Consumer complaint received 2025-11-19 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint because there is a serious and unresolved issue with the account reported on my consumer credit file under CCBXXXX with the identifying digits XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The account is currently being reported as a Collection/Charge-Off and is categorized as a derogatory account. Although this account is appearing on my report with significant negative impact, the furnisher and the credit bureaus have not provided any supporting documentation or validation confirming that the information being reported is accurate, complete, or legitimately associated with me. 

I am disputing the reporting of this account because it has not been validated or verified according to federal law, and the reporting remains incomplete, inconsistent, and potentially inaccurate. This What Happened? statement details the sequence of events, the actions I have taken, the failures of both the furnisher and the credit bureaus, and why CFPB involvement is necessary to ensure that the information being reported about this account complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and all federal consumer protection laws. 

1. Appearance of the Account on My Credit Report The account listed under CCB/XXXX appears on my credit report with the following characteristics : Status : Collection/Charge-Off Balance : {$0.00} Past Due Amount : {$0.00} Closed Date : XX/XX/year> Reporting Category : Derogatory Late Payment History : Multiple late markers and derogatory codes Furnisher : Comenity/XXXX  ( bank underwriting XXXX credit card accounts ) Even though the balance shows as {$0.00}, the derogatory remarks remain on my report, including references to late payments, charge-off classification, and other negative codes that severely impact my credit score and overall creditworthiness. The fact that the balance shows zero does not change the significant harm caused by derogatory classification and late-payment history. 

While the account is being reported as closed, it is simultaneously assigned a derogatory status, which is confusing, inconsistent, and misleading. No documentation has been provided supporting this classification.

2. I Never Received Any Required Documentation Proving This Account Is Valid One of the central issues is that I have never been provided with any of the legally required documents to prove that this account belongs to me, that I opened it, that I agreed to the terms, or that the reporting is accurate. I never received any of the following documentation from CCB/XXXX or from the credit bureaus during the dispute process : The original signed credit application A cardholder agreement Any credit terms or disclosures Monthly billing statements A full transaction history showing purchases A record of payments allegedly missed or late A calculation explaining how the charge-off occurred The legally required Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) A statement explaining what caused the account to be categorized as a charge-off Any correspondence showing notifications of delinquency or default Without these documents, no entity can legally claim that this information is complete, accurate, or legitimately tied to me. 

XXXX. I Disputed the Account With the Credit Bureaus, but They Verified It Without Providing Evidence After noticing this account on my credit report, I submitted disputes to all applicable credit bureaus. However, all of the bureaus responded with a generic, one-line response stating : The account has been verified as accurate. 
This verification raises multiple concerns : No documents were shared with me.

No explanation was provided regarding what was reviewed.

No source documents were included.

No validation was provided by the furnisher. No human investigation appears to have occurred. The response timeline was extremely fast, indicating likely auto-verification through e-Oscar, not a legally compliant reinvestigation. Under FCRA 611 ( a ), the bureaus are required to conduct a meaningful reinvestigation when a consumer disputes information. Clicking a code through e-Oscar does not satisfy this requirement.

4. I Requested the Method of Verification, but I Was Not Given a Legally Compliant Response The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that, if a consumer requests the Method of Verification ( MOV ) after a dispute, the credit bureau must provide : A detailed explanation of the investigation process A description of all documents reviewed The name of the furnisher or person who verified the account The date the verification was completed Whether the verification was manual or automated Confirmation that original documentation was obtained A copy of any documentation used by the furnisher None of this was provided to me. 

Instead, the responses from the credit bureaus failed to identify : Any human involvement Any evidence reviewed Any document proving ownership of the account Any accounting or billing statements Any legally required DOFD documentation Any verification method beyond automated confirmation The lack of a lawful MOV suggests noncompliance with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ).

5. The Furnisher Has Not Validated the Account Under the FCRA or FDCPA To date, I have not received a single document from CCB/XXXX  validating : That the account belongs to me That I opened the account That I agreed to any credit terms That the balance or charge-off amount was correct That the reported delinquencies occurred That I received billing statements That I received notices regarding delinquency Without these foundational documents, the furnisher can not validate the account. 

XXXX. There Are Numerous Reporting Inconsistencies and Errors A number of inconsistencies appear in the reporting of the account : A. Missing or Incorrect DOFD The Date of First Delinquency is required by law because it determines how long the account can legally remain on the credit report. XXXX XXXX could cause illegal re-aging. 

XXXX Inconsistency Between Balance and Status The account shows : {$0.00} balance {$0.00} past due But still shows as a Collection/Charge-Off This makes little sense unless documentation exists showing how the charge-off was reached, which has not been provided. 

XXXX XXXX Documentation for Late Payments Yet multiple late-payment markers appear on my report. 

XXXX XXXX Codes Contradict Each Other Paid or closed accounts should not maintain derogatory coding unless the furnisher can show documentation. 

XXXX XXXX of XXXX of XXXX XXXX contract or application has been provided. 

All of these discrepancies violate the accuracy requirements under : FCRA XXXX ( Maximum Possible Accuracy ) FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( Reasonable Procedures ) XXXX. This Reporting Has Caused Me Financial and Personal Harm The negative reporting on this single account has impacted : My XXXX XXXX My eligibility for loans My interest rates on financial products My insurance premiums My employment-related credit screenings My overall financial stability These harms are unjustified when the account has not been validated. 

XXXX. I Have Taken All Reasonable Steps Before Filing This Complaint Before bringing this matter to the CFPB, I made every attempt to resolve this issue : I disputed the account directly with the bureaus I requested the method of verification I attempted to obtain information from the furnisher I reviewed all correspondence received None of these steps resulted in the production of documentation, correction of errors, or removal of unverifiable information. 

This demonstrates the necessity of CFPB involvement. 

XXXX. Why CFPB Intervention Is Necessary The issues with this account involve : Lack of validation Lack of verification Lack of disclosure Automated reinvestigation practices Failure to supply MOV Incomplete and inconsistent reporting Potential violation of several FCRA sections Because neither the bureaus nor the furnisher have taken corrective action, CFPB XXXX is needed to ensure compliance with federal law. 

XXXX. Summary of What Happened To summarize : XXXX is reporting a derogatory charge-off account. 

No original documentation has been provided proving the account belongs to me. 

The credit bureaus claim to have verified the account without providing evidence. 

Method of XXXX requests were not honored. 

Reporting inconsistencies exist on the credit file. 

The reporting has caused financial harm and lost opportunities. 

All attempts to resolve the issue were unsuccessful. 

Because the account has not been proven valid, the reporting should not continue without documented proof.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation