Consumer complaint received 2026-02-24 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: FirstKey Holdings, LLC
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint regarding the account reporting under the name XXXX, which is appearing on my consumer credit report as a collection or charge-off account. I do not own this account. I did not open, authorize, apply for, or benefit from this account in any way. This account is the result of identity theft. Upon discovering this fraudulent tradeline on my credit report, I immediately took action. I reviewed my credit reports and identified XXXX as an account that I do not recognize. I have never entered into any agreement with this entity. I have never signed any contract associated with this account. I have never received any goods, services, or funds related to this account. I have never made any payments toward this account. Because I did not open this account, I filed an identity theft report with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ). I formally reported that this account was opened fraudulently and without my knowledge or authorization. I have complied with all legal requirements for identity theft reporting. Despite this, the XXXX account continues to report on my credit file as derogatory. This is unacceptable. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), once a consumer provides an identity theft report, fraudulent information must be blocked from the consumers credit file under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( FCRA 605B ). The law is clear : identity-theft-related accounts must not continue reporting once properly disputed and supported by an identity theft report. Instead of blocking and deleting this fraudulent tradeline, the company has either verified it electronically or allowed it to remain reporting as a charge-off or collection. Verification through an automated system is not sufficient when identity theft has been reported. The company must provide documentary evidence proving that : I applied for this account I authorized this account My identity was properly authenticated at origination I signed a contract associated with this account I received benefit from this account No such documentation has been provided. If XXXX is a debt buyer or assignee, then they must also provide : Full chain of assignment documentation Proof of ownership of the alleged debt Original creditor documentation Complete account-level records Simply marking the account as verified does not satisfy the FCRAs requirement of a reasonable reinvestigation under 15 U.S.C. 1681i. The FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies and furnishers to ensure maximum possible accuracy under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). Reporting an account that is the result of identity theft is, by definition, not accurate. The continued reporting of XXXX has caused significant harm. This account is listed as a derogatory tradeline. It negatively impacts my payment history. It suppresses my credit score. It affects my ability to obtain financing. It increases the cost of borrowing. It damages my financial reputation. Each month that this fraudulent account remains on my credit report compounds the harm. I have done everything required of me as a consumer : I reviewed my credit reports. I identified the fraudulent account. I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report. I disputed the account. I notified the relevant parties. The burden is not on me to prove that I did not open this account. The burden is on the reporting entity to prove that I did. If XXXX can not produce a signed agreement bearing my signature, proof of identity verification, and complete documentation showing that I opened this account, then the account is unverifiable and must be deleted. The companys failure to block this identity-theft-related account suggests that it either : Did not conduct a reasonable investigation, or Relied solely on automated electronic verification, or Ignored the identity theft documentation provided. Any of these scenarios would constitute noncompliance with the FCRA. Additionally, if XXXX is attempting to collect on this fraudulent account, that raises concerns under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Continuing collection activity after being notified of identity theft and dispute may violate federal law. This is not a billing dispute. This is not a late payment dispute. This is not a disagreement over balance. This is identity theft. The proper and lawful resolution is not to mark the account as disputed. The proper and lawful resolution is to delete the account entirely. I am requesting : Immediate deletion of the XXXX tradeline from all consumer reporting agencies. Permanent blocking of the account under FCRA 605B. Written confirmation that the account has been removed. Confirmation that the account will not be reinserted or reassigned. Disclosure of the Method of Verification used if the company claims the account is valid. If the company maintains that this account belongs to me, then they must provide documentary proof not summaries, not internal notes, not automated confirmations. If documentary proof can not be provided, the account must be deleted. The continued reporting of fraudulent information after notice of identity theft may constitute negligent or willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. Consumers should not be forced to repeatedly dispute fraudulent accounts that they never opened. The FCRA was designed to protect against exactly this situation. The harm caused by this fraudulent reporting is real and ongoing. It affects my creditworthiness, my financial stability, and my peace of mind. A reasonable and fair resolution is straightforward : Delete the XXXX account. Block it from further reporting. Provide written confirmation. Prevent reinsertion. Anything less leaves inaccurate information on my credit report and fails to comply with federal law. Until the XXXX tradeline is permanently removed, this matter remains unresolved.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation