Consumer complaint received 2025-10-13 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: Figure Technologies, Inc
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
I am writing in response to your submission through the CFPB XXXX regarding my dispute of the derogatory Figure XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX After reviewing your response and the attached agreement, I find that your reply fails to meet statutory requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and constitutes continued furnishing of unverifiable and inaccurate information under federal law. 

1. Failure to Provide Proper Verification Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) and 623 ( b ) Your response merely referenced internal records and restated loan details but did not provide any original, signed, itemized, or authenticated documentation substantiating the alleged delinquency, charge-off, or balance.

Verification under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) requires a furnisher to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and provide the method of verification, not merely a narrative restatement. 

Your reply contains no sworn affidavit, account ledger, payment history, or lawful validation notice. 

This constitutes an incomplete and legally insufficient reinvestigation under FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) - ( E ).

2. Continuing to Report a Charged-Off Account After Sale Violates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) You confirmed that as of XX/XX/year>, the account was sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX transferred to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), a furnisher must update or correct information previously provided to consumer reporting agencies when it becomes inaccurate or incomplete. 
Since you no longer own, service, or control the account, continued reporting of the tradeline as charged-off by Figure Lending LLC is materially misleading and unlawful.

3. Improper Furnishing of Duplicate or Inaccurate Tradelines You acknowledge reporting the account as both charged off and transferred/sold to another company ( status code 97 with comment AH ).

The Consumer Data Industry Association ( CDIA ) Metro 2 guidelines explicitly prohibit simultaneous reporting of a charge-off and sale status, as this creates a double derogatory and

distorts the consumers creditworthiness a violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ).

4. No Proof of Statutory Notice of Adverse Action or Charge-Off You have provided no evidence that written notice of charge-off or adverse action disclosure was ever mailed to me as required under 12 C.F.R. 1022.3 ( f ) ( 1 ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681m ( a ).

Without such notice, the charge-off can not be lawfully reported.

5. Failure to Identify Verification Source or Method 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Your response fails to state how or from whom you verified the information. Merely referencing internal records does not satisfy the statutory requirement to disclose the business name and address of any furnisher contacted during the investigation. This is a clear procedural violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation