Consumer complaint received 2025-06-16 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: Affirm Holdings, Inc
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am formally disputing the following accounts on my credit report under my rights granted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692g, and the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) 15 U.S.C. 1641 ( g ).

I have identified multiple legal violations regarding these accounts, and failure to correct these errors within 30 days will result in formal legal action against your agency for willful noncompliance. 
ACCOUNTS IN DISPUTE : Account- AFFIRM INC XXXX Contradictory Payment History vs. Status : The payment history indicates several months marked " OK '' and only 90 days late starting around XX/XX/XXXX, yet the account is being reported as a Charge-off as early as XX/XX/XXXX. This timeline does not align with standard charge-off practices, which typically require 180+ days past due, indicating premature and inaccurate derogatory reporting.

Paid Activity Not Reflected : You are reporting a last payment date of XX/XX/XXXX, but still claim a past due amount of {$120.00} and a charge-off status. If the consumer made a payment, it must be reflected accurately under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). Otherwise, this is misleading and deceptive.

Incomplete & One-Sided Reporting : There is no reporting from XXXX  or XXXX  for this account. This inconsistency signals that XXXX  may be failing to maintain parity or verify legitimacy of the tradeline across bureaus, violating FCRA 1681e ( b ), which requires all information to be complete and up-to-date.

Unverifiable Charge-Off Status : There is no documentation, notice, or validation supporting the charge-off. If you can not verify the date and legality of this status with the original creditor, it must be immediately removed under FCRA 611. 
Account- XXXX XXXX Balance Reported as {$0.00} But Marked as Charged-Off : A {$0.00} balance can not be legitimately charged off or marked as a loss, yet the payment status is reported as " Collection/Chargeoff. '' This is contradictory and misleading a violation of FCRA 1681e ( b ), which mandates maximum accuracy.

No Past Due Amount Exists : You are reporting no past due balance ( {$0.00} ), yet labeling the account as a charge-off.

This implies the debt was not delinquent at the time of charge-off a false and deceptive representation.

" Purchased by Another Lender '' With No Successor Account : You claim the account was " purchased by another lender, '' but no successor account is listed or reported. If this is true, the account should be marked as " transferred/closed '' or " sold '' not charged off. This is both misleading and incomplete under FCRA 611.

Inconsistent Reporting Between XXXX  and XXXX  : XXXX  reports a high credit of {$430.00}, while XXXX  lists {$0.00}. This discrepancy signals failure to maintain accuracy across bureaus. One of these is clearly incorrect and not in compliance with the accuracy requirement under FCRA
623.

Payment History Missing or Fabricated : Only XXXX  reports CO ( Charge-Off ), with no history of delinquencies leading up to it. No 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, or 180-day lates are shown prior which makes the chargeoff entirely unsubstantiated and unverifiable. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX High Credit Misreporting : XXXX  reports a high credit of {$1900.00}, while XXXX  reports {$0.00}. This is an obvious contradiction and violates FCRA 1681e ( b ) which mandates the reporting of complete and accurate information.

Past Due Balance After Payment Activity : You report a last payment of {$1600.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, but still reflect the entire balance as past due and charged-off. This is inconsistent and deceptive. If a payment was made, the balance and status must reflect that activity under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ).

No Prior Delinquency in Payment History Before Charge-Off : XXXX shows 24 months straight of " CO '' ( charge-off ), with no 30, 60, 90, or 120-day lates leading up to the charge-off. This is both illogical and unverifiable, suggesting fabrication or gross reporting errors. 
Contradictory Status vs. Last Activity Dates : The Date Last Active is in XXXX, but the Date of Last Payment is in XXXX. These XXXX can not coexist. This signals a clear reporting inconsistency, and it undermines the accuracy and validity of the tradeline.

Misleading Charge-Off Reporting : A charge-off should only occur after 180 days of non-payment yet no such history is shown, and a payment was made in XXXX. This account is being wrongfully reported as a loss, violating FCRA 611 and 1681s-2 ( b ). 
Account- XXXX  XXXX Contradictory Status Between Bureaus : XXXX  reports a charge-off last updated in XX/XX/XXXX, while XXXX  reports the same charge-off last updated in XX/XX/XXXX. You can not report the same debt with different timelines this is deceptive and violates FCRA 1681e ( b ) ( maximum accuracy ).

Repossession Reporting With Incomplete Outcome : Comments claim Merchandise was taken back by credit grantor, implying a repossession, yet there is no matching public record, deficiency balance documentation, or clarification on the post-repo balance. That makes the report incomplete and misleading a direct breach of FCRA 611.

Inconsistent Payment History vs. Charge-Off : XXXX  's payment history shows no 90 or 120-day delinquency immediately before charge-off, which invalidates the legitimacy of the Collection/Chargeoff status. If a charge-off was declared, the history must show clear and escalating delinquency which it does not. 
Account Shows XXXX XXXX  Monthly Payment But Still Active in XXXX : XXXX  reports the account as last updated in XXXX, yet the account was charged off and closed in XXXX, with no payment activity since XX/XX/XXXX. Continuing to update this account as if it's current is false reporting and violates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ).

Unsubstantiated Balance After Repossession : If the vehicle was repossessed and sold, where is the deficiency balance calculation and resale documentation? The reported {$3600.00} balance is not supported by evidence, making this entry unverifiable and subject to deletion under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ).

LEGAL DEMANDS & GROUNDS FOR DELETION 1. PROOF OF DEBT OWNERSHIP REQUIRED ( 15 U.S.C. 1641 ( g ) ) Under TILA 15 U.S.C. 1641 ( g ), if a debt is sold or transferred, the new owner must provide proper notification and proof of assignment. 
The original creditor has already been paid via securitization and no longer owns this account. 
If no legally admissible proof of ownership is provided, this account must be deleted immediately. 
Required Action : REMOVE the account or provide the full chain of ownership with original signed agreements proving legal standing.

2. FAILURE TO CONDUCT A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Under the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), credit bureaus must conduct a reasonable investigation upon dispute.

Simply verifying data with a creditor is NOT a valid investigation.

If you claim this information is verified, provide the method of verification ( MOV ) as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ).

Required Action : REMOVE the account if no legitimate MOV and full documentation is provided.

3. FALSE & MISLEADING REPORTING BY THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR ( 15 U.S.C.

1681s-2 ( a ) ) If the original creditor sold or charged off this debt, they are no longer the legal owner, yet they are still reporting it.

Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), inaccurate reporting must be corrected or removed.

If the creditor was paid via securitization or insurance write-off, they must update the tradeline to Transferred/Sold or remove it completely.

Required Action : DELETE the account immediately if the original creditor has no current ownership rights.

4. FAILURE TO REPORT A CHARGED-OFF ACCOUNT CORRECTLY ( GAAP & IRS LAWS ) According to GAAP ( Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ) and IRS reporting laws, a charge-off means the original creditor wrote off the debt as a loss.

If a charged-off account was sold, the creditor has no right to continue reporting a balance or updating the status.

Reporting a balance on a charged-off account is falsifying financial information, which is deceptive under 15 U.S.C. 45 ( FTC Act ).

Required Action : REMOVE the charge-off immediately, or provide accounting records proving the creditor still legally owns the balance.

5. COLLECTION AGENCY VIOLATIONS UNDER FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g & 1692e ) If this account is now with a debt collector, I demand full validation under FDCPA 1692g.

Collection agencies must prove : o A valid assignment from the original creditor.

o A signed contract showing I agreed to this debt transfer.

o A full payment history proving what is allegedly owed.

If the collection agency can not provide all of the above, they are in violation of FDCPA, and the debt must be removed.

Required Action : DELETE the collection account immediately if the collector can not provide all required validation documents.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation