Customer disputed reported by subscriber. Both are noncompliant with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 3 ). 

Even more disturbing, this same debt was the basis of a $ XXXX lawsuit Lendmark filed against me, which was dismissed due to their failure to appear. They are now reporting this same obligation as charged-off, without court judgment, without proper documentation, and without compliance. 

III. Pre-Arbitration Discovery Request Ignored On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent Lendmark a formal legal demand via certified mail and email requesting : Original signed loan agreements, Full payment history, Refinancing or consolidation records, All XXXX XXXX reporting data furnished to CRAs, Internal dispute logs, resolution notes, and compliance correspondence. 

They ignored this request in its entirety. No documents were produced. This was a good-faith attempt to avoid legal escalation, and their non-response constitutes bad faith conduct and obstruction of pre-arbitration discovery. 
Incomplete Document Production : I requested original signed contracts for all XXXX accounts. Lendmark only produced XXXX pages for XXXX account. No complete loan history, modification terms, payoff records, or system notes were provided yet they claim to have investigated. 

They Defaulted in Court : Lendmark filed suit for over {$20000.00}, failed to appear in court, and the case was dismissed. That debt is now reported as charged off a form of collection fraud and reputational abuse.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation