Consumer complaint received 2023-10-03 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: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
According to Equifax, XXXX XXXX alleges the date of first delinquency is XX/XX/XXXX. However, XXXX clearly states in its XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response " Your account was charged off on XX/XX/XXXX ". In XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to my state 's attorney generals office, XXXX alleges the reason the account is not reporting accurately, is because " I entered into a payment agreement. '' However, I entered into no such agreement and this is confirmed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, " Additionally, we are unable to locate a payment agreement from you. '' In absence of any sort of payment agreement for this open-ended account XXXX has XXXX re-aged the debt. In an earlier XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response XXXX alleged the account was not being reported as charged-off due to " multiple billing reconciliation disputes. '' Thus XXXX is undoubtedly aware of the inaccurate reporting for this account/tradeline. Now, XXXX acknowledges a re-aging took place on a single occasion in XX/XX/XXXX to resolve XXXX of many billing errors ( see XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX response ). However, those attempts failed and have inflicted additional harm on me as a consumer by reporting fresh delinquency statuses that now are one-hundred XXXX ( XXXX ) days past-due for the fifth ( XXXX ) month in a row in XXXX, when the account was alleged the first date of alleged delinquency would be XX/XX/XXXX. Thus, XXXX re-aging of the account in XX/XX/XXXX now expands the time by which the derogatory stao have been charged-off in XX/XX/XXXX. Federal law indeed requires that XXXX charge off accounts not later than one-hundred XXXX ( XXXX ) days after date of first delinquency. That date of first delinquency would be at most the one-hundred eightieth ( XXXX ) day immediately prior to XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. However, from XXXX own reporting to Equifax, the first date of alleged delinquency would be XX/XX/XXXX. Thus, XXXX re-aging of the account in XX/XX/XXXX now expands the time by which the derogatory status will remain on my credit report by nearly an additional XXXX ( XXXX ) years simply because simply because I filed billng errors to rectify a slew of issues that had been insufferable since early XXXX. XXXX 's own behavior has caused me to be denied permanent lodging due to tenant screening companies reliance on credit reports and scores. The practices of XXXX are therefore not only unfair and unlawful, but are additionally abusive. No consumer should have to experience what I have due to the negligence of XXXX XXXX. XXXX has demonstrated it neither has intention nor capability to correct the false/misleading/inaccurate reporting. As such, the appropriate action for Equifax is to remove the account/tradeline from my credit file and/or to remove any and all derogatory payment status and payment history for years XXXX and XXXX and to then block XXXX from providing any XXXX information for the account/tradeline.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief