Consumer complaint received 2021-12-09 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
I have pulled a copy of my Equifax credit file on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and have found the status for XXXX student loan account XXXX still contains information that is inaccurate AND unverifiable. In response to complaints { XXXX, XXXX, XXXX }, Equifax assured both the CFPB and me that " an investigation and the results were delivered : " Please be advised that an investigation with the furnisher of the information was completed and results were mailed to you. We hope this resolves your concerns '' Yet, an investigation clearly was not conducted and has not been conducted despite the responses to coomplaints because the inaccurate/unverifiable information remains. What Equifax DID do was most-likely submit through eOSCAR for an update of the account information from XXXX XXXX XXXX which IS NOT the same as conducting an investigation and is a clear violation of due-process because I am to be afforded an investigation under the FCRA. Nevertheless, although XXXX has violated the provisions of both the FCRA and Dodd-Frank XXXX Equifax is willing to turn a blind eye and assume the validity and verifiability of the information supplied by XXXX WITHOUT actually conducting a legitimate investigation. Any partial investigation by a CRA, or investigation conducted by a CRA in name only ( ie automatic update of info from data furnisher through eOSCAR ), abridges the due-process rights of a consumer that disputes information on their credit report and is therefore patently unconstitutional. In fact it is the partial dneials of due-process that are far more damaging than denial of due-process. 

Addressing the most glaring example of Equifax 's due-process violations is the insistence for XXXX that the months of XX/XX/XXXX ( 60 days past-due ), and XX/XX/XXXX ( 90 days past-due ) is factually accurate. However, the information supplied as a part of the credit file sepcifically states the date of last payment was XX/XX/XXXX. Indeed this date corresponds to the payment made when the loan was sold. However, the transfer took place prior to the bill due-date for XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX day of each month. Therefore, a 90-day past-due status is not accurate as an amount was paid BEFORE the due date. Now, the payment status for XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX could not be verified and thus Equifax changed the history to " No data available. '' Yet, somehow, with inaccuracies in billing, Equifax continues to trust the validity of the of the 30-day past-due status for XX/XX/XXXX. If the billing and payment information was not accurate from the moment the loan went into repayment on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and continued to be inaccurate thru XX/XX/XXXX, and was such for XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX, then there is no conceivable way the anchor-point of payment history is verifiable for XX/XX/XXXX. Finally, The unverifiability of that information also makes the deliquency status for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX inaccurate and unverifiable. 

Now, by XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX own admittance in a letter dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, signed by XXXX XXXX, XXXX admits XXXX was in a disaster forbearance followed by a deferment. Under the Billing Statement '' section of the letter, XXXX clearly states they " did not send billing statements, '' ( for XXXX ) because " loan account payments were deferred. '' The dates for which statements were not generated correspond to XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX. Furthermore, under " Forbearance for account ending xxxx XXXX, '' the letter clearly states " A disaster forbearance was granted from XX/XX/XXXX, to XX/XX/XXXX. '' That period covers the 30-day late payment status reported for XX/XX/XXXX and so the indicator needs to be changed to either " No data available, '' or " Paid on Time. '' As consequence, the loan would not enter repayment until XX/XX/XXXX and would not be 60-days past-due at that time because payments were deferred IMMEDIATELY AFTER the forbearance ended, ie. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( this is per the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX letter from XXXX ). 

Evidence of the further inaccurate/unverifiable information for XXXX is the repayment notification dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. It states payments were to begin on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX -- no statements were generated from XXXX XX/XX/XXXX thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. CFPB interpretation of Regulaton Z requires that XXXX send payment reminders or monthly statements at periodic intervals. IN this case the XXXX day of each month plus/minus four ( 4 ) days. Of note is the direct contradiction between the XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX letter, provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX and the repyament notification allegedly generated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. It can not be the loans were in deferment and thus statements were not generated for XX/XX/XXXX- XX/XX/XXXX, if the XXXX repayment schedule was valid -- that is the definition of invalid/unverifiable. Besides this, the XXXX itself requires statements be sent EVEN DURING PERIODS OF DEFERMENT. This further contradicts the notion that the information supplied by XXXX to Equifax is valid -- XXXX can not get its story straight regarding the serious statement generation, billing, and credit reporting errors. 


In summary the back-to-back disater forbearance, followed by deferment means no adverse payment history should report for this account. To be clear, no statements were generated from XXXX XX/XX/XXXX thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, at best, any statements from XXXX regarding the validity, accuracy, and verifiability of the payment history and account status for XXXX, supplied to Equifax, is indeterminate from XX/XX/XXXX thru Present and should be marked " No data available ''. The sale-date for the loan to the new servicer was on/around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, well before the the bill due date of the XXXX day of XX/XX/XXXX plus/minus four ( 4 ) days. Therefore, the last status reported of 90 days past-due ( on its own is invalid ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation