Consumer complaint received 2024-01-23 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: Nelnet, Inc.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
CFPB complaint was filed because Firstmark sent multiple billing statements and payment reminders to incorrect addresses for the period XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. Although the borrower made several attempts to correct the address information and notified Firstmark of the billing errors directly, FM acts or practices allowed cascading skip-tracing to occur from XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX, causing multiple payments to be reported late because statements were not received by the borrower. Consequentially, Firstmark furnished payment history to the CRAs indicating late payments by up to sixty ( XXXX ) days covering the period XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. The complaint highlighted that XXXX XXXX, who'd provided all previous written correspondence to the borrower 's complaints, suggested the borrower exacerbate their underlying XXXX and subject himself to physical pain to counteract any of Firstmarks unfair or deceptive and abusive acts or practices. In the prior complaints the borrower attached nearly 150 pages of documentation that showed 1 ) Several consumer reports that showed the address in FL was not a valid address for the borrower since XXXX ; 2 ) an e-mail from Firstmark indicating Firstmark knew the FL address was invalid ; 3 ) prior written responses from XXXX XXXX that suggested the borrower subject themselves to pain to cover for Firstmark 's mistakes ; 4 ) sanitized medical diagnoses regarding the borrower 's XXXX. The borrower thus reqeusted relief from Firsmark because billing statements and payment reminders were neither sent to an address at which the borrower receives mail nor an address where the co-borrower receives mail, because the errant skip-tracing resulted in billing statements being sent to addresses in a state the borrower has not resided in since XXXX, because Firstmark alleged they " knew '' the FL address was a valid address for the borrower, because Firstmark sent an e-mail to the borrower acknowledging they knew the FL address was invalid, because Firstmark continued to use skip-tracing after the borrowers attempts to correct the erroneous mailing addresses Firstmark had on-file, because the borrower was instructed to subjects themselves to additional harm ( harassment, intimidation, discrimination ) to prevent future harm due to Firstmarks willful engagement in unfair practices, and because Firstmark neither provided the borrower with a release authorization nor notified the borrower of the existence of the form in all its written communication from XXXX XXXX On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX responded on behalf of Firstmark to XXXX, in part writing " We are required by law to provide accurate information to the credit bureaus, and falsifying data that states you were making payments when you were not is against the law. Firstmark Services made every attempt to contact you, but you did not make your payments and the delinquency on your account is valid. This includes any payments that you were unable to make due to illness or other factors, as you did not contact us to request payment relief at the time of delinquency. '' The first sentence in the quote is not truthful to the fullest because as a data furnisher, Firstmark [ is required to ] provide complete and accurate information to credit reporting agencies and to take certain investigatory and curative steps upon notice of a dispute. See Pittman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. , 901 F.3d 619, 628 ( 6th Cir. 2018 ) ( Shelton v. Americredit Financial Services , Inc, No. 23-10543, 2023 U.S. Dist . ( E.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2023 ) That is, " the FCRA " imposes a duty on furnishers of credit information to provide accurate information about their customers to credit reporting agencies. Chandler v. Peoples Bank & Tr. Co. of Hazard, 769 F. Appx 242, 24748 ( 6th Cir. 2019 ). Under 15 U.S. Code 1681s2a ( 1 ) ( A ) data furnishers are prohibited from furnishing information to the CRAs that the furnisher knows or has reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. In this context reasonable cause to believe means having specific knowledge, other than solely allegations by the consumer, that would cause a reasonable person to have substantial doubts about the accuracy of the information ( 15 U.S. Code 1681s2a ( 1 ) ( D ) ). While a statement from a consumer can not be taken by itself to infer reasonable cause to believe, receiving notice from said consumer with documentation that clearly shows why the information being furnished is inaccurate is sufficient to assume a furnisher has reasonable cause to believe the information was inaccurate, especially if it includes acknowledgments from Firstmark itself. Firstmark furnished information to the CRAs that resulted from its own contributory negligence, ie. its poor acts or practices, as stated above that led statements neither to be sent to the borrower nor co-borrower. The same standard of maximum possible accuracy applies to data furnishers under 15 U.S. Code 1681s2, as CRAs under 15 U.S. Code 1681e, because " A CRA can best fulfill its obligation to report accurately under 1681e if it receives accurate information from a furnisher under 1681s-2 '' ( Saunders v. Branch Banking ). Information furnished to the CRAs that is technically accurate is still be considered an error under 15 U.S.C. 1681e if that information " create [ s ] a materially misleading impression. ( Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr , Inc. , 954 F.3d 938 ( 6th Cir. 2020 ) ). That is, even technically accurate information can be " misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it [ could have been ] expected to have an adverse effect [ on the consumer ]. ( Shelton, No. 23-10543 ). Thus, XXXX XXXX is misinformed in that Firstmark is required to furnish accurate and COMPLETE information to the CRAs. The information furnished for the billing periods covering XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX, is false/incomplete/misleading/inaccurate because the borrower nor co-borrower received billing statements due to Firstmark 's own willful engagement in unfair ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ), deceptive ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ), abusive ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ) ), unlawful ( 12 U.S.C 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) as covered person, 15 U.S.C. 1681e and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 as data furnisher ), and discriminatory ( 28 C.F.R. 36.105, and 42 U.S.C. 12182 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( ii ) ) acts or practices that continue to harm the consumer. Finally, XXXX XXXX provides a false dichotomy in that the requested relief in was to remove the payment history and derogatory status and remarks for the period XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX not to report the aforementioned as paid on time. Removal of information does not replace information with paid on time payment status and history.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation