Consumer complaint received 2024-03-06 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: FL

Complaint narrative:
IN A NUTSHELL I HAVE BEEN FIGHTING TO GET XXXX AND XXXX REMOVED FROM MY CREDIT REPORT BECAUSE THEY BOTH VIOLATE 15 usc 1681 ( c ) ( 1 ) AND 15 usc 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). XXXX AND XXXX HAVE BOTH RE-AGED ACCOUNTS ON MY EQUIFAX CREDIT REPORT AND DO NOT REPORT THE DATE OF FIRST DELINQUENCY CONCURRENTLY LIKE THEY SHOULD BY LAW. ALSO, LENDING LENDING AND XXXX HAVE SUPPLIED INACCURATE DOCUMENTS, AND BALANCE LEDGERS TO HELP SUPPORT THEIR INCONSISTENCIES. I HAVE PROVIDED BOTH FOR YOUR REVIEW AND BELOW I GIVE YOU A BREAK DOWN OF WHAT THE ACCOUNTING SHOULD BE HAD IT BEEN DONE CORRECTLY. IF YOU LOOK AT ONE SPREADSHEET IT STATES THAT THE DATE OF LAST PAYMENT WAS XX/XX/XXXX WITH A PAYMENT OF {$250.00} BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHERSPREAD SHEET THE DATE OF LAST PAYMENT IS ALSO XX/XX/XXXX BUT THE PAYMENT AMOUNT WAS {$500.00}. XXXX AND XXXX HAVE HAD EVERY CHANCE TO MAKE THIS SITUATION RIGHT AND THEY CONTINUE TO RUIN MY CREDIT BY REPORTING AND SUPPLYING FALSE INFORMATION AND INACCURATE DOCUMENTS. 



DUE DATE XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$240.00} + {$15.00} LATE FEE FROM XXXX = {$250.00} DIDNT RECEIVE. 
DUE XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$240.00} PAID ON DUE DATE BUT THERE IS NO INFO ON HOW MUCH WAS RECEIVED ON XX/XX/XXXX ON THE SPREADSHEET ALSO ANOTHER LATE FEE OF {$15.00} DOLLARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED SINCE THE DAY THE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED ALLEGEDLY FOR XXXX  PAYMENT SURPASSED THE 15 DAYS WHICH MAKES XXXX PAST XXXX. 
DIDNT RECEIVE. 

DUE XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$240.00} PAYMENT RECEIVED ON XX/XX/XXXX ( NO LATE FEE WAS ACCURED BECAUSE IT WAS WITHIN THE 15 DAY GRACE PERIOD BUT THE SPREADSHEET DOESNT REFLECT THE AMOUNT OF THE PAYMENT. 

THE BALANCE SHOULD BE XXXX OR XXXX IF YOU ADD THE LATE FEE OF {$15.00} THAT SHOULDVE BEEN APPLIED THE SPREADSHEET. NOT ONLY IS XX/XX/XXXX OUT OF ORDER BUT IT ALSO SHOWS A BALANCE OF XXXX. HOW CAN THIS BE POSSIBLE? THE ACCOUNTING FOR THIS ACCOUNT IS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND DOES NOT SHOW ACTUAL PROOF OF PAYMENTS, LATE FEES, AND PROPER DEDUCTIONS ONCE PAYMENTS WERE MADE SUCCESSFULLY. 

IN ADDITION, IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THE SPREADSHEET ONCE THE ACCOUNT WENT DELINQUENT AGAIN THE BALANCES DONT MAKE SENSE, ESPECIALLY IF A PAYMENT WAS MADE TO REDUCE THE PREVIOUS BALANCE. 

LASTLY, XXXX  PAYMENT WAS NEVER RECEIVED AND CARRIED A LATE FEE FROM XXXX WHICH CAME OUT TO XXXX. 
XXXX PAYMENT WAS ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED BUT THERE IS NO PROOF OF DOCUMENTATION OF IT OR FEES ASSOCIATED WITH IT, SO XXXX BALANCE SHOULDVE BEEN XXXX ALSO. 

XXXX PAYMENT IS NOW DUE LEAVING A BALANCE XXXX ( SINCE A PAYMENT WAS MADE ON XX/XX/XXXX IN THE TOTAL OF {$500.00} AND XXXX PAYMENT WAS STILL UNDER THE GRACE PERIOD OF {$15.00} NO LATE PAYMENT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO XXXX BUT THE XXXX DOLLAR PAYMENT WAS STILL NOT ENOUGH TO BRING THE ACCOUNT CURRENT IF THE ACCOUNTING WAS DONE CORRECTLY. 

XXXX XXXX + XXXX XXXX = XXXX. XXXX PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM XXXX + XXXX = XXXX XXXX XXXX = XXXX ( THE ACCOUNT WAS NOT FULLY BROUGHT CURRENT A BALANCE OF XXXX WAS STILL LEFT OVER, WHICH MEANS THIS ROLLED OVER INTO XXXX + XXXX... SO ON AND SO FORTH. XXXX SHOULDVE BEEN THE NEW BALANCE. 
XXXX XXXX ( NOT YET PAST DUE ) THE DATE OF FIRST DELINQUENCY CAN ONLY CHANGE IN THIS SITUATION IF THE ACCOUNT WAS BROUGHT CURRENT FROM XXXX WITH OWING A {$0.00} BALANCE, BUT BECAUSE THERE WAS XXXX LEFT THAT ROLLED OVER INTO XXXX PAYMENT THE DATE OF FIRST DELINQUENCY SHOULDVE REMAINED XX/XX/XXXX. 
LENDING CLUB HAS SINCE CHANGED THE DATE OF FIRST DELINQUENCY DATING ALL THE WAY BACK TO XX/XX/XXXX WHEN IT WAS REPORTING CORRECTLY, UP UNTIL NOW ITS BEEN CHANGED TO XX/XX/XXXX WHICH IS ALSO FALSE. XXXX ON THE OTHER HAND ALSO RE-AGED THIS ACCOUNT BY REPORTING THE DATE OF FIRST DELINQUENCY AS XXXX WHICH IS ALSO FALSE BECAUSE I GAVE THE BREAKDOWN AS TO HOW THE ACCOUNT WAS NEVER BROUGHT CURRENT AND CARRIED A SMALL BALANCE THUS STILL LEAVING XX/XX/XXXX AS THE DATE OF FIRST DELINQUENCYT. ALSO, XXXX AND XXXX XXXX ARE SUPPOSED TO REPORT ACCOUNTS CONCURRENTLY IF THEY PLAN TO REPORT AT THE SAME TIME. NEITHER ACCOUNT SHOULD BE DELETED ON DIFFERENT DATES AFTER THE XXXX YEARS IS OVER, THEY SHOULD FALL OFF ON THE SAME DAY AND TIME BECAUSE XXXX SUPERCEDES LENDING CLUB. THE SPREADSHEET BOTH XXXX AND LENDING CLUB PROVIDED DO NOT CLEAR AND ACCURATELY DISPLAY HOW FEES WERE COLLECTED, DEDUCTED, AND THE DATA IS ALL OVER THE PLACE. THESE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN RE-AGED AND NEED TO BE DELETED FROM MY EQUIFAX CREDIT REPORT IMMEDIATELY. I ALSO ATTACHED ANOTHER SPREAD SHEET LENDING CLUB AND XXXX HAVE BOTH RE-AGED THE ACCOUNT XXXX WHICH IS A FCRA VIOLATION OF 15 usc 1681 ( c ) ( 1 ) running of reporting period and 15 usc 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors.

15 usc 1681 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( c ) RUNNING OF REPORTING PERIOD ( 1 ) IN GENERAL The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs ( 4 ) and ( 6 ) of subsection ( a ) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection ( internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier ), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.

Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies 15 usc 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief