Consumer complaint received 2025-11-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
I am writing to dispute the continued reporting of inaccurate and unverifiable information on my credit reports by the Consumer Reporting Agencies ( CRAs ) TransUnion and Experian. I previously disputed this information with both agencies via formal written letters dated XX/XX/year>. This dispute process was a follow-up to an initial dispute in XX/XX/year> that failed to correct the errors. 

The dispute concerns two specific charge-off accounts : XXXX XXXX  - Account XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX The reporting of both accounts is materially inaccurate and violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) because the reported Date Opened and Date Closed/Date of Last Payment are demonstrably incorrect and can not be substantiated. This manipulation of key date fields risks " re-aging '' the debt, artificially extending the seven-year reporting period defined in FCRA Section 605 XX/XX/year> : I submitted initial disputes to TransUnion and Experian regarding the inaccurate charge-off dates and status of the two accounts. 


XXXXXXXX XXXX  : During this time, the third major CRA, XXXX, removed the XXXX XXXX - Account XXXX from my credit report, which confirms the information on that account was inaccurate and/or unverifiable. 




XX/XX/year> : I submitted formal, comprehensive dispute letters to TransUnion and Experian, reiterating the demand for a proper reinvestigation and the deletion of any unverifiable data. I noted that TransUnion was recently subject to a {$23.00} XXXX penalty by the CFPB for accuracy and compliance failures, underscoring the severity of these issue Failure to Ensure Maximum Possible Accuracy : The continued reporting of conflicting and incorrect date fields on both accounts directly violates the CRA 's mandate under FCRA Section 607 ( b ) to " follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy ''.

Insufficient Reinvestigation : The CRAs have failed to conduct a " reasonable reinvestigation '' as mandated by FCRA Section 611. A simple electronic confirmation ( e-Oscar ) from the furnisher is legally insufficient to verify the accuracy of the dates and the charge-off status. Proper verification requires a substantive examination of original source documentation, such as the original signed contract, complete payment history, and proof of XXXX compliance for all reported fields. 






Charge-Off and IRS Form XXXX Violation : The furnishers of the charged-off accounts are required under Internal Revenue Code Section 6050P to issue an IRS Form 1099-C if a debt of {$600.00} or more is cancelled. I have not received evidence of a 1099-C filing for the XXXX account, yet a balance continues to be reported. A furnisher can not claim a tax loss while failing to comply with IRS requirements and continuing to report an owed balance to a CRA. The absence of this form raises serious questions about the legal and factual basis of the reported " charge-off '' status itself.

FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Violation : If the reinvestigation does not resolve the dispute, the CRA is required to promptly DELETE the item of information. The burden of proof rests on the CRA and the furnisher to prove the information is accurate, not on me to prove it is false. The fact that XXXX has already deleted the XXXX account proves the information is unverifiable and should have been deleted by TransUnion and Experian as well. 




The systemic failure to conduct a proper reinvestigation and delete unverifiable information, especially in light of the CFPB 's heightened focus on CRA accountability, is causing me ongoing harm to my financial reputation and opportunities.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation