Consumer complaint received 2025-12-03 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
XXXX response contains multiple factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and materially misleading statements under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ), 623 ( a ) ( 2 ), and 623 ( b ). Their attached documentation does not address the core issues raised in my complaint. I am now consulting legal counsel regarding these discrepancies and XXXX misrepresentation of material facts to a federal agency. 

1. XXXX denies instructing delinquency, yet my attorneys email dated XX/XX/XXXX explicitly statesbased on XXXX communicationthat I must be 60 days delinquent in order to obtain short sale approval. This written communication is direct evidence of servicer-induced procedural delinquency. Servicer-created delinquency can not be reported as voluntary default without creating a materially misleading reporting impression under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). XXXX denial contradicts written attorney-to-client communication documenting their instruction. 

2. XXXX own response confirms delinquency was a requirement. They state that under VA guidelines, they can not process or review a short sale unless the loan is at least 61 days past due. This is an admission that delinquency was a mandatory prerequisite to short sale eligibility. Whether communicated verbally or through policy, the effect is the same : the delinquency was induced by XXXX, not voluntary nonpayment. Furnishing a delinquency created by the servicer as a true consumer default violates FCRAs accuracy and misleading-impression provisions. 

3. At the time the attorney email was sent, XXXX online system had already disabled my ability to make a payment. The Make a Payment option on my online portal was greyed out, meaning I could not pay even if I attempted to. This is system-induced delinquency, not consumer delinquency. XXXX response fails to address this. A borrower can not be delinquent by choice if the servicers system blocks payment acceptance. Furnishing delinquency after disabling a borrowers payment options is materially misleading and inconsistent with FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 623 ( a ) ( 2 ).

4. XXXX misreported the transaction timeline. They stated the short sale closed on XX/XX/XXXX. This is incorrect. The property closed on XX/XX/XXXX. Their use of an incorrect closing date invalidates their delinquency calculations and makes their 120-day reporting impossible. Furnishers are required to correct inaccurate information under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). XXXX has not corrected their errors despite notification. 

5. XXXX failed to provide the documentation required to substantiate their claims under FCRA 623 ( b ). They did not produce : call logs documenting conversations with my attorney, internal servicing notes showing policy communications, the Payment History Profile ( PHR ) needed to verify delinquency dates, documentation supporting their incorrect XX/XX/XXXX closing date, or evidence rebutting the attorneys written communication. 
Instead, they submitted generic loss mitigation letters and boilerplate notices unrelated to the core dispute. This does not constitute a reasonable investigation under FCRA 623 ( b ).

6. The attached documents do not refute the central issue. They consist of automated short sale acknowledgment letters, incomplete package reminders, and standard VA short sale disclosures. None address whether delinquency was required, whether XXXX instructed or caused delinquency, whether payment options were disabled, or whether the 120-day reporting is accurate. These attachments are non-responsive to the issues in dispute.

7. XXXX policy and systems created the delinquency. Their own letter states the short sale could not be reviewed unless the loan was 61+ days delinquent. My attorneys email confirms XXXX communicated this requirement. Their system prevented me from making payments. Combined, this proves the delinquency was procedurally induced, not an actual consumer failure to pay. Furnishing this delinquency as voluntary is misleading and violates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ).

8. Their late reporting remains inaccurate. Because the short sale was approved on XX/XX/XXXX, and closed on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX could not have accurately reported 120 days delinquent. They continue to rely on incorrect dates and refuse to correct their reporting. This violates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief