Consumer complaint received 2019-08-01 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
To Whom it may concern, I'm filing a complaint with Equifax. I wrote a letter on XX/XX/19 to  Equifax requesting the copies of the original source of the information reported including but not limited to, original contract of the service agreement with my signature and requesting the original documents authorizing the hard credit pulls For 2 credit pulls (XX/XX/XXXX andXX/XX/XXXX) and 2 accounts that they had reporting in my credit report. (XX/XX/XXXX- card service balance $XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX balance $XXXX collection) This is something i can request and they must supply according the Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 609. In my request I had attached a copy of there credit report with these accounts and a copy of my current drivers license and my signed social security card to provide proper identification. There response was a generic account verified response for both accounts. In other words a complete disregard for my request. So on XX/XX/19 I wrote a second letter requesting method of verification with details and again the copies of the original source of the information reported including but not limited to, original contract of the service agreement with my signature. This is something i can request and they must supply according the Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 611. In my request I had attached a copy of My original letter and there response and a copy of my current drivers license and my signed social security card to provide proper identification. There response to my letter was clear. Sending me a generic letter stating what there standard protocal is when they do any investigation it hence not addressing my requests. More importantly in the letter it states right under What to do next section if I have more questions regarding the recent investigation I need to contact the furnisher directly. It is willful non compliance even if it means not following federal law. The reason why is the stated below. The § 1681s-2(b) duties arise only after a furnisher receives notice of dispute from a CRA. Notice of a dispute to a furnisher by a consumer directly does not trigger a furnisher’s duty to reinvestigate under § 1681s-2(b). See, e.g., Nelson, supra, 282 F.3d at 1059-60. The consumer must dispute to a CRA, which, in turn, forwards the dispute to the furnisher. This indirect “filtering” mechanism must be followed by a consumer to give rise to a duty of investigation under the FCRA to the furnisher. Nelson, supra. A furnisher need not honor a dispute received directly from the consumer, whether oral or written, under the FCRA. Such a dispute, it should be noted, likely does create a legal obligation under § 1692g of the FDCPA however. What Is A Reasonable Obligation? Although § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A) seemingly only requires a mere “investigation,” virtually every court that has construed this language has interpreted it to require a “reasonable” investigation. See, e.g., Gorman, supra, at *5; Johnson v. MBNA (4th Cir. 2004) 357 F.3d 426, 429-31. What constitutes a “reasonable” reinvestigation by a furnisher is dependent on the nature of the reinvestigation request forwarded by the CRA – which, in turn, is generated by the consumer’s investigation request or dispute. The Gorman court recently observed: “the pertinent question is thus whether the furnisher’s procedures were reasonable in light of what it learned about the nature of the dispute from the CRA’s notice of dispute.” Id. at *7; accordWestra v. Credit Control of Pinellas (7th Cir. 2005) 409 F.3d 825, 827 (reasonableness of reinvestigation is dependent on the nature of consumer’s dispute to CRA). In other words, in conducting the investigation, the furnisher need only respond to the specific dispute as described or outlined by the CRA on a consumer dispute verification (CDV) form. See, e.g., Westra, supra; Malm v. Household Bank (SB), N.A. (D.Minn. 2004) 2004 WL 1559370 at *6; Schmit v. Trans Union, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2004) 2004 LEXIS 6130 #10-11; Mann v. Experian Information Solutions (N.D. Ill. 2004) 2004 LEXIS 2377 *14. They never supplied me with what I specifically requested in the investigation. Instead decide to stonewall me. If you need any more info feel free to contact me. Thank you for your help.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation