Consumer complaint received 2025-10-14 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Demand for Reinvestigation and Removal of Inaccurate, Incomplete, and Misleading Information Violation of FCRA 607 ( b ), 611 ( a ), and 623 ( a ). This letter serves as my formal dispute and reinvestigation request concerning multiple inaccurate and misleading items currently being reported on my Experian credit file. Despite your previous correspondence through the CFPB Complaint Portal dated XX/XX/XXXX, these accounts remain in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. I am exercising my rights under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) to demand a proper reinvestigation of these items and a deletion of all unverifiable, incomplete, or misleading data. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( Account # XXXX ) Status : Charged Off Balance {$3300.00}. Dispute Basis : This account is inaccurately reported as both charged off and past due, which is misleading and violates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) prohibiting furnishers from reporting information known to be inaccurate. 
Once charged off, a creditor can not continue to report ongoing delinquency or past-due balances. Doing so constitutes double reporting of a single derogatory event. This violates the principles in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), requiring FCRAs to ensure maximum possible accuracy. Requested Action : Delete or correct this entry to reflect a XXXX balance and no past-due reporting following charge-off. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Auto Loan ) Account # XXXX. Status : XXXX XXXX XXXX {$18000.00}. Dispute Basis : This account has been repeatedly re-aged and reported monthly as charged off since XX/XX/XXXX. This creates the false appearance of multiple charge-offs. Continuous re-aging is a violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) which require accurate and current reporting. Courts have held that re-aging inflates derogatory impact and is impermissible ( XXXX, XXXX ). Requested Action : Cease re-aging and correct or delete the entry immediately. XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX. Status : Paid, Closed, {$1300.00} XXXX XXXX. Dispute Basis : Reporting charge-off status after payment or settlement is materially misleading and violates FCRA 607 ( b ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) *, which held that reporting technically true but misleading information violates the FCRA. Requested Action : Update this entry to reflect Paid Settled in Full with no derogatory status, or delete entirely. XXXX / XXXX XXXX  Account # XXXX. Status : XXXX, XXXX. Dispute Basis : Despite being settled in full, this account still shows delinquencies prior to closure. Reporting negative history after payoff without context misrepresents the accounts standing. XXXX v. XXXX  XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) recognizes that misleading implications can violate the FCRA even where data appears technically accurate. Requested Action : Remove derogatory notations and update status to Paid as Agreed. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Account # XXXX. Status : XXXX XXXX. Dispute Basis : The reported balance exceeds the original credit limit, demonstrating clear factual inaccuracy and failure of data validation under FCRA XXXX ( b ). Requested Action : Delete this account in its entirety for unverifiable and inaccurate reporting. XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX. Status : Two Late Payments. Dispute Basis : This account was paid in full ; however, late payment marks remain. Continuing to report derogatory marks post-settlement is inaccurate and misleading under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). 




Previously, Experian investigation results stated that disputed accounts were verified as accurate. However, under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), you are required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of any disputed information, and under 611 ( a ) ( 2 ), you must forward all relevant information I provide to the furnisher. Based on the response I received, it appears the prior investigation failed to meet the standard of reasonableness required by law, as no substantive verification or supporting documentation was provided. I therefore demand that Experian conduct a full and proper reinvestigation and provide documented proof of verificationnot merely confirmation through an automated system or a furnishers database. Specifically, for each account that is verified, I request : The name, address, and phone number of the furnisher who verified the account. Copies of all documentation provided by the furnisher during verification, including the original signed contract, complete payment records, and any charge-off documentation ( if applicable ). A clear written explanation of how Experian determined the account was verified as accurate, as required under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). Requested Action : Delete late payment history or update status to Paid on Time / Current. Pursuant to FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), I hereby request a complete reinvestigation of the disputed accounts above. If the furnishers can not provide verified, written documentation bearing my signature proving the accuracy of the reporting, the FCRA mandates that such unverifiable information be deleted within 30 days of this notice.

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