Consumer complaint received 2025-06-04 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: Oliphant United, Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is a follow-up to CFPB Complaint # ( XXXX ) regarding Oliphant USA , LLC . While the company agrees to delete the XXXX  tradeline in their response, they have failed to address the core violations I raised. Specifically, illegal re-aging of the account across multiple credit bureaus. 
================================================================== Additionally, the CFPB portal did not allow me to submit a rebuttal before closing the complaint. This follow-up serves to preserve the record, document unresolved violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and request further agency review. 
================================================================== I acknowledge XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX decision to delete the tradeline. However, I strongly dispute their assertion that the account was reported in full compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Their own formal response confirms : ================================================================== The account was opened on XX/XX/XXXX | Last payment occurred on XX/XX/XXXX ( DOFD ) | Charged off on XX/XX/XXXX | Sold in XXXX XXXX ================================================================== Despite this timeline, the tradeline furnished to XXXX  lists an opened date of XX/XX/XXXX the date of acquisition, not the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ). This is a clear violation of : [ FCRA 605 ( c ) ( XXXX ) ] ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) - the XXXX reporting period begins 180 days after the DOFD, not the charge-off or sale date [ FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) ] ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) - furnishers must accurately report the month and year of the DOFD when reporting charge-offs [ FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ] ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) - furnishers must not report information they know or should know is inaccurate This misreporting unlawfully re-ages the debt, misrepresents my credit history, and extends the reporting period past the legal limit resulting in unjustified damage to my credit profile. ================================================================= In addition to XXXX, I now request that this complaint also apply to XXXX  and XXXX. XXXX  reports XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( Date Opened ) which confirms re-aging. XXXX  is reporting the DOFD as XX/XX/XXXX which is in direct confliction with Oliphant USA , LLC 's formal response contained in CFPB Complaint # ( XXXX ). 
================================================================== Oliphant USA , LLC knowingly furnished a false ( Date Opened ) of XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX, knowingly furnished a false ( Date of First Delinquency ) XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX, knowingly furnished a false ( Date Opened ) XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX  despite acknowledging in their own formal response that the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) was XX/XX/XXXX. This misrepresentation constitutes illegal re-aging under FCRA 605 ( c ) ( 1 ) and 623 ( a ) ( 5 ), and was either grossly negligent or willful- both of which are actionable violations. 
================================================================== The timeline Oliphant provided demonstrates that all three credit bureaus were furnished with inaccurate or misleading dates, constituting a systemic violation of the FCRA. XXXX records must be scrutinized in light of Oliphants admission, as any opened or delinquency dates that reflect the debt buyers acquisition date rather than the DOFD are legally impermissible. 
Legal Summary : DOFD = XX/XX/XXXX XXXX days = XX/XX/XXXX XXXX period = deletion required by XX/XX/XXXX Reporting an open date of XX/XX/XXXX ( or later ) = re-aging violation ================================================================== Oliphant USA , LLC maintains the assertion a balance of {$4400.00} is owed. 
This amount exceeds the original amount owed as reported by the original tradeline XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). There has been no feasible explanation for reporting this {$150.00} discrepancy across all tradelines. 
================================================================== In addition to Oliphant 's violations, I also hold XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX  accountable for their failure to correct or remove these tradelines after I submitted formal disputes. Each report is currently marked as consumer disputed, confirming prior notice. Under [ FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ] ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the credit bureaus were required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. They failed to do so, and verified false information that directly contradicts Oliphants own documented timeline. This demonstrates a breakdown in both the furnishers and the bureaus compliance with their statutory obligations under the FCRA. 
================================================================== Request for Record and Further Action I request this response be preserved on file to : Document a pattern of re-aging and FCRA violations, support further enforcement, oversight, or class action identification, and ensure this behavior is not repeated under a new account or entity. 
================================================================== XXXX and documentation submitted in prior CFPB Complaint # ( XXXX ), # ( XXXX ), # ( XXXX ), # ( XXXX ) apply to this issue and are incorporated by reference. 
This complaint should be reviewed alongside active CFPB complaints filed against XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX  regarding the same tradeline. These complaints allege FCRA violations including failure to correct known inaccuracies and improper reinvestigation under [ FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ]. Together, these cases reflect coordinated reporting failures and a systemic pattern of noncompliance.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation