Consumer complaint received 2025-06-26 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this formal complaint due to XXXX XXXX XXXX refusal to delete account XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) from my consumer credit reports, despite a lack of proper legal validation, serious disputes filed with documentation, and clear legal precedent requiring removal. 

While XXXX removed a similar account ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) and notified the CRAs to delete it, they are refusing to do the same for XXXX  XXXX, citing only internal billing statements and unverifiable records from the original creditor. Their claim that a police report is required contradicts both the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) guidance on identity theft and dispute obligations. 

Violations and Legal Failures : 1. FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation within 30 days.

2. FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Failure to delete information that can not be verified.

3. FCRA 1681e ( b ) Reporting inaccurate or unverifiable information.

4. FCRA 1681g ( a ) Failure to provide full disclosure of all data in consumer file.

5. FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Furnishing data without ensuring accuracy or investigating disputes.

6. FDCPA 809 ( b ) / 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) Failure to produce sufficient validation upon dispute.

7. Metro 2 Compliance Guidelines Use of improper data formatting and failure to update fields post-dispute. 

XXXX  Response Contains Material Deficiencies and Misrepresentations : XXXX claims the documentation meets the requirements of the FDCPA, yet fails to produce the original signed application, account-level chain of title, or contractual evidence that would demonstrate ownership or assignment. 
They admit they only mailed a letter, with no confirmation of receipt. Under FTC Identity Theft Rules and FCRA XXXX, such letters do not fulfill legal notice or validation obligations if disputed by the consumer.

Midlands response falsely suggests that a police report is required. However, FCRA 605B permits the use of an FTC REPORT, which I already submitted. Their refusal to accept the FTC report ( Confirmation XXXX XXXX ) and demand a police report as a condition of deletion is a willful violation. 
The account was already deleted by XXXX, indicating that at least one CRA has agreed that the documentation provided was insufficient. XXXX and Equifax must now follow suit under FCRA XXXX and case precedent. 

Legal Precedent in Support of Deletion : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : CRAs must go beyond the data furnishers assertions and must conduct a meaningful reinvestigation. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) : Incomplete or conclusory documentation is not sufficient to meet validation requirements. 
XXXX v. Equifax XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : A CRA may not blindly rely on the furnishers statements when the consumer provides contradictory information.

Material Inconsistencies in Their Claims : The only documents provided are billing statements, which do not establish debt ownership, contractual liability, or a valid right to report under Metro 2 or FCRA.

Midland claims to be the owner of the debt yet has not supplied any documentation demonstrating lawful assignment, including purchase agreements or warranties of accuracy from XXXX XXXX. 
They reference matching addresses but ignore that this is not proof of account accuracy or legitimacy, especially when disputed in writing under penalty of law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation