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: LA

Complaint narrative:
Over the course of reviewing my consumer credit reports from the nationwide credit reporting agencies, I identified several accounts that were reporting inaccurate, unverifiable, or incomplete information. These accounts include a revolving account reported as a collection/charge-off, an installment loan being reported with irregular balances and severe delinquencies, and a collection item lacking any documented chain of assignment or verification. These accounts are significantly harming my credit standing, and despite my repeated attempts to dispute and obtain validation, the credit reporting agencies and furnishers have not provided adequate verification or documentation as required by federal law. 

The central issue is that the information appearing on my credit file has not been validated with original documentation, yet the credit bureaus continue reporting it as accurate. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), credit reporting agencies are required to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information they include in consumer reports. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), debt collectors are legally required to provide validation before engaging in collection or reporting activity. In this case, the credit reporting agencies appear to have relied solely on automated systems, such as e-OSCAR, for dispute processing, without conducting a meaningful reinvestigation or obtaining any original documentation. 

The first major disputed account is a XXXX-related account that is showing as a collection/charge-off with multiple late payments. I never received notice from the original creditor about a charge-off, transfer, or sale of the account. When I attempted to dispute this information with the credit reporting agencies, they notified me that the furnisher had verified the account. However, no original documentssuch as a signed contract, account statements, or a record of the charge-offhave ever been provided to me. Under FCRA 611 ( a ), I have the right to request and receive the method of verification, including the information used by the credit bureau to consider the account verified. None of the agencies have provided this. 

Instead, the credit reporting agencies seem to be relying on automated responses from the furnisher. These responses do not demonstrate that the furnisher actually reviewed any original records. In previous disputes, I specified that I needed verification of the debt, documentation showing the charge-off, proof of ownership, records showing that the account belonged to me, and any documents showing the authority to continue reporting the data. I never received any of these items. 

The second disputed account is an installment loan currently being reported with a balance that increased significantly beyond what was originally reported. Specifically, the original amount was listed at approximately {$28000.00}, but the current balance is shown as {$41000.00}. Such a drastic increase suggests possible reporting errors or improper accumulation of fees or interest. I never received any explanation or documentation accounting for this balance increase. Under federal law, furnishers must report accurate and complete information, yet this account shows late payments including XXXX delinquency status, without any proof of how those delinquencies were calculated or confirmed. 

I filed disputes with all credit reporting agencies regarding this account. In the disputes, I explained that the balance figures were inconsistent, the delinquency dates did not match, and the furnisher never provided billing statements or payment records. The credit bureaus responded with a generic statement that the account had been verified, without providing any details about the verification or what documentation was reviewed. Under FCRA 607 ( b ), credit bureaus must maintain reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy. Verifying an account without reviewing actual documents fails to meet that standard. 

The third disputed account is a collection tradeline from XXXX XXXX. This account does not list an opening date, closing date, original creditor, or any details explaining what the debt represents. When I attempted to research the account, I found no records, statements, or correspondence. Under the FDCPA 809 ( a ), a debt collector must notify the consumer of the debt and provide validation upon request. I never received validation or any documentation establishing ownership or assignment of this debt. Without proof of assignment, the company reporting the collection can not legally demonstrate that it has the right to collect or the right to furnish information to credit bureaus. 

When I disputed the accuracy of the XXXX XXXX entry, the credit bureaus again returned the same automated verification response without providing any documentation or proof. They did not disclose the original creditor, did not show a bill of sale or an assignment agreement, and did not provide any letter showing authority to collect the alleged debt. Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ), I have the right to know the procedure used to determine that the account was verified, including who the bureau contacted and what documentation was reviewed. None of that was provided. 

Across all disputes, the pattern has been largely the same. Despite the requirements of the FCRA, the credit reporting agencies appear to be relying on automated responses from furnishers. These responses do not include documentation, do not address the disputes directly, and do not show that any meaningful review has taken place. Multiple disputes have been filed, yet each response from the bureaus indicates that the accounts were verified, without ever explaining how or with what evidence. 

I have also requested that the disputed accounts be marked as consumer disputes this account as required under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ). However, there have been instances where the bureaus failed to include the dispute notation, meaning creditors and third parties viewing my report may not know that the accuracy of these accounts is contested. This omission has the potential to harm my creditworthiness and create a misleading representation of my financial history. 

In addition to the lack of documentation, the credit bureaus have not provided internal audit logs, timestamps, or any evidence showing how the disputes were handled. Without these logs, there is no transparency or accountability in the reinvestigation process. Under federal law, the reinvestigation must be reasonable, meaning it must take into account the specific dispute raised by the consumer and must go beyond simply repeating information that the furnisher has previously supplied. 

I also observed inconsistencies in the reporting of dates, balances, and late payments across different credit bureaus. For example, the number of late payments, the dates of delinquency, and even the reported balance on the installment account vary from XXXX bureau to another. This is clear evidence that at least XXXX or more bureaus are reporting inaccurate or incomplete information. Furnishers are required under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) to provide accurate information. If the details reported to different bureaus do not match, at least some of that information must be incorrect. 

Under federal law, disputed items that can not be verified must be removed. The credit bureaus have an obligation under FCRA 611 to delete information that can not be confirmed within a reasonable period. This statutory requirement exists to prevent consumers from being harmed by inaccurate, unsubstantiated, or fraudulent data. 

Despite multiple disputes over several months, the bureaus have continued reporting these derogatory accounts without supplying any original records whatsoever. The harm caused by this misinformation is significant. The inaccurate reporting has negatively impacted my credit score, which in turn affects interest rates, insurance premiums, access to credit, housing opportunities, and overall financial stability. Each time a creditor reviews my report, they see inaccurate negative information that unfairly portrays me as delinquent or irresponsible, when in fact the data has not been proven accurate. 

I have spent substantial time researching my rights, gathering records, filing disputes, and following up with credit bureaus. The time, stress, and administrative burden associated with correcting inaccurate reporting is overwhelming, especially when the bureaus fail to act as required under federal law. 

What makes the situation even more concerning is that inaccurate credit reporting has long-term consequences that extend far beyond immediate financial harm. Federal courts have recognized that inaccurate reporting can damage employment prospects, delay homeownership, and significantly affect a consumer 's life. The credit bureaus failure to verify these accounts is a failure to uphold the basic principles of fairness, accuracy, and integrity that the FCRA was written to protect. 

Throughout all disputes, I have acted in good faith, requesting only the documentation that federal law requires furnishers to maintain. I have not received any documentsno signed agreements, no itemized statements, no proof of ownership, no transfer documents, no notices of charge-off, no notices of sale, and no validation letters. Without this documentation, no account should be reported as verified. 

Under FCRA 602 ( a ), XXXX made it clear that consumer reporting agencies have a vital role in American commerce, and that inaccurate reporting undermines consumer confidence and the nation 's economic stability. The law requires fairness, impartiality, and respect for the consumer 's privacy. Continued reporting of unverifiable information is a direct violation of these fundamental principles. 

At this point, it is clear that the credit bureaus are not complying with the requirements of FCRA 611 regarding reinvestigation. They have not provided the method of verification, have not supplied documentation, and have not conducted a reasonable review. Additionally, the furnishers appear not to be complying with FDCPA 809 ( b ), which requires validation of debts before collection or reporting activity can continue. 

All I have requested is legally mandated documentation proving that the debts are valid, that the reporting is accurate, and that the furnishers have the legal authority to continue reporting. Without such evidence, the negative accounts should not remain on my credit file. 

In summary, what happened can be described as follows : Several accounts appearing on my credit reports are inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable. 

I filed disputes with all major credit bureaus requesting validation. 

The credit bureaus responded with generic verified statements without providing any documentation or evidence. 

The bureaus appear to rely solely on automated furnishing systems rather than conducting meaningful reinvestigations. 

No original documentationsuch as contracts, statements, or proof of assignmenthas ever been provided. 

Despite the lack of verification, the accounts continue to report negatively on my file. 

This inaccurate reporting has caused financial harm, reputational harm, and unnecessary stress. 

The credit bureaus have not complied with their obligations under the FCRA. 

The furnishers have not complied with their obligations under the FDCPA. 

I am left with inaccurate data on my report that the bureaus refuse to remove without proper validation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief