Consumer complaint received 2025-07-30 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this formal complaint because all three credit bureausEquifax, XXXX, and XXXX reporting late payment notations for multiple accounts that are either fully paid and closed with a XXXX balance and XXXX past due, or currently open but show no actual delinquency. Specifically, the following accounts are being misrepresented : XXXX ( Account XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ), which is Paid & Closed with a XXXX Balance and XXXX Past Due ; XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), an open account with no delinquency but marked with a late payment dated XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), another Paid & Closed tradeline that still inaccurately reports a Past Due of {$0.00} ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ), which is currently open, not past due, yet is being flagged as late as of XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX Each of these entries is false, misleading, and harmfuland every bureau has failed to correct them despite prior disputes. 

What makes this even more infuriating is that all of these tradelines show {$0.00} past due, which clearly implies that there is no current delinquency. And yet, a late payment flag is still being retained, distorting the accounts payment history and creating the impression that I have unresolved payment issues when I do not. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, credit bureaus are required to use procedures that ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. There is nothing accurate about reporting a late payment on a closed account that was satisfied in full or an open account that is not past due. 

Even worse, I have disputed each of these errors directly with the bureaus. In each case, I was given a generic response that the information had been verified, yet no documentation was provided, no creditor contact shown, and no reinvestigation performed in any meaningful sense. That is a flagrant violation of XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ), which mandates that a credit bureau must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes an item. Simply copying what a creditor sends over without evaluating its accuracyor failing to request any documentation at allis not a reinvestigation. Its a rubber-stamp process that enables incorrect and unjust data to continue destroying credit files. 

This practice has directly harmed me. My credit score is being artificially suppressed, my credibility with lenders damaged, and my financial opportunities limitedall because credit bureaus would rather protect outdated, automated data pipelines than verify the truth. Ive missed refinancing windows, had to justify myself during loan reviews, and been treated as if I were delinquent when these accounts do not support that conclusion in any way. When a consumer has paid their obligations, or is current on open accounts, they should not be punished for sloppy or stubborn reporting practices that fail to distinguish between historical data and current standing. 

There is no reason why XXXX ( Paid & Closed, XXXX Balance/Zero Past Due ), XXXX ( Paid & Closed, Past Due {$0.00} ), XXXXXXXXXXXX  ( XXXX, marked late on XX/XX/XXXX despite no past due ), or XXXX XXXX Open, marked late on XX/XX/XXXX with {$0.00} past due ) should still carry derogatory marksunless the goal is to penalize consumers indefinitely for inaccuracies that serve no financial or legal purpose.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief